koods said:

The Ecstatic said:

koods said:

Yes. Tens of thousands of private emails were stolen and published and no criminal activity was revealed. What is the newsworthiness?

And I’ll ask again for Assange defenders to defend publishing private correspondence about personal matters.

---

The newsworthiness is a corrupt group of people using their allies in government/media/business to manipulate our elections.

Sure, the courts ruled that the DNC is a corporation and doesn’t owe voters anything. You can either rejoice in that or recoil in disgust.


It’s not just about Bernie, just like it isn’t just about Assange. It’s the implications and the precedents set therein, in these two cases being things we’ve long suspected to be true.

I mean you’re aware that the Hillary wing of the party used a “pied piper” strategy for Trump in the GOP primary, using their media allies to elevate him above his competitors, right?

Maybe you don’t think private corporations manipulating our elections should be illegal, it should at the very least trouble you.

---

What I find troubling is how you think you have the right to know John Podestas plans for the weekend.

---

The Ecstatic said:

koods said:

What I find troubling is how you think you have the right to know John Podestas plans for the weekend.

---

I don’t remember you on this privacy kick when the NYT was publishing Trump’s leaked tax information.

---

koods said:

There’s is a legitimate public interest in trumps tax returns. There is no public interest concerning private plans made with podesta and his friends and family.

---

The Ecstatic said:

We’ve established that legitimate public interest is just whatever you decide it is.

One of two major political parties manipulating elections is a little bit more in the public interest than the tax documents of the guy everyone knows is a tax dodger showing that he’s dodging taxes.


Regardless, we agree there’s extenuating circumstances in which case committing a crime for the public good is righteous. That’s great, that’s all I wanted.

---

Quote:

Hi there!    Glenn said that when he spoke with John on Easter he mentioned everyone would be getting together at our house the weekend of April 24. Not sure if you are free or up for a ride in the country, but here is the plan.    Larissa and family and Michael will be here Friday. Michael, kids and I (not sure about others) are going to a spot near Warrenton Saturday afternoon where we'll meet Karen and Philip and watch the Flying Paule-Carres Brothers take the first, and most likely last, sky dive. We'll all travel back to Winchester for dinner and all will be here Sunday. There is some talk of going to a vineyard or on a hike Sunday. If you'd like to join us, let me know and I can send you more details.    Mary, give me a call when you have a chance so we can finalize our arrangements. I just heard from Sherri.they were in an accident a week or so ago. They weren't hurt, but there car sustained quite a bit of damage.its new enough and expensive enough to not be totaled.should be repaired in time for our trip.    Love to all!    Patti

---

Enlil said:

So why aren't you condemning him for the release of the other emails?  Why should Assange get a pass for that?

I can only think of two options:

1. He didn't go through the emails and just released them all, or
2. He intentionally released private emails that had no public interest content.

Either of those takes him out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of a hacker trying to cause chaos.

---

koods said:

There’s is a legitimate public interest in trumps tax returns.

The Ecstatic said:

We’ve established that legitimate public interest is just whatever you decide it is.

One of two major political parties manipulating elections is a little bit more in the public interest than the tax documents of the guy everyone knows is a tax dodger showing that he’s dodging taxes.


Regardless, we agree there’s extenuating circumstances in which case committing a crime for the public good is righteous. That’s great, that’s all I wanted.

---

Explain why the public has a right to see this:

Quote:

Hi there!    Glenn said that when he spoke with John on Easter he mentioned everyone would be getting together at our house the weekend of April 24. Not sure if you are free or up for a ride in the country, but here is the plan.    Larissa and family and Michael will be here Friday. Michael, kids and I (not sure about others) are going to a spot near Warrenton Saturday afternoon where we'll meet Karen and Philip and watch the Flying Paule-Carres Brothers take the first, and most likely last, sky dive. We'll all travel back to Winchester for dinner and all will be here Sunday. There is some talk of going to a vineyard or on a hike Sunday. If you'd like to join us, let me know and I can send you more details.    Mary, give me a call when you have a chance so we can finalize our arrangements. I just heard from Sherri.they were in an accident a week or so ago. They weren't hurt, but there car sustained quite a bit of damage.its new enough and expensive enough to
not be totaled.should be repaired in time for our trip.    Love to all!    Patti

---

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So why aren't you condemning him for the release of the other emails?  Why should Assange get a pass for that?

I can only think of two options:

1. He didn't go through the emails and just released them all, or
2. He intentionally released private emails that had no public interest content.

Either of those takes him out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of a hacker trying to cause chaos.

---

You must have missed my response to koods where I said "That probably shouldn't have been released" and I also said "Politico has some good summaries here and here" of why they should be released.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I know this has already been explained to you, but Wikileaks doesn't just give away company's private documents, unless those private documents expose unethical behavior, such as the company stealing money that would otherwise go to its shareholders, for example.

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

You must have missed my response to koods where I said "That probably shouldn't have been released" and I also said "Politico has some good summaries here and here" of why they should be released.

---

I saw nothing in your response condemning Assange for releasing them.  Tell me why he shouldn't go to jail for that.

---

Quote:

A British judge has rejected a US request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to America, ruling that such a move would be "oppressive" by reason of his mental health.

The 49-year-old Australian has been charged in the US under the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic cables.

"I have decided that extradition would be oppressive and I order his discharge," judge Vanessa Baraitser said in her ruling Monday.
Despite ruling that Assange would be afforded a "fair trial" in the event of extradition to the United States, the judge considered that the "special administrative measures" Assange would most likely be held in would have a severe negative impact on his mental health.

In her full ruling, published online, Baraitser wrote: "I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold ... However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange's mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the 'single minded determination' of his autism spectrum disorder."

"I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America," she added.
The US said it would appeal against the decision.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

You must have missed my response to koods where I said "That probably shouldn't have been released" and I also said "Politico has some good summaries here and here" of why they should be released.

---

I saw nothing in your response condemning Assange for releasing them.  Tell me why he shouldn't go to jail for that.

---

Assange didn't steal the information, he simply published information he was given.  Is that illegal for journalists to do?

---

koods said:

Journalists do not solicit people to hack information. That is a crime.

---