,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Like many @Guardian journalists, ex-editor-in-chief @arusbridger had vitriolic personal clashes with Assange. But he put those aside to warn that the Assange indictment "is a deeply troubling move that should serve as a wake-up call to all journalists." theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Also, those claiming Democrats would not have indicted Assange - and it's therefore ironic that it happened to him under Trump - should educate themselves before opining. Here's Dianne Feinstein in 2010 urging exactly the charges the Trump DOJ brought: wsj.com/articles/SB100…
Meanwhile, here's Joe Biden in 2010 suggesting that Assange should be prosecuted if he collaborated in any way with Manning, & saying that Assange is more akin to a "high-tech terrorist" (!) than a heroic exposer of US war crimes:
Finally, here's Hillary Clinton just last month enjoying and offering at least provisional and contingent support for the first indictment brought by the Trump DOJ against Assange, proclaiming that "he has to answer for what he has done"
Whether Assange would have been prosecuted under a Clinton Admin is a counterfactual that, by definition, can never been known with certainty. But nobody can look at this record, as well as the Obama Admin's assault on press freedoms, and confidently assert he wouldn't have been. 
Finally, while there have been a few Democratic voices speaking out against the Assange indictment - Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, Ron Wyden - the vast majority have said nothing in condemnation and many key Dems, ilke Feinstein, have long demanded that exactly this happen.
