• PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Assange is a Russian cocksucker who considerably assisted Trump’s narrow success in 2016. Fuck him.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s all true, but his original arrest and prosecution was still a politically-motivated attack on freedom of speech.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine falling for Assange’s bullshit so hard that you think he’s a free speech absolutely and not someone who leaked specific things for a specific purpose and that purpose was undermining democracy.

        • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, he’s a vindictive partisan hypocrite whose interest in “freedom of speech” is purely self-serving. But when it comes to precedents and principles, we don’t get to apply them selectively to people we like or dislike.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If I had that belief, I’d argue against the war machine then, rather than literally conspire to undermine a democracy by trying to sway public opinion in a dishonest way.

            Because those two things seem completely unrelated and one of them is really bad.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He was involved in obtaining docs from both the RNC and DNC, but for some reason only the DNC was leaked.

        Hmmmm, I wonder why

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also accused the Panama Papers of being a US hoax to discredit Great Leader Putin, and has refused to release major Russian leaks since 2010.

          • Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            2010? Why would he risk his live again? No western country gave him any safety. What do you expect?

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Mueller Report says that (1) Assange admitted he was covertly working to get a Republican elected as president and (2) getting a substantial amount of (sometimes doctored) information from the Kremlin.

        • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Remember: Two top level Russian hacking groups were in American DNC systems going all the way back to 2015.

          The two hacking groups also were in the American RNC networks since possibly before that time.

          One large group of information (DNC) was fully leaked through multiple channels.

          The other large group of information (RNC) was held back, kept secret, and was used/being used for other Kompromat and influence purposes.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree with the fuck him sentiment, the law should be used for justice, not to be vindictive.

      I agree with the proposition that information should be free. He was enabling that, even if he got used by one side, willingly or not. Heck, one third of America is conned into doing Russia’s purpose, whereas he was specifically targeted as an asset.

      • Kidplayer_666
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        My true question is. Why focus on assange, who is an arse, when you can focus on Edward Snowden who is way more benevolent and is still wanted for treason because he whistleblown the fact the NSA was conducting internal surveillance

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            To be fair to Snowden, his post-leak behavior was more of a series of panicked mistakes (curiously at least in part on advice from… Assange) that reduced his options to ‘Russia’ or ‘jail’. He’s probably not a bad faith actor or a willing Russian stooge.

            • cmbabul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cuba was right there, the US failed to kill Castro many many times, granted Snowden wouldn’t have had nearly the security as the leader of the country. But I somehow think the Cuban government would want to keep him safe to piss off the US, I guess he could be used there as a bargaining chip though so maybe I’m not the best spy

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                The US government probably has little interest in assassinating Snowden, honestly. “We can kill people in other places” isn’t really much of an example maker anymore, nor news to anyone. Now, trading him back to give him a hefty prison sentence as an example to other domestic whistleblowers? That’s probably much more in the cards.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nah man, I’m not gonna put the same level of condemnation on a Russian cocksucker like Assanage as I would on Snowden for being unprepared and naive.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you are on the side Greene maybe you should rethink your position. This man betrayed everything journalism stands for. He needs to be prosecuted very publicly. Large portions of this country still don’t understand what he did.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A group of lawmakers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called on President Biden to drop the extradition and prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

    “As members of Congress deeply committed to the principles of free speech and freedom of the press, we write to strongly encourage your Administration to withdraw the U.S. extradition request currently pending against Australian publisher Julian Assange and halt all prosecutorial proceedings against him as soon as possible,” a letter dated Wednesday by the group reads.

    The unity of the far-right and far-left lawmakers in the letter is notable, as many in the group have traded barbs with each other during their time in Congress.

    In the same week as the letter regarding Assange, Greene was a leader in the effort to censure Tlaib for her recent anti-Israel statements.

    The WikiLeaks founder was arrested in 2019 in the U.K. on a U.S. warrant and has been fighting in British court to try and avoid being extradited to the U.S. to face charges.

    “Press freedom, civil liberty, and human rights groups have been emphatic that the charges against Mr. Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment,” that group wrote at the time.


    The original article contains 311 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 29%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!