• mister_monster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      First, no he did not. He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct. Hillary Clinton had been a government official for a long time, Trump had not. Of course youre more likely to get that kind of information on her and not him.

      But even if he had, having a political allegiance is not a crime punishable by prison as far as I know.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct

        … at precisely the right time to maximise the effect of the release and diminish her chances at winning the election.

        No whistleblowers shouldn’t go to prison, I’m glad Assange is going home but I do dislike him immensely.

        • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Uh, if I was about to vote for a presidential candidate, and someone had evidence that person was involved in some kind of misconduct, then I’d certainly rather be aware of that before voting for them than after.

          Would you not?

          • danc4498@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            6 months ago

            He held onto the information until he was given a signal by Trump’s team to release it. He could have released it whenever he wanted, but didn’t.

            • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Or, he just released it before the DNC because that was when it would have the most visibility. Especially when part of what was released was evidence of the DNC conspiring against Bernie Sanders.

              Do you see that as pro-Republican just because it was anti-DNC? You could make the same argument that Bernie told him to release it then because it was so favorable to him.

      • Rolder@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Strange how he primarily releases information that makes the left look bad while ignoring the right. Not even Trump specifically but they could release stuff on other right wing politicians. Lord knows that every single one is corrupt in some way or another after all.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Notice how you’re angry at the people who released the info instead of the people who were corrupt and deplorable? PsyOps mission accomplished!

      My understanding is that, while it’s likely the source of those leaks was Russia, it’s never been proven wikileaks withheld info about Republicans. I’ve seen the claims dozens of times, but never the evidence, so please share if you do… Otherwise, it’s insane to hate a journalist for withholding information they don’t have, just because it hurts your preferred political party.

      EDIT T+2hrs: 35% downvotes and zero replies or supporting evidence. FYI I asked the same thing on Reddit about a dozen times over the last decade, and the result was always the same — If your position is “I can find no evidence for my claims, and don’t know why I hate WikiLeaks or Assange. I just do.” then you’re probably a psychological warfare victim…

        • filister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          But it’s sad that whistleblowers are even persecuted in a so-called democracy. Like you know you fucked up, but instead of feeling humble and ashamed you start persecutions of the people who have exposed you, while preaching what an exemplary democracy you are to the rest of the world.

          Same with ICC, ICC exposes your ally as a war criminal and instead of upholding law, you start thinking how to sanction the judges and obstruct their actions, because you feel above the law. The US is acting like a school bully who is the only one who can say what’s right or wrong in big parts of the rest of the world, they try to influence foreign governments and install their own candidates, so in a way, they aren’t much better than China or Russia. Heck they even tapped the phones of their allies back then and probably still do.

          • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Private companies do the same, often going as far as to have whistleblowers executed. People (and especially organizations) protect their interests, even (or especially) at the expenses of others lives.

            • Chakravanti@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You know, that whole issue is now just completely way up in the air. The man in question had no difficulty saying the same. If you think you have any proof, feel free to bring that down to land as hard and as destructively murderous as you’d like to be.