When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.
> When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election
Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.
Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.
And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.
First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
> second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time)
How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.
Some of the emails were altered by Russia for the purpose of spreading misinformation. Russia used Wikileaks to lend credibility to the conspiracy theories they were sowing in the run-up to the election.
NY Time has a great 3-part video series about Russia's history of spreading fake news. Each video is about 15 minutes but it's well worth the watch.
I didn't say the emails were fake. I said they were altered. The metadata, specifically. According to the NY Times they were alter to make it look like they were downloaded directly from a computer in the U.S. and to change the date the documents were obtained.
And publishing false information is not illegal. Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.
I don't believe citizenship is a requirement to be convicted of treason. There are a lot of members of the U.S. military who are not citizens. Surely they would be guilty of treason if they divulged secrets or aided a foreign country. People with green cards as well. Not that either of those situations apply to Assange.
I've definitely read several news articles that say he stands accused of both treason and espionage, though. I do wonder how that works for a foreigner. Has he ever even been to the United States?
Yes, none of those scenarios apply to assange. How does it matter if he has visited the US at some point in the past. It would be hilarious if he gets charged with treason. That might encourage MBS to charge Erdogan with treason!
Do you have any source for that? I'm not saying it's a fact that the data had been altered but I'm saying reasonable minds can draw that conclusion based on the information we have available.[1] You're oddly defensive of Assange and don't seem to have come to this thread with any interest in discussion.
Here's the link to the video I mentioned in my original comment. I think they discuss how the metadata was altered in the second video of three but no promises I'm remembering that correctly. To be clear, I'm not saying the emails were inauthentic. I'm saying they were altered to make the source of the materials appear to be an internal leak from within the DNC as opposed to a hack. The alterations were (allegedly) for the purposes of Russia covering their trail.
Intentions and prior knowledge matter in a situation like this. It would be wise to see what information the prosecutors have before declaring the death of free press.