Meanwhile, they have an orange beanbag presidential hopeful spilling the beans to the whoever around the world and he gets millions of dollars of support, literal legal immunity from anything and 1/3 of the country want him to become their Cheeto leader in Mountain Dew.
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
383 points (97.3% liked)
News
37768 readers
2249 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That’s because that orange beanbag seated three associate justices of the Supreme Court, 54 judges for the courts of appeals, 174 district court judges, and three judges for the United States Court of International Trade.
Even worse, citizens want to let him do it again.
To be fair, Biden has seated almost as many judges in his term, so that has balanced out at the lower levels. With the very important exception of the Supreme Court.
There’s also the important point of Biden not committing crimes, like those that the commenter mentioned, and having those charges heard by one of his own appointed judges. Appeals from Trump’s other cases can potentially end up with one of his appointed appeals court judges, or ultimately be heard by the newly conservative Supreme Court, as you pointed out.
I mentioned it because that’s the notable difference between Assange’s and Trump’s ability to live above the law.
Please step into my secure toilet to see the nation's secrets.
I still can't believe that fucking happened and people just go on ignoring it
Hey I like mountain dew
Good for him - he's less innocent than folks like Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden but a heavy prosecution of him would definitely have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers. Did he release things at politically convenient times? Yes. Should that be illegal? Fuck no.
2016 Assange was a very different person than who he was in 2009. The espionage charges relating to the Chelsea Manning leaks were always bogus, but his involvement with the Trump campaign solidified him as a huge asshole in my mind.
Even back then, WikiLeaks was telling trump to claim the election was rigged and stolen. These are not the actions of a whistleblower, and it's clear he was not a whistleblower (or working with whistleblowers) during this period and likely a mouthpiece for Russia to sow division in the US.
Agreed. Assange is not the good guy in this. No one is in this.
but a heavy prosecution of him would definitely have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers
As if the last decade plus of his life were not enough for that. Better than a life sentence, yeah.
Legendary. That's him cleared in Sweden, UK, and the US. Apparently they're considering letting him return to Australia (his home country) as well. Godspeed, Assange!
Thats the catch, he has to fly home in a Boeing.
A whole new meaning to defenestration.
Im just imagining him being sucked out a window like a scene from Final Destination or something.
haha oh
"Cleared" is an interesting way to describe "pleaded guilty and sentenced to 62 months in prison." Dude just already served 5 years.
With time already served
Yes, that's what I said
Now the right will hate Assange lol
This is a real win for Biden. Despite all of Trump's praise for Wikileaks, he did nothing about Assange.
Of course, this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't an election year, but it's still a win.
In my opinion, absolutely. His legal exile lasted far too long... I think most people won't even know this happened unless the late night shows pick it up.
I wonder how many people even remember who he is without a refresher at this point. The general public's memory is short.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm glad he is finally free and I'm always thankful to anyone who exposes war crimes and whistleblowers.
This seems like a big deal.
If Assange wasn't in US territory when revealed classified information, why is he being judged by the US?
Was not the US should be judging the one/s who filtered the information and not who publish it?
u/@zabadoh@ani.social explained how
the reason is that the US can exercise such authority in practice with any consequences.
a bigger concern here is his native government's limp dick response tbh
aint he from AU?
the US can exercise such authority
Many countries have the authority to prosecute crimes that occur on their soil even if the perpetrator is outside the country. Including Assange's native country.
The foreign interference crimes apply to conduct that occurs in Australia. So, if the perpetrator was in Australia at the time they engaged in interference, then prosecuting them would be relatively straightforward, provided there was sufficient evidence. If an offender is outside Australia at the time of the interference, they could still be charged with a crime.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Anyone involved in a crime committed on US soil can be charged with the crime.
Do you suppose hacking your computer should be legal provided the hacker is in Russia?
If it's legal in Russia, they should not extradite.
If I post this picture to VK from my home in the US, should I be extradited to Russia for it?
You can certainly be charged in Russia.
Extradition is another matter.
load more comments
(9 replies)
US courts can still try him in absentia, i.e. if he's not present in the courtroom.
If he's in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, e.g. the UK, he can be extradited to the US for the trial or with a conviction.
No, the SCOTUS has made clear that you cannot be tried in abstentia.
This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not.
Great seeing far more sensible comments here compared with c/technology
Always suprising to see more on a whistle blower than the guys that actually did the war crime.
Watch them arrest him the second he lands.
If I were him I'd never set foot in the US again.
view more: next ›