[boomboomsubban]

An indictment is not proof for a start, this is a fundamental part of the US justice system.

That indictment does not actually mention Wikileaks at all, let alone suggest that Wikileaks knew the source was the Russian government.

[kjksf]

Can we agree that an indictment is much more than "nothing" and indicate a strong belief on the part of prosecution that they have a winnable case?

Your reading of the indictment (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller...) is severely lacking.

It specifically mentions that 12 russians conspired "with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury" to "stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 US election".

You don't have to be a genius to infer that one of those "persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury" is Assange.

[boomboomsubban]

>Can we agree that an indictment is much more than "nothing" and indicate a strong belief on the part of prosecution that they have a winnable case?

Sure. Wikileaks still is not mentioned as the prosecution does not feel they have a winnable case against the organization, and these indictments do not show Wikileaks knowingly coordinated with Russia.

[elliekelly]

>That indictment does not actually mention Wikileaks at all

If you read the indictment it's pretty clear that "Organization 1" is Wikileaks.

[boomboomsubban]

If they are "Organization 1," which yeah they almost certainly are, they are called that as they are not even being accused of a crime. Everything in the indictments could be true and you still haven't shown that Wikileaks knowingly coordinated with the Russia.

[mejari]

You did not say "there is no absolute proof', you said "There is nothing suggesting". This very much suggests.

[boomboomsubban]

Where is the suggestion that Wikileaks knew what the source was and coordinated anyway? The indictments suggests that the source was Russian, nothing points to knowing coordination.