- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Assange indicted for unlawful obtaining and disclosing classified intel
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:23 pm
LINK
quote:
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.
The new charges were part of a superseding indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly expanded the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related countbrought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.
This post was edited on 5/23/19 at 4:27 pm
15
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:24 pm to musick
So can we indict all media who report leaked classified info please?
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:24 pm to musick
I don't take our "Justice" department very seriously. I say give him the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:25 pm to musick
quote:
violating the Espionage Act
And Hillary gets off scot-free on the same charge
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:26 pm to musick
When truthtellers frighten your government, that government is evil.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:27 pm to musick
nm
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:27 pm to musick
Assange is going to get butt fricked on Trump's watch
Posted on 5/23/19 at 4:30 pm to musick
quote:
novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues
Umm yeah.
WaPo and the NYTs and media organizations like them should be very concerned. A ruling aging Assange on these charges would hamper 1st amendment rights bigly but these media organizations are silent because Assange hurt Hillary.
All Assange did was publish classified info Manning illegally leaked. It is not against the law for journalists to publish classified info.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
WaPo and the NYTs and media organizations like them should be very concerned. A ruling aging Assange on these charges would hamper 1st amendment rights bigly but these media organizations are silent because Assange hurt Hillary.
Dude, the obama-era DoJ did not bring charges. The trump admin is pursuing this. What is your point with regard to hillary?
This post was edited on 5/23/19 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:18 pm to musick
This precedent will not be kind to Schiff or Comey...
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:19 pm to musick
Poor guy looks disheveled and distraught. Be a shame if some melancholy befell him and something awful happened.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:
All Assange did was publish classified info Manning illegally leaked.
That is not the charge. I am NOT saying the charges are correct. But, he is not charged with the publishing. He is accused of aiding and coercing Manning, etc.
That is why the "disclosing" is also chargeable.
If I steal the intel and give it to WaPo..they can publish without fear. If WaPo helps me, encourages me, etc and I get it to them, they CANNOT publish.
There IS a difference.
Again, I am not saying dude is guilty. Not at all. I am just saying that the charge of 'helping' makes the charge of 'disclosing' in play.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:24 pm to musick
GoVeRnMeNt oF tHe PeOpLe, By ThE pEoPlE, aNd FoR tHe PeOpLe
Government is not your friend.
Government is not your friend.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:43 pm to musick
So what you’re saying is, Assange would need to defend himself regarding HOW exactly he came to be in possession of the leaks?
I like it alot. Discovery gonna be a blasty blast.
I like it alot. Discovery gonna be a blasty blast.
This post was edited on 5/23/19 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:50 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
Assange would need to defend himself regarding HOW exactly he came to be in possession of the leaks?
Exactamundo
Posted on 5/23/19 at 5:51 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
Discovery gonna be a blasty blast.
No it won't. The Espionage Act effectively prohibits a Defendant from raising an affirmative defense at trial. That's why I always laugh when I hear morons say Snowden should come home and defend himself in trial. The Espionage Act prohibits that. Free country my arse.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:31 pm to musick
Then why the frick aren't rags like the nyt and wapo being indicted?
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:37 pm to cahoots
quote:
Dude, the obama-era DoJ did not bring charges. The trump admin is pursuing this. What is your point with regard to hillary?
Do you really believe they'll go after Pomoeo/ Trump here?
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:37 pm to SCLibertarian
Well...there is this:
"Such a charge under the Espionage Act has never been successfully prosecuted" (According to CNN...) which was an interesting statement given Schenck and other legal precedent...
The Espionage Act of 1917 establishes strict penalties for those who engage in spying to impede U.S. military efforts and/or give aid to foreign enemies. Behaviors prohibited by the Espionage Act of 1917 include:
Obtaining any information related to national defense with the intent for the information to be used to advantage a foreign nation or to injure the United States; or with the belief the information will be used in this way. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 794, the information may be obtained from virtually any source including but not limited to documents (obtained legally or illegally);
this is interesting...
"Such a charge under the Espionage Act has never been successfully prosecuted" (According to CNN...) which was an interesting statement given Schenck and other legal precedent...
The Espionage Act of 1917 establishes strict penalties for those who engage in spying to impede U.S. military efforts and/or give aid to foreign enemies. Behaviors prohibited by the Espionage Act of 1917 include:
Obtaining any information related to national defense with the intent for the information to be used to advantage a foreign nation or to injure the United States; or with the belief the information will be used in this way. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 794, the information may be obtained from virtually any source including but not limited to documents (obtained legally or illegally);
this is interesting...
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:45 pm to musick
So is this setting the precedent for the corrupt politicians that he obtained the emails from?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News