Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In the context of abortion, conservatives argue that a fetus is a person with rights. But conservatives generally are not sympathetic to the fact that a child born in the US is a citizen with commensurate rights, even if born to parents who are not citizens. It seems to me that the logic of arguing for fetal personhood rights suggests that US citizenship attaches even before birth, which is what I getting at.

Conservatives may not like the idea that a child born here is a citizen but that is kinda settled, no? And I suspected that was what you were getting at, but, like, you gotta be "born" here, so being here in utero ain't enough. It just seemed a silly "point." Not that I haven't sometimes posted silly things, but you aren't a troll, supposedly.

[Adder]

Assange would be in a much better place had he not acted deceptively (editing of the helicopter video to suggest something other than a tragic mistake) and recklessly (dumping uncurated personally-identifying information). No journalist would have done those things.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Assange would be in a much better place had he not acted deceptively (editing of the helicopter video to suggest something other than a tragic mistake) and recklessly (dumping uncurated personally-identifying information). No journalist would have done those things.

No American journalist would have engaged in the reckless acts noted. But loads of them engage in exactly the sort of deceptive act noted regularly: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR2960.pdf https://www.rt.com/usa/459448-rand-media-bias-hedges/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The deck will be so stacked against him, however, that I highly doubt he'll succeed. I see a very cynical and biased court finding a variety of ways to assert he's not a journalist, in a ruling jammed full of shoddy reasoning, because they know that ultimately, SCOTUS will bless their work 5-4. (Unless Clarence Thomas finds his brain, as he occasionally does in matters of prosecutorial abuse.)

I don't believe there are any laws that give special rights to do otherwise criminal things to "journalists."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Conservatives may not like the idea that a child born here is a citizen but that is kinda settled, no? And I suspected that was what you were getting at, but, like, you gotta be "born" here, so being here in utero ain't enough. It just seemed a silly "point." Not that I haven't sometimes posted silly things, but you aren't a troll, supposedly.

Maybe there's an equal protection challenge there on behalf of unborn persons.

Yes, I was trolling, but not anyone here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Assange would be in a much better place had he not acted deceptively (editing of the helicopter video to suggest something other than a tragic mistake) and recklessly (dumping uncurated personally-identifying information). No journalist would have done those things.

I don't understand why we aren't just sending him to Sweden to get tried for rape.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe there's an equal protection challenge there on behalf of unborn persons.

Yes, I was trolling, but not anyone here.

I only speak for myself, but the fact that our president trolls, does not mean it is okay for the LT PB admin to do the same. I believe the members here should be able to expect better.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't believe there are any laws that give special rights to do otherwise criminal things to "journalists."

Regarding his direct involvement in hacking, which is criminal, agreed.

Regarding his cajoling Manning into giving him information, and his publishing of that information, which is journalism, I do not agree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Regarding his direct involvement in hacking, which is criminal, agreed.

Regarding his cajoling Manning into giving him information, and his publishing of that information, which is journalism, I do not agree.

I guess it's not clear to me that he is being prosecuted for the latter, or whether those facts are in the indictment because they are part of the context for the former.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I guess it's not clear to me that he is being prosecuted for the latter, or whether those facts are in the indictment because they are part of the context for the former.

I’ve not read the thing in detail, but if reports are accurate, Assange’s knowing publication of state secrets Manning stole on his own is one of the alleged criminal acts.

It’s probably intentionally blurry and relies on a lot of conspiracy allegations to avoid collision with the First Amendment (avoidance of which Obama properly weighed in favor of only charging for hacking in the initial indictment).

ETA: I’ll have one in honor of Manning. She’s demonstrating principle every American should applaud. As a trans person, and infamous, the time she does is probably mostly solitary. And they can treat her like shit to break her, all under the guise she needed to be isolated in some hellish old wing of a jail for her own safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve not read the thing in detail, but if reports are accurate, Assange’s knowing publication of state secrets Manning stole on his own is one of the criminal acts.

It’s probably intentionally blurry and relies on a lot of conspiracy allegations to avoid collision with the First Amendment (avoidance of which Obama properly weighed in favor of only charging for hacking in the initial indictment).

I don't know that area of First Amendment law very well, but it sounds like a prior restraint.

I will say that there are a lot of people commenting on this case who don't seem to know that law either, and who are generating more heat than light.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know that area of First Amendment law very well, but it sounds like a prior restraint.

I will say that there are a lot of people commenting on this case who don't seem to know that law either, and who are generating more heat than light.

The leak we need now are the memos the Obama DOJ created in determining not to charge as the DOJ under Trump has here.

Can the defense get that stuff? It’s been a while since I dealt with Fed crim discovery.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The leak we need now are the memos the Obama DOJ created in determining not to charge as the DOJ under Trump has here.

Can the defense get that stuff? It’s been a while since I dealt with Fed crim discovery.

Work product is not a thing in crim?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Work product is not a thing in crim?

It's not like it goes to any facts relevant to the offense, either.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not like it goes to any facts relevant to the offense, either.

Sure it does. It's not Ted Stevens level exculpatory, but it may show that certain claims against Assange are unwinnable (deemed by Obama DOJ to violate First Amendment) and brought in bad faith for leverage purposes.

At the heart of the controversies around Whitewater, Benghazi, Hillary's emails, Stevens, Menendez, Trump is the issue of whether politicians are using or hijacking prosecutions and investigations for political purposes. (Of course they are.)

I'm not naive enough to think selective prosecution will be a defense any time soon, as law enforcement would never allow something that would balance the system and give defendants true equal footing, but it ought to be at least a mitigating factor. Even Manafort's trial judge said as much when he mocked the prosecution for nailing Manafort for what he'd never have been charged with (a previous investigation for same charges was closed) but for his association with Trump. But of the myriad abuses politicians engage in, using prosecution as a tool (stunts like Devin Nunes' referring an already convicted Michael Cohen to the DOJ as a result of his Congressional testimony come to mind) wastes resources and debases a system which is supposed to be (to the unlearned at least) our least easily corrupted.

People have good reason to view the justice system with a jaundiced eye. It's not "imperfect." It's predatory, unfair, discriminatory, and has far too much unchecked power. If we can remedy some of that by making selective prosecution at least a mitigating factor for sentencing (if not the outright defense it ought to be) in politically polluted cases, that defense may trickle down to cases in which law enforcement preys upon the poor and disadvantaged because they're easy targets who can't afford lawyers. A step toward making selective prosecution a defense or mitigating factor would be making public the valid reasons Obama chose not to charge certain crimes and juxtaposing them against what I'm sure are the cynical reasons Trump's DOJ decided to charge. If we're going to be juxtaposing Barr's spin on Mueller against Mueller's actual words, let's also take a look at how Barr's logic on broader charges against Assange compares to Holder's logic.

This would be uniquely interesting because Holder was no friend of leakers and their abettors. And he was a cynical sort himself, not above creating dubious policies (recall the Holder Doctrine?). If Holder couldn't charge Assange as broadly as Barr's people have, it might expose that Barr is doing this for the most dangerous of reasons: He wants a showdown over the First Amendment.