How so? I'm sure Clinton was pissed off that he published leaked documents originating from her department, but prosecution is not the role of the Secretary of State in the US government. And besides that, Sweden issued an arrest warrant in November 2010 and she resigned in February 2013. That's what, two years?

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131668950/white-house-aims-to-limit-wikileaks-damage

"Let's be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America -- it's an attack on the international community," Clinton said Monday at a State Department news conference. Such leaks, she said, "tear at the fabric" of responsible government.

[...]

Clinton emphasized that she wanted to "make it clear to the American people and to our friends and partners that we are taking aggressive steps" to hold those who leaked the documents to account.

The cable leaks had everything to do with the State Department has it pertained mostly to foreign affairs, and American involvement and meddling in various countries.

The cable leak is what Julian is being prosecuted for right now, not the dropped charges from Sweden. We also now know for a fact that there was a secret indictment in the US the whole time.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago

What you're saying isn't necessarily a contradiction to what I said.

those who leaked the documents to account

Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. I think this was known relatively early on because she said something to a fellow soldier who tipped off their commanders.

And as I said, Clinton was certainly furious, but that doesn't mean she had much to do with Julian Assange being pursued. She wasn't even in office for most of that time.