It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks to DOJ: Precedent set with Hillary warrants all charges dropped against Assange'.

page: 1
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
This is the formal letter to Loretta Lynch from Attorney Barry J. Pollack requesting a review of Julian Assange's alleged breaches in US national security in light of a recent decision by the FBI that no prosecution was able to be applied to Hillary Clinton due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent regarding her management of classified information........


wikileaks (twitter)
PDF

Is there a degree of favoritism/implied trust that should be afforded to Hillary over that of what the TV labels a traitorous whistleblower when it comes to this sort of information?

LOL, of course not, but I'll tell you what I find funny and that's imagining all the rhetoric from the Hills camp aimed square at Assange's credibility whilst they deflect and ignore the charge in the letter and address Assange's case in reference to Hillarys awesome effort.

Let's see where this leads......




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Boom baby!!

This lawyer is on point and honestly the DOJ has no legs to stand on.

The world has observed how corrupt our government is with how they have handled Clinton. As we continue to get more leaks it only becomes more clearer.

The charges they attempted to pin on Assange have always been a slap in the face of our "democratic principles" and now with the hypocrisy of letting old Hilldog go with no charges, they truly can not expect to make a case against Assange... I mean it is all about intention right!?

His intention has been clear and his organization has done a masterful job defending the first amendment of our Constitution... whats the problem!?

Thanks for sharing Sublime! S&F


edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago08America/Chicago831amWednesday4 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Even if he is cleared within the USA on this charge what would come of his "sexual assualt" pending in Sweden?, the moment he steps out of the embassy he will be carted off to face whatever the charge was/is?.. Or am I missing something, he is far from a free man in any case..

No need info here

www.bbc.com...

RA
edit on 17-8-2016 by slider1982 because: sp

edit on 17-8-2016 by slider1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Mr. Assange isn't in the cool kids club, so he isn't afforded the same privileges as Clinton.

The moment he steps out of that embassy, he will never be heard from again.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: slider1982
Even if he is cleared within the USA on this charge what would come of his "sexual assualt" pending in Sweden?, the moment he steps out of the embassy he will be carted off to face whatever the charge was/is?.. Or am I missing something, he is far from a free man in any case..


RA


That may be true, however he would not have to worry about being officially extradited to America.

I have always believed the charges from Sweden were trumped up with the endgame being charging Assange with treason.

Truth be told even if he gets his charges cleared in America and Sweden, if I were Assange I would not let anyone know where I went.

I would create some false story and distract the media and vanish to an undisclosed hacker hideout for the rest of my days!
edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago08America/Chicago831amWednesday5 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Assange is becoming more of a problem for the DNC and the Clintons.

I think that the Clinton assassins cannot help him commit suicide. Seriously, why after all this time are they trying to drop charges. I think so they can rid him for good.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Also, with the patriot act... Can't the US just hold him I indefinitely anyway?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
This is the formal letter to Loretta Lynch from Attorney Barry J. Pollack requesting a review of Julian Assange's alleged breaches in US national security in light of a recent decision by the FBI that no prosecution was able to be applied to Hillary Clinton due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent regarding her management of classified information........


wikileaks (twitter)
PDF

Is there a degree of favoritism/implied trust that should be afforded to Hillary over that of what the TV labels a traitorous whistleblower when it comes to this sort of information?

LOL, of course not, but I'll tell you what I find funny and that's imagining all the rhetoric from the Hills camp aimed square at Assange's credibility whilst they deflect and ignore the charge in the letter and address Assange's case in reference to Hillarys awesome effort.

Let's see where this leads......


How can the two be classed as comparable, regardless of what you think of Clinton? Did she knowingly steal information to which she had no right of access and then with intent make it available to anyone that wanted to see it? It's a fairly binary question isn't it? That is effectively what wikileaks did/does.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

No.

Hillary knowingly provided classified information to donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for money.

WikiLeaks received classified information from a third party and made it public.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: uncommitted

No.

Hillary knowingly provided classified information to donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for money.

WikiLeaks received classified information from a third party and made it public.


What can you actually prove - and provide proof for - with the Hilary claim? Not spurious claims, actual proof? I'm honestly interested.

For your second point, you are confirming Wikileaks received information it knew had been stolen and made it public. That's fairly much a known fact.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Speaking of legal precedent, the information Wikileaks obtains is sometimes gathered through illegal activity, like hacking.

Remember this story?

Internation Phone Hacking Scandal

Assange is, in essence, asking to establish legal precedent for obtaining and publishing information gathered illegally. So when someone's personal phone is hacked in the hope of getting juicy gossip or insight on private grief, etc., of private citizens, newspapers who publish these illegally obtained stories will shrug and point to Assange getting a free pass.

He wishes to publish without censoring personal information. He also appears to be using his information, illegally obtained, to attempt to affect our election, to cast doubt on its legitimacy.

His attempt to compare his own behavior and make an equivalency to Clinton's email issue is simply theater. He wants people to THINK they are the same and cry out that he is being treated unfairly, while simultaneously jabbing at Clinton.

He is losing more of my respect daily.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted


Did she knowingly steal information to which she had no right of access and then with intent make it available to anyone that wanted to see it?


Neither Assange' nor Wikileaks stole anything - the website is a storage facility that makes publicly available that which is uploaded to their site via encryption from independent anonymous 3rd parties.

Technically, Chelsea Manning 'stole' the information - not Assange, his website was merely the vessel that bought all the dirty little secrets to light.

*Scenario A: Hillary had access to classified information, under government authority, she chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, FBI says no criminal intent therefore it's all good.

*Scenario B: Assange had access to classified information, not authorized, he chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, US government says........

In that regard and just like Hills, it cannot be proven that Assange had any criminal intent regrading his websites management of classified information - an allegation leveled against Assange by the US government.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

It's in the leaked emails, read it for yourself.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Assange is a tool in the cyber wars. The new Cold War. He has zero discretion unless it's Putin and seems to enjoy using information as a weapon.

He has found the truth that " information is power" and has set himself up as a little dictator.

So...how would you feel if someone hacked your phone and published details of your personal life, say, after a tragedy in your family? What if your marriage was on the rocks and you were toying with having an affair, or you were about to leave an abusive spouse only to discover it was in the morning's newsfeed.

Right now there are legal restraints for both obtaining by and publishing such information.

Whistleblowing is sometimes considered protected and sometimes not. There are complicated rules for that.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: uncommitted


Did she knowingly steal information to which she had no right of access and then with intent make it available to anyone that wanted to see it?


Neither Assange' nor Wikileaks stole anything - the website is a storage facility that makes publicly available that which is uploaded to their site via encryption from independent anonymous 3rd parties.

Technically, Chelsea Manning 'stole' the information - not Assange, his website was merely the vessel that bought all the dirty little secrets to light.

*Scenario A: Hillary had access to classified information, under government authority, she chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, FBI says no criminal intent therefore it's all good.

*Scenario B: Assange had access to classified information, not authorized, he chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, US government says........

In that regard and just like Hills, it cannot be proven that Assange had any criminal intent regrading his websites management of classified information - an allegation leveled against Assange by the US government.


That's your assumption. How you can possibly say he didn't operate with criminal intent is beyond me - operated expecting not to get caught, maybe. Possession of stolen goods (knowingly stolen on top of that) and distribution of said goods is a fairly clear cut case.

I know he's a fellow country man of yours, I also think he's an attention seeking criminal turd, that's life.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: uncommitted

It's in the leaked emails, read it for yourself.


That's not proof then. Is that really the best you can do? Is that the level of information that people on ATS use to call her a criminal (regardless of her not having a criminal record)? Fine, if that's it then let's not pretend otherwise.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: uncommitted


Did she knowingly steal information to which she had no right of access and then with intent make it available to anyone that wanted to see it?


Neither Assange' nor Wikileaks stole anything - the website is a storage facility that makes publicly available that which is uploaded to their site via encryption from independent anonymous 3rd parties.

Technically, Chelsea Manning 'stole' the information - not Assange, his website was merely the vessel that bought all the dirty little secrets to light.

*Scenario A: Hillary had access to classified information, under government authority, she chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, FBI says no criminal intent therefore it's all good.

*Scenario B: Assange had access to classified information, not authorized, he chose to handle the information in such a way as to possibly compromise national security, US government says........

In that regard and just like Hills, it cannot be proven that Assange had any criminal intent regrading his websites management of classified information - an allegation leveled against Assange by the US government.


That's your assumption. How you can possibly say he didn't operate with criminal intent is beyond me - operated expecting not to get caught, maybe. Possession of stolen goods (knowingly stolen on top of that) and distribution of said goods is a fairly clear cut case.

I know he's a fellow country man of yours, I also think he's an attention seeking criminal turd, that's life.


OR


That's the FBI's assumption. How you can possibly say she didn't operate with criminal intent is beyond me - operated expecting not to get caught, maybe. Possession of classified goods (knowingly classified on top of that) and distribution of said goods is a fairly clear cut case.

I know she's a fellow country woman of yours, I also think she's an attention seeking criminal turd, that's life.


See, precedence.

ETA: This is the crux of the review request - did Assange have 'intent' to deliberately compromise national security or was he just extremely reckless?
edit on 17-8-2016 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Why did you deliberately edit what I had said to meet your strange point?

You are now entering a serious fantasy world if you think Assange didn't know what he and his minions were doing - if you really believe anyone other than someone who's bought into his cult would believe that then you need to loosen the tin foil.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Firstly, I was making a point that I 100% agree with the context of your comment... but in regards to Hillary, and that your comment perfectly relates to the allegations against her and the opinion I have of her.

I am under no illusions as the the purpose, both overtly and covertly, of wikileaks, I have been following them since their inception.

The letter has been submitted, I am very keen to hear Loretta Lynch's response.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: uncommitted

Firstly, I was making a point that I 100% agree with the context of your comment... but in regards to Hillary, and that your comment perfectly relates to the allegations against her and the opinion I have of her.

I am under no illusions as the the purpose, both overtly and covertly, of wikileaks, I have been following them since their inception.

The letter has been submitted, I am very keen to hear Loretta Lynch's response.


Completely disagree that skewing my words actually reflects any kind of similarity between the two scenarios - you really aren't going to convince me otherwise. I appreciate you don't like Clinton - I can't say I have an opinion one way or the other as long as speculation, hearsay, rumour, gossip and innuendo isn't treated as fact.

I'm not quite sure Lynch is under any obligation to respond - personally the second word of my response would be 'off', I'll leave you to think what the first word would be.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join