This argument is ridiculous. If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent, why would they currently be using the flimsy hacking charges to extradite him?
> If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent
"why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?" That's really not how it works.
>why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?
We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?
Trying desperately to turn emails (that amounted mostly to dirty laundry) stolen by a government into manufactured scandals and conspiracies the day after the worst revelations about Russia's preferred candidate dropped was not, and is not, journalism. How on earth can you get something so basic wrong?
> We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?
Nice little straw man there. We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy. The proof of said relationship, if made public, reveals how Russia was monitored/caught and helps them conceal their future efforts at recruiting assets.
Which is why the "if you have proof why not make it public?" argument in relation to espionage is and always will be a bad faith argument. Snowden did it too. He knows damn well everything he says will go unchallenged, and he uses that silence to his rhetorical advantage.
But you knew all that already.
Nothing you said has any connection to whether it's journalism. He received and published politically relevant information.
>We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy
So based on something he did in 2016, you think that's proof he was a Russian agent from the mid 2000's that the US intelligence agencies just let do whatever he wanted for years. I do not understand that point of view.
> always will be a bad faith argument
The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial.
I also don't have any clue what you think I knew already. I have seen no evidence that Assange or Snowden are foreign agents.
> So based on something he did in 2016
Speculation no one can answer, ignored.
> The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial.
You aren't listening to what i'm saying. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person.
And responding to any claim made exposes you publicly to confirm what you know and how you know it, which further damages your intelligence collection efforts. Which is why "show me the evidence" is not in good faith, especially not someone like Snoweden that knows damn well how intelligence works. He knows he won't get push back publicly, so he has complete ownership of the narrative. "None of my leaks results in anyone dying". The American IC is not going to list their assets that were executed in hostile countries as a result, for the reasons I mentioned.
> accused's right to a fair trial
Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice. Neither had any intention of risking jail for "what they believe in" - yet some people still view them alongside whistleblowers that actually did.
As I don't consider Assange to be a Russian agent, I don't have any issues with them receiving state-hacked information. They are under no obligation to determine the source's motive. And they are free to coordinate with a political campaign, they have the freedom of assembly as well as of the press.
The Roger Stone indictment was for obstruction of an official proceeding, false statements, and witness tampering. His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal, lying about them was.
>Speculation no one can answer, ignored.
What? You're the one claiming the DNC leaks prove they are a Russian agent. I don't agree, but I understand that argument. Then stretching it to include "Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy" makes no sense to me.
>. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person.
I am listening to what you are saying, selective enforcement of laws absolutely violates your right to a fair trial. Without exposing their methods, we have no idea of those methods were constitutionally sound. They may not have any reason that benefits themselves, but I don't care.
Further, Snowden isn't behind bars. Why didn't they expose their methods and prevent him leaving Hong Kong rather than block his passport while layovered in Russia?
>Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice.
As Assange's extradition hearing and the numerous whistleblower trials over the past fifty years have shown, they had no expectation of a fair trial. Quoting Daniel Ellsberg about his case
>(my) lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: 'Well, you're hearing one now'. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment.
lol. "None of these things are crimes" is not the solid argument you think it is. To be a useful idiot aiding an autocratic government in their intelligence operations might not be technically illegal, but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so.
> His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal
Again, not what we are talking about. I'll take your constant efforts to move the goal posts from what constitutes journalism to what constitutes a crime as a tacit admission you don't have a leg to stand on.
> Daniel Ellsberg
A famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation. Difference is all of the pentagon papers were relevant to the ongoing crime of the Vietnam War. 95% of what Snowden leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. Funny how that's never mentioned.
Also, maybe listen to people that actually know what they're talking about in 2020. Here's a lawyer that specializes in representing intel officers in whistleblower cases, talking about how Snowden did have options, and it's a lie to say otherwise.
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1339383062120062978
He chose to run, he chose to avoid the consequences of his actions. And in more simple terms, a whistleblower is a legal term for something he chose not to be. He leaked, then ran away. Calling him a whistleblower is an insult to the brave people that actually did seek whistleblower protection in serious matters and were willing to testify and face the consequences.
I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism. Why would being a useful idiot make publishing politically relevant information eliminate your pretense of being a "journalist?"
>Again, not what we are talking about.
Then explain how Stone's indictment for spying is in anyway relevant to our discussion? I assumed you brought it up to claim Assange's actions were illegal, making prosecuting his actions not violate his freedom of the press. You just wanted to show he was in contact with GOP leaders?
>famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation
The relevant part was a judge saying he couldn't explain his actions. Assange's case was similarly run. They had no hope of a fair trial.
I had not heard of Zaid, my research pulled up this exchange he had though
>What result could Snowden have expected had he covered the bases and his butt by approaching an inspector general’s office or congressional committees?
And replied
>“Candidly,” Zaid said, “he likely would have been frustrated immensely with the lack of results from either, given the current posture.”
Though he's a vocal critic of Snowden, even he found it unlikely that the "proper channels" would have netted results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/o...
And on the subject of moving goal posts, why have you changed from trying to show them as Russian agents to not journalists/whistleblowers?
Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes me think you are either far too partisan in your admiration of Assange to discuss this objectively or you just don't understand what the journalism industry is. I don't really care which is true at this point.
You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly. Being a whistleblower is not an easy thing and not without consequences, but Snowden didn't even attempt to become one. Which is why referring to him as such is misleading at best, and cynically misrepresenting what happened for ideological reasons at worst.
So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?
I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been preferred, but I can also see how that would be difficult in their position and it would be used to cast further doubt upon them. Publishing them as is still qualifies as journalism.
Oh, and I personally find Assange to be an abhorrent person. He's egotistical, racist, and much of those sexual assault claims seem likely. His right to a free press still should not be trampled.
>You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly.
By directly quoting him while providing the context? Maybe he's right and some set of actions could have put Snowden in a better position today. As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.
As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators. And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes. Big difference(s).
IF Wikileaks actually were journalists, they'd have a hell of a story to write about how their bipolar manic founder had been coopted by an autocratic intelligence agency to do their bidding, throwing away years of good work to actually expose the bad behavior of criminal governments.
I'd read that story.
> As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.
Yeah that's not what he said. He said Snowden would face the full wrath of the US Gov (true) but that he's been able to protect others (in the last year even) that had the same pressures. The idea that Snowden "had no choice" is a ridiculous myth believed only by those who see him as a hero first (as part of their general world view), then figure out the facts of the matter later on.
Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument.
If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the legality of his actions may change, and punishing him would not violate his rights.
>And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes
No, but many of the CIA's worldwide operations are exactly that. Plus, I don't find a domestic spy agency feeding them stolen materials for destructive purposes much better.
>Yeah that's not what he said
Those are my words, based on similar trials I have mentioned. He may have had other choices, at this point he would not receive a fair trial. Zaid already believes he deserves the punishment, like you do, so you both seem unconcerned about whether his trial would be fair.
I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT.
Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug.
And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).