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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Clearly you are being deliberately obtuse.

Washington has threatened charges and imprisonment or death penalty. Trump could simply come out and say, publicly, that America will not pursue any of the charges they have threatened to press.

As Sweden has already questioned Assange now, and assuming they find no guilt, that would leave Assange free to return home or to go anywhere he wants to continue to live his life.

It's really quite simple.




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
I do not know enough about Julian Assange's past deeds to make an informed opinion... However as far as I am concerned what Assange did for Trump's campaign should definitely be recognized and given at least an attaboy !

So what does ATS think about a pardon for Snowden, Assange, and throw in Chelsea Manning..?

I would bet it won't happen though for there are to many rotting in jail for doing much less....

www.express.co.uk...


It reads: “Julian Assange has been persecuted and harried by the very people he has sought to expose for their lies and deceptions against the people of the world.

“Mr Assange has shone a bright light on the corruption of those who presume to rule us.

“We believe Mr Assange must be granted a presidential pardon absolving him of any crimes alleged against him.

“He is a hero and must be honoured as such.”

It is unclear how supporters expect Trump to pardon Mr Assange, who is hiding from extradition from a European Arrest Warrant.

In a statement released yesterday, Mr Assange's organisation defended the release of the Clinton e-mails which came at a crucial point in the White House race.


I'm not sure how much he really did do for Trump. It isn't like the average American hopped on wikileaks and searched Podestas and Clinton's emails.

And his statement received no media on MSN.

I doubt he or Snowden will be pardoned.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Yep...obtuse...you must LOVE egg pal.

This is the real world, like it or lump it mate...this is how the world runs.

And for the record, there are NO 'charges' against Assange...there is a 'case', but NO charges, either from the US or from Sweden.

President Elect Trump is a businessman, open to making mutually beneficial deals, with all parties at all levels..he will obviously recognise this entire Assange debarcle is and always was an indignant witch hunt, initiated at the behest of the criminals he will shortly be investigating once he reaches Office proper...and of course he recognises the nonsense with Assange makes the USA look terrible around the world.

He has quite plainly stated as his primary aim, that he wants to make America great again (i hope he does) and is willing to do the work to achieve that goal, by dealing with entire nations, individuals and probably even with argumentative, no point posters like you seem to be i'd bet.

Me, on the other hand...as far as you're concerned, am out. I prefer my discussions to be two way a little more than you're able to offer.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: uncommitted

Clearly you are being deliberately obtuse.

Washington has threatened charges and imprisonment or death penalty. Trump could simply come out and say, publicly, that America will not pursue any of the charges they have threatened to press.

As Sweden has already questioned Assange now, and assuming they find no guilt, that would leave Assange free to return home or to go anywhere he wants to continue to live his life.

It's really quite simple.


Can you quote 'Washington' threatening exactly what you have stated?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I prefer them with less delusion and blind hero worship - unfortunately there's a lot of that about on ATS these days.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

Can you quote 'Washington' threatening exactly what you have stated?


Just one of many easily found examples through a simple Google search - something you could have managed yourself....

www.smh.com.au...

THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.


Do you think that being classified as an "Enemy of the State" allows Assange to wander into the White House and have a beer with the Prez? Or does it present a clear and present threat to Assanges freedom if they got their hands on him?

Feel free to use your own keyboard and type a few simple search terms into Google to see the plethora of evidence available that proves our case.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: MysterX

I prefer them with less delusion and blind hero worship - unfortunately there's a lot of that about on ATS these days.


You have just perfectly described yourself and your posts in this thread.

How wonderful.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I think the problem here is an ignorance of Mr Assange's intentions. Again I ask everyone to look at his history of work. I read a lot of accusations of narcissism or ego maniac tho the evidence does not support that.

He has spent most of his life exposing corruption at all levels which has come at a great personal cost to himself.

The only way to deny ignorance is to first educate yourself and when it comes to Mr Assange his actions speak loud.
It is ignorant to believe he and people that would help his cause would be safe therefore the most prudent course to take would be protection.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ms898

The particular poster you are replying to has made his actual thoughts on the Assange issue quite clear in his posts. He believes Assange did the wrong thing by exposing and whistleblowing and deserves punishment.

Not in those words, but his intent is quite clear. Nothing else explains the deliberate obtuseness and obvious anger driving his posts.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I have been anti- Trump all throughout the election, however if he does this i will have to admit I was wrong about Donald.

Please for the sake of the country Mr. Trump, pardon these people!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: 727Sky

I have been anti- Trump all throughout the election, however if he does this i will have to admit I was wrong about Donald.

Please for the sake of the country Mr. Trump, pardon these people!


To be honest I agree with this. Trump will vastly improve my attitude toward him if he pardoned not only Assange, but Snowden and Manning also.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
he's obviously more a Man of conscience than you appear to be.



Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

He does it for the right principle, for democratic values and exposes the elites


Assange announced that he would run for the Australian Senate in March 2012 under the newly created WikiLeaks Party

How's that for your conscience? He milks it for everything it's worth.
edit on 10-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

How's that for your conscience? He milks it for everything it's worth.


How is standing up for what he believes in and running for the Aussie Senate in order to help effect real change and hold people accountable "milking it"?

Geez you lot pull some nonsense out of your rectums sometimes.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: imjack

How's that for your conscience? He milks it for everything it's worth.


How is standing up for what he believes in and running for the Aussie Senate in order to help effect real change and hold people accountable "milking it"?

Geez you lot pull some nonsense out of your rectums sometimes.


He had NO INTEREST until he was famous, are you kidding? How is that milking it? The name of the party is WIKILEAKS.


He also tried to do this while IN LONDON, give me a fking break.
edit on 10-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I think there is a difference, Assange should have published Trump's dirty secret as well if it was given to him. I think the entities within MIC/NSA and other alphabet agencies (may be foreign agencies like FSB) have provided the important leaks.

Though Trump himself admitted he bribed all politicians to make his billions, none of those secret came out. Nor any leads regarding his tax dodging details.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

He had NO INTEREST until he was famous, are you kidding? How is that milking it? The name of the party is WIKILEAKS.

He also tried to do this while IN LONDON, give me a fking break.


How do you know? Have you personally asked him?

Or are you just throwing out wild guesses?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: imjack

He had NO INTEREST until he was famous, are you kidding? How is that milking it? The name of the party is WIKILEAKS.

He also tried to do this while IN LONDON, give me a fking break.


How do you know? Have you personally asked him?

Or are you just throwing out wild guesses?


Wild guesses? He has no evidence of any political office interest until he is famous on record, this is a fact.

He was a JOURNALIST, who BECAME FAMOUS,-----THEN decided to run for office. Milk.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: MysterX

I prefer them with less delusion and blind hero worship - unfortunately there's a lot of that about on ATS these days.


You have just perfectly described yourself and your posts in this thread.

How wonderful.


Right, not really sure where I'm showing blind hero worship, but I honestly don't blame you for sticking by a fellow Australian.

Oh, 'military sources' doesn't mean 'all of Washington' now does it?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Beat me to it Kryties...thanks for saving me the pointless effort.

Adding anything more would be redundant..except i think we're now witnessing nothing approaching any real sentiment or dearly held or cherished beliefs being shared, but rather the spitting of feathers and the spluttering on sour grapes.

Pretty childish, standard foot stomping as can be clearly discerned from the generally pathetic tone of the some of the posting around here.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

You're defending this guy holding a Senate seat in Australia, while living in London?

"Common sense" becomes more bizarre each day. As far as I know, he can't even lawfully leave the Embassy without being arrested for his own bail. But yeah, he should run the Australian Senate from there.

edit on 10-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join