Julian Assange's Case Is a Frightening Omen for Press Freedom
World journalists have been quicker than Americans to see danger in prosecuting the Wikileaks founder.

While the ordeal of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange elicits grudging reactions from many American journalists who find him distasteful, his pending extradition to the United States, just approved by the British government, spurs protests around the world. In countries not blessed with a First Amendment, advocates of free speech rightly see Assange's years-long persecution for exposing U.S. government secrets as an attack on transparency and a threat to anybody who embarrasses powerful officials. Comfortable seat-warmers who are cozy with the powers-that-be may hesitate, but real journalists battling censorious politicians recognize Assange as one of them.
"UK Home Secretary Priti Patel has signed an order to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, where he faces up to 175 years in prison on charges linked to Wikileaks' publication of information in the public interest," Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) noted on June 17. The organization described the decision as "a failure by the UK government to protect press freedom and will have dangerous implications for journalism around the world."
On a similar note, London-based PEN International, which represents writers around the world, protested that "Julian Assange's prosecution raises profound concerns about freedom of the press. Invoking the Espionage Act for practices that include receiving and publishing classified information sends a dangerous signal to journalists and publishers worldwide."
"There is some historical irony in the fact that this extradition announcement falls during the anniversary of the Pentagon Papers trial, which began with the Times publication of stories based on the legendary leak on June 13, 1971, and continued through the seminal Supreme Court opinion rejecting prior restraint on June 30, 1971," Trevor Timm, executive director of the New York-based Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) wrote. "In the months and years following that debacle, whistleblower (and FPF co-founder) Daniel Ellsberg became the first journalistic source to be charged under the Espionage Act."
Ellsberg himself emphasized just months ago that applying the Espionage Act to Assange further extends the abuse of the law to muzzle not just whistleblowers, but the reporters who tell their stories. It's an overt effort to punish the press for acquiring and publishing information that embarrasses officials.
The U.S. government makes no bones about going after Assange for working with Chelsea Manning "in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States," as the Justice Department put it in 2020. The resulting revelations, mostly about U.S. military operations, contradicted official stories and drew the enmity of politicians from both parties, keeping Assange holed up for years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London until a change in that country's government ended his welcome. U.S. enmity even extended to extralegal action.
"In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder," Yahoo News reported in 2021. Trump administration officials are said to have even discussed assassination.
The current president isn't much better disposed to the Wikileaks founder, calling him a "high-tech terrorist" in 2010. Now living in the White House, Biden pushed the extradition of Assange from the U.K.
But, while Assange enjoys the support of international media organizations, American journalists have been slower to warm to him.
"I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange," Michael Grunwald, then of Time, tweeted and then deleted in 2019.
"Mr. Assange is not a free-press hero," editorialized The Washington Post in 2019. "Yes, WikiLeaks acquired and published secret government documents, many of them newsworthy, as shown by their subsequent use in newspaper articles (including in The Post). Contrary to the norms of journalism, however, Mr. Assange sometimes obtained such records unethically."
"The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime," The New York Times editorial board chimed in before apparently having second thoughts. "Invoking the Espionage Act in this case threatens to blur the distinction between a journalist exposing government malfeasance — something that news organizations do with regularity — and foreign spies seeking to undermine the nation's security," The Times editorialized just weeks later.
There's no doubt that Assange rubs some journalists the wrong way with his abrasive personality and seeming skepticism of all authority, not just the faction that most American journalists oppose. Wikileaks' publication of Hillary Clinton's emails certainly alienated media types who favored her candidacy. But the charges he faces have nothing to do with that and focus on basic journalism, so hesitancy in supporting Assange's cause is entirely misplaced.
"In our polarized and fragmented digital age, the costs and harms of free speech have become much more visible," warned Jacob Mchangama, founder of Denmark's Justitia think tank. "Elitist free speech thus seems appealing to many Americans who are having second thoughts about the wisdom of the First Amendment since—as the claim goes—'unfettered free speech is a threat to democracy.'" He rejected that position and, this week, tweeted: "Assange case: A Trojan horse prosecution endangering #pressfreedom."
The dangerous implications of Assange's extradition to the United States and looming prosecution are more obvious to journalists who operate in increasingly hostile environments around the world. The loss of the U.S as a bastion for press freedom would leave them more alone than ever.
"Threats against independent media are increasing globally," the International Journalists' Networks' Inaara Gangji noted in May. "From a lack of support for journalists in hostile environments to growing government censorship and oppression of reporters, there are many reasons to be pessimistic about the state of press freedom."
Assange's ultimate fate may be sealed when British officials bundle him off to face what many observers anticipate will be a show trial in the United States. And following him into whatever dungeon Justice Department officials have prepared will be some hope for freedom of the press everywhere.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just because someone has a certain job, it does not grant them exemption from laws. At not least if 'equal justice' has any meaning.
You steal US secrets, or assist in stealing US secrets, the result should be the same for all.
The only way to keep something secret is to keep it secret; prosecute the leaker, ie, Manning.
The problem with your attitude is that the government leaks stuff all the time, unofficially, off the record, etc; you would let them off the hook while punishing who they leaked to.
Or to put it another way, you would let the government leak something "off the record", then change their mind and prosecute who got the leak, all fine by your legal definition.
The problem with your version is there is no difference between it and espionage. If China can front a press organization and use that to recruit and equip spies what's the difference? Allegedly Assange not only recruited manning but helped with the planning and equipped him for the act which is well beyond what a journalist should be doing.
You have hit the nail on the head -- like I said, the only way to keep something secret is to actually keep it secret. If it leaks, prosecute the leaker -- there is your spy, not who he leaks it to.
And you didn't address the problem I noted, that "unofficial" "off the record" leaks can later be walked back and the reporter charged with espionage. How is that fair? Your process lets government officials get away with espionage, as long as they condoned it at the time, while the reporter foots the bill with prison time.
Are you willing to prosecute every reporter who repeats off the record remarks, or "a source who remains anonymous because he is not authorized to discuss the issue", while the anonymous sources laugh?
Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't think it is as clear cut as that.
The accusation from the government is that Assange solicited and helped Manning get this information. At which point are you more than just a recipient, and you become a conspirator?
Let's test some boundaries:
What if you pay the leaker for the information?
What if you give them materials that they used to get you the information (Snooping software, storage devices, etc)?
What if you trained the person on how to obtain data they normally wouldn't be able to access (showing them to open source password cracking software and teaching them how to use it?)
While I agree with your points in general, if taken to its logical conclusion, a foreign power could install a massive spy network in the country, and the US could do nothing about it as they recruited, trained and equipped spies other than prosecuting spies as they are identified. Dismantling that network seems to be a legitimate interest of the government.
Let's not be silly. If you assist the leaker in any way, you are part of the leakage.
The problem is defining "assist". It ought to be obvious that paying in advance, or letting it be known you will pay after the fact, is assistance. But if the leaker "knows" that reporters in general will be glad to take their stolen documents, is that assistance? If the reporter takes them to lunch, is that assistance?
If you say yes, then we're right back to those off-the-record unofficial leakers. If one of those officials calls up a reporter with "background" information, is that reporter assisting the leaking by agreeing to quote him as an anonymous source?
If merely publishing the fruits of some leaker's crime makes you a criminal too, then we better start prosecuting every reporter who writes background material from anonymous sources, including down to the local level of quoting "someone from the District Attorney's office who is not authorized to speak on the matter."
I even have made $30,030 simply in five weeks clearly working part-time from my loft. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was depleted and fortunately I tracked down this top web-based task and with this I am in a situation to get thousands straightforwardly through my home. Everyone can get this best vocation and can acquire dollars
on-line going this interface.> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
The responsibility for keeping secrets lies solely on those who want to.
Having the inalienable right to free speech means that you can’t give or take it away.
We are allowed to change our minds and tell secrets.
That means that any contract restricting speech is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Fuck off, Nazi scum.
Godwin’s law invoking Jews can’t stop begging and whining.
Being nothing more than adherents to an uncivilized religion of liars worshiping Satan.
Jewish Freemason satanists recognize no difference between good and evil. Just like Hitlers similar but opposing secret society. They represent the greatest threat to civilization today.
Here’s what the JEWS have to say about THEIR ownership of Freemasonry!
THE JEWISH TRIBUNE, New York, Oct. 28, 1927, Cheshvan 2, 5688, Vol. 91, No. 18: “Masonry is based on Judaism. Eliminate the teachings of Judaism from the Masonic ritual and what is left?”
LA VERITE ISRAELITE, Jewish paper 1861, IV, page 74: “The spirit of Freemasonry is the spirit of Judaism in its most fundamental beliefs; it is its ideas, its language, it is mostly its organization, the hopes which enlighten and support Israel. It’s crowning will be that wonderful prayer house of which Jerusalem will be the triumphal centre and symbol.”
LE SYMBOLISM, July, 1928: “The most important duty of the Freemason must be to glorify the Jewish Race, which has preserved the unchanged divine standard of wisdom. You must rely upon the Jewish race to dissolve all frontiers.”
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY,Philadelphia, 1906: “Each Lodge is and must be a symbol of the Jewish temple; each Master in the Chair, a representative of the Jewish King; and every Mason a personification of the Jewish workman.”
MANUAL OF FREEMASONRY, by Richard Carlile: “The Grand Lodge Masonry of the present day is wholly Jewish.”
THE FREEMASON, April 2, 1930, quoting Br. Rev. S. McGowan: “Freemasonry is founded on the ancient law of Israel. Israel has given birth to the moral beauty which forms the basis of Freemasonry.”
Rabbi Br. Isaac Wise, in The Israelite of America, March 8, 1866: “Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Jew, Prime Minister of England, in The Life of Lord George Bentick: “At the head of all those secret societies, which form provisional governments, men of the Jewish race are to be found.”
LATOMIA, a German Masonic journal, Vol. 12, July 1849, Page 237: “We cannot help but greet socialism (Marxism – Communism) as an excellent comrade of Freemasonry for ennobling mankind, for helping to further human welfare. Socialism and Freemasonry, together with Communism are sprung from the same source.”
BERNARD STILLMAN, Jew, in Hebraic influences on Masonic Symbolism, 1929, quoted The Masonic News, London: “I think I have proved sufficiently that Freemasonry, as what concurs symbolism, lays entirely on a formation which is essentially Jewish.”
O.B. Good, M.A. in The Hidden Hand of Judah, 1936: “The influence of the Jewish Sanhedrin is today more powerful than ever in Freemasonry.”
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1903, Vol, 5, page 503: “The technical language, symbolism and rites of Freemasonry are full of Jewish ideas and terms ... In the Scottish Rite, the dates on official documents are given according to the era and months of the Jewish calendar, and use is made of the Hebraic alphabet.”
B’NAI B’RITH MAGAZINE, Vol. 13, page 8, quoting rabbi and mason Magnin: “The B’nai B’rith are but a makeshift. Everywhere that Freemasonry can admit that it is Jewish in its nature as well as in its aims, the ordinary lodges are sufficient for the task.
The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) of B’nai B’rith is a totally Jewish controlled organization with its main goal to destroy Christianity. (Also, the B’nai B’rith form a super-Masonic lodge where no “Gentiles” are admitted.)
TRANSACTIONS OF THE JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY Vol. 2, p 156: “The Coat of Arms used by the Grand Lodge of England is entirely composed of Jewish symbols. FREEMASONS WORSHIP LUCIFER!
THE FREEMASONRY, Jan 19, 1935, quoting instructions by Albert Pike, who simultaneously was Grand Master of the Central Directory of Washington, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Charleston, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry: “That which we must say to the crowd is – We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, That you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees –
THE MASONIC RELIGION should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of THE LUCIFERIAN DOCTRINE. . . Yes, LUCIFER IS GOD.”
All the suffering idiots dancing on the head of a pin to end disinformation but keep secrets.
Secrets require lies. What kind of fuckwit secret society tells the truth when asked?
To Christians, god in heaven is the spirit of truth, Satan, in hell, is the father of lies.
To Jews, the holiest prayer on their holiest day is clearly a plan to lie.
I didn't address your point about walking back unofficial statements because it's nonsensical. If you're off the record you don't have authority so speak so there is no walking back of anything.
Should we prosecute reporters for merely reporting, no. In this case it's far more than reporting and moves into organizing and helping commit the theft of information to report on.
Finally, it does little good to go after only the low level grunts while leaving in place the ringleaders and their infrastructure.
It would be one thing for Wikileaks to passively publish leaks they obtain but for them to move beyond that into outfitting potential leakers with tools beyond a contact and a reporting outlet starts to be less journalism and more espionage.
"prosecute the leaker, ie, Manning"
The problem with this is that (while I don't know if the government can prove it), the charges against Assange include conspiring with Manning up front to obtain the information, not just publishing a bunch of information Manning gave him.
If these charges can be proved, it's Assange who has blurred the line between espionage and journalism, not the US government.
Also, as I understand it, the standing SCOTUS precedent on point is that while a journalist publishing classified information is protected by 1A, conspiring with a potential leaker to obtain classified information is not.
Tell that to the NYT and Wapo among others.
Did he steal secrets or did he make public something someone else stole?
If it's the latter then prosecuting him could be quite dangerous for journalism. What happens when, as alphabet said, the government changes its mind? "We decided that that leak you published is a state secret, so now you're spending the rest of your life in prison. C-ya!" Before long nobody will print a word about the government for fear of prison time. That's Putin family values, not America.
Sure, which is why Assange has been leaking all kinds of Putin emails and Russian secrets.
Wait!
I love that Assange, Manning, and Snowden can make Democrats prove how Nationalistic and blood thirsty they really are.
Wikileaks has a russia section dummy...
Joe Asshole lies. It's what Joe Asshole does.
Whether the government can prove the charges I don't know but Assange is charged with assisting in stealing secrets, not just publishing secrets that were dropped in their lap.
In all this, let's not forget Assange has confessed to a string of violent rapes, and his sole defence was that he found a loophole in the law that he claimed meant they weren't criminal offences.
Obviously he should be in jail in Sweden (and then the other countries he committed his rape spree in), rather than the US.
Then why didn't Sweden seek his extradition?
On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that they had dropped their investigation into three of the allegations against Assange, because the statute of limitations had expired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
More lies from the Assangeists. The prosecution is on hold. On element became time-barred, and to prevent that happening to the rest they are not doing anything until they have him in custody. Sweden has clearly stated Assange is still wanted for prosecution.
I seem to recall those "violent rapes" were cases of morning after regret from realizing that Assange is a cad.
That's my impression too. Young groupies having morning after regrets when their hero didn't match up to expectations.
If memory serves, perhaps groupies, but not so young that they should not have known better.
Meet a few heroes and pretty soon you realize there are no such thing as heroes.
Assange has confessed to violently holding down a victim while she screamed and struggled to get free. The 'morning after regret' is a particuylarly flimsy lie from Assange's MRA supporters and the pro-rape campaigners.
As the philosopher said, “It ain’t so much the things we know, as the things we know that just ain’t so.”
Assange has always maintained that these encounters were consensual.
Assange has always maintained it was consensual on the basis that no-one could fail to consent to sex with him, and however much they may have screamed, and struggled to get free while he violently restrained them, it was still consent.
"In all this, let's not forget Assange has confessed to a string of violent rapes,..."
You're full of shit.
You're a pro-rape-campaigner. Assange himself confessed to a string of violent rapes, under oath.
GFY
"Freedom of the press" refers to the printing press, not government-sanctioned members of the journalism priesthood, and the government has the ability to declare almost anything they do as "national security secrets". Fuck the government and their laws.
And Fuck the journalists while we're at it.
Assigned is not part of the American journalist guild, and that is demonstrated by Assange not protecting Clinton and embarrassing Obama with the Manning leaks. That is why he is resented by the guild. On the other hand, I doubt the foreign journalists have any interest in true freedom of the press, as they likely have elitist notions about who that freedom applies to.
If there is a press exception to anti espionage laws, then that guts those laws as anyone is potentially members of the press. Assange's theory that there should be no state secrets would have more bad practical results than otherwise.
The base assumption that there are “government secrets,” and that this is an acceptable state of affairs, is what is at fault here. Why does the government need to keep secrets? We live in a participatory government, not a tyrannical one, so the government’s business is the business of the people.
When the government is hiding something, it’s because they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. That is why it’s embarrassing when it is leaked.
The resulting revelations, mostly about U.S. military operations, contradicted official stories and drew the enmity of politicians from both parties...
If the government needs to lie, that implies that people might not be as supportive of military operations if they knew the truth. We can't have that. World Police, rah rah rah and so on and forth.
When one group of people negotiates with other groups of people, being completely transparent in your decision making is a good way to get your lunch eaten. There are cases where some secrecy makes interaction smoothet.
It is an ugly fact of life, but it is true.
My point was that if the government needs to lie to its own people to justify military operations, then maybe it's doing things it shouldn't be doing.
"My point was that if the government needs to lie to its own people to justify military operations, then maybe it's doing things it shouldn't be doing."
Correction: My point was that if the government needs to lie to its own people ... then maybe it's doing things it shouldn't be doing.
I expect that the government, at any particular instant of time, is doing a whole bunch of things it shouldn't be doing.
"My point was that if the government needs to lie to its own people, then maybe it's doing things it shouldn't be doing."
There's a vast gulf between a lie and "No Comment".
The Wikileaks document dump through Manning was not discriminating on "lies". My understanding was there was a lot of information that simply should not be public knowledge. Like the personal information of agents.
There is a great difference between what constitutes "lies" and information that should be hidden.
Is the government lying to the public because it does not share your tax returns to the public, that is also a government record.
I'm talking about this specific quote "The resulting revelations, mostly about U.S. military operations, contradicted official stories."
You're moving the goalposts.
No, the information dump from Manning was not discriminate, as Manning was a disgruntled, emotionally disturbed, dumbass.
I'm not saying the government should have no secrets at all. I'm saying that if it needs to lie to get public support for military action, then there is a problem.
Yes, you are. What Assange obtained from Manning and published was not limited to "lies". If all of what Assange and Manning did was legitimate then what should be government secrets is left to the judgement of Assange.
So the Manhattan Project should not have been secret?
"So the Manhattan Project should not have been secret?"
So the Pentagon Papers should not have been secret?
That is the conundrum. No easy answers. One someone can designate something as "secret," one can hide anything under that umbrella. And, as history shows, they will.
It sure wasn't a secret to Stalin. He had multiple lines of information about it from different sources.
When the government is hiding something, it’s because they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. In a time of war, I'd hope troop locations, for example, would be something our government would aim to keep as secret as possible. I'd say it was a pretty lousy government that didn't. Our government breaking another's code might also be something it would legitimately seek to keep secret.
Like former NJ senator Toricelli who "leaked" the names of CIA operatives which led to the deaths of many of them?
World journalists have been quicker than Americans to see danger in prosecuting the Wikileaks founder.
Nervous journalists are a Good Thing™.
American "journalists" would better be described as courtiers when the dems are in power.
You stupid fucking clown, Assange is a Russian stooge, not a journalist. From the Aug 2020 GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report:
",In addition to publishing the stolen documents, the Russian personas used social engineering to seed information with specific individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. The GRU also relied on U.S. social media platforms and media attention for its influence operations. -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian campaign and knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort. The Committee found significant indications that Julian Assan e and WikiLeaks have benefited from Russian government support "
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report
When's the last time he published any Russian or Trump secrets? Try "Never!"
>>You stupid fucking clown
love the intro.
Anyone who doesn't know this about Assange and then writes a column for public view on a national magazine web site about him calling him a journalist is a fucking clown.
You disagree?
no. literally love the intro.
Joe Asshole lies. It's what the fucking pile of lefty shit known as Joe Asshole does.
Russia Russia Russia! Oh My!
Trump! I knew it!
You can always count on Joe.
Yes you can Zeb. Sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.
Yeah, buddy. The CIA and other intelligence agencies and agents are totally a reliable source of fact and would never lie or mislead.
Zeb that's a theory, but the compilers and authors of this report are led by Trump's own party and written while he was president and the CIA is not the source for all or most of it. They did their own interviews and had staff working long hours on it.
"The Committee’s investigation totaled more than three years of investigative activity, more than 200 witness interviews, and more than a million pages of reviewed documents. All five volumes total more than 1300 pages."
It's not a theory that Joe Asshole lies. It's what Joe Asshole does.
Counter it you twit.
Yeah Diane, you'd like to forget him now. Understood.
When's the last time he published anything?
Jeebus, Reason, now try James Okeefe. Or James Rosen. Or Sharyl Atkisson
>>Contrary to the norms of journalism, however, Mr. Assange sometimes obtained such records unethically.
coffee. everywhere.
One of the few cases where Reason is more libertarian than its readers, but they still seem unable to recognize a politically motivated prosecution when they see it:
Wikileaks' publication of Hillary Clinton's emails certainly alienated media types who favored her candidacy. But the charges he faces have nothing to do with that and focus on basic journalism...
Most of Assange's European supporters are a bunch of leftist anti-American a--holes; they support him not for any kind of principled reasons but to stick it to America. Their views and opinions are worthless, and if we were talking about someone who embarrassed European left wing governments, they'd call of him to be thrown into the nearest oubliette.
Most "independent media" have become propaganda outlets for billionaires, leftists and globalists.
There is a principled 1A argument to be made for Assange not to be prosecuted. Corporate journalists and European journalists have no business making such arguments. They should just STFU.
Most "independent media" have become propaganda outlets for billionaires, leftists and globalists.
That may be true, but some of the independent media are the only people doing honest journalism that contradicts the preferred narrative of the elites.
Which elites Zeb? Do you seriously think there is only one group?
No. That's why it's plural. It's useful shorthand for people who more or less agree. I'm not going to write an essay every time I want to refer to the people who hold most power in the world today.
Zeb, the question is whether elites are in one group or more. Of course there are more than one individual. This goes to whether you are implying a unified global conspiracy which is an unrealistic but favorite construct of the conspiracy minded.
You don’t deserve the time it takes to say more than “fuck you”, let alone demanding that someone refute your idiotic strawmen anytime someone says something you don’t like.
Not demanding anything from Zeb - having an interesting discussion.
Oh yeah - fuck you.
Eat shit and die, Joe Asshole.
No, I don't believe there is a single global conspiracy controlling everything. There are a few overt conspiracies trying to control things. But I don't believe anyone is so well organized as to pull off a secret global conspiracy. In general, when you have a bunch of powerful people whose interests are largely all served by the same sorts of policies and activities, there is no need for a conspiracy.
Zeb, when and where have we ever had a group of humans all on the same page holding together their interests for more than a very short term goal? If there are advantages and booty to be had we divide to corral it - it's human nature. Yes, there are multiple groups at the top of human societies we can call elites, but they are not on the same team.
Joe Asshole lies.
The term "the elites" doesn't describe a "group", it describes a social class.
They aren't on "a team" at all, nor do they "hold together". Nevertheless, their social and economic status implies that they generally tend to pursue certain policies, favor certain ideologies, and share certain preferences, often completely independently of one another.
So, Musk and Gates are pursuing the same policies, as are the Koch family, Xi, Thiel, Ellison, and Soros?
No, they are not all pursuing "the same policies". There are, as I was saying, certain policies they tend to pursue.
Is English not your native language, or did you never learn to read past the elementary school level?
The fact that you hear a descriptive term for a social class and think of some kind of "group" is a reflection of your socialist ideation.
So, to answer your question: "the elites" aren't "more than one group", they aren't a group at all.
Yes, but people like Inaara Gangji hate the guts of those honest journalists.
"There is a principled 1A argument to be made for Assange not to be prosecuted. "
Yeah? Let's hear it.
Muted you tedious little bitch.
I mean, the guy does look like a doosh, right? On his dooshiness alone...
Yes, you can commit any crime, aid and abet any evil, as long as you have a little hand-scribbled card that says "Press" (but be sure to spell it "Press's" in accordance with blogspell). Never mind that the Constitution was talking about real mechanical printing presses, not some millenial whiner graduate from a 'journalism' school with $250K in student debt and a cheap poster of Robert Redford as Woodward under which he rubs one out every night.
Hillary Clinton transmitted classified information, (some of it Top Secret), over her private email server. Some of these classified emails were sent to individuals who no security clearance. Hillary broke the law. Obama's politicized Justice Dept. gave her a pass on this Federal criminal act.
ASSange real name hawkins has zero to do with "press freedom". and repeating the endless lie that this computer hacker "founded" wikileaks does not make it true .