Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to smear Candidate A.
He knew this.
He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.
I have not judged, I have only stated the facts.
EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were acquired. There are claims he was involved with the exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or disproven yet since there has been no trial.
EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute him heavily.
And there won't be. The whole thing is already way too dirty to bring to trial. Word is the CIA was paying the security firm WikiLeaks hired to provide them with his conversations with lawyers and basically everything else. There's a court case in Spain going on right now over this.
So the CIA explicitly did what they are chartered to do? They spied on conversations taking place in another countries embassy?
While it might be the subject of a court case in Spain, it probably will not play out the way Assange apologists hope. The actions taken by Undercover Global at the behest of the CIA were likely coordinated by the CITCO and with the blessing of the British government.
I doubt Spain would be doing an investigation into the case and arrest people if it truly was properly coordinated with Spanish intelligence networks. And even if they did coordinate it still wasn't seen as legal by the Spanish justice system as the case has been going for years and it is still making progress.
Exactly. If what Assange did was a crime, the New York times commits the same crime every couple of months. This "New York times problem" was shown to be a frequent point of internal discussion in the recent leaks regarding the US plans for kidnapping Assange
This is an extraordinary claim. To my best recollection, he was only given information on the Clinton campaign. Do you have any source, any evidence whatsoever that he had damaging information on Trump around the time that WikiLeaks released the Clinton State Department/Podesta emails?
>He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.
It's interesting that you can look at hard evidence of a 100% political prosecution of a _journalist_, and not think one layer deeper than what information you've been fed about him. If the United States is willing to imprison a journalist who has never set foot in the US on false charges, what makes you think they won't also manufacture a second scenario to turn public opinion against him?
"I don't agree with the political prosecution of Julian Assange, but he is responsible for (AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FALSE FLAG), therefore I do not care what happens to him."
Assange said if he was given stuff to leak about Trump and was able to verify it the same way he verifies anything, he would release it. There's no reason not to, it's not like Assange is the only person in the world capable of releasing stuff and performing journalism. The idea that he covered up Trump leaks is ridiculous - the leaker would just go to someone else and it'd get out regardless. This is proven by the many many Trump leaks that did get out to mainstream media.
Your point is he selectively choose to published articles for one side. You feel a journalist should publish everything or they committed a crime?
CNN selectively chooses news stories, fox news as well as your local news. Why do you hear about fires and shootings but not the great Apple pie your neighbour made because those news stations select news that will bring in viewers.
In this case he published a drone camera killing which was bad for the party in power. He published the leaked emails which was bad for a different party. I can't agree he has taken a political party's side because it is not clear which political party. One thing is he has enemies in both parties and no friends.
A0...An were for political candidate A.
B0...Bn were for opposing political candidate B.
Political candidate B in conjunction with an aligned foreign country paid him to publish only the material on A. Some elements of A were false and constructed by Candidate B to smear Candidate A.
He knew this.
He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.
I have not judged, I have only stated the facts.
EDIT: We also do not know how both sets of secrets were acquired. There are claims he was involved with the exfiltration, a statement that has not been proven or disproven yet since there has been no trial.
EDIT #2: He also has at least one motivation to help Candidate B as Candidate A has stated a desire to prosecute him heavily.