Point of why who does what, it is better to keep quiet regarding illegal war/corrupt DNC complain, than to expose crimes committed? our/guy
>2016 election, yes load of meme flag faggots made impact of voters opinions >Seth Rich leaked documents, been killed for. >JA even attempted to warn Killary , as documented in "RISK" available to download on Torrents etc.
Equador surcome to jewSA, got military and intelligence base build there. Drumpf being a kike puppet, agrees to apply kike ways to destroy wikileaks and JA (AKA thehill.com/policy/technology/401324-wikileaks-hit-with-dnc-lawsuit-over-twitter ) >All our/guy did is informing us and the rest world of corruption and criminality of ruling kike elite- journalist.
InB4 >JA is ded >JA is to physically attend jewSa senators committee >JA is in Ecuadorian embassy in London >Q-user LARPing, irrelevant to WikiLeaks
>For instance, journalists and opponents have sometimes joined the BNP to obtain information about it and some entries may be from people who asked to be sent an information pack wikileaks.org/wiki/British_National_Party_membership_list_and_other_information,_15_Apr_2009 Saying that, what is the problem? I personally appeared there and am proud having been a supporting member (6 months).
>he can be tried in the US for Dis really activated my almonds >Non US citizen, published something that happened in Iraq Espionage WTF? >Wikileaks, run by other people, published what a Killary dirty libtard compaigh is up to, including killing of Seth R Assange is a spy?
(((They))) need to back right fuck off of JA, Ecuador and whatever our business is. CIA niggers
Gabriel Cooper
lets face it, he will be slowly destroyed until a progressive person gets in or killed.
The more likely legal basis for the US government to prosecute Assange, argue Hafetz and Banks, would be the so-called Espionage Act of 1917. Under the law, explains Banks, the US would have to prove three things: One, that he had unauthorized possession of information related to national security; two that he could bring harm to the US or aid an enemy; and three that he had willfully kept that information after the US demanded that he return it.
Strong case
Banks believes that Washington could fulfill all three requirements. "So as a legal matter, I believe they have a pretty strong case against Assange," says Banks. "I think that Assange is vulnerable under the act."
>In April, the DNC filed a lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign, and Wikileaks, alleging a conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election for Donald Trump. Three months later, the DNC filed a motion at a federal court in Manhattan requesting permission to serve Wikileaks with the complaint over Twitter. Being that the Wikileaks account tweets daily on the platform and “has more of a virtual than a physical presence,” the DNC argued, the court should authorize service via Twitter.
>Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post’s White House bureau chief, emailed several people close to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, to give him a “heads up” that his name would appear in a pending article about lobbyists, according to Wikileaks. The Eilperin article was published in March 2015, and was titled, “Obama promised to curb the influence of lobbyists. Has he succeeded?”
