Quote:

Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

No, stealing Government secrets doesn't involve cyber-terrorism.  And it doesn't have to include illegal hacking.

Bradley Manning was in intelligence analyst who had access to everything that he leaked.  He simply gave it to Wikileaks, no hacking required.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

No, stealing Government secrets doesn't involve cyber-terrorism.  And it doesn't have to include illegal hacking.

Bradley Manning was in intelligence analyst who had access to everything that he leaked.  He simply gave it to Wikileaks, no hacking required.

---

lowbrow said:

What about the claim Julian Assange helped Bradley Manning help hack a computer?

---

Quote:

The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity.

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

According to Law, that would mean Assange is an Accessory to Cyber Crimes, correct?

---

I don't know.  But New York Times Co. v. United States seems related. 

koods said:

The intercept is garbage. Glenn Greenwald is an Assange lackey.

---

Quote:

Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”
.
.
.
so vacant is the Mueller investigation when it comes to supporting any of the prevailing conspiracy theories that it did not find even a single American whom it could indict or charge with illegally working for Russia, secretly acting as a Russian agent, or conspiring with the Russians over the election – not even Carter Page. That means that even long-time Russiagate skeptics such as myself over-estimated the level of criminality and conspiracy evidence that Robert Mueller would find.

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

How does one expose government secrets using the 1st Amendment without getting in trouble by the government?

How does someone disclose top secret info legally?

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

I bet the news coming out about Assange will be very intriguing

---

Quote:

  also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence

---

Quote:

in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”
.

---