Is Trump about to help pardon Assange? (Snowden and maybe manning too ?)

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: imjack

So he is being basically forced to stay in an embassy on trumped up chargers and you believe that if his backers were made public they would have nothing to worry about?

His backers were worried before he was even charged. This is why they were private. He's been criticized of private fund(Not just by me) long before Wikileaks was even involved with the election. This isn't 'something new'. The dodgyness of the subject is just PROOF there is dirty funding.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

Dude has had to beg the Ecuadorian embassy to let him stay there with asylum. It's a conditional stay.

"All these embassies". He went to the first place willing to take him where he could still do his thing. He's been holed up in that ONE embassy for 4 years now.

Yeah, this happens to 'normal people'. /sarcasm

This isn't his first visit to an embassy.

a reply to: imjack

Yes I'm sure you've really been keeping up on Wikileaks in detail...

I'm starting to think you're slinging around sludge because you're stuck in the mud politically.

The campaign is over man.

A small technicality, but to "pardon" someone they need to have been convicted of a crime. Assange has not. In fact, has Assange been charged with a crime in the US?

Yes they should be pardoned!

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

Yes I'm sure you've really been keeping up on Wikileaks in detail...

I'm starting to think you're slinging around sludge because you're stuck in the mud politically.

The campaign is over man.

Slinging sludge? What ever happened to deny ignorance? Can you even quote me 'sludge slinging'? Or even personally attacking anyone? What are you talking about?

You deny he has elite backing, and he keeps his finances private, but here I am 'slinging sludge' suggesting they're private because that's what people do when funding is dirty.

In normal circumstances, you would think someone would be happy to announce large donations. What other motive could they have for donating so much in secret? Excuse me for asking the obvious question.

The man has made a living exposing dirty finances, and you expect me to believe it's not a shameless cyber-attack when he doesn't release wikileaks financials? Ironic.

a reply to: 727Sky

I think that would be a positive step.

I've always believed whistleblowers who expose political corruption, secrets that trample on a citizen's constitutional rights, and the public's right to know make them the true patriots of America. They help keep government illegal actions and runaway power in check. They expose injustices in government and in private corporations which saves lives and protects the rights of all Americans. Their unselfish need for justice and protection for their fellow citizens outweighs their own personal welfare.

I would love to see a bill passed giving whistle blowers certain immunities while they present their information.

It would be nice extra level of over-sight, imo, to the goings on in government and other venues.

Lies, corruption, etc, should always be brought to light, no matter where they occur.

Yes, in my opinion, Snowden, Assenge, and the rest should be given a pardon.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

Yes I'm sure you've really been keeping up on Wikileaks in detail...

I'm starting to think you're slinging around sludge because you're stuck in the mud politically.

The campaign is over man.

Slinging sludge? What ever happened to deny ignorance? Can you even quote me 'sludge slinging'? Or even personally attacking anyone? What are you talking about?

You deny he has elite backing, and he keeps his finances private, but here I am 'slinging sludge' suggesting they're private because that's what people do when funding is dirty.

In normal circumstances, you would think someone would be happy to announce large donations. What other motive could they have for donating so much in secret? Excuse me for asking the obvious question.

The man has made a living exposing dirty finances, and you expect me to believe it's not a shameless cyber-attack when he doesn't release wikileaks financials? Ironic.

Ok it's simple. Why does Batman wear a mask? Part of the reason to protect his loved ones.

Ask Ms Manning if it's a good idea to show support Wikileaks. His backers are probably people who believe in social justuce. People who are critical of powerful and dangerous organisations.

It would not be wise to identify yourself as majorly funding Wikileaks as then you would be come a target.

And it would be irresponsible to disclosure vulnerable people into life damaging danger.

originally posted by: ms898

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

Yes I'm sure you've really been keeping up on Wikileaks in detail...

I'm starting to think you're slinging around sludge because you're stuck in the mud politically.

The campaign is over man.

Slinging sludge? What ever happened to deny ignorance? Can you even quote me 'sludge slinging'? Or even personally attacking anyone? What are you talking about?

You deny he has elite backing, and he keeps his finances private, but here I am 'slinging sludge' suggesting they're private because that's what people do when funding is dirty.

In normal circumstances, you would think someone would be happy to announce large donations. What other motive could they have for donating so much in secret? Excuse me for asking the obvious question.

The man has made a living exposing dirty finances, and you expect me to believe it's not a shameless cyber-attack when he doesn't release wikileaks financials? Ironic.

Ok it's simple. Why does Batman wear a mask? Part of the reason to protect his loved ones.

Ask Ms Manning if it's a good idea to show support Wikileaks. His backers are probably people who believe in social justuce. People who are critical of powerful and dangerous organisations.

It would not be wise to identify yourself as majorly funding Wikileaks as then you would be come a target.

And it would be irresponsible to disclosure vulnerable people into life damaging danger.

It would also expose their true motives.

You act like these are good people you should even waste your time defending without knowing. Genius strategy they have to use the public as a shield.

What's especially rich is your premise they're in 'danger'. Danger from what? Disgruntled people? Better make that priority! Even Assange isn't in danger rofl. SJW for private finance? rofl.

The best part of this is you people demand I have proof, but it's impossible to prove I'm wrong. Thanks for Denying Ignorance! Who gives a **** if it's a banker! They need Batmans mask 2 b safe from Hillary!!!

a reply to: 727Sky

First of all, whatever the motivations behind the warrant for his arrest (which I think are pretty unsound, given that one of the original accusers was said to be a CIA operative who used to be a handler for that organisation when dealing with South American cartels, and therefore cannot be trusted worth a god damn not to be acting on behalf of the government in making this accusation, and throws the entire case into a very questionable light), the US cannot pardon Mr Assange.

For a start, he has only been accused of things, not convicted. Pardons are what you give to persons convicted of criminal offences, not those who have yet to see trial. Furthermore, the US has no power now, save through back channels, to alter the arrest warrant issued by Sweden.

On the broader topic of pardons, cases being dropped, and other similar olive branches being extended to persons who have blown the whistle on illegal activity in war and government alike... Trump has never once made the sort of noise that leads me to believe that this is genuinely on the cards. The last American Hero, Mr Snowden, will likely as not remain in exile of sorts until someone more like Bernie Sanders comes on the scene to make it happen at home. The fact of the matter is, that the dirty players need to be able to operate in the shadows, if they are going to achieve their aims, as they did under Bush, under Obama, would have under Hillary, and will under Trump. The policies that keep these illegal activities going despite public outcry, do not originate with elected representatives, but with the ownership, the management, the unelected heart and soul of the dread machine at the centre of Western power.

While it suits nameless entities who own the Federal Reserve to have the power to root through your mail and not be caught out for it, while it suits them to assassinate people, destabilise nations, kill innocent people in their millions by various methods both military and systemically, while it suits them to remain unseen, those who seek to bring their tactics and tools to light will never find themselves forgiven by the puppets the people elect.

a reply to: 727Sky

What crime is on record against the narcissistic prick Assange that is in the prerogative of an american president to pardon?

You must know seeing as you made the post. He owes the UK quite a hefty bill, but I doubt the american president will be paying that.

originally posted by: projectvxn

what Assange did for Trump's campaign should definitely be recognized and given at least an attaboy

Assange released dirt he had. He's done it before to a lot of countries. He releases the information along with analysis of the contents.

I don't believe for a second that he was trying to do Trump a favor.

Yes, Ive been saying this for a while now.

Don't think that Assange won't dump dirt on Trump if and when he feels it necessary.

In all honesty, if Assanges motive for targeting Hillary was mainly to increase his chances of being able to get out of that embassy and go home, then I don't blame him.

He should come home to Oz, I'll give him my spare bedroom and a decent net connection!

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: 727Sky

What crime is on record against the narcissistic prick Assange that is in the prerogative of an american president to pardon?

His possible extradition to America to face a life sentence behind bars - something that most of Washington has made clear they want to see happen.

He owes the UK quite a hefty bill, but I doubt the american president will be paying that.

He owes nothing. He has legal asylum and it's not his problem the UK wants to spend millions of dollars standing outside hoping he will come out.

Why couldn't Sweden just send someone to interview him years ago? Would have saved all that "money" you're worried about.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

He was more likely paid to do it than a 'favor'. You think he does this for fun?

No... not for fun... I'd do the same as Assange, but not because a particular party paid me, but because it had to be done.

Transparency, honesty and moral above all else.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

He was more likely paid to do it than a 'favor'. You think he does this for fun?

He does it for the right principle, for democratic values and exposes the elites when they try to circumvent those values, which they are supposed to be following...he's obviously more a Man of conscience than you appear to be.

OP...i started a thread along very similar lines to yours yesterday...you might like a quick look?

Implications for Assange thread

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: 727Sky

What crime is on record against the narcissistic prick Assange that is in the prerogative of an american president to pardon?

His possible extradition to America to face a life sentence behind bars - something that most of Washington has made clear they want to see happen.

He owes the UK quite a hefty bill, but I doubt the american president will be paying that.

He owes nothing. He has legal asylum and it's not his problem the UK wants to spend millions of dollars standing outside hoping he will come out.

Why couldn't Sweden just send someone to interview him years ago? Would have saved all that "money" you're worried about.

His 'possible' extradition. Let me say that again - his 'possible' extradition. So, conspiracy theorists keep saying this, but as of this moment he has been accused of no crime formally by the USA - correct?

As for what he owes, if the pathetic creep went to Sweden to discuss the matter then all would be fine in my eyes.

Is there any reason he's not hiding in the Australian embassy? Didn't they want him?

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

He was more likely paid to do it than a 'favor'. You think he does this for fun?

He does it for the right principle, for democratic values and exposes the elites when they try to circumvent those values, which they are supposed to be following...he's obviously more a Man of conscience than you appear to be.

OP...i started a thread along very similar lines to yours yesterday...you might like a quick look?

Implications for Assange thread

S&F already.... Salute

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

He was more likely paid to do it than a 'favor'. You think he does this for fun?

He does it for the right principle, for democratic values and exposes the elites when they try to circumvent those values, which they are supposed to be following...he's obviously more a Man of conscience than you appear to be.

OP...i started a thread along very similar lines to yours yesterday...you might like a quick look?

Implications for Assange thread

Did you read that in his book? Apparently it's on sale at the moment.

a reply to: Kryties

Washington has ALSO threatened him with the death penalty (which explain a lot about American journalism at the present if you ask me!) simply for reporting on wrongdoing in American politics...Journalism basically is now considered a crime.

Even that lunatic loser Clinton seriously suggested sending an armed drone to destroy the Ecuadorian embassy and murder Assange, on British soil no less...and her loony left supporters are still crying that she didn't win the power to do so...

It's a crazy world.

Sweden was coerced, obviously...threatened with losing the lucrative trade deals with the US if they didn't play ball over Assange...even a child would see that.

A civilised country would never hound a decent man into virtual imprisonment for 4 years for no other reason than having adult, consentual sexual intercourse, with another consenting adult - without using a condom...that was it...this was the so-called 'sexual assault' Sweden was unbelievably using (and still is) to get their hands on Assange to hand over to the US to preserve their grubby little trade deals..and nothing else!

They could have interviewed Assange at any time, anywhere...but of course, if they had come to Britain, interviewed Assange within the Ecuadorian embassy, they couldn't then have carried out the real reason they invented this pathetic so-called sex crime (of not using a condon during consentual sex), allowing the world to assume Assange was guilty of rape or similar to ramp up the emotion...it was and still is horrendously unjust, and immoral and NOT what i had come to expect from a country like Sweden...i suppose we all do really have a price we can throw our morality out of the window for...Sweden certainly has.

Sweden will now quietly drop the request to interview Assange (within months i suspect), declaring 'new evidence' has come to light (even though the Woman at the centre of the debarcle has already come forwards and said the Swedish police had coerced her to make a false complaint against Assange....!) and they will now be dropping the case.

Because dear Sweden...that threat of impacting your multi-billion dollar US trade deal can work BOTH ways...you can lose it if you don't grab him, just as easily as losing it if you don't let him go...something else for their not-so-moral leaders to think about...