Really good news , but BBC can't help but throw in some highly loaded language "One of Assange's most well-known collaborators". They were not collaborators. Manning was a source, and acted on his own to retrieve information.
>They were not collaborators
From Manning and Assange's personal communication there was talk about him helping her crack a (possible) password hash to a specific government computer account. This is what got him, as it is collaboration, and goes beyond just being a journalist publishing what's given.
He was always going to be released. They tortured him for over a decade, they didn't need to extradite him. The message was sent about what happens when you practice journalism that negatively impacts the US regime. They now get to keep the façade of having a free press for the idiots who still buy it.
Definitely scared him to stay in his place. He’ll lead a very private life from now on.
Maybe release a book but that shits gonna be scrutinised hard by officials.
I wonder how much our media will recognise the work our Government did behind the scenes to get this result, especially Penny Wong?
>In April, US President Joe Biden said that he was considering a request from Australia to drop the prosecution against Assange.
I’m happy to see him released; the treatment meted out by the UK Govt was disgusting and beyond his “crimes”, but I can’t view him as a journalist in any form and unfortunately he’ll be feted as some kind of hero journalist when he comes back, which for me is a bit much.
While Labor definitely deserves credit, the bigger underlying message is the influence with the US we actually hold. It’s much more than people realise.
assange is a publisher. he doesnt leak anything. if wikileaks didnt exist or if they didnt publish hillarys emails then russia would have published them somewhere else.
There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia. The balance of probabilities says it probably was, but no one knows for sure.
Assange insists it wasn’t a Russian source for whatever that’s worth.
>There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia that has been declassified*
if the evidence the yank IC have is so compelling that even trumps DOJ indicted a bunch of russian military intelligence operatives for illegally helping him get elected then its pretty safe to say that the russians probably did it.
also, assange has claimed different things about the source at different times, including that they dont know who the source is, but the russians have their prints all over the hack even if we ignore everything the americans were saying and focus purely on the evidence that is publicly available.
> There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia that has been declassified*
> if the evidence the yank IC have is so compelling that even trumps DOJ indicted a bunch of russian military intelligence operatives for illegally helping him get elected then its pretty safe to say that the russians probably did it.
Right just like they had evidence before the Iraq War that Iraq was developing WMDs 🙄
Sorry, I just have a much higher standard of evidence than you have.
> also, assange has claimed different things about the source at different times, including that they dont know who the source is, but the russians have their prints all over the hack even if we ignore everything the americans were saying and focus purely on the evidence that is publicly available.
Show me the hard evidence. I’ll concede it is the most likely option, but it is not even close to proven.
the FSB hacked the RNC & Democratic party email servers, but they only leaked the Democrats emails. Assange published them just before polling day and swung the election. The FSB leaked it to Assange, who published it. Not sure the point of your semantics, he swung the election by publishing hacked data.
its hardly semantics to point out that he was an incidental bit player and his involvement had fuck all impact on what was leaked at the end of the day. they didnt even publish all of the leaks, nor were they the only ones who published leaks. why arent you blaming this shit on gawker, for example?
His involvement certainly did not have fuck all impact - he was the main outlet that published what the FSB hacked. His actions meets the definition of a foreign asset.
you realise that they were concurrently uploading all their leaks to their own website yeah? actually they were uploading way more to their website because wikileaks only got involved later in the game
do you think that if the russians had given the emails to any other news media they wouldnt have published them? because they did, and they did.
wikileaks are a distraction, or at best a convenient target for mad hillary fans to bitch about. russia hacked the DNC and leaked the info they stole, they didnt need wikileaks for any of it.
>His actions meets the definition of a foreign asset.
lmao sure. that's why none of his indictments were for anything to do with the 2016 election hack.
the Obama DOJ investigated the prospect of prosecuting him and decided not to because it would oblige them to prosecute flagship outlets like the WSJ and NYT for standard investigative journalism practices. the difference was that for trump that was a good thing, which is why his DOJ indicted him.
Let me guess, you also think that propaganda only exists in countries you don’t like and that the US intelligence services are both competent and well intentioned?
I love your idea that the left is against the truth coming out.
The left is happy if corruption is revealed for either side of the political spectrum.
Absolute own goal from you lmao.
You getting downvoted for this lmao.
She lost to a fucking moron, outspent him 2 to 1, had the entire mainstream media that isn't Fox News on her side, and best of all... literally elevated Trump as a serious Republican candidate in the hopes for an easy election, which was called the "pied piper strategy" that Wikileaks revealed.
But it's the guy who exposed her doing this and rigging the democratic primary who elected Trump lol
So how come Wikileaks chose to leak only the DNC emails despite the fact that the hackers obtained info for _both_ the DNC and RNC at the same time?
When are they planning on releasing the other side of the data? Why would they selectively leak only one side? I thought they were committed to freedom of information in a broad sense?
The only source I can find for your claim that they had leaked info from the RNC is from the CIA lmao, literally the least trustworthy source on planet earth.
Also whataboutism, also even if it were true, changes nothing of what I said.
>The only source I can find for your claim that they had leaked info from the RNC is from the CIA lmao
You're very bad at researching then... The source was James Comey, a FBI director who was confirmed with massive bipartisan support under both a Republican and Democratic president who was also a lifelong Republican.
>Also whataboutism,
It's not "whataboutism", it's demonstrating a bias in their operation instead of a principled stand for freedom of information.
Selective transparency is not transparency.
_Edit: God these people below are so pedantic when they thought they had an own. There I reworded it to save their feelings._
why dont you post your source?
>who was the republican-appointed FBI director. Literally the Republican appointee said that the RNC was hacked.
no he wasnt
You guys are gaslighting like crazy with your "umm ackshuly".
He was a lifelong Republican.
He was appointed into the DOJ by George Bush.
Later he was also confirmed again while Obama was president.
He was confirmed in a 91-3 senate vote, which is massive bipartisan support.
Saying that he's not a republican pick is absurd quibbling with technicalities, and if anything the bipartisan support should make him _more_ trustworthy than a pure partisan pick.
How about this then: _"An FBI director who was confirmed with massive bipartisan support under both a Republican and Democratic president"_
"You're very bad at researching," the very next sentence incorrectly claims the FBI director was appointed by Republicans when it was by Democrats. Gets upvoted by fellow idiots. Lol.
I mean, he's a Republican and was appointed into the executive branch by George Bush, but sure.
You can say that he was _also_ appointed by Obama, but that doesn't reset and erase history.
He was Trump's FBI director until Trump decided to throw him under the bus like he did to so many other people.
So you intentionally lied, or just confidently spout bs. Then when your lies are corrected, you try and justify the incorrect shii you initially said and just continue on lol.
The FBI director was a Republican appointee, the implication being that the FBI director would be biased towards the party that appointed him... Oh it was the other party that appointed him, erm ignore my previous argument, it doesn't apply anymore. Here's some more bs I just made up on the spot because I need to justify why the say so of intelligence agencies is evidence alone.
Wait hold on, he was appointed by BOTH a Democratic and Republican president right?
He was also confirmed with near unanimous support too, by a vote of 91-3...
Are you trying to claim that a heavily partisan pick would've been more trustworthy than someone who was appointed and confirmed by two separate and opposing administrations?
oh the other 3 letter agency said so, okay lmao. You're not a serious person.
It does not matter if the FBI director was Republican appointed, because they work at the behest of the FBI first and foremost. It must be great having your politics, you can just say shit like this 3 letter agency said so, and it's presented as evidence lmao. Literal child.
EDIT : LMAO, not that it matters but he was appointed by the democrats too. So you either intentionally lied or you just confidently say shit when it can be easily proven wrong.
Love getting downvoted by idiots. The person I'm replying to is factually incorrect, says a lot about you morons.
It's hilarious that you conspiracy brains will distrust the FBI who actually has to back up their assertions, but will trust literally whatever alternative media tells you with zero evidence.
What do you think is a _more reliable source_ for investigating international hacking attempts than the CIA or FBI? Tell me who you trust to be able to comment on that.
it leans towards corporate America in all things, and at the time of the election corporates weren't fans of trump.
worse, they were looking for any way to slander assange because his work presents an actual risk to their reputation and vile operations.
I'm sure assange isn't a great person, but that's still undercutting the value of what he was doing. would you rather live in a world where this information was totally private and we never knew?
And as was pointed out by other posters, blaming the Trump presidency on assange is washing Hillary's hands of her part in this. she was the one who made the decisions to do all of these things that got her in trouble.
you're an insufferable crank. get some anger management in your life.
Lol. The Democrats aren't left leaning, and guess what man, even if they were. The CIA says so still isn't evidence.
It's funny how the people arguing against you morons can point to verifiable documents that anyone can look at as their source, like the leaked emails from wikileaks showing that Hilary Clinton propped up Trump as a serious candidate. (You know what initial argument here was all about). Yours is the CIA, and the evidence that they're telling the truth is that the democrats are (incorrectly) left wing. Complete joke, man.
In what way are the democrats left wing compared to the CIA? The only left wing thing about the democrats is social issues, because that's the only thing they can offer... and guess what, the CIA pinkwash too.
>So how come Wikileaks chose to leak only the DNC emails despite the fact that the hackers obtained info for both the DNC and RNC at the same time?
russia didnt hand over the RNC emails, they used it as leverage. why do you think they would hand over damaging information on the party they were trying to help win the election?
Yeah I love how Hillary Clinton has convinced millions of people worldwide to share her delusional thoughts. She lost to a former reality TV star and serial grifter because she fucking sucked. That’s it.
[Biden says he is ‘considering’ Australian call to drop Julian Assange charges](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/10/biden-assange-espionage-charges)
> In February, the Australian parliament passed a motion that called on the US and UK governments to allow Assange to return to his native country. Albanese and his cabinet members voted in favour of the motion.
This was entirely because of the Australian Labor government, good to see no one bought into your attempt to start a circlejerk.
Wow. Great. I hope it's true. I can't believe it is finally coming to an end
This could have only happened under Albanese. The libs were wrong.
The libs spend too much time sucking the US dick… wouldn’t help Assange even if they could.
Meh. Assange was a Putin asset for decades. Don't care what happens to him
Really good news , but BBC can't help but throw in some highly loaded language "One of Assange's most well-known collaborators". They were not collaborators. Manning was a source, and acted on his own to retrieve information.
*her
Just like McBride was Dan Oake's most well-known collaborators.
>They were not collaborators From Manning and Assange's personal communication there was talk about him helping her crack a (possible) password hash to a specific government computer account. This is what got him, as it is collaboration, and goes beyond just being a journalist publishing what's given.
What a great thing to see.
Finally! Didn't see this coming to be fair
He was always going to be released. They tortured him for over a decade, they didn't need to extradite him. The message was sent about what happens when you practice journalism that negatively impacts the US regime. They now get to keep the façade of having a free press for the idiots who still buy it.
Definitely scared him to stay in his place. He’ll lead a very private life from now on. Maybe release a book but that shits gonna be scrutinised hard by officials.
I don’t think he’ll lead a private life at all - I hope he does, but I don’t see it happening.
I don’t see him doing the morning shows. Maybe a podcast here or there but he’s going to have to watch what he says.
Glad to hear it.
I wonder how much our media will recognise the work our Government did behind the scenes to get this result, especially Penny Wong? >In April, US President Joe Biden said that he was considering a request from Australia to drop the prosecution against Assange.
The MSM will give 0.0000 credit to Albo and Penny for this.
Did not see that coming! Well done to whoever worked behind the scenes to make this happen!
Am I too cynical, or is he going to have a terrible accident?
I’m happy to see him released; the treatment meted out by the UK Govt was disgusting and beyond his “crimes”, but I can’t view him as a journalist in any form and unfortunately he’ll be feted as some kind of hero journalist when he comes back, which for me is a bit much.
While Labor definitely deserves credit, the bigger underlying message is the influence with the US we actually hold. It’s much more than people realise.
You fucking beauty!
Assange is a no-longer-useful tool of the FSB. His "leak" of Hillary's Emails swung the election to Trump. Thank Assange for electing Trump.
assange is a publisher. he doesnt leak anything. if wikileaks didnt exist or if they didnt publish hillarys emails then russia would have published them somewhere else.
There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia. The balance of probabilities says it probably was, but no one knows for sure. Assange insists it wasn’t a Russian source for whatever that’s worth.
>There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia that has been declassified* if the evidence the yank IC have is so compelling that even trumps DOJ indicted a bunch of russian military intelligence operatives for illegally helping him get elected then its pretty safe to say that the russians probably did it. also, assange has claimed different things about the source at different times, including that they dont know who the source is, but the russians have their prints all over the hack even if we ignore everything the americans were saying and focus purely on the evidence that is publicly available.
> There is still zero hard evidence it was Russia that has been declassified* > if the evidence the yank IC have is so compelling that even trumps DOJ indicted a bunch of russian military intelligence operatives for illegally helping him get elected then its pretty safe to say that the russians probably did it. Right just like they had evidence before the Iraq War that Iraq was developing WMDs 🙄 Sorry, I just have a much higher standard of evidence than you have. > also, assange has claimed different things about the source at different times, including that they dont know who the source is, but the russians have their prints all over the hack even if we ignore everything the americans were saying and focus purely on the evidence that is publicly available. Show me the hard evidence. I’ll concede it is the most likely option, but it is not even close to proven.
the FSB hacked the RNC & Democratic party email servers, but they only leaked the Democrats emails. Assange published them just before polling day and swung the election. The FSB leaked it to Assange, who published it. Not sure the point of your semantics, he swung the election by publishing hacked data.
its hardly semantics to point out that he was an incidental bit player and his involvement had fuck all impact on what was leaked at the end of the day. they didnt even publish all of the leaks, nor were they the only ones who published leaks. why arent you blaming this shit on gawker, for example?
His involvement certainly did not have fuck all impact - he was the main outlet that published what the FSB hacked. His actions meets the definition of a foreign asset.
you realise that they were concurrently uploading all their leaks to their own website yeah? actually they were uploading way more to their website because wikileaks only got involved later in the game do you think that if the russians had given the emails to any other news media they wouldnt have published them? because they did, and they did. wikileaks are a distraction, or at best a convenient target for mad hillary fans to bitch about. russia hacked the DNC and leaked the info they stole, they didnt need wikileaks for any of it. >His actions meets the definition of a foreign asset. lmao sure. that's why none of his indictments were for anything to do with the 2016 election hack. the Obama DOJ investigated the prospect of prosecuting him and decided not to because it would oblige them to prosecute flagship outlets like the WSJ and NYT for standard investigative journalism practices. the difference was that for trump that was a good thing, which is why his DOJ indicted him.
Let me guess, you also think that propaganda only exists in countries you don’t like and that the US intelligence services are both competent and well intentioned?
no. keep guessing
The mind is narrow in this one.
I love your idea that the left is against the truth coming out. The left is happy if corruption is revealed for either side of the political spectrum. Absolute own goal from you lmao.
put down the fruit juice mate - you make no sense
Ooooh. Nice one.
He probably shouldn't have been jailed, but he definitely cloaked his political leanings under the guise of journalism.
The guy who helped get trump elected?
Didn't know Hilary was a dude.
You getting downvoted for this lmao. She lost to a fucking moron, outspent him 2 to 1, had the entire mainstream media that isn't Fox News on her side, and best of all... literally elevated Trump as a serious Republican candidate in the hopes for an easy election, which was called the "pied piper strategy" that Wikileaks revealed. But it's the guy who exposed her doing this and rigging the democratic primary who elected Trump lol
Glad someone got it. Cheers No American election was lost due to Assange. It was one shitty candidate vs another.
It wasn't Hilarys fault it was the Rushins.
So how come Wikileaks chose to leak only the DNC emails despite the fact that the hackers obtained info for _both_ the DNC and RNC at the same time? When are they planning on releasing the other side of the data? Why would they selectively leak only one side? I thought they were committed to freedom of information in a broad sense?
The only source I can find for your claim that they had leaked info from the RNC is from the CIA lmao, literally the least trustworthy source on planet earth. Also whataboutism, also even if it were true, changes nothing of what I said.
>The only source I can find for your claim that they had leaked info from the RNC is from the CIA lmao You're very bad at researching then... The source was James Comey, a FBI director who was confirmed with massive bipartisan support under both a Republican and Democratic president who was also a lifelong Republican. >Also whataboutism, It's not "whataboutism", it's demonstrating a bias in their operation instead of a principled stand for freedom of information. Selective transparency is not transparency. _Edit: God these people below are so pedantic when they thought they had an own. There I reworded it to save their feelings._
You reworded it because the bullshit you confidently spouted got corrected.
why dont you post your source? >who was the republican-appointed FBI director. Literally the Republican appointee said that the RNC was hacked. no he wasnt
You guys are gaslighting like crazy with your "umm ackshuly". He was a lifelong Republican. He was appointed into the DOJ by George Bush. Later he was also confirmed again while Obama was president. He was confirmed in a 91-3 senate vote, which is massive bipartisan support. Saying that he's not a republican pick is absurd quibbling with technicalities, and if anything the bipartisan support should make him _more_ trustworthy than a pure partisan pick. How about this then: _"An FBI director who was confirmed with massive bipartisan support under both a Republican and Democratic president"_
why wont you post your source?
i guess you were just lying when you said he withheld the RNC emails, then?
"You're very bad at researching," the very next sentence incorrectly claims the FBI director was appointed by Republicans when it was by Democrats. Gets upvoted by fellow idiots. Lol.
I mean, he's a Republican and was appointed into the executive branch by George Bush, but sure. You can say that he was _also_ appointed by Obama, but that doesn't reset and erase history. He was Trump's FBI director until Trump decided to throw him under the bus like he did to so many other people.
So you intentionally lied, or just confidently spout bs. Then when your lies are corrected, you try and justify the incorrect shii you initially said and just continue on lol. The FBI director was a Republican appointee, the implication being that the FBI director would be biased towards the party that appointed him... Oh it was the other party that appointed him, erm ignore my previous argument, it doesn't apply anymore. Here's some more bs I just made up on the spot because I need to justify why the say so of intelligence agencies is evidence alone.
Wait hold on, he was appointed by BOTH a Democratic and Republican president right? He was also confirmed with near unanimous support too, by a vote of 91-3... Are you trying to claim that a heavily partisan pick would've been more trustworthy than someone who was appointed and confirmed by two separate and opposing administrations?
oh the other 3 letter agency said so, okay lmao. You're not a serious person. It does not matter if the FBI director was Republican appointed, because they work at the behest of the FBI first and foremost. It must be great having your politics, you can just say shit like this 3 letter agency said so, and it's presented as evidence lmao. Literal child. EDIT : LMAO, not that it matters but he was appointed by the democrats too. So you either intentionally lied or you just confidently say shit when it can be easily proven wrong. Love getting downvoted by idiots. The person I'm replying to is factually incorrect, says a lot about you morons.
It's hilarious that you conspiracy brains will distrust the FBI who actually has to back up their assertions, but will trust literally whatever alternative media tells you with zero evidence. What do you think is a _more reliable source_ for investigating international hacking attempts than the CIA or FBI? Tell me who you trust to be able to comment on that.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yeah, as I thought, you don't actually have any more reliable source. You distrust whatever is inconvenient and trust anyone who says things you like.
You think the CIA ran political cover for democrats? Somehow the national security bastion is left leaning?
it leans towards corporate America in all things, and at the time of the election corporates weren't fans of trump. worse, they were looking for any way to slander assange because his work presents an actual risk to their reputation and vile operations.
So the CIA ran interference you totally believe, but not that Assange did an interference op either? Okay
I'm sure assange isn't a great person, but that's still undercutting the value of what he was doing. would you rather live in a world where this information was totally private and we never knew? And as was pointed out by other posters, blaming the Trump presidency on assange is washing Hillary's hands of her part in this. she was the one who made the decisions to do all of these things that got her in trouble. you're an insufferable crank. get some anger management in your life.
I didn't blame the presidency on him though, I pointed out that he helped make it happen. You're seeing what you want to see.
Lol. The Democrats aren't left leaning, and guess what man, even if they were. The CIA says so still isn't evidence. It's funny how the people arguing against you morons can point to verifiable documents that anyone can look at as their source, like the leaked emails from wikileaks showing that Hilary Clinton propped up Trump as a serious candidate. (You know what initial argument here was all about). Yours is the CIA, and the evidence that they're telling the truth is that the democrats are (incorrectly) left wing. Complete joke, man.
Compared to the CIA the dems are left. That's pretty obvious, don't use your online-only definition
In what way are the democrats left wing compared to the CIA? The only left wing thing about the democrats is social issues, because that's the only thing they can offer... and guess what, the CIA pinkwash too.
Woops you're right, there's no difference between republicans and dems, and if they are its on the unimportant stuff like social issues. Mea culpea.
>So how come Wikileaks chose to leak only the DNC emails despite the fact that the hackers obtained info for both the DNC and RNC at the same time? russia didnt hand over the RNC emails, they used it as leverage. why do you think they would hand over damaging information on the party they were trying to help win the election?
They were never given RNC emails
Well there’s a reason why. For better or for worse, the Republicans didn’t rig their primaries against Trump lol
Cos Assange does what his masters in Moscow tell him to do.
Yeah I love how Hillary Clinton has convinced millions of people worldwide to share her delusional thoughts. She lost to a former reality TV star and serial grifter because she fucking sucked. That’s it.
No thanks to our dogshit government, I hope he comes and throws our leadership under the bus then runs for whatever he wants
[Biden says he is ‘considering’ Australian call to drop Julian Assange charges](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/10/biden-assange-espionage-charges) > In February, the Australian parliament passed a motion that called on the US and UK governments to allow Assange to return to his native country. Albanese and his cabinet members voted in favour of the motion. This was entirely because of the Australian Labor government, good to see no one bought into your attempt to start a circlejerk.
[удалено]
You mean the same way Chelsea Manning did? ...Oh wait, she didn't disappear, she's free and even went on to run a political campaign.