Hardly. He'd probably be handed down the same sentence Manning did, except with no hope of being commuted. The harshness of Manning's sentence aside (far too messed up comparable to her crimes), there was zero chance of dying.
Dead...killed by who exactly? Trump would probably throw him a parade.
US is just like Russia now, ya'll. Didn't you hear? We're just going to kill him and make it look like he fell out of a window and landed on some knives.
Didn't happen to Manning, Won't happen now. Worst case is that he'll have to swallow a splash of water and cough up a confession with explanation.
He actively ran away from the court of law that was supposed to convict him if he was guilty. That was like the whole thing. What kinda of dumb try at a gotcha is this?
Paragraph 1 on wikipedia confirms what I'm saying. There's 108 sources listed at the bottom for the page.
Wikipedia said:
Certain high-ranking members did prefer Hillary to Bernie (which would I think would be plenty obvious before those emails were leaked anyway, given the anti-establishment tenor of Bernie's whole campaign; he wasn't running against entrenched officials because those officials liked him!) but they did not impede the will of the voters, come on. It's not like a majority of votes and a majority of delegates opted for Bernie, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz went "Not so fast losers! I'm giving the nomination to Hillary!!!" and that was that. She won that primary contest by a pretty decisive margin in votes and pledged delegates, and performed better in primaries where more voters participated (compared to caucuses where Bernie performed better but there were fewer people voting).
This feels a little bit like the Republican arguments against Peter Strzok, that because he stated negative things about Trump in his text messages, that all activities that he was involved in are suspect and that the entire operation investigating Trump is tainted. So the question is whether those emails were just DNC staffers venting or did they actually do anything to improperly tilt the primaries towards Clinton. Here's what one of the Wapo articles linked says:
And many of the worst suggestions were either shot down or never implemented. So in the end, Clinton already had an insurmountable lead, and as a result, it just looks like frustrated venting to me. Regardless, it was unprofessional and inappropriate to do so, and most or all of them either resigned or were fired.
I don't really see why he would. Being as harsh as possible towards Assange would be an easy win for Trump
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21...-and-hand-him-over-to-the-uk-what-comes-next/
He hacked into their phone system and was listening to calls and intercepting emails.
He has supposedly breached the communications firewall allowing him to access Ecuadorian embassy staff internal communications. He did this after being blocked from all internet access and outside communications for 3 years because he denounced human rights abuses.
The US has nothing to do with this. The extradition request is from the UK to Ecuador, and the US hasn't even asked for him as of yet. Chances are if he's going anywhere to face trial, it'll be Sweden.
Prison in Sweden, probably. They have a pretty good case against him, and running away from trial doesn't look good to those presiding over it.
What bullshit. He became a mouthpiece for Russia, having the Wikileaks Twitter peddle their conspiracies like Ukrainians shooting down the Netherland plane that was shot down by seperatists armed and helped by Russia, and is proven to withhold leaks that would damage Republicans, although his supposed ideology is to leak everything unredacted. Like leaks of social security numbers or leaks of peoples sexual orientation in countries where it could mean their death.
Huh? Assange breached the embassy's communications in fall 2014. He hadn't even been in the embassy for 3 years, let alone cut off from all outside communication for that long (which I don't think ever happened?) He was cut off for the Catalonian stuff this March.
It's not a "narrative." It's reality, sourced by over 100 sources on the most mainstream e-encyclopeida in the world.
It's very telling that this is your response. You are seemingly unable to weigh the good against the bad and blindly defend somebody who did something good once.
