I find it really interesting that everyone was so pro wikileaks and supported him until they released the wrong documents: something against hillary.
If you like leaks, you have to accept that it is going both ways.
If you like leaks, you have to accept that it is going both ways.
And Snowden has never mislead anyone about why he's in Russia. He's said that he would love to come home. And if U.S. whistleblower protections was stronger he could.
Snowden was openly revealing violations of the U.S. constitution.
Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics.
There is no comparison between these two, at all.
You're gonna need proof for that, staunch.
The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion.
On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terrible at objective analysis.
And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.
We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests.
Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along.
You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof.
So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.
I generally vote Libertarian, so realistically this didn't effect me, but I am glad that a lot of people got to see a lot of the dirty deeds that politicians abuse. I've known since Bill Clinton was President that Hillary is not a good person and now the world knows it.
I can heartily support protests against a policy I consider bad while being less-supportive of protests against a policy I support.
I can support responsible disclosure while not supporting 0-day drops.
In this case, I haven't seen a credible case that Wikileaks endangered anybody, but I can still see a distinction to be made between leaking documents related to national security and leaking documents solely to discredit a political candidate one dislikes.
fyi i’ve got no problem with leaking emails or whatnot. but i do have a problem when the FSB uses your org in order to further their interests.
Honestly, I don't even have a problem with the stuff against Hillary either. They were doing bad things and got caught.
Assange, in all his years, never actually released anything on the U.S. government that I found to be damning or evidence of illegality. I don't think he did any good by leaking that Iraq war video, the embassy cables, or CIA tools.
I went from being ambivalent about Assange to thinking he was a terrible person based on his incredible dishonesty regarding the Clinton emails. I had no problem with the leaking of her emails itself.
He, like some kind of weasel lawyer, claimed that he did not receive the emails "from a state actor" and directly implied that they came from Seth Rich. He intentionally mislead a lot of very naive people.
The fact is that they almost certainly came through an intermediary of a Russian state actor and almost certainly did not come from Seth Rich.
So me disliking him has nothing to do with politics. I would have found him just as much of a dishonest weasel had Trump been the target instead of Clinton.
And yet I still think the First Amendment should protect him because I believe American freedoms should remain extremely broad.
Assange was a useful idiot that got played OR he was willing and just good at acting. Either way, WikiLeaks is not our friend.