55
First Resolution In US Congress To Back End To Assange Case
(thedissenter.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
55 points (77.2% liked)
Uplifting News
11294 readers
405 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's been a while and I misremembered some of the details, it was through through the Russians (who were de facto on the Trump campaign):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#Communications_with_WikiLeaks
Hardly an unbiased source, WikiLeaks was targeting Clinton for the benefit of Trump.
Trump reportedly offered to pardon Assange if he denied the connection:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/trump-offered-to-pardon-assange-if-he-denied-russia-helped-leak-democrats-emails-lawyer-idUSKBN20D2A2/
Okay, that is brutal. Thanks for sharing. Today I learned.
As a matter of fact, Julian has denied that the source was Russia. The reported 'offer' from the Trump admin was rejected because WikiLeaks NEVER reveals its sources.
Not that I agree with your assessment, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a news outlet that doesn't have a bias. This case isn't about whether you have sympathy for his perceived bias. It is about the threat to the ability of any outlet to publish true information in the public interest, anywhere in the world. The charges relate to 2010/2011 publications only: the diplomatic cables, guantanamo detainee assessment briefs, Iraq Rules of Engagement, and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. The US' overreach in jurisdiction is already being copied by other nations such as Russia. It's the first amendment that's under threat.
P.S. that Wikipedia article is full of disinformation. A New York judge actually threw out the case against WikiLeaks publishing DNC emails as it is 1st amendment protected news in the public interest. It revealed how the DNC rigged the primaries. The Podesta emails also revealed Clinton's 'pied piper' strategy: she wanted to run against Trump, so got the media to boost coverage on him. She clearly underestimated him. Bernie could have won against him.
WikiLeaks' pro-trump bias is clear from the chat log itself, no editorializing needed. It doesn't matter if it's first amendment protected to assist a fascist to take power. I have no love or sympathy remaining for Assange, and I was one of his fans early on, I feel incredibly betrayed as an American.
It doesn't matter to you Hillary stole the primaries from Bernie, boosted Trump's visibility, and still lost against him? Polls at the time showed for Bernie vs Trump Bernie would've won. You can thank Hillary for giving you Trump for president. But I think you'd rather kill the messenger.
Nice whattaboutism. You realize there can be more than one factor causing things? He wasn't just the messenger, he had intent of furthering the interests of one party over another, Assange isn't the unbiased journalist he portrayed himself to be.
Again, the indicment relates to 2010/2011 publications only. Nothing to do with Trump.
Cool, I don't have sympathy for him due to reasons unrelated to this indictment.
And the Wikipedia is completely unbiased impartial neutral and aaaalways accurate