Even the publisher can be in trouble. What is approximately off the table by the Pentagon papers case is prior restraint.
Nothing in the DNC or Panetta collection is/was classified, so no risk to publisher on those materials.
"Didn't put Assange" but did put Wikileaks is a distinction without a difference.
Barr reported what Mueller found re: Wikileaks. While on the surface that may look like endorsement or agreement, it is also simply a sterile or clinical observation, one that borne out in Mueller's indictment of the Russian troll farmers.
That SC conclusion is nothing more than an allegation. A contention he claims to be able to prove with reliable evidence. Wikileaks asserts its sources of DNC emails have nothing to do with any Russian interest, so we do have competing narratives from people who are in a position to know.
Yes, was agreeing with your point. Felt like adding what I added.
Fake judge Naplolitano on FoxNews has the same talking point. "If there is a FISA warrant, it is not spying." Back to the "colloquial vs. technically correct lingo" battleground. Arguing over the labels to avoid showing the underlying issue.
Barr offered "unauthorized surveillance" as a synonym for "spying," to make the numbskulls in Congress less uncomfortable with the fact that they totally fail to provide effective oversight, at the same time they give the government unlimited power to snoop and meddle in the political process.
That's a mistatement of the Pentagon Papers case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713
NYT v. US, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Pentagon Papers is a prior restraint case. SCOTUS said it would deal with criminal prosecution of a "did publish classified info" case if and when one of those cases was before it.
People are conflating all sorts of incidents. Assange US indictment is related to a 2010 leak, has nothing to do with DNC leak.
ROTFL. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Not Randy Weaver, not Waco, not (pick your massive misguided foreign intervention), not a totally derelict Congress and tyrannical judicial system? Calling abortion and homo marriage human rights?
No nation is a good nation. Nations are necessary evils, or at least how humans tend to organize competing interests in geographically territorial fashion.
5th A applies to anybody accused.
"No person shall … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself …"
Most of the posts on this board misstate the law of the Pentagon Papers case. That case was prior restraint. The government has a hard time preventing publication. That is a different issue from what happens if, say for example, there was a publication of the detail drawings for nuclear bombs.
Another general issue is that most people don't have an understanding of what is protected as "classified info." Which is NOT MUCH. Most of the leaks published are NOT CLASSIFIED INFO, that's why there is so little action by the government against publication.
I cited and linked to NYT v. US above. Repetition just for you … it stands for proposition that the government can't get prior restraint, but it can criminalize actual publication of classified info.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713
Definitions of "classified" are in 18 USC and 50 USC. Roughly speaking, military and signals intelligence stuff.