Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Pardon Assange!

  1. #1

    Pardon Assange!

    Seriously, this shouldn't be controversial stuff.

  2. #2
    And what would be the difference between what Assange did and what a hostile enemy agent does using the same methodology? In one case, you have information that's perhaps generally beneficial, and in the other, you have information highly detrimental to the nation's security. But both were stolen, taken the same way by breaking the same laws.

    How do you overlook one because you happen to like the outcome, and not the other? I don't think the law discriminates between good consequences and bad consequences, just that the law was broken. What would you suggest?

    Furthermore, the timing couldn't be any worse for Trump to pardon him, IMHO.

  3. #3
    Journalists publish classified information all the time. It's illegal, but they are never prosecuted for it because of the first amendment. The Obama administration even refused to prosecute Assange. Assange is just being prosecuted now because he helped Trump win election.


    Since Assange is not an American citizen, I don't believe he has any obligation to protect information that is classified for the US.

    I agree that Trump should wait until after the 2020 election to pardon Assange.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
    Journalists publish classified information all the time. It's illegal, but they are never prosecuted for it because of the first amendment.
    No they don't. Give me an example.

    The Obama administration even refused to prosecute Assange. Assange is just being prosecuted now because he helped Trump win election.
    No. The law is the law, not a political potato.


    Since Assange is not an American citizen, I don't believe he has any obligation to protect information that is classified for the US.

    I agree that Trump should wait until after the 2020 election to pardon Assange.
    Yes, but he -- or anyone else -- isn't suppose to steal it.

  5. #5
    Bob Woodward was never prosecuted for publishing classified information in "Obama's Wars".

    The Obama administration declined to prosecute Assange because they would have had to prosecute similar actions by journalists.

    Reality Winner was prosecuted, but never the journalists who revealed her material to the public.

  6. #6
    If anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt Assange was behind actual hacking, I might have a different opinion. I am doubtful of that.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/84327...rnment-secrets
    Last edited by Eric Cartman; 06-17-2019 at 09:15 AM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
    1 Bob Woodward was never prosecuted for publishing classified information in "Obama's Wars".

    2 The Obama administration declined to prosecute Assange because they would have had to prosecute similar actions by journalists.

    Reality Winner was prosecuted, but never the journalists who revealed her material to the public.
    You know a whole lot more about these matters than I do, but it appears to me that:
    -- Woodward was granted permission by the president to publish;
    -- Obama should have gone after these people like the bulldog he isn't. My guess as to the reason he was such a pet about this was that he was calculating how he could play them to his advantage. I certainly don't know, and I didn't pay attention to it either.

    The first Chapter of Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars describes Barack Obama’s first post-election intelligence briefing from Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, on November 6, 2008. The chapter shows McConnell, at the direction of President Bush, excluding many Obama aides (including Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta and former Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg) from the briefing. Because the briefing contained highly classified information about “sources and methods,” McConnell explained, only those “designated to take a top national security cabinet post” could attend. Woodward then recounts this highly classified intelligence briefing in great detail, including several highly classified CIA and NSA programs, and their code names.

    After reading this chapter, I wondered how a meeting involving classified information so sensitive that a close Obama aide and former top national security official could not attend could the following year be recounted in such loving detail in the first chapter of a best-selling book.Woodward clearly got his information from participants in the meeting or their close aides. Was it right for these people to speak to Woodward about these matters? Was it legal? I sent these questions to John Rizzo, the just-retired thirty-four year veteran CIA lawyer who has seen his share of leaked classified information over the years.

    John responded:
    Simple. When a President himself is a key source and directs or at least signals to his Administration to cooperate with the author, that for all intents and purposes means the book becomes one big authorized disclosure. That's what Obama did for Woodward, and that’s what Bush did for Woodward in his three books during that Administration, which also were packed with hitherto sensitive information. That’s what is remarkable and unique about Woodward's standing.
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/classifi...ds-obamas-wars
    I hate this shit, and I'm not very good at it.
    Last edited by Lum; 06-17-2019 at 12:48 PM.

  8. #8
    Trump perhaps -- probably -- should pardon him, but he will have to divorce the act from the political precedent, and make the distinction very clear to people. I don't think the nigger concerned himself with that kind of thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •