[elliekelly]

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.

[gbumakefan]

Even if that’s true — it’s not, no emails have been shown to be fake — it’s not illegal to publish false information.

[elliekelly]

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.

[random314]

> Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.

Assange is not a US citizen.

[elliekelly]

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?

[random314]

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!

[monocasa]

No metadata had been altered for any WikiLeaks releases.

[elliekelly]

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.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...

[monocasa]

The Guccifer leaks are completely different from the WikiLeaks leaks. They have nothing to do with Assange.

[elliekelly]

From the recent indictment of the GRU Officers behind Guccifer: "Finally, on July 14th, Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an encrypted attachment"

[Karunamon]

This is the first I’ve heard about the released emails not being completely authentic. Do you have any more reading on this matter?

[elliekelly]

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-d...