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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Nice one, thanks mate.






posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Actions speak louder than words mate...and as far as Assange goes, painting a HUGE target on his own back for the right principle is basically screaming, not yapping.
edit on 10 11 2016 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted


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?


Not formally no. Go and read anything anybody in Washington has said about him and they all want him charged. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen if they got their hands on him - and Assange knows this.

I don't know about you, but even a REMOTE "possibility" that I would be locked up for life for whistleblowing is enough for me to run and seek protection in an embassy.


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


You're totally missing the point. He said, REPEATEDLY, that he would be happy to go to Sweden and answer the charges if both Sweden AND the US provided absolute assurance he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Both countries absolutely refused to do so.

Why do you insist on ignoring this?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
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 marality 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...


Absolutely bang on mate. There is nothing I can add to that, you have summed it up perfectly!

Bravo!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted


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?


Not formally no. Go and read anything anybody in Washington has said about him and they all want him charged. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen if they got their hands on him - and Assange knows this.

I don't know about you, but even a REMOTE "possibility" that I would be locked up for life for whistleblowing is enough for me to run and seek protection in an embassy.


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


You're totally missing the point. He said, REPEATEDLY, that he would be happy to go to Sweden and answer the charges if both Sweden AND the US provided absolute assurance he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Both countries absolutely refused to do so.

Why do you insist on ignoring this?


Why do I insist on ignoring what? At what point did he get bargaining rights?

But, at least you agree then that there is nothing an american president could grant a pardon to as he hasn't been formally charged with anything that would be in the remit for a presidential pardon to be given.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Thank you Kryties, very nice of you to say so.

Why is it apparently SO difficult for some people to see through the astounding transparancy of all of this nonsense?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

Why do I insist on ignoring what? At what point did he get bargaining rights?


If Sweden were THAT convinced he did it, and THAT convinced they had a case, why not just take him up on his offer to question him at the embassy years ago? Hmmm?

What about the fact that the women who initially made the complaints have come out in public and admitted they were coerced into making those accusations by the Swedish police? What do you think about that?


But, at least you agree then that there is nothing an american president could grant a pardon to as he hasn't been formally charged with anything that would be in the remit for a presidential pardon to be given.


The "pardon" could come in the form of an absolute assurance he won't be extradited to the US. Don't be so obtuse.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Kryties

Thank you Kryties, very nice of you to say so.

Why is it apparently SO difficult for some people to see through the astounding transparancy of all of this nonsense?


I'm not so sure it's about them "seeing through the nonsense" as it is them following an agenda, regardless of the truth.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

President Elect Trump, doesn't have to grant a 'pardon', since Assange isn't guilty of anything other than highly embarassing certain US elites, which lest we forget, is NOT a crime (the other way around yeah, sure)..it's called Journalism.

Trump can of course, have a quiet word with the state department to tell Sweden to quietly drop the matter...which is what will happen in my opinion, probably sooner rather than later.

What this space...i predict that within just 3 months, Sweden will issue a statement declaring they are no longer seeking to interview Mr. Assange.

You read it here first folks!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

I think he views Snowden as someone that ran to the Russians, ultimately a traitor.
But Assange took the hard rode.. he definitely helped Trump get over the line..
I dont think they had any kind of agreement, but I think Assange did it hoping it would be enough to get a pardon!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: uncommitted

President Elect Trump, doesn't have to grant a 'pardon', since Assange isn't guilty of anything other than highly embarassing certain US elites, which lest we forget, is NOT a crime (the other way around yeah, sure)..it's called Journalism.

Trump can of course, have a quiet word with the state department to tell Sweden to quietly drop the matter...which is what will happen in my opinion, probably sooner rather than later.

What this space...i predict that within just 3 months, Sweden will issue a statement declaring they are no longer seeking to interview Mr. Assange.

You read it here first folks!


I can't believe this really needs saying again.


President Elect Trump, doesn't have to grant a 'pardon'


does not make any sense whatsoever. There is no crime listed for him to pardon.

If he tells Sweden to drop any charges of sexual assault against Assange then that will send out a wonderful message at the start of his presidency.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I think he did it, because the alternative was much too terrifying to contemplate.

Besides, he didn't have anything on President Elect Trump...if he did, he would have released that too.

Regardless, known or unknown, agreement or no agreement..Assange did help President Elect Trump into the Whitehouse...and that, i think, will be remembered, deal or no deal.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely confused as to the real reasons Assange is in that embassy?

Do you have something against Wikileaks and all the good it has done?

Why do you think having consensual sex without a condom is "sexual assault" and what do you think of the women who accused him coming forward and saying she was coerced by Swedish police into saying this?

Why can't Sweden have just offered assurance they wouldn't extradite him if, indeed, their primary motivation was to see him answer sexual assault charges? Why, also, couldn't they just have gone to the embassy and asked him years ago, and saved all that time and money?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

I said he doesn't need to grant a pardon, for that express reason mate...i also went on to explain why a pardon is NOT required, as Assange is NOT guilty of a crime...what did you miss there?

If you read the post i made, instead of skimming it, you would have also noticed i had said President Elect Trump will have a 'QUIET WORD' with the state department to tell Sweden to drop the case...how will a behind closed doors, QUIET WORD reflect in any way on the start of President Elect Trumps tenure?

I suggest you read the post you're replying to next time mate, less egg on your face that way, unless you enjoy that sort of thing, then skim away....whatever floats your boat.

edit on 10 11 2016 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely confused as to the real reasons Assange is in that embassy?


Wow...snap!

What are the odds?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: uncommitted

President Elect Trump, doesn't have to grant a 'pardon', since Assange isn't guilty of anything other than highly embarassing certain US elites, which lest we forget, is NOT a crime (the other way around yeah, sure)..it's called Journalism.

Trump can of course, have a quiet word with the state department to tell Sweden to quietly drop the matter...which is what will happen in my opinion, probably sooner rather than later.

What this space...i predict that within just 3 months, Sweden will issue a statement declaring they are no longer seeking to interview Mr. Assange.

You read it here first folks!


The article in the link used "Pardon" in its' title which IMO is very misleading... True one must commit a crime against the laws of the USA to be pardoned by a sitting president... Obama has already said he would consider a pardon for, (we all know who) if she is brought up on charges while he is still in office...

I think the way you outlined the scenario would be a proper way of handling things if there is such a thing as proper when dealing with such matters.

Whistle blowers in all most all cases get the sharp end of the stick .... They are deamed not team players ..... As far as I am concerned anyone who brings to light corruption and misdeeds should get accolades and rewards not some tar and feather party..



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Kryties

Wow...snap!

What are the odds?


HAHA nice one mate!

Great minds think alike



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




The article in the link used "Pardon" in its' title which IMO is very misleading... True one must commit a crime against the laws of the USA to be pardoned by a sitting president... Obama has already said he would consider a pardon for, (we all know who) if she is brought up on charges while he is still in office...


Good point about 'you know who'...which is probably why a Trump staffer was recently quoted as saying, in reply to a question about arresting 'YKW'..."All in good time..." which is quite telling with regards to the power of a still sitting POTUS being able to grant a pardon.

'Good time', will in all probability, be when President Elect Trump is sworn in and Mr. Obama is firmly out.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: uncommitted

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

I said he doesn't need to grant a pardon, for that express reason mate...i also went on to explain why a pardon is NOT required, as Assange is NOT guilty of a crime...what did you miss there?

If you read the post i made, instead of skimming it, you would have also noticed i had said President Elect Trump will have a 'QUIET WORD' with the state department to tell Sweden to drop the case...how will a behind closed doors, QUIET WORD reflect in any way on the start of President Elect Trumps tenure?

I suggest you read the post you're replying to next time mate, less egg on your face that way, unless you enjoy that sort of thing, then skim away....whatever floats your boat.


So, having a 'quiet word' to another country to drop criminal charges against a non US citizen for what? Services rendered to his election campaign? Right, and apparently it's other politicians who are corrupt.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
FYI

US Pardon


The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join