I highly doubt it's something we expect. Plenty of media outlets passed information along similarly to Wikileaks. Any charges limited to actions we know publicly are going to be a disaster on so many levels, and everyone involved knows it. It would be monumentally stupid to pursue charges based only on what we know publicly. The NYT story makes this clear.

I suggest withholding judgement until we see the actual indictment. The other indictments that are (possibly) related that have been made public have provided a lot of detail and evidence.

He played a key role in the chain of them influencing the presidential election. To me this is not a case of clearly being a crime or clearly not being one. Room for further investigation and a trial.

Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end.

* There is no unbiased media outlet

* There are no laws against partisan media outlets

* It's not even clear that Wikileaks is partisan, despite rantings to the opposite effect

* Nothing wikileaks has released has ever been proven to be false.

After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.

The point is the "timed" the action to purposefully benefit one side and in effect benefit itself, while purporting all the time that it is a paragon of openness.

Whole problem with WikiLeaks has been it is telling the truths, half-truths or not even telling anything in some cases.

At the end of the day WikiLeaks has a agenda and it become a tool, albeit a political one.

So free speech, due process, and publishing rights are only granted to the nonpartisan? Are you kidding me?

This is part of a coordinated and well-funded effort by the CIA to reduce sympathy for him and his cause, so that they can deny him human rights without a big stink as soon as he's in US or US-ally custody. It's absolutely shameful.

I am not sure what publish rights you are talking about. You must be kidding yourself, if I may borrow your language, to talk about publishing rights and WikiLeaks in the same breath.

The thing is I do love the principle on which WikiLeaks was founded. Is what WikiLeaks doing legal ? Hell, no. But morally I know it is the right thing to do.

Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. And telling the truth selectively and conveniently. And that does not deserve the moral approval, which I would have given earlier.

It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too?

This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.

Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side".

People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight).

Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?

Again, I don't have a problem with releasing information. But timing the release with a coordinated effort to profit from it, it reeks of corruption from WikiLeaks.

And when asked his position on the issue of an Australian citizen in effectively indefinite imprisonment, our pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister simply dodges the question by making lewd comments about the questioner.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela...

The rumors that he knew that he was talking with the GRU and that the documents were stolen by the Russian government is one thing.. But the idea he had foresight that the Russian government was trying to get Trump elected is something that might come out.

Progressives, like myself who supported Wikileaks are curious at what Mueller has put together. If the worst is true, then Assange used Wikileaks as a tool to try to make sure Clinton did not become president. It's known that Clinton did not like Assange before the hacking leak, it's my guess that Assange published those documents in some effort to undermine her election chances. Part of me, think's that's OK. if it's OK for someone to come out with some crimes that someone might have committed and stand up and testify to that, then it's in the voting public's best interest to have all the facts..

Then again, there's the possibly non-zero chance he knew that this was coming from the GRU or at least the Russian government, which anyone in his org should have had experience in asking themselves the larger questions around this...

It's hard at best to maintain discussion quality about divisive issues, but quite impossible when commenters stoop to lower levels like this.

I typed politely and nicely, while the parent was awful and divisive.

> but quite impossible when commenters stoop to lower levels like this.

Like what? Could you please explain? I really don't understand what I did. Surely you meant to reply to the person talking about burning people to death being something that liberals are acting like they want to happen? That is surely the comment you meant to delete and call out, not mine?

Super confused here dang.

It's probably true the left is on average more passive, but to claim it's unlikely any progressive would spew vitrol or be violent?? Ever heard of antifa?

(Any reason for the down votes? You may not like Sargon, but he he addresses exactly what the OP is talking about a lot of the time.)

Any good Assange did blowing the whistle has been completely undermined by his collusion with Russia to help thwart democratic institutions and processes.

I classify Snowden as a patriotic whistleblower. I classify Assange as a Russian agent.

Treat both appropriately.

Because, basically, there is no way they can say no if the Russian intelligence really wants them to do something.

So yes, I do believe the United States is a lot better regarding Human Rights. Even in Guantanamo bay the prisoners are kept in relatively Human conditions.

"Russian diplomats held secret talks in London last year with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they could help him flee the UK, the Guardian has learned.

A tentative plan was devised that would have seen the WikiLeaks founder smuggled out of Ecuador’s London embassy in a diplomatic vehicle and transported to another country.

One ultimate destination, multiple sources have said, was Russia, where Assange would not be at risk of extradition to the US. The plan was abandoned after it was deemed too risky."

Russian asset.

I'm failing to see what your point is.