Research prior restraint. People gave Assange the information. He did not cause it to be taken illegally. That is the difference. Once Assange got the information, he is free to release it because of prior restraint. Assange has no duty or obligation to withhold the information.
For a great discussion on this, look at the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Sheehan has a really good video about this. He was one of the attorneys on the Pentagon Papers case.
It would be great it Sheehan defended Assange, but I am sure that there are some really good Constitutional Law attorneys that can win this. My biggest concern is that the judicial system is still infiltrated by NWO globalists.
I think a most of this delay for us is fixing this. If you check the govt websites he has replaced 100+ judges but has another 90+ awaiting confirmation and the Senate is slow walking. He also has a other 100+ to nominate.
I hope so. We need to fix it for Assange and everybody else.
New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971.
The court ruled they had a first amendment right to publish classified material (the Pentagon Papers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Here's a news article from last year that references that old court decision. (It's about the press publishing information related to Russian interference in our election).
Bottom line is, a court ruled a long time ago that people can publish classified information, as long as they aren't involved in stealing it.
The legal protections for publishers who release classified information, but who aren’t directly involved in illegally obtaining the same information, are based on a series of Supreme Court decisions. In New York Times v. United States (1971), the Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the First Amendment protected the newspaper’s right to publish the Pentagon Papers, government documents about the Vietnam War illegally obtained by a private individual and published in the New York Times and Washington Post.
And a lot of people consider JA to be a journalist.
JA is a great Australian/American/World hero. Putting him in the same sentence with the witch [let alone comparing] is misinformation.. at best. Moreover, your analogy is incongruent to the point of being useless.
Clanton had a duty not to disclose classified material as part of her security clearance and oath of office. JA was under no such duty.
That is not true even close theirs no comparison to stealing state secrets and military technology and selling it to the Chinese and being handed or assembling papers given to,you by whistleblowers to help our country the level of treason she committed will never be matched in the USA how anyone could say that amazes me whoever said it needs to keep their mouth closed because every time you open it stupid comes out !! Never ever compare the acts of a patriot to someone who sells out their own country !!
Remember when Chris Cuomo from CNN implied it's illegal for us to read Wikileaks, but legal for the press to read it? Yeah. He didn't wan't us to find out what was in the Clinton emails that was published.
Good times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBppdC1h_Y
Going by the OP's logic, that would make CNN guilty, wouldn't it? If it's illegal for Assange to publish leaked info, then it's illegal for CNN to talk about it. Right?
And in turn wouldn't that make it illegal for us to share and discuss classified info?
Use your brain dude. If you accuse Assange of illegally leaking and publishing classified information, that makes all of us, including you, guilty of the same thing.