From a U.S. legal standpoint, Julian Assange made a smart move in 2010 — he decided to share his bounty of 500,000 leaked cables with traditional news outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times. Today, The Washington Post reports that Assange is unlikely to face U.S. charges for his role in facilitating the greatest intelligence leak in American history. Why? Because doing so would implicate the journalists who worked with Assange. The Post reports:
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute The New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The Obama administration has not been soft on leakers, and it has been criticized for being too aggressive with the press. But the government makes a careful distinction here: Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden are clear criminals. They leaked classified documents they swore not to release. They did so because of a sense of activism. Assange facililated, in Manning’s case, the leaks. But yet Assange will not be charged with aiding the crime because he was the messenger, despite the fact that his intent to leak the documents is also based in the same vein of protest or activism as the others.
Bill Keller, the former Times executive editor, wrote that Assange was an “elusive, manipulative, and volatile” partner to work with. His 2011 recount of the episode makes Assange out to be more of an activist seeking a megaphone than a journalist who wants to uncover the truth. For instance, “He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks website,” Keller wrote, “a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets.”
At surface level, one can argue that Assange is no different from Manning and Snowden. But as The Post reports, “Justice officials said [Assange] would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.”
Which is to say, if you don’t want to be indicted for leaking information, don’t steal the information yourself.
What We're Following See More »
"The Senate standstill over a stopgap spending bill appeared headed toward a resolution on Friday night. Senators who were holding up the measure said votes are expected later in the evening. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin had raised objections to the continuing resolution because it did not include a full year's extension of retired coal miners' health benefits," but Manchin "said he and other coal state Democrats agreed with Senate Democratic leaders during a caucus meeting Thursday that they would not block the continuing resolution, but rather use the shutdown threat as a way to highlight the health care and pension needs of the miners."
Donald Trump transition team announced Friday afternoon that top supporter Rudy Giuliani has taken himself out of the running to be in Trump's cabinet, though CNN previously reported that it was Trump who informed the former New York City mayor that he would not be receiving a slot. While the field had seemingly been narrowed last week, it appears to be wide open once again, with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson the current favorite.
The House has completed it's business for 2016 by passing a spending bill which will keep the government funded through April 28. The final vote tally was 326-96. The bill's standing in the Senate is a bit tenuous at the moment, as a trio of Democratic Senators have pledged to block the bill unless coal miners get a permanent extension on retirement and health benefits. The government runs out of money on Friday night.
The Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act today, sending the $618 billion measure to President Obama. The president vetoed the defense authorization bill a year ago, but both houses could override his disapproval this time around.