From what I read in the complaint, JA crossed the line IMO
I thought this was a case where traitor Manning (note the indictment refers to “SHE” uggh/lol) had stolen the data and given to Wikileaks - in that case I fault Manning and grant JA in the clear (though I didn’t like it & it hurt USA)
HOWEVER ... according to the indictment, JA was the one who cracked the password; that makes sense, Manning is no genius. Then JA told Manning to take everything. In this case I see JA as hand-in-hand with Manning.
I am comfortable with where this case stands and the broader implications. I am also comfortable with the aspects of leverage and theater that are clearly in play here.
It now occurs to me ... since JA indictment was last year as other events and docs since had indicated, I wonder what’s lying out there awaiting @Snowden ;)
One other thing I saw in Cates writing I think ... he hates JA btw - he noted that in a “whistleblower” case, Manning would have nabbed targeted + relevant docs and those alone. But, in the Manning case, they took (stole) everything they could en masse. I think JA also crossed the line in those regards, too (given his role as participant + instigator vs. solely + good faith recipient)