The one responsible for loosing the election was Hillary Clinton, not Julian Assange.
And supporting the prosecution because of this is also quite an apt reason to not vote for her in the first place. And I think that was made clear before the election.
No single person can be attributed all the blame, but any person who (illegally) tried to influence the election is not a good person in my book. That's like saying Russia's misinformation campaign had zero influence and it was all Hillary's fault. That's just plain silly. You can admit Hillary made mistakes while also agreeing that Russia illegally tried to influence the 2016 election.
Don't even have to go very deep. Just look at these tweets [0] for example. Why is some "non-profit" organization started by an Australian trying to influence an American election?
Wikipedia wasn't perfectly neutral here but released truthful information in contrast to many media outlets, who were just as partisan. The reason why many people craved balance and so they made interna of the DNC public.
I have not seen any evidence of Russian interference, but they probably tried. I don't think they got any talking points across to be honest.
This non profit had proof of war crimes and maybe that influenced their disposition? Understandable in my opinion.
In general I am suspect of anyone pointing fingers at others to build a profile. Trump could do that and some people understood that it was holding up a mirror. That is no Trump endorsement and the Russian story an excuse. I believe internal leaks are much more likely.
The DNC talking points on this issue were schizophrenic as hell.
At first they said the most damning thing in there was recipes.
Then they said it cost them the election.
But they refused to say which leaks were responsible.
Then they claimed the swing voters they lost believed in pizzagate as if it were a mainstream conspiracy theory believed by many and that all the swing voters were therefore complete idiots.
Also if you're going to blame a conspiracy theory that was conjured out of thin air the leaks really didnt actually matter. An equally stupid pretext could have been invented, so why say they cost you the election?
So, according to them the leaks both cost them the election and didnt matter in the slightest.
If you think about all this for just a second it logically doesnt make any goddamn sense but people still parrot it. Those same people will instinctively hit that downvote button.
> Those same people will instinctively hit that downvote button.
I read your message waiting, line after line, for the dumb statement that got you downvoted. How do people still claim that there's no politically motivated mass-flagging going on on HN?
"If I talked about drone striking Assange it would have been a joke"
She said this. This is as close to an admission that you could get. She would never use that wording if this story were fabricated. She'd just say "I never said anything like that".
The "nonlegal" fluff in the emails is bs, but this story itself isnt.
It was, of course, "just a joke" much in much the same way racist jokes are "just a joke", which is why he took it seriously. It's why making a joke about murdering the president will get you hauled in by the secret service.
Arguing it's unproven is FUD. Why snopes is saying this is beyond me.
If one want to see how people perceived the relation between Hillary Clinton and Assange in 2010, this song/video demonstrate it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ
Julan Assange also participated in the creation of a video with the same group released closely afterward, which at least implies that he might share the song writers perspective.
I have tried to found a source for what the lyrics say, but at any rate it seems clear that there existed an opinion (which very likely was shared by Assange) that Hillary Clinton where out to get Assange and an active part of the US actions against him. The exact wording is "charged for high treason", which is different from a drone strike but carries the same result: Death.
In my intepretation, it seems pretty clear that Assange might have had a negative opinion about Hillary Clinton 6 years later, rather than being neutral about the whole thing. Having the perception that someone is after to kill you can have that.
(Anyone that thinks that the band is a right-wing group should check out the videos produced about Trump).
Even if Assange's personal motivations had any relevance here, that comment alone would be enough to disqualify someone from holding any kind of public office in a functioning democracy that respects human life.
And supporting the prosecution because of this is also quite an apt reason to not vote for her in the first place. And I think that was made clear before the election.