this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2234 readers
7 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now now, I am not saying Obama or Biden administrations are paragons of freedom of press, but a lot of that had very little directly to do with Assange's case.
Greenwald's partner, for example, had far more to do with the US trying to catch Snowden. They brought down a foreign Presidents plane to try to catch Snowden, no less.
My point is simply that the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn't disentangle other media outlets. If they charged Assange, it would be open season on the New York Times, which also published the documents. I think that was a wise decision.
Now the US establishment was all too happy to smear Assange during this time, especially in regards to the Swedish case and his claims of worries of extradition, but legally, they didn't actually pursue him, for valid reasons. Legal pursuit came during the Trump administration, which was happy to destroy the future of press freedoms tenfold.
One of us is confused; the history I remember is that the Grand Jury decided to prosecute not just once in a sealed indictment, but then added further controversial charges in a second indictment.
All of which happened during the Trump administration.
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/
Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing the Obama era DOJ and their choices on the matter, in response to the indictment you are referencing.
Prior to that, they did not recommend charges. The original Grand Jury was set in motion in 2010.
You're right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama's tenure. Trump's attack was a major escalation.
I don't see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can't find anything in Google about "assange grand jury 2010". Are you thinking about this section?
It seems to indicate that they didn't even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing
Looks like I was a year off, it was 2011.
Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury's decision.
Easy to get mixed up. It has been a long and complex case!
Even more complex with the changing of administrations who each handled it differently.
Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that's still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.
Oh agreed and I am pretty sure they were happy to leave it hanging over him for intimidation purposes.
Democrats are "better" on press freedom simply because their moves are more overt than direct, so fewer people notice them.