"You can publish true information even when it offends and indicts the most powerful person in the room... He's being punished because he did the right thing" - Stella Assange
Stella Assange speaking to the Luxembourg Parliament on the persecution of Julian Assange
Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.
Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.
Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).
WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.
I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.
Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.
Source: Mediastan (2013)
And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.
How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.
That’s extremely disengenious, the indictment was secret for years.
Regardless of that the Secretary of State is not providing direct input into the prosecution of an individual.
Lol
In Assange’s specific case he was charged during Trump’s presidency so Hilary could not at any point have been involved in his prosecution.
Buddy. You’ve got to be kidding.
In 2012 and 2013, US officials indicated that Assange was not named in a sealed indictment. […] In November 2018, US prosecutors accidentally revealed that Assange had been indicted under seal in US federal court;
No it wasn’t secret. Once it is filed it is public.
In 2018 Clinton was not in office. She wasn’t involved in his prosecution, which wasn’t going on until Trump took office, and you don’t seem to have anything that proves she was.
That is not how FISA courts work. God damnit, the DOJ admired it themselves and you still won’t believe. Can you spell cognitive dissonance and blind faith?
THE INTEGRAL AND LONG-STANDING USE OF SECRET INDICTMENTS IN UNITED STATES LAW
Regardless of the results that the practice of secretly indicting war criminals may have on future peace talks, it remains a fact that United States law allows indictments to be kept secret. Courts throughout the United States frequently seal indictments. Secrecy is one of the major characteristics of grand jury proceedings from which indictments arise and one that has withstood the test of time. Federal grand jury deliberations and hearings are conducted in secrecy. According to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts,
TL;DL? At least, a little bit more detail, ie what they did and what they claimed the policy was.
Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.
Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.
Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).
WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.
I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.
Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.
Source: Mediastan (2013)
And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.
Actually the Clinton/Podesta emails revealed a lot of dirt on Trump too, dirt the DNC had dug up…
But none of the RNC data that also was stolen…
Indeed!
How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.
You somehow think that the release of the State Department cables have nothing to do with the secret indictment?
There is no secret indictment. We know exactly what the allegations are because that information is public.
Regardless of that the Secretary of State is not providing direct input into the prosecution of an individual.
In Assange’s specific case he was charged during Trump’s presidency so Hilary could not at any point have been involved in his prosecution.
You are confused and you likely read shitty sources.
The indictment was not secret, but the evidence to back up their accusations was and still is.
No it isn’t.
That’s extremely disengenious, the indictment was secret for years.
Lol
Buddy. You’ve got to be kidding.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks.html
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-a-george-washington-u-researcher-stumbled-across-a-huge-government-secret/
No it wasn’t secret. Once it is filed it is public.
In 2018 Clinton was not in office. She wasn’t involved in his prosecution, which wasn’t going on until Trump took office, and you don’t seem to have anything that proves she was.
That is not how FISA courts work. God damnit, the DOJ admired it themselves and you still won’t believe. Can you spell cognitive dissonance and blind faith?
What Means Justice? The Acceptance of Secret Indictments inthe United States and in International Lawthe United States and in International Law (2001)