2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Brystont1 on January 19, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
-
?igshid=1f5gsokc7mcj1
Watching Trumps goodbye speech made me pretty sad to see. I personally think he was/will be the greatest president of my lifetime and I didn’t even get to vote for him the first time :'( .
However if Trumps “conservative” justice appointments do not start quickly bearing fruit for us his administration will have done absolutely nothing for us gun owners. I understand his presidency was about more than just 2A rights but boy am I getting impatient waiting for the NRA endorsed president to do something for guns.
His latest executive order kinda makes me think he really never gave a shit about gun owners.
-
If he pardons Assange I am buying a Maga hat. If not then he deserved Russiagate
-
If he pardons Assange I am buying a Maga hat. If not then he deserved Russiagate
He's busy pardoning his criminal supporters
-
If he pardons Assange I am buying a Maga hat. If not then he deserved Russiagate
GOP leadership is threatening to impeach trump if he pardons Assange apparently.
-
He's busy pardoning his criminal supporters
:sleeping:
-
GOP leadership is threatening to impeach trump if he pardons Assange apparently.
He could have gone out a legend. There must have been tremendous pressure, but it is still disappointing. I hope to have the courage to make the right decision some day.
-
So 2a freedom for thee and not me. Got it.
-
GOP leadership is threatening to impeach trump if he pardons Assange apparently.
They can't impeach over his discretionary use of Constitutional Pardon Powers. Unless he or someone close to him was bribed or somehow benefitted personally from the pardon, he can pardon anybody he likes and for any reason.
Pres Ford pardoned Nixon, which they say is probably why he lost to Carter. Trump's not in that boat, obviously, so there's nothing stopping him from pardoning Assange.
-
They can't impeach over his discretionary use of Constitutional Pardon Powers. Unless he or someone close to him was bribed or somehow benefitted personally from the pardon, he can pardon anybody he likes and for any reason.
Pres Ford pardoned Nixon, which they say is probably why he lost to Carter. Trump's not in that boat, obviously, so there's nothing stopping him from pardoning Assange.
You are missing the point. It is not illegal to pardon journalists and whistleblowers, but if he did the deep state threatened to come after him with everything they have on completely unrelated charges. Not like they aren't going to do that anyway
-
You are missing the point. It is not illegal to pardon journalists and whistleblowers, but if he did the deep state threatened to come after him with everything they have on completely unrelated charges. Not like they aren't going to do that anyway
I don't think there are any legitimate charges anyone can levy against Trump at this point. if there were, they would not have used "abuse of power" and "attempting to incite insurrection" for impeaching him already.
Anything else is just a threat -- baseless, empty threats.
-
If he pardons Assange I am buying a Maga hat. If not then he deserved Russiagate
I’m not sure I would go that far. Deserve Russiagate? Come on man, you know the thing!
Seriously tho I was not too sure about pardoning Assange but after some thought I agree I think he should have. It’s too bad he didn’t.
-
GOP leadership is threatening to impeach trump if he pardons Assange apparently.
If true, then this is nothing, but more proof of how the leaders of the US empire really control everything. Assange has the goods to spill the beans, hence, he, like Snowden, are imperial enemies #1 and #2, respectively, in the eyes, of the US empire.
You can be sure that Trump has been warned not to cross the empire's bottom line. For example, Trump has not:
1. Authorize an audit of the FED
2. Stopped all the illegal wars and occupations abroad
3. Closed the borders to illegal immigration
4. Pardoned Assange and Snowden
5. Drain the Swap
6. Clean-up the US electoral process
7. PROSECUTE THE CLINTONS
I really wished he would have and I do believe Trump was allowed some token, but reversible success (e.g., Supreme Court). However, I suspect he was indirectly told about the Kennedy treatment, if he pushed too far, which could explain why he never went all the way to accomplish the above sample list.
-
If true, then this is nothing, but more proof of how the leaders of the US empire really control everything. Assange has the goods to spill the beans, hence, he, like Snowden, are imperial enemies #1 and #2, respectively, in the eyes, of the US empire.
You can be sure that Trump has been warned not to cross the empire's bottom line. For example, Trump has not:
1. Authorize an audit of the FED
2. Stopped all the illegal wars and occupations abroad
3. Closed the borders to illegal immigration
4. Pardoned Assange and Snowden
5. Drain the Swap
6. Clean-up the US electoral process
7. PROSECUTE THE CLINTONS
I really wished he would have and I do believe Trump was allowed some token, but reversible success (e.g., Supreme Court). However, I suspect he was indirectly told about the Kennedy treatment, if he pushed too far, which could explain why he never went all the way to accomplish the above sample list.
I think the problem is that all the things you listed cannot be accomplished by one man. The president doesn’t, nor should he, have that kind of power. What he did was lay the foundation for the future to do all the things you listed. He exposed the corruption in the DOJ, Washington, and the media. Now people will start to question what they believe and will look to other sources for information.
-
If he pardons Assange I am buying a Maga hat. If not then he deserved Russiagate
Assange? I could see Snowden but Assange?
-
Assange? I could see Snowden but Assange?
Assange broke no US laws. He's not a US citizen, nor is he a terrorist.
People who DID break the law (DNC server hackers, Manning, etc), provided the info to WikiLeaks. The info was not posted online immediately. Assange had the info reviewed first for classified or sensitive info that might cause physical harm or death.
Assange was never a criminal in US eyes until he posted the emails from the DNC, which Podesta basically caused by using a crappy account password.
These emails are how we discovered Clinton was still using a private server for all her official State Department communications.
-
I think the problem is that all the things you listed cannot be accomplished by one man.
Some of the things I listed could have been accomplished by Trump, during his Presidency. With the exception, of draining the swamp and overhauling the US presidential electoral process, it was not unfeasible for Trump to have tackled the rest of the items I listed.
He exposed the corruption in the DOJ, Washington, and the media. Now people will start to question what they believe and will look to other sources for information.
Corruption in the US government is not recent news. Everyone knows how corrupt the US federal government is and have been questioning many things for decades. What was needed was grass roots action; the kind that was on display at the US Capitol on January 6th. Unfortunately, the US empire has since feverishly working hard to distract the population to some other nonsense issues, while demonizing and prosecuting those patriots that were inspired (i.e., not ordered) by Trump to make change.
-
Assange broke no US laws. He's not a US citizen, nor is he a terrorist.
People who DID break the law (DNC server hackers, Manning, etc), provided the info to WikiLeaks. The info was not posted online immediately. Assange had the info reviewed first for classified or sensitive info that might cause physical harm or death.
Assange was never a criminal in US eyes until he posted the emails from the DNC, which Podesta basically caused by using a crappy account password.
These emails are how we discovered Clinton was still using a private server for all her official State Department communications.
Surprised that you had to point this out to the all knowledgeable
-
Surprised that you had to point this out to the all knowledgeable
Even the IT guys need to go on reddit and ask how to erase servers and then plead the 5th during a hearing.
-
Surprised that you had to point this out to the all knowledgeable
It only takes a moment to REMEMBER how Clinton and Obama blamed an obscure video on YouTube for the attack on Benghazi. The FBI arrested the video maker and tried to put the investigation into the TERRORIST ATTACK ON OUR US CONSULATE THAT KILLED 4 AMERICANS to bed.
Going after Assange is another Clinton diversion. Instead of allowing the press to focus on the CONTENT of the leaked emails, they wanted us to focus on the PERSON that published them. Pure misdirection.
Obama commuted Manning's sentence before leaving office. He was the actual criminal in the leaks. Assange was just the publisher and was not under US jurisdiction. Yet, he's still a wanted man in the US?
They want us to ignore the forrest and only see the trees they want us to see.
-
Assange broke no US laws. He's not a US citizen, nor is he a terrorist.
People who DID break the law (DNC server hackers, Manning, etc), provided the info to WikiLeaks. The info was not posted online immediately. Assange had the info reviewed first for classified or sensitive info that might cause physical harm or death.
Assange was never a criminal in US eyes until he posted the emails from the DNC, which Podesta basically caused by using a crappy account password.
These emails are how we discovered Clinton was still using a private server for all her official State Department communications.
As I understand the USA's case against Assange there could be a violation of US laws. It has to do with whether Assange assisted Chelsea Manning in stealing the information. If Manning merely gave Assange the information then he is protected however if Manning provided any sort of assistance to commit the theft.
Assange has been the subject of active investigation for quite some time before Hillary's emails though.
It is interesting that republicans seemed to be quite critical of Assange until he released info about Hillary's emails.
-
.
-
As I understand the USA's case against Assange there could be a violation of US laws. It has to do with whether Assange assisted Chelsea Manning in stealing the information. If Manning merely gave Assange the information then he is protected however if Manning provided any sort of assistance to commit the theft.
Assange has been the subject of active investigation for quite some time before Hillary's emails though.
It is interesting that republicans seemed to be quite critical of Assange until he released info about Hillary's emails.
Nope. You don't understand.
The US has no evidence that Assange, nor anyone else, assisted Manning. There is a charge of conspiracy claiming Assange helped Manning crack a password to access the State Dept cables, but there is no proof of that. in fact, Manning was sentenced for contempt of court for refusing to testify against Assange. So, explain what evidence the prosecutors could have if the person he assisted is not providing that proof?
There has been no evidence made public such as emails, texts or phone calls between the two "conspirators." So, without testimony from the actual WHISTLEBLOWER, the charges are IMO bogus as hell.
Funny how, when an insider against Trump causes an impeachment, the identity of the "whistleblower" is protected, and no charges are levied for disclosing classified info to people with no need to know. But when the whistleblower is blowing the whistle on Obama, Clinton, the military and the State Department, suddenly everyone involved are enemies of the state.
We all know Obama tried to ruin every whistleblower that crossed him and his administration. Yet, somehow the "sacred" position of whistleblower is only protected when it involves taking down a GOP President.
-
Nope. You don't understand.
The US has no evidence that Assange, nor anyone else, assisted Manning. There is a charge of conspiracy claiming Assange helped Manning crack a password to access the State Dept cables, but there is no proof of that. in fact, Manning was sentenced for contempt of court for refusing to testify against Assange. So, explain what evidence the prosecutors could have if the person he assisted is not providing that proof?
There has been no evidence made public such as emails, texts or phone calls between the two "conspirators." So, without testimony from the actual WHISTLEBLOWER, the charges are IMO bogus as hell.
Funny how, when an insider against Trump causes an impeachment, the identity of the "whistleblower" is protected, and no charges are levied for disclosing classified info to people with no need to know. But when the whistleblower is blowing the whistle on Obama, Clinton, the military and the State Department, suddenly everyone involved are enemies of the state.
We all know Obama tried to ruin every whistleblower that crossed him and his administration. Yet, somehow the "sacred" position of whistleblower is only protected when it involves taking down a GOP President.
Has the US government made public all the evidence in the case? If not it would be rather premature to claim there was no evidence that Assange assisted Manning.
Manning refusing to testify in court doesn't tell us whether there is or isn't evidence though. Manning's testimony could have been one piece of evidence that combined with others would be enough to show in court Assange somehow assisted and without it the case is weaker but not necessarily absent evidence as you suggest. At this point it is pointless in speculating what evidence they have or how strong the case. What we have are the allegations made against Assange. Is the FBI just making up the allegations with no proof? Possible I supposed but I doubt it.
I don't know what you are getting at with Assange as a whistleblower related to Hillary and Obama. Wikileaks released the information themselves IIRC, whistleblower protection wouldn't really apply when the whistleblower announces it publicly. Are you talking about investigating who released it to Wikileaks? The feds investigate that no matter which way it goes. Obama wasn't a friend to Assange and Trump wasn't either.