I don't like him and his delusions of grandeur or his conspiracy theories about the world (some of which turned out to be plausible, though), but at least as far as this embassy business goes, his election meddling doesn't seem relevant as his imprisonment in the embassy began way before the US election, back when Obama still was president.

It was a time where the US/UK were pretty paranoid about the Snowden affair and even pressured journalists (e.g. Greenwald's partner, not even involved, was held for hours in London) and it seemed relatively plausible that they could try to get their hands on Assange for political reasons. In an Orwellian age of secret courts and secret warrants, it seems prudent to be better safe than sorry.

And who knows, maybe that time in the embassy radicalized him into unhinged person he is now? In any case, what he did _after_ being confined for this embassy for years (possibly cooperating with Russia to sabotage US elections a bit) is not relevant for the case.

I can't downvote, but in my mind to engage with this question is to lend it legitimacy. The debate then is unwinnable. See, if we frame our discussion on your terms (Was he a willing conspirator with Russia and Putin or merely a fool) then anyone with the beliefs like say, "Assange did the world some good by releasing documents the US government didn't want released" or "Assange was a powerful force for government transparency" then we have lost. I can't tell you why three people downvoted you, but my best guess is your comment is perceived as bad-faith.

Cheers

How is the question illegitimate? I don't think it is controversial to say that Wikileaks was part of Russias plan to influence US politics. (Whether they were a unwilling or willing participant is immaterial at the moment). If simply establishing that as a fact makes your side of the debate "lost" and "unwinnable", maybe that means you should rethink why you fall on that side of the debate.

Hey, now I've got downvotes too! My opinion is unpopular, and it was just questioning why other people downvoted you, so I retract my previous guess, as it was clearly wrong. It turns out people just don't like things they disagree with What can ya do? :)

My comment mostly reflects how interesting I find it that people can justify anything they like based on their previous beliefs, cherry-picking facts that suit what they'd prefer to believe.

I am guilty of this too, we all are. I try to attack my own beliefs by reading and attempting to understand other points of view, but I'm not super-human, I have blind spots.

One thing I'm somewhat good at is seeing how language can frame things in such a way to make the counter-argument more difficult. Its all about perception, because language is so imprecise.

For example, You said

>...Wikileaks was part of Russias plan to influence US politics

That is likely true! But your point could be taken to mean that Wikileaks was complicit in this plan. It could be taken to mean a whole lot of things, and while we're debating the veracity of those things we don't even get to debate on other things, such as the content of the leaks, and about the US government's persistent attack on whistleblowers.

Indeed, it frames the mind in such a way as to ponder whether the US's desire to prosecute Assange is proper given the circumstances.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I may be pretty good at picking up on the nuances of speech but I'm piss poor at explaing myself.

I see what you are saying here, but I think that is a different argument than the one you made in the first comment. My question still remains, do people who view Assange positively not care about his involvement with Russia or do they think it is excusable because the ends justify the means? Whether Assange was a willing participant in that involvement would likely impact people's answers, but I don't think that unknown invalidates the question. I also don't think the question loses legitimacy just because I might not have chosen my words carefully enough in the setup to the question.

ah, and here I'll apologize for my inability to properly express myself previously.

rather, i was trying to guess the motivations behind your downvoters, based on my own reasoning, a hazardous proposition at best. i meant to distance myself from any critique/judgement of your position but my own opinion was made clear, wasn't it? oops.

you've guessed it, i don't wish to discuss your question at all, no offense. i believe it's a distraction and of little importance. This belief, though i am confident it is a product of my incredible intellect¹, more likely comes mostly from my distaste the US government due to the things I've read in the leaks, and my belief that the US government would do anything to bury wikileaks, up to and including slander and libel.

¹clearly sarcasm, for those invisible down voters

"It is clear that at a bare minimum he was used as a tool by Putin to sway politics"

Can you provide evidence or sources for this claim? It's not clear to me, although the majority of Western news-media seems to be pushing this speculation.

I just pulled up the Wikipedia page for Guccifer 2.0 [1]. You can click through from there to find plenty of sources. That page opens with the following:

>"Guccifer 2.0" is a persona which claimed to be the hacker(s) that hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and then leaked its documents to the media, the website WikiLeaks, and a conference event. According to indictments in February 2018, the persona is operated by Russian military intelligence (GRU)

The available evidence suggests the Russians hacked the DNC and then used Wikileaks as the primary method of distributing that hacked data. I don't know whether Wikileaks was aware of their role, but either way Wikileaks clearly was used as a distribution tool by Putin and the Russians.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0