[YUMad]

The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist.

The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA.

In my opinion, Assange was proven right.

[NelsonMinar]

The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a Russian puppet.

[cheeseomlit]

How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.

[gamblor956]

No, but knowingly releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet.

Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.

[cheeseomlit]

This is the first I've heard that the DNC/Podesta emails were forged, do you have a source for that?

And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards. If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's something I'd want voters to know about.

[gamblor956]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...

[cheeseomlit]

This is in regards to emails leaked from a journalist David Satter by Fancy Bear, the article doesn't say those were published by Wikileaks and I couldn't confirm elsewhere that they were. The article does mention:

>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.

While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:

>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident forgeries".[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails

In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)

[AnaniasAnanas]

> releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet

The few emails that I checked had a valid dkim signature.

[megous]

Technically, if you hack a mail server, you'll get access to DKIM private keys. I would only trust these mails DKIM signature if I personally received them prior to the breach.

Otherwise it's a very weak proof.

[saltyfever]

Clinton's people would've come out and said if any of the emails were forged. They didn't.

[nutjob2]

Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election and openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet.

He dug his own grave.

[cheeseomlit]

>Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election

How specifically did he do this? Publishing 'Collateral Murder' embarrassed a lot of people in Washington and probably affected elections afterwards, yet I never heard anyone make these accusations back then. And this hysteria about Russia over 40k worth of Facebook ads and some twitter bots is outrageous, Facebook/Twitters policy of censoring conservatives likely has a much more significant effect on elections than those ads and bots ever could.

>openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet.

The entirety of the corporate media openly stated their preference during the election as well, to put it lightly.

[newvoiceoldphne]

He interfered by telling a truth that politicians would rather have remained unknown. He embarrassed the Clinton campaign

[nutjob2]

Releasing emails from the DNC is one thing, but releasing them with timing especially to have maximum political impact against one candidate is another thing entirely.

[tomp]

Timing the release of relevant information for maximum impact is exactly what any self-respecting media organisation should do.

Your statement only makes sense if Wikileaks had similar information regarding the Trump (edit: or other conservative) campaign and refused to release it.

[lnanek2]

Wouldn't it have been dishonest to let people vote before they knew the DNC unfairly treated candidates that polled better against Trump like Sanders despite claiming to be neutral when taking people's money?

Releasing after the fact would have been dishonest and less helpful to either party. It also would have been dishonest to people who donated.

Yes, the DNC chairman resigned and was immediately given the golden parachute of being hired by the Clinton campaign, but the DNC could have made things right instead of that joke resignation. It's not Wikileak's fault the DNC is corrupt and stayed corrupt instead of doing the right thing, and they did the right thing by giving them a chance.

[wbhart]

Is there verifiable intelligence to support this? I recall the Roger Stone story which didn't look like it had much depth to me. And I know Assange had a show on RT for a while. But has any evidence surfaced of an actual conspiracy involving Wikileaks and the Russians?

I did notice a big uptick in what I thought was right wing, pro-Trump statements on their twitter feed, and especially on Assange's twitter feed, shortly after Trump was elected. However, I assumed that was part of some strategy to win favour with Trump (perhaps hoping that Wikileaks would become popular with the new administration since Trump had been so pro-Wikileaks during his campaign speeches).

[DiogenesKynikos]

His show on RT was actually really good. It's worth your while to give the interviews he conducted a look. People often attack him for his show being aired on RT, but I get the impression most of them haven't watched it.

In his interview with Nasrallah, he presses Nasrallah about Hezbollah's support for the Syrian government. It's clear that Assange is critical of Hezbollah's involvement in Syria, which undermines the idea that Assange is a Russian puppet. He also asks Nasrallah about whether God is a tyrant, which elicits an interesting response.

[JudgeWapner]

> especially on Assange's twitter feed, shortly after Trump was elected.

which was just a couple months after Assange stopped signing anything with his PGP key.

[wbhart]

Interesting observation. I didn't know Assange signed his tweets with a PGP key. What I find odd though is that he hadn't got a message out of the embassy through supporters such as Pamela Anderson that his twitter feed was compromised.

[YUMad]

The Russian puppet claims only started after Hillary lost to Trump, and they had no recourse but to push forward with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which was originally prepared to punish Trump after he loses.

Since he won, the holes in narrative were not covered up well, and it has fallen/is falling apart.

[_dczq]

Now you have developed your own conspiracy to prove how wrong other people’s conspiracy was. Do you see the irony?

Why did Assange defend Putin after the Panama Papers? I thought he loved transparency. When did Assange start his RT show, funded by the Russian state?

[tssva]

Assange has not been charged with any violation which carries the possibility of the death sentence.

[wbhart]

I think people are only claiming they potentially do. It is unlikely the DOJ would seek the death penalty for the particular violations, especially since he would not be extradited if they did. What happens after he sets foot on US soil though is unclear (as in, I don't know what the law says about adding charges after the extradition).

[gamblor956]

It doesn't matter what people claim that the charges may "potentially" carry the death penalty because that would violate reality. The death penalty would exceed the maximum authorized statutory punishment for the charges laid against Assange.

Moreover, while it would not violate both international law, various treaties, and the US Constitution protections on due process to charge Assange with crimes that could theoretically carry the death penalty after his extradition, any attempt to actually impose such a penalty were he found guilty of any such crime would violate all of the above, ensuring that he could not be executed for his crimes in America. At worst, he could face life in a maximum security facility.

[wbhart]

I am not convinced by any of this. His lawyers have argued repeatedly that he should not be extradited because he would face the death penalty, torture or mistreatment. Ecuador sought written assurances from the UK that he would not be extradited to any country where he would face the death penalty, including the US. The UK has stated it will not extradite him to any country where he faces the death penalty. But this is based on what he has currently been charged with, not what he may be charged with under the espionage act (core political charges).

Whilst I am sure you are correct that the specific charges against him in the superceding indictment do not carry the death penalty, other charges could.

I'm ignorant enough to not see why you believe it would be a violation of international law, treaties and the US Consitution to execute him. The US executes people and subjects them to solitary confinement and even punitive measures that lead to death of inmates all the time (take the recent example of someone who the jailers denied water for seven days until he died).

You don't have to look further than the treatment of then Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to see that Assange has a very real basis for believing that he would not have his rights respected (which in his case, as far as I can see, could very well include application of the death penalty).

Just to clarify what I originally replied. I'm saying that the very willingness of the US to charge Assange under the espionage act shows their willingness to apply a law that could potentially be used to seek capital punishment. That is what people are complaining about, not that he has actually at this time been charged with a specific violation that would result in the death penalty.

[Retra]

Even Nostradamus could correctly predict the fallout from his own actions. Saying "the US will come after me" isn't a revelation when you do things the US government doesn't like. The question is whether they are justified in doing so.

[mistersquid]

If the USA does in fact seek to make an example of him, it's important to answer whether Assange should stand trial for the crimes the USA alleges he has committed.

I think the answer to that question is yes. Assange should stand trial and, more importantly, the verdict rendered should be fair and just.

The verdict will have implications for journalism and the First Amendment, and insofar as Assange has acted under the auspices of free speech and journalistic integrity, I believe he should be found not guilty.

Insofar as he has acted as an enemy of the United States and outside the jurisdictional domain of journalism, such a verdict may be more difficult to justify.

[dariusj18]

Seems to me, that staying in an Ecuadoran embassy for 6 years and seeing where he still ended up, already shows him having been made an example of.