You mentioned Assange.
Manning plead guilty, and stood trial and has been free since 2017 after Obama commuted his/her sentence.
Before that there was Edward Snowden.
The Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald broke a story that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering Verizon telephone records, including those of US customers, on a daily basis pursuant to a secret order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Guardian published the “top secret” FISC order, which had been provided by an unnamed source. This was followed by additional revelations of secret NSA surveillance programs covering web searches, email traffic, and other Internet traffic. Shortly thereafter, the source of the classified information revealed himself to be Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company contracted to provide IT services for the NSA.
On June 14, FBI Special Agent John Kralik filed a criminal complaint against Snowden, alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. ¨ 641 (theft of government property), 18 U.S.C. ¨ 793(d) (unauthorized communication of national defense information), and 18 U.S.C. ¨ 798(a)(3) (willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person). The latter two charges are part of Title 18, Chapter 37, which is labeled “Espionage and Censorship.”
Since Snowden has publicly admitted to being the source of the classified information obtained by The Guardian, the essential facts are not in dispute. Snowden has been called a “hero” by some and a “traitor” by others. Some Snowden supporters have argued that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must consider the American public to be the enemy, as Snowden’s goal was to expose the NSA surveillance program so that Americans would know that their own government was spying on them. While there is no doubt some rhetorical force to this argument, it finds little support in the actual statutory language of section 793 and none in that of section 798.

Section 793(d) states in relevant part:

Whoever, lawfully having . . . access to [or] control over . . . any document or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. . . .

Section 798(a)(3) states in relevant part:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates . . . to an unauthorized person any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the US or any foreign government . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned . . .

To begin with, it seems undisputed that Glenn Greenwald is “an unauthorized person” “not entitled to receive” classified information, and that the existence of the Verizon FISA order, PRISM, and other surveillance programs concerning “communication intelligence activities.” That term is statutorily defined as “all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients,” which unquestionably covers the NSA’s activities.

Thus, Snowden’s defense to section 793 and 798 charges must focus on the mens rea elements. But section 798(a)(3) is a particularly hostile battlefield for him. The government need not prove that the defendant disclosed the classified information to an “enemy;” all it needs to do is to prove that the defendant knew and intended to disclose the classified information to some unauthorized person. On that, Snowden has already admitted as much in written statements to The Guardian: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”

Under section 793(d), the government must prove a slightly more complex mental state: that the defendant disclosed the “national defense” information with “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Based on his public statements, one could anticipate that Snowden will argue that he merely intended to inform the American public about allegedly unlawful government activity. The problem for Snowden is that even if his motives were pure, section 793(d) looks at the effects of the information disclosure, not the leaker’s motivation. For example, in United States v. Morison, a district court agreed with the government interpretation of section 793(d) that the statute is violated when a defendant “willfully transmits photographs relating to the national defense to someone who is known by the defendant not to be entitled to receive it … no matter how laudable his motives.”
So the key issue is whether disclosure of the gathering of Verizon call data and PRISM harmed the US or helped any foreign nation. According to unnamed US intelligence officials, it has: “members of virtually every terrorist group, including core al-Qaeda, are attempting to change how they communicated, based on what they are reading in the media, to hide from US surveillance.” If true, this is hardly an unforeseeable outcome, as there are reports that Osama bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone after a newspaper printed a leaked tip that the NSA was tracking that phone.
Snowden escaped to Europe and then to Russia, where he was recently granted permission to live there permanently.

(Most of the above copied from 2013 Guardian newspaper story.)

While the moderator at the debate clearly had anti-Trump bias, the shutting off of microphones worked against previous perceptions of Trump bullying or being overly aggressive.

Boy do you come up with great and educational comments!

Life for me is one continuous learning experience.

https://noqreport.com/2020/10/23/trump-negotiates-third-middle-east-peace-deal-as-sudan-israel-normalize-relations/

I hope Trump is keeping a little black book of names to fire on his re-election.
He needs to drain the swamp.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gsa-let-mueller-secretly-gain-access-to-trump-transition-records-senate-report-says

Trump had a very good night…for him! He set the bar so low in the first debate that up was the only way he could go which he did. Unfortunately (for him) his clarity of expression was, as is usually the case, put to the service of untruths.

He lied a lot.

I will grade the 2 debates by trump . Debate 1 trump F biden B . debate 2 Trump C minus Biden B minus . VP DEBATE PENCE C KAMALA B MINUS . MY PREDICTION BIDEN WINS IN SQUEAKER AS THERE ARE MAYBEE 4% hidden trump voters so tighter race than polls predict , but biden wins and the country grows to love KAMALA over time just like what happened with HARRY TRUMAN RSH

Big Al and Jim, in mentioning the possible vote tampering that we may have this time around, causing a potential false vote tally, I would like to see voting mandated to be done in person, with absentee ballots for those unable to get to polls.

The reason for this is civic responsibility. We, as citizens need to put some basic effort into each election. We can’t force people to become knowledgeable on the candidates and issues, but we can mandate that they actually have to show up and vote.

All of these mail-in ballots only make it too easy to avoid civic responsibility. People willing to come out in person are more likely to be those who have some understanding of what is on the ballot, thus making each election done by informed voters.

Ballot harvesting only makes it possible for uninformed and lazy voters to be coerced to sign a ballot given to them and giving those doing the harvesting an edge to convince the voter to vote a certain way. This corrupts the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axVq7yWg6KA

Giuliani’s commonsense

BOYCOTT THIS COMPANY!

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/san-francisco-tech-ceo-emails-10-million-customers-urging-them-vote-biden

They’re BLM and Antifa lovers, too.

For the record I am an Independent. Yes I know my candidate will not win.
Life is not just about winning.

The debate was much better than the first debate. TRUMP improved a lot.