It’s not just “Establishment Democrats”. He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government in publishing DNC emails but suppressing damaging information on Republicans.
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.
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_...
In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well, journalism.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
Do you expect him to have been neutral on her candidacy?
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?
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions of others into account?
How do you pardon a foreign citizen?