The Julian Assange verdict is out and the UN torture expert joins us to analyze the decision; live on youtube.
I am like most people on this - livid. And I fully expect more outwardly fascist policies and behaviors as the mask has slipped completely. No going back to pretending.
Just subscribed to see this in full because as mentioned before by others the feed from YouTube suddenly stopped working. I want to share widely, please keep up the excellent work Matt and Katie!
I hope you people are publishing this video on other networks than youtub.
THANK YOU - for Julian Assange, Steve Donzinger, Daniel Hale -- for ALL your high integrity and noble work.
Both parties (DNC and GOP) are identical and utterly corrupt.
-- Trump and GOP are truly HORRIBLE.
-- DNC oligarchs (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer) are even WORSE (CORRUPTION, censorship, they concocted Russia-gate hoax, torture of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale’s persecution for Obama’s drone crimes, $16B Haiti-corruption under Hillary/Obama – Biden-family corruption pales in comparison)
The ONLY solution – vote THIRD party – now and forever.
ALWAYS vote – but VOTE for a Third (or fourth, fifth..) party – at ALL levels, especially at LOCAL levels (vote OUT each and every incumbent).
Democrats Want Julian Assange Imprisoned For One Reason: His 2016 Reporting on Hillary/DNC
Was watching and the video suddenly became unavailable ... you guys must be stepping on some toes with this one
Understand that Assange's trial will center on aiding and abetting, conspiracy, not in actually publishing illegally obtained material. That the press, and that includes outlets like wikileaks and reporters/journalists, and that includes Assange, has the constitutionally enumerated right to "publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers).
Understand that the laws designed to punish leakers of classified material do not touch the press so long as the press doesn't act with the leaker. This is where the discussion of the government's case needs to focus, not on the fact that the government and its agents, including elected officials, want to punish those that expose "secrets".
Matt, please focus on this with his lawyer. I understand that he cannot discuss specifics outside and prior to court, but there are precedent with regards to a leaker dealing with the press that is relevant. Also, are there other leaks in which the whistle-blower has been prosecuted but the press has not?
At about 7:10 he mentions "what the charges are". The only legal problems that I see for Assange are those that allege that he actually aided and abetted Manning, such as (see https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download):
"7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network, a United States government network used for classified documents and communications, as designated according to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor orders."
"9. The portion of the password Manning gave to Assange to crack was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange."
The other charges are about the freedom of the press, Assange posting, and so appear to be unwinnable for the government. However, it appears that Assange did not actually do what he is alleged in those two allegation:
"10. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto the computers under a usemame that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information."
Note the "would have". That leaves the actual counts that are the true risks to Assange as they allege that he aided and abetted:
"Count One: (A) to knowingly access a computer..."
"(B) to intentionally access a computer..."
"MANNERS·AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY:
18. ...and to · enter into the agreement to crack the password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network..."
But the main problem with the government's charges is stated explicitly in:
"ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY:
25. On or about March 10, 2010, Assange requested more information from Manning related to the password. Assange indicated that he bad been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far."
So, Assange had not actually aided and abetted Manning as he couldn't a) access the original data and (b) couldn't crack the password. The ONLY thing that could be a problem is in:
"MANNERS·AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY:
20. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States."
I wish that you had gone through the indictment to get to this issue, is it enough to encourage? What is the precedent about this? IMO, this is the ONLY risk for Assange.
So, no nonsubscriber content this week? Whatever. I can't afford it, but if I could Max Blumenthal would get my cash, not either of you. I can do w/o your content, to the extent you can say there is any.
Was the allegation that he actually acted with Manning to obtain the data discussed? That is the core of the indictment, that he acted with Manning not that he received the data. I missed the stream due to another obligation at the same time, of course.
Alfred E Neuman
No wonder I don't watch the news. Amazing that the talking heads don't understand how nuts they sound. It is very clear that they are not journalists. Protected in prison the way Epstein was protected?
Thank you Julian Assange for informing us of the lingering corruption particularly within the DNC. As Melzer points out, the person showing us truth is punished, while the corrupt go free.
Ultimately, my guess is that Julian will be acquitted as he will be found to have not participates in the acquisition of the material, only posting it as was precisely the case with the Washington Post and the Pentagon Papers. This press action is protected by the constitution as has been determined by court cases, going after Julian is simply a costly and life-destroying exercise by the US government to warn others to not act as a journalist.