Plenty of people who follow such things quite closely are saying that the Obama administration was aware of the allegations against Julian Assange that he tried but failed to hack a password to classified information so then Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning could avoid using Manning's real credentials when downloading classified data to give to WikiLeaks.
It is my understanding that Manning was prosecuted based initially upon information supplied by someone who had nothing to do with WikiLeaks but who had been in online conversations with Manning in which Manning revealed Manning's downloading of classified data (or plan to do so), what it was essentially about, and what Manning planned to do with it, etc., and that at no time did the US government/military rely upon any communications between Manning and Assange (whether alleged or not).
Has Assange admitted to attempting to crack a password for Manning? Has Manning admitted that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning?
Plus, as I wrote previously, if the government had the ability to gather and decrypt communications between Manning and Assange, why is the case of Manning the one and only case where the US government was able to intercept and decrypt Assange's communications?
However, it appears that the only thing the US government really claims to have is an email address supposedly linked to Assange. That's a mighty flimsy thing upon which to base extraditing Assange for terrorism. Yes, the US government is accusing Assange of terrorism in order for the US government to circumvent the statute of limitations. That statute of limitations hasn't run out for terrorism.
Even if Assange did try to hack a password, he did so after already knowing the US government is a proven war criminal. Since war crimes are against international law, the US is signatory to that international law, and the US Constitution make such law the supreme law of the US, the US government has no grounds against Assange, as Assange was working to reveal further illegalities and had no other options. He could not have turned to the government to incriminate itself.
Any judge with brains and knowledge about the Constitution and international law, would throw out any charges against Assange and would also clear Manning of all charges.
Frankly, the US government, the People of the US, owe both Manning and Assange for pain and suffering and other damages.
He’s accused of conspiring in 2010 with Chelsea Manning, then a U.S. Army intelligence analyst who leaked troves of classified material to WikiLeaks, to crack a password that would give her higher-level access to classified computer networks.
Prosecutors say Assange and Manning tried to conceal Manning’s role as a source by deleting chat logs and removing usernames from sensitive records that were shared. They used a special folder to transmit classified and national defense information, according to the indictment. Assange ultimately requested more information related to the password, telling Manning that while he had tried to crack it, he “had no luck so far.” [Source]
In a pretrial hearing in Manning's case, prosecutors presented evidence that Manning had asked Assange—who was instant messaging with Manning under the name Nathaniel Frank—if he had experience cracking hashes. Assange allegedly responded that he possessed rainbow tables for that, and Manning sent him a hashed password string. According to Thursday's unsealed indictment, Assange followed up two days later asking for more information about the password, and writing that he'd had "no luck so far." The indictment further alleges that Assange actively encouraged Manning to gather even more information, after Manning said she had given all she had. [Source]
Are we always talking about the same person here? Can it be proven that Assange was Nathaniel Frank?
The burden of proof falls on the US government. Assange is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Did Assange actually perform the offered assistance? The indictment is cagey on this point. “Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto” unauthorized computers, the indictment says. “Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source,” it continues. (Emphasis added.)
The government’s belief that Assange offered Manning help with password cracking isn’t news—it was aired during Manning’s 2011 trial. As my colleague Josh Gerstein reported, prosecutors presented chat logs from Manning’s personal computer in which she asked a user named “Nathaniel Frank” for advice on cracking passwords, and that prosecutors linked that identity to an email address used by Assange. “Frank” replied that he had “rainbow tables” that could assist her. [Source]
"... prosecutors linked that identity to an email address used by Assange ...." How? Also, even if true, email addresses can be shared. Email addresses can also be used, discarded, and used again by someone else.
This is huge:
Ekeland also points out that to expand the statute of limitations for the CFAA from the normal five years to the necessary eight in this case, given the indictment's date of March 2018, the Justice Department is charging Assange under a statute that labels his alleged hacking an "act of terrorism." He sees that as another suspect element of the case, if not one that would necessarily hinder prosecution. "To get the benefit of the eight years, they’re trying to call this a terrorist act," Ekeland says. "That seems a little weird."
It's downright nonsense. Any judge worth his or her salt would dismiss the charges instantly and admonish the government not to come back with any additional nonsense.
Is the US government going to convince the British court that Assange was being a terrorist when he allegedly attempted to crack a password? That would mean every password cracker seeking to thusly enter a classified database without the permission of the applicable government is a terrorist. Considering the fact that Assange and Manning revealed US war crimes (the US literally terrorizing the People of Iraq), it would be more than a stretch for the Brits to go along with the Trump-Pence administration seeking to get their hands on Assange.
I say Assange and Manning must walk free. I say Assange must face the law in the UK for jumping bail, but that after that, he must walk free in London and not be sent to the US.
Previous posts on the Assange situation (newest first):
Tulsi Gabbard video interview: "Wikileaks/Assange. Be quiet or else." I say, there's no need to reserve judgment concerning the hacking allegation.
Hillary Clinton doesn't care that WikiLeaks exposed US war crimes. She just wants Assange's head on a pike because he exposed her campaign's illegal actions that denied Bernie Sanders the nomination.
So, according to Pence, Trump and he didn't know at the time that WikiLeaks exposed US war crimes that were covered up by being classified
Video: "Julian Assange is a Hero." I agree.
Video: "Wikileaks and Assange aren't the problem—your government is"
Why is it up to Russia to tell Americans that WikiLeaks has shown them, the Americans, how utterly corrupt and dastardly their own government is?
US indictment against Assange totally opens door to radical clean-up of US government: Progressives, seize the moment. Don't let the deep-state off the hook. Bring it down forever.
"EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Assange Court Transcript Sheds Light on US-Backed Ecuadorian Expulsion Plans," by Cassandra Fairbanks. April 6, 2019.
Right now: Julian Assange, Corrupt Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, the INA Papers scandal, US fascist-neocons & fake-liberal interventionists (war criminals), WikiLeaks, & Jeremy Corbyn
For Julian Assange, it's worse than you've been told