-
@gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:
Sets it up REALLY nicely to sue Washpo, NYT, CNN etc over all leaks coming out re Russia.
It'll never fly constitutionally but it'll look solid to the base.
I'm still a bit confused though. I think it is very unlikely and undesirable to sue a publication over the truth (or to try and prove or disprove what is the truth).
What can be done is to target the means of obtaining the information. For the WP etc they didn't play an active role but they believe they have evidence that Assange did.
State secrets stop being secret when they come out in public and you can't prosecute people for repeating them. What you can do is get someone for obtaining those secrets or mis-using them. -
Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.
But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"
If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.
-
@gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:
Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.
But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"
If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.
Taking the media outlets to court involves discussing the content of the leaks in detail. No one wants to give that stuff more oxygen, especially if you know you won't win.
However info is gained, if it is true then it is true. Telling people to ignore a fact because it was illegally obtained won't stop anyone.
Facilitating the illegal act is a different kettle of fish and should be chased home all the way. -
Rationally I agree, but I still think if & when NYT & Washpo publish they will try to discredit by suing over the leak. the detail will be out, it'll be front page of the NYT & the lead on CNN. They have been pushing that the leak is "the real story" for over a month. This is just the next phase.
And they are not really trying to convince you or I. Nor a judge. They are targetting 40% of the US public. And I think its a good strategy to do that.
-
@gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:
Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.
But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"
If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.
Assange can't be tried for treason as he's not a US citizen. Espionage maybe, any number of criminal conspiracy or theft charges, but you can't commit treason against a country you're not a citizen of.
-
No one in this (bar Snowden) would, I was saying the implication put out would be that it was treasonous. And thjat all NYT stories are the result of treason by someone (snowden, disgruntled Obama staffers, the CIA)
The intention is not to get a treason conviction against the press, the intention is to convince 40% of America the press is guilty of treason.
Wikileaks CIA releases.......