politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I mean, I guess the difference is that Hillary’s emails were made public by wiki leaks, so media are like “who cares, it’s already public” but this time, it’s not public
That's one difference, but the timing is another difference. Hillary's emails were reported on quickly and extensively, yet these leaks were suppressed for 3 weeks. It's not like those news outlets reported that they had information, and didn't provide details, but rather they reported nothing at all.
But the whole thing is bizarre. If someone actually wanted to get information out there, they wouldn't have gone to those news outlets. There are other newspapers that would have actually published stories. So I'm not sure what to make of the thing.
Let's not forget that both the DNC and RNC were hacked in 2016, but only DNC material was leaked.
Totally a coincidence that trump campaign gets hacked and that data is not released again.
Another key difference is that the Trump administration charged Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In the past it was the leakers that would be prosecuted, but publishers weren't because of the chilling effect on free press that would cause. Now we're seeing that chilling effect in action.
Julian Assange had other things going on too. Like editing the stuff to make it as harmful as possible to the US. It would be very hard to make that case against the NYT.
No it wouldn't with the new precedent and the espionage act. The espionage act only has to show that they did the action of publishing the leak. They don't have to prove any sort of intent.
The thing is Assange's charges were very much in the grey area. Him running around the world and going straight Russian mouthpiece covered any discussion of intent. As did his handling of the actual documents.
Intent clearly still plays a part. Because NYT, Guardian, and Der Speigel all published documents from Chelsea Manning as well. And yet only the guy who was working with the Russians got charged with espionage.
In fact there's been several modern cases of leaking to the press, and the press have yet to be charged. Even when they refuse to name their source under subpoena. The fact is they are protected by first amendment protections. Assange breached those protections by clearly working for hostile foreign actors.
Intent can play a part in the attorneys discretion to bring forth the case. But the espionage act does not require intent.
Right so you clearly didn't read a damn thing. You're just going to stick to that in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Exactly