nbohr1more on 14/4/2019 at 05:43
Quote Posted by Pyrian
The FBI's own findings were that there was no
intentionally unsecured classified information; merely retroactively determined.
The FBI didn't even record the interview with Hillary.
They gave immunity to all the subjects of the investigation.
And in congressional hearings, they could not answer questions about the "retroactively" classified materials because they were "Special Access Program"
data that is only supposed to be available in "closed networks" (SCIF). The FBI also couldn't answer "how did the SCIF data leave the SCIF and appear in
emails, and WHO sent them to Hillary?"
I wouldn't trust anything they've said thus far.
Judicial Watch has
won MULTIPLE "FOIA Lawsuits" against them proving that they did not fully disclose the extent of classified materials in those emails.
jkcerda on 14/4/2019 at 06:15
Spot on
Azaran on 14/4/2019 at 15:40
I would have felt sorry for him otherwise, but in this case he bit the hand that fed him and dug his own grave
Starker on 14/4/2019 at 17:09
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
That explains why he's being arrested on "espionage" charges and the investigation into the rape charges has been closed.
Except he isn't being arrested on espionage charges or "espionage" charges, the indictment is for hacking and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years.
Also, the Swedish (preliminary) investigation has not been closed. It was suspended because after several years it started to look increasingly unlikely that it ever got anywhere. Now the lawyer for the injured party has requested that it be resumed.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
A Navy officer was sent to prison for doing literally the exact same thing and it was judged that finding written proof he intended to do so wasn't required for a conviction.
He did not do "literally the exact same thing". He knew what he was doing was wrong and when he was found out he lied about it to the investigators and destroyed evidence. He was not even allowed to bring a camera on board in the first place. On the other hand, Hillary didn't knowingly send or receive classified information and there was no criminal intent in her behaviour as far as the investigators could find. These cases being equal is just a conservative media talking point to make Hillary look bad. Also, intent did matter in the Navy officer's case, as they had witnesses testify to that.
Quote:
(
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/kristian-saucier-sentencing-clinton-227052)
In addition to more celebrated cases, the defense notes that two of the sailor's shipmates took similar photos in the same sub and received far more modest punishment, including a $560 docking of pay and—in one instance—a one-grade reduction in rank. One of those sailors is expected to be commissioned as an officer soon.
However, prosecutors say those episodes involved sailors who each took a single "selfie" in the engine room "while Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor."
"They are not the type of photographs that one would take to commemorate one's service," prosecutors said.
Prosecutors are vague about what Saucier's purpose was in taking the photos, referring ominously in their filing to a trip Saucier took to Mexico and to an "African Dream" phone card found after apparently being hidden at his home.
The government has not explicitly alleged that any espionage was afoot, but says Saucier showed the photos to his ex-wife and woman he was later living with as well as two other sailors on the Alexandria. All said that Saucier "understood that he was not allowed to" take the photos.
After being confronted by investigators in 2012, Saucier compounded his problems by destroying a laptop, camera and memory card and throwing the laptop in the woods.
That doesn't show she lied. Having public and private positions on things is natural. For example, you might privately think that hate speech is abhorrent and should not be allowed in public discourse, but publicly you say it should not be prosecuted, because of the 1st amendment. That's not lying, that's just the disparity between your personal beliefs and public policy. And of course you use the arguments that appeal to the specific group you're addressing when trying to convince them. Nothing nefarious about that.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
1) Assange has pushed out leaks that damaged BOTH U.S. political parties. That isn't exactly the profile of a "Russian Agent".
In 2016, he only attacked Clinton and did it in a way to maximise the damage against her. This was a political act to influence the election. And Russia is trying to sow discord in the US. Damaging either party is okay for them. They don't want the conservatives to do well, they want the US to do badly.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
2) Don't know the truth of that specific claims, but there are some Open Society Foundation papers floating around that prove a conflict between Putin and OSF. Those papers very clearly describe Russians conflict with Soros's agenda.
This is the reason he went to defend Putin? An antisemitic conspiracy theory advanced on conservative media like Breitbart and Daily Stormer? That's not a point in Assange's favour.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
There you have it. Directly from the horse's mouth that Soros is working to undermine "traditional values" because they think those values are being used to advance the interests of competing power players.
These "traditional values" are used to repress minorities and undermine democracy in the West. These things absolutely should be opposed. If you have not noticed, Putin's Russia is not a nice country and there is no reason to appease them or turn a blind eye to what they are doing.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
3) Assange gave DoD the opportunity to review papers and place redactions prior to publishing. They refused.
Assange jeopardised millions of people in Turkey by releasing their private information. And multiple times he has been shown to simply not care. For example, there's this:
Quote:
(
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen)
David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.
Nicker on 14/4/2019 at 17:55
Quote:
In 2016, he only attacked Clinton and did it in a way to maximise the damage against her. This was a political act to influence the election. And Russia is trying to sow discord in the US. Damaging either party is okay for them. They don't want the conservatives to do well, they want the US to do badly.
This is important to understand about the Russian strategy. It's not a chess game, it is kicking over sand castles. Everybody's sand castles. They want the beach for themselves and they are counting on their historical toughness to assure that they will survive the global catastrophes they are sponsoring.
Quote:
There aren't repercussions for whistleblowers. There are repercussions for accused rapists who jump bail.
Regardless of Assange's motives, his treatment does have repercussions for genuine whistle blowers, even if it is just spattering them with tar meant for him.
Gryzemuis on 14/4/2019 at 22:38
Man, man. The American paranoia about the Russians is unbelievable.
I'm with froghawk. The Russians might not be your friends, but they are also not your enemy. Just like China or any other country that's not in NATO. All the crying about "political influence" is largely exaggerated. The political situation in the USA is one big dirty mess. But it's not because of the Russians. It's because of Americans. Americans should not try to always put the blame on others. They are 100% responsible themselves for their own shitholecountryness.
Mr.Duck on 15/4/2019 at 00:52
Latin America would like to agree and disagree with you. Kthxbye.
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 02:29
Russia is not just like any other country, they are a country run by an ex-KGB agent and a bunch of oligarchs who have consolidated all power into their hands and have become wealthy beyond imagination as a result. There is barely any media outlet that isn't controlled by the government and any and all remaining independent journalists are not only being repressed and harassed, they are being killed. Same for any meaningful opposition, like Nemtsov who was assassinated just a few years ago right next to Kremlin. And yes, the US is not innocent either, but compared to Russia or China, I would argue that the US is very much the lesser evil.
Also, just because the US has problems unrelated to Russia, it doesn't therefore mean Russia's geopolitical ambitions or its use of active measures should be ignored.
Nicker on 15/4/2019 at 02:48
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
The American paranoia about the Russians is unbelievable.
I'm not an American and it's not paranoia. Putin is throwing monkey wrenches into every functioning and barely functioning democracy on earth. He is shitting in the well. He's not subtle. He's relentless. There is no country too big or too small for him to fuck with. He is lighting fires everywhere. He is pushing NATO the the brink and counting on his vast supply of peasants, gorged on mythos, to survive his depredations, just like every other Tsar did before him.
Look up, Aleksandr Dugin if you want to understand the gears turning in Putin's head.