a. They assert that he is not a journalist, and therefore cannot be protected by the first amendment.
b. They limited the indictment to the publication of papers that contained unredacted names of people who were put in danger by the publication of their names (this is important to their argument against him being a journalist).
c. They include conspiracy charges for his direct aid to Manning in hacking DOD computers (providing a live CD, instructing on how to use the tools, tech support, etc).
d. They were too slow in bringing the charges, and are past the 5 year statute of limitations on federal crimes. Because of this, their only hope of success is to upgrade the charges to "acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries", which has an 8 year statute of limitations instead of the normal 5.
The hurdles they must pass in order to succeed in this prosecution are:
1. They must successfully argue that he is not a journalist, or was not acting as a journalist at the time.
2. They must argue that the federal crimes he's accused of also constitute an act of terrorism under section 2332b (which gives the test in subsection (g)(5): "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct") in order for the indictment to be valid under an 8 year statute of limitations rather than 5.
3. They must also argue the statute of limitations clause in the UK in order to successfully extradite Assange (with a possible second chance via Sweden).
This could very well blow up in the DOJ's face if the courts side with Assange, because there's a good chance that it will further gut the espionage act, which is likely the main reason why the Obama administration didn't bother even when they had a stronger position of not needing to tack on terrorism charges.
> "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct"
That sounds so broad. Doesn’t it include lobbyists? voters who threaten to vote out a party if they don’t do as they like? What if the government is trump 2.0 and is acting tyrannical? What are the limitations?
The terror stuff covers it from a negative perspective, from a more positive perspective the extensive legal documentation and case law for ethics might clear up a lot of definition questions, with a simple inversion applied.
For example, the DOE ethics of government conduct employee handbook lists 14 principles per Executive Order 12674 and principle number 11 of ethical good government conduct is:
"Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities."
So... if ethics executive order specifically defines good government conduct as disclosure of abuse and corruption, it seems legally realistic to argue that the logical inversion would be terrorism would be preventing disclosure of abuse and corruption.
So there is a very realistic legal argument that the government employees hounding Assange are clearly acting as terrorists, and he's the good guy, which is the whole point of the long form article, the deep state may regret essentially making fools of themselves. So is the deep state so strongly in power they don't have to care about making fools of themselves, or ...
a. They assert that he is not a journalist, and therefore cannot be protected by the first amendment.
b. They limited the indictment to the publication of papers that contained unredacted names of people who were put in danger by the publication of their names (this is important to their argument against him being a journalist).
c. They include conspiracy charges for his direct aid to Manning in hacking DOD computers (providing a live CD, instructing on how to use the tools, tech support, etc).
d. They were too slow in bringing the charges, and are past the 5 year statute of limitations on federal crimes. Because of this, their only hope of success is to upgrade the charges to "acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries", which has an 8 year statute of limitations instead of the normal 5.
The hurdles they must pass in order to succeed in this prosecution are:
1. They must successfully argue that he is not a journalist, or was not acting as a journalist at the time.
2. They must argue that the federal crimes he's accused of also constitute an act of terrorism under section 2332b (which gives the test in subsection (g)(5): "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct") in order for the indictment to be valid under an 8 year statute of limitations rather than 5.
3. They must also argue the statute of limitations clause in the UK in order to successfully extradite Assange (with a possible second chance via Sweden).
This could very well blow up in the DOJ's face if the courts side with Assange, because there's a good chance that it will further gut the espionage act, which is likely the main reason why the Obama administration didn't bother even when they had a stronger position of not needing to tack on terrorism charges.