> I wish he would pardon Snowden or Assange instead.
¿Por qué no los dos?
¿Por qué no los dos?
Why should they be opposed?
The obvious reason is they get to choose what information, when, and how its disclosed. For example, hack both sides, release one at a damaging time and blackmail the other into compliance.
Indiscriminate releasing of information can put people in immediate danger (like embedded spies).
You can also drop misinformation into a dump of legitimate information. Or a similar technique where you exaggerate true information because admitting to the truth is embarrassing; like claiming 1,000 civilians were killed when the actual number is closer to 600.
I cannot resist. So the aforementioned shadowy Russians might be leaking information to themselves via the American press?
What dastardly yet disorganised fiends.
They could literally just publish the info on the web. If it is largely true, people will believe it. The Russians aren't behind Wikileaks.
Do you have anything concrete to back that up? Wikileaks has been foolhardedly devoted to exposing uncomfortable truths about institutions across the political spectrum. Some people are maybe upset that this probably lead to Trump's election.
> who convinced people to ignore a woman’s story of sexual assault
The preliminary investigation into that case has been dropped. As far as I'm aware, he made no effort to convince people to ignore the story, but he did strongly deny the allegations. This says nothing either way of his innocence or criminality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
Edit:
RE: Anyone questioning Assange's ties to Russia, there's the following article. Assange was purportedly contacted about a pardon in 2017 in exchange for denying Russian involvement into leaking Clinton's emails (which Julian declined)
> Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.
Coverage about that here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-admits-that-putins-favorite...
No evidence is needed, as it's not a concrete claim. In modern US political parlance, the term "Russian asset" is a spooky-sounding but otherwise meaningless term. It's a cheap-but-effective rhetorical trick for discrediting someone.
I agree though with the implication that he isn't an American patriot. Clearly he's Australian/Swedish
The Swedish investigation had no intention of uncovering the truth about this this woman's possible assault. They endlessly refused any kind of telephonic interview with Assange, even though it is normal practice in Sweden. They were not passionately pursuing justice for a wronged woman - they were idly forcing a man into confinement to help their American allies. This is exactly the finding of the UN special investigator for torture.