This is false. A single republican’s personal laptop got hacked and a years-out-of-date outlook db was stolen.

The DNC had their email server itself hacked, which is an entirely different level of compromise.

Of course, they crafted a narrative that “republicans were hacked too!” which of course is true but highly misleading (typical of such propaganda campaigns).

This was highly effective, as it’s still popping up in discussions like this one 5+ years later.

There's also no evidence the hacked laptop's data was offered to Wikileaks.

>He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government

Based upon the talking points at the time, establishment Democrats very much wanted this to be true. This makes sense since the Russians are a convenient scapegoat.

>suppressing damaging information on Republicans.

They wanted this to be true but it didnt happen:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_...

"On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”".

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

This suggests they wanted Bernie to win.

In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well, journalism.

No, it only suggests that they did not want Bernie supporters to solidify behind Clinton. The strongest suggestion is that they did not want Clinton to win.

Yeah, he did. Disliking Clinton does not make him dishonest, a Russian spy or somebody who acted against the principles of wikileaks, however.

It makes him a journalist who doesnt appreciate being threatened with a drone strike by a sitting secretary of state for practising journalism.

The fact people give him shit for this is pretty unbelievable.

Excusing Russian style journalist assassination is not compatible with respect for Democracy.

At the time Assange was aware that as secretary of defense Hillary Clinton had suggested using a drone strike to assassinate him in the UK.

Do you expect him to have been neutral on her candidacy?

It shows they wanted to prevent Hillary from building supporters to hurt her campaign and were explicitly strategizing how to achieve that end:

"if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters"

They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of winning:

"we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting"

Yes, they were. Fox News hate democrats. CNN hate Republicans. Assange hated Clinton ever since she said "wouldnt it be easier if we just drone striked him?".

He still didnt conceal any leaks in pursuit of that goal and he wasnt a russian spy. Nonetheless, both claims are frequently made in the mainstream media linked to Democrats.

They are lies.

He had his own show on Russian state television way back in 2012. He was quite literally being paid by them.

Know of any western TV channels that would offer him a show?

lol I kid. Literally 0% chance CNN will give him one.

Every establishment critic faces the same choice:

1) appear on PressTV or RT

2) face ridiculously hostile interviewers

3) dont appear on TV

Mostly they go for a mix of 1 and 2.

Surely, as a non-American he could chose any side he felt like?

Much like I can - randomly or otherwise - choose any faction in the Nigerian elections.

Or is their some planet-wide law that he fell under?

I don't understand your comment. Whether he should be pardoned or not is separate from him picking sides and making adversaries of the democrats.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions of others into account?

> Whether he should be pardoned?

How do you pardon a foreign citizen?

He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it.

Furthermore, as Assange isn’t an American citizen and doesn’t get to vote in the USA, none of them have no reason to put personal dislike aside and defend him or his actions.

Hell, he might have been a lot better off now if he was a USA citizen, or even if he’d been officially working for Russia.

Right now, he’s a conveniently unlicensed hot potato: held personally liable by the powers, not even really seen as a journalist even if he was one.

> He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it.

Indeed, hate away.

But its a big jump to imprisoning (or as some would like killing) him.

Just as - and focus here - its not ok to extradite atheists to Saudi Arabia for heresy committed in say New Zealand.

Its after all just a wee election.

'Choosing a side' is what ceased to allow him to claim he was an impartial leaker and/or journalist.