The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life
jonathan-cook.net
jonathan-cook.net
Damn right. The treatment of Assange has dealt a terrible blow to the possibility of exposing criminal doings in the military, corporations, political parties, whatever. It sets the example that whistleblowers will not be protected.
So how did we end up here? Maybe many reasons but primarily I think maybe the Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only. It will by necessity alienate any powerful interests that might protect you.
As it stands, only principled people side with Assange, people who insist that core democratic principles should trump the shortsighted interests of the state. Such people are few and far between nowadays, but are normally thought to be populating the courts, at least at higher levels, which is the last straw we can cling to.
But with a partisan press that has turned their backs on Assange there is hardly any pressure on the courts to do the right thing.
Naturally, it's always easier to get others to understand problems and viewpoints when matters are simple. When things are more complex, it's more difficult to get others to come to a common agreement or understanding. As so, the reason the world might seem more polarized today, (or why principled people always seem to be short in supply), might simply be due to the sheer complexity of the world which acts to divide everyone. And it's likely getting worse as the modern world becomes more complex. Such people who prevailed and brought upon prior golden ages, likely did so against the odds, as otherwise golden ages would be norm.
The question of whether he is a journalist is irrelevant to me. What I do see is that he was a highly partisan actor involved in the affairs of nation states. His behavior around the 2016 election further moved him in the direction of willing accomplice to election interference. His selective publication of data also makes me highly suspicious of his behavior. It all had a very clear slant and focus around the election. He even supposedly solicited information from Russian intelligence agents at one point.
Maybe somewhere in all of Assange's partisan hackery, I can see an argument that he didn't actually do anything wrong. And, since he is very polarizing, you would have to stick to strong principles to still support him and what his legal plight represents. However, I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press, which is honestly his biggest problem. No one cares about another partisan hack going by the wayside of a potentially corrupt prosecution. "You get what you deserve". I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit.
In reality, the accusation, which I believe is credible, is that he was an active conspirator in an effort to steal state secrets, and not just a mild mannered clearing house that published what it got through highly clean and legal means. He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. He has a hard time telling the truth and based on the facts is morally and ethically bankrupt.
People like Glenn Greenwald managed to handle things like Snowden much more cleanly and without the obvious bias and legal/ethical concerns of an Assange figure.
Assange being an unsympathetic figure is largely a result of the fierce media campaign to paint him as one. Most of us have never met him, have only read about him in hostile media. Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker made the point well, I think:
> When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don't typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us...
You write:
> The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning.
Have you read the testimony of experts about this? See for example Eric Lewis, a practising US attorney and former law professor:
> [Prosectuor] James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted?
> Eric Lewis: Yes.
> James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law?
> Eric Lewis: No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Here's investigative journalist Nicky Hager:
> [Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?
> Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.
Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was.
> ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party.
I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a...
She writes:
> In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.”
Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so.
Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc.
It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role.
Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are?
And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is?
How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide?
Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.
> I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit.
> He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning.
Enough with the hand waving. This is a technical forum where you're writing for people who are familiar with things like NTLM and hashing. Let's talk facts. Assange is being charged due to the following instant message conversation.
> Manning: any good at lm hash cracking?
> Assange: yes
> Assange: <continuing conversation, goes off on a short tangent about wikileaks funding>
> Assange: we have rainbow tables for lm.
> Manning: 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
> Manning: I think it's lm + lmnt
> Manning: anyway...
> Manning: need sleep :yawn:
> Manning: not even sure if that's the hash... I had to hexdump a SAM file, since I don't have the system file...
> Assange: what makes you think it's lm?
> Assange: its from a SAM?
> Manning: yeah
> Assange: passed it onto our lm guy
> Manning: thx
Then, 2 days later after a long discussion about wikileaks and intelligence agencies and other leaks.
> Assange: any more hints about this lm hash?
> Assange: no luck so far
And that's the end of it. Whole conversation here: https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2...
Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked. No additional access was had. He maybe put in a half-hearted attempt to crack a hash. To me, this is not being "actively involved" in "hunting for government secrets."
edit: I think it speaks volumes that this is the best thing they can find to stick him with.
Cracking hashes alone is not a crime or I'd be in jail.
Did you crack a hash as some part of a computer contest?
Or were you helping someone crack the hash with the intent to get access to a US DoD government computer?
The way the law is apparently written, the first is not illegal. The second would be conspiracy.
Your post is a red herring as it is obvious the prosecution is using more than this one conversation make its case.
And he is being charged with much more than conspiracy to intrude into govt computer systems so again your post is way too narrow.
For me personally, HN has failed to show how this case is uniquely more perverse than the run of the mill "he stole a pencil when he was a youth" vs "he talked about reading generals' emails at 17" (for Assange) - it's the norm in the US legal system.
Is this the first case that awakened HN to how unjust our legal system is? I can't help but feel that is where most of the outrage comes from. Not the specifics of this case, which look terrible for Assange (not saying it's his fault they look terrible but they do).
Protestors are being charged with a possible sentence of 6 mo to 99 years right now. That kind of discretion and ambiguity is disgusting but it is a feature. They can get Assange for anything just like an "hacker" could be jailed for bypassing an API.
I'm sorry but the legal system and our laws are unjust. But don't channel everything through Assange and make it seem like this is anything new.
They have him in their crosshairs, you and I are lucky it's not our turn. Why is it Assange's? Maybe to chill future dissent and fact based journalism, maybe this executive branch has something specific to fear.
-----
Wikileaks canary dumps' dencryption keys were never published. In 2016-2017 something happened. Idk why Assange never published them, but it's possible wikileaks was comprised by the US govt early on in the Trump admin or late Obama admin. Maybe someone has more knowledge on this part.
Its obvious why they go after every single leaker, to prevent anyone else from following their example. 'You want to be a hero? You will end up like Snowden, or Assange or tortured in prison outside of US soil.
Makes it all the more frustrating when people try to defend what the United States Government has done to hide their crimes for which they have yet to be held accountable.
When groups like the ACLU have pushed issues via lawsuits its often with a very specific, media attention perfect client like Rosa Parks who cannot be vilified or attacked for a past criminal record or documented issues with society and law enforcement. Not because those people don't deserve representation but because their cases were too easy to strike down and prevent progress on the underlying issue. We see this today with so many validating the killing of George Floyd because of a past criminal record or recent behavior without eve considering if those actions deserved a death sentence or night in jail. It's sad but it's true.
The Swedish rape case would have made it more difficult for the US to extradite Assange, as that case would have had priority in the UK (since it was first in time, and more importantly, actually proceeding when Assange went into isolation), and Sweden is less likely to extradite to the US than the UK.
When groups like the ACLU have pushed issues via lawsuits its often with a very specific, media attention perfect client like Rosa Parks who cannot be vilified or attacked for a past criminal record or documented issues with society and law enforcement.
I see that you are unfamiliar with the actual history of the ACLU, which has also defended neo-nazis/white supremacists, Larry Flynt, self-described terrorists, and other degenerates in precedent-setting cases.
And regardless of whether or not you believe that, if he had been extradited from the UK to Sweden, the UK would have to consent to the onward extradition to the US. He would've had the ability to fight it in two legal systems, both of whom would have to agree the extradition were legal, rather than just one.
This ignores the 30 times Assange offered to be extradited to Sweden if Sweden provided some assurance that they wouldn't extradite to the US. It also doesn't account for the incredibly strange ways the case was handled, like Assange checking with prosecutors for permission to leave the country, and then those prosecutors issuing an arrest warrant the day he left.
So while things got a little better later, it looked very bleak at the time.
To me the question is, is that conspiracy? Even if he made only a half hearted attempt, wasn't it still an attempt in case he got lucky with the password hash?
Granted, IANAL, but 18 USC 1030(b) does have language for conspiracy [1]. It's worth noting that conspiracy can exist whether or not there was any actual trespass.
This is similar to conspiracy to commit murder, e.g. The murder does not need to have happened in order to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. And that appears to be the way the law is written here.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/l...
I don't claim there is some higher power (e.g. the direction of history, science) from where democracy as a societal telos (i.e. end goal) gains its legitimacy. I just think most people desire democracy as a telos for society, and this collective desire is a basis for ethics.
The version of ethics according to which Assange is unethical is a jurdical view of ethics, where the laws created by the state are taken to be the laws of ethics. But the moment you accept that this juridical ethics is a transcendent source of objective truth, you've taken an extremely one sided partisan political position i.e. that of the elites, who wrote the laws, and created the laws of ethics that reinforce the status quo.
Of course you could. Any journalist that participated in the years-long character assassination to make Assange appear "less sympathetic" is a less sympathetic character themselves...
You'd only do that if you were stupid enough to not already understand that the accusation was setup, with a little US pressure into an anyways willing subordinate government (Sweden), to get you to a circus trial and then extradition.
Fortunately Assange was not that naive.
>election interference
Is fake news, the only real election interference is preventing people to vote.
Greenwald went on Tucker's show, to beg Trump to pardon Assange. [0] The theory is that this is the surest way to communicate with Trump. Snowden just appeared on Rogan to argue on Assange's behalf. Those who actually respect Greenwald's and Snowden's judgment, join them in supporting Assange.
Snowden: "While all of these news organisations around the world, all of these publishers, were trying to get a piece of the story, there was only one publisher that actually said we want to help the source. We want to make sure he's okay. We want to make sure that no matter what happens, he has somebody on his side, and that was Wikileaks."
I am reminded of HL Mencken's quote - The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Not losing the WWII, that's why. During the WWII, all participants committed the war crimes. Only the losers were prosecuted. US got away with it.
> Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only.
This doesn’t square. Assange wasn’t exposing everything he got, nor was he interested in looking for info on all countries.
He was primarily focused on exposing info in one direction, the US, and actually had expressed indifference to exposing info on Russia.
So it is impossible for his treatment to show anything about what happens if you exposure corruption equally without direction, because that is not what he did.
He only shows an anecdote of what happens when you focus exposing corruption in a single foreign country, and go beyond that, to strongly support certain candidates in their elections due to personal grudges.
Edit: proof -> https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-document...
I was refusing the claim that what happened to assange is an example of what happens to someone who exposes corruption indiscriminately.
It sounds like you just agreed with me in that Assange was partisan, and thus cannot be an example of what the OP claimed.
At no point do the people offering the documents seem to reply with "only part of it is public." Without saying that, this doesn't serve as proof of anything except Wikileaks making a mistake.
That was overtly partisan and thus their actions and exposures were not neutral exposure of all secrets, but targeted exposures with goals.
Thus again, not what the OP claimed.
This is the part that worries me the most - how the hell did we end up in a situation where exposing war crimes by a western nation is likely to have the whistleblower tortured and left to rot in solitary confinement for the rest of their life?
And how the hell did we get to a place where few people seem to even care about the war crimes, and where the powers that be have been able to spin this so most people think the whistleblower did wrong?
The whole situation says a lot about the current state of the US and the rest of the 5-eyes. Honestly, it's fucking terrifying.
Uhh. This article obsesses slightly about Journalist vs Not but they aren’t a class that gets special protection under the US Constitution. There is no category of privilege or freedom based on that status and they are not registered by any central authority that authorizes the benefits of its protection. The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press, in the style of Thomas Paine, and any collaborators.
Legally, the question of whether Assange is a journalist is basically immaterial.
This is exactly what the prosecution tried to say, but it's not that easy. Did you read the testimony of investigative journalist Nicky Hager:
'[Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?
'Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.'
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
And thus, in the interest of checks and balances, journalists should be shielded from prosecution.
If you're in the CIA, for example, you can't blow the whistle legally, at all. You'll always be breaking some law (security clearance, most often).
Legally, maybe so, but if he's being prosecuted based on activity that many other journalists engage in, that clearly should be seen a huge threat.
Cook and others have argued that there was a reluctance to prosecute on those grounds because the prosecution feared it would generate too much media outrage. Craig Murray in one of his pieces suggested that he thinks that due to the lack of media interest in the case, the prosecution have now been emboldened to pursue him however they like.
There has ALWAYS been the unwritten rule that media outlets are not charged under the espionage act, as they were doing their civic duty reporting on stuff the government doesn't want reported.
You can say about Assange what you want but it's undeniable he is only the PUBLISHER, and not the one who stole the docs.
The fact that he is charged for publishing is a line that the US Govt is crossing, and that's why it's significant.
isn't that exactly what is being contested?
Does the First Amendment even apply to Julian Assange? He is a citizen of Australia as far as I am aware.
That being said, it would be difficult to convince me that the actions of Assange and Wikileaks rise to the level of espionage. None of what I've seen would indicate that he's actually done that.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need - see item 3.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about the 1st amendment, but nwallin’s claims just sound weird.
If he were run through Canada/UK/Aus courts you wouldnt see the same argument.
What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
There's no legal way to fix a broken legal system, just as an inconsistent logical system can't overcome itself.
Legal systems are not actually that rigid, see for example the long tradition of SCOTUS overturning case precedent including their own. See also the large number of elected judges in the US, who could be replaced directly by people.
Weird how we've gone from expecting journalists to cover multiple sides of a story to this. And by weird I mean horrifying
You mean ends don't justify means? That has proven to be a hardsell to ideologues. Principle moral failing of the modern man is adopting this 'universal moral and ethical waiver' as their guiding light (regardless of affected ideological garb).
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
Had he dumped a trove on Trump he would be feted by the media instead he is a pariah
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11142215334617907...
I mean. Do I need to say anymore?
You can't be a freedom fighter and be OK with that statement. It's mutually exclusive. Period.
Has someone actually read the charges to see what Assange is accused of? Surely it's something more than "publishing secret documents." Are they accusing him of exercising free speech, or accusing him of actual crimes?
They're accusing him of helping and encouraging the "stealing" of state secrets, which he then exposed.
And follow the trial updates to see the issues. Day 17 is particularly risible.
Based on what I read (might be biased) he's charged for helping Chelsea Manning getting the documents (hacking) and publishing the documents before they were fully redacted to remove names and things that could help identify people - to protect the safety of people involved (common practice). This is debatable because he worked hard to redact name (together with the big newspapers), but other people published the raw documents before him and in the end Wiki Leaks release raw documents as well.
All this is pieced together based on Craig Murray's blog [1], which is often flagged here on HN.
We would be loosing our minds of how China has audacity to even try shit like that.
The one hacking charge is 5years total sentence of 125yrs that us is seeking.
HK case is completely different where China tried to pass far reaching law based on a murder case, that was the reason people did protested (on top of other power grab by CHinese government).
> Hong Kong police have issued arrest warrants for six overseas-based democracy activists
> US national Chu, who is the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington DC-based advocacy group promoting freedom and autonomy for Hong Kong, appears to be the first known non-Hong Kong citizen to be targeted under the new security law.
> In recent weeks, several countries have suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, including the United Kingdom and Australia. On Friday, Germany joined that list
The short version is they're accusing him of encouraging and engaging in illegal acts to obtain documents, not just publishing the documents.
EDIT: Updated link as per acqq's comment. Old link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
If the source doesn't have the information yet then you are asking them to steal government secrets, the crime for which is conspiracy to steal government secrets. That's traditionally what spies do, not journalists, which is why the crime exists.
Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.
The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime.
Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far."
So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
I was specifically responding to the idea that telling someone about a program was furthering a crime. You're arguing a different point. And to me it's completely uninteresting to argue over what USG can technically charge him with, because we already know that USG is adept at crafting and twisting law to justify its own actions.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/07/judge-railroads-assange-a...
"On June 24, [2020] the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment. It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015.
The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense, but not the court, on July 2. Then, on August 12, a fresh extradition request based on the third indictment was issued. (It was dated July 17.)
Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges, contrary to the defense’s understanding, the new details are not “mere narrative.” They “constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled, and indeed must now determine [whether] an extradition offense is made out” under the relevant law.
Mark Summers, a lawyer for Assange, referred to two general allegations—Count 1, which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “national defense information,” and Count 2, which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
By adding new material, prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange, even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning was a criminal act."
There are no new indictments per se but it does add the allegation that Assange and wikileaks recruited hackers to commit computer crimes.
This is how it works everywhere that has theoretically free speech, but not practical free speech. The principle itself is rarely attacked, rather the surrounding activities are criminalized.
For example, these are actual excerpts from The PRC's Constitution (http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...):
> Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
> Article 36 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.
Does that sound like the practical situation in mainland China? How do you imagine a PRC court verdict about protesting reads?
Freedom of speech and privacy will be viewed as an act of sedition
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
Im glad this blog acquitted Assange of spying based on technicalities in his dictionary's definition of espionage. I think Assange did a great thing for the world, but it also sounds like he actively facilitated spying
Unless the judge and court in this instance reverse course completely, throw out most of the last two weeks as political maneuvering, and restart a fair and publicly accessible hearing, that is exactly what's happening.
And this is exactly the problem right there: corporate media isn’t really doing journalism!
Also, while I despise the fact that the Trump administration is doing this, let’s not forget that the Obama and Bush administration oversaw a mass surveillance program and the Obama administration threatened Snowden’s life and painted him as a Russian asset. We have been building towards authoritarianism for 1-2 decades now.
Communism led to the death of over 100M people. Communists operated at a high level in the US government. Communists are burning American cities right now, in 2020.
Every single attempt at implementing communism has led to violence and oppression at a massive scale.
You may not like it. You may desperately want to deflect. You may employ whataboutism, a term literally coined to describe the behavior of communist mouthpieces, to cast blame elsewhere. But that's just how it is.
If "reactionaries" are the only people offering substantive resistance to communism, then we need a hell of a lot more of them.
How do you figure?
What's stopping him, precisely?
Um, except of course Putin's Russia.
A. It's only speculated that Trump has some sort of special relation with Putin; it's by no means certain, and if so, this might not be part of their relation.
B. A relation between Trump and Putin doesn't have to mean much for the rest of the administration.
C. Assange is just a pawn.
D. Why would Trump draw even more attention to himself?
Saying that Trump has a special relationship with Putin isn't even close to speculation. It's an easily observable understatement of the decade.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-pentagon-officials-russi...
And I'm not talking about some random person commenting on the internet, I'm talking about all the judges, prosecutors, politicians, etc. who feel this way or support this way.
what do you mean by this? I'm not aware of any special protections for journalists. I'm not a journalist myself, but if I understand correctly, it would not be illegal for me to publish classified material if I received it second hand, since I don't myself have clearance or an obligation to protect the material. if I offered any kind of assistance to get more material, I would be headed into dangerous water. is this not correct?
Similarly, a whistleblower would normally have more protections than someone simply stealing company secrets. Another area where the focus is on stamping out any kind of leaks instead of addressing the target of those leaks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/journa...
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Protection/Am...
as an aside, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a reporter to have any statutory privileges over an ordinary citizen, especially under something so fundamental as the first amendment. if it's appropriate for a journalist, it should be granted to the rest of us as well.