I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.
It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.
ends-justifying-the-means thinking leads to very ugly things.
Assange reported it.
You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame.
Assange reported it.
Working with Trump campaign is destabilizing. Both of those are true, factual statements. Wikileaks did both.
Your can argue that the acts weekend criminal or they were not charged for political reasons, but either way they did happen, and were coordination with the campaign.
Yes there was.
> “ It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing.“
No it was not.
> “ But this was the intent from the start.”
No it was not.
> “ It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.”
This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
>This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
Utter nonsense. Perhaps you can do better than assertions?
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-as...
Whether hackers intended to disrupt an election or not, the behavior described in the emails is still the fault of those DNC members who perpetrated those actions.
You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret, we’d be better off, and that by revealing it (as opposed to perpetrating it in the first place) publishers like Assange caused harm - which is ridiculous.
The behavior itself - the content of what was published - caused harm because it was dishonest, manipulative, harmful behavior. The publisher did not cause harm by describing someone else’s harmful behavior. “Russian hackers” did not cause harm by taking possession of documents that proved the harmful behavior of others.
It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth, because it might whip up the electorate, and you are blind to the fact that it’s not the newspaper’s choice to publish that is doing anything or causing anything. The blame lies squarely with the person who actually perpetrated the published behaviors - like the president calling fallen soldiers losers and suckers.
Your moral compass on this is completely haywire.
Assange's denials about Russia's involvement aren't credible on its face. The question is whether Russia hacked the DNC emails that Assange published. Assange fundamentally has no knowledge of the origin of the emails as the final stop in potentially multi-person hand off, unless he was involved in the hacking.
We also have multiple intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic, that have confirmed the source of the hack. Not to mention the context of the election, Trumps close ties with Russia and Russian agents, and the broad and multifaceted attempts at hacking the election attributed to Russia (disinformation farms, hacking state election networks), it is far past the point of reasonable to defend the theory that Russia didn't hack the DNC.
>You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret
But there was no manipulation. There were things that could be framed as manipulation, which people did, and that caused unfair damage to the Democrats and to democracy. It's like if there were two sellers of sausages and one of them had their sausage-making process recorded and leaked online. The other sausage maker goes "see their sausages are disgusting, buy ours instead!" all the while their sausages are made in the exact same way. It is unbalanced transparency that is inherently manipulative. It is a self-serving lie to pretend otherwise.
>It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth
No, its not like that. A sitting president's words are a valid source of news. The internal machinations of a private organization are not a valid source of news unless wrongdoing is documented. But no such wrongdoing was documented. It was all gossip and fodder for misrepresentation.
Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary...
Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]:
>My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen.
Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]:
>She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue
So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative.
>Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate.
Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
[1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton...
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged.
> Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant.
I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow.
Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.
Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him.
On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)
I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.
In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's of value, relevant, not extremely prejudicial to the defendant, not hearsay, etc.)
You wouldn't impeach them though. It could be perjury if they lied under oath, but otherwise it would just be standard discrediting of a given person.
* The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange might be thinking of suicide.
* The defense pointed out that an official report from the prison confirmed that Assange had hidden a razor in his cell. The prosecution is surely aware of this report. In plain English, the prosecution lied to the court. The judge refuses to consider the prison report, however, because it is new evidence.
* Defense claims that Assange was moved to the healthcare ward because of suicidal thoughts. The prosecution claims that he was moved there so that he could be put in isolation, so that the prison would not be embarrassed by more leaked photos of Assange. In other words, the official line is that the prison concocted false medical pretenses to put Assange in solitary confinement.