TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -13-

a reply to: CoramDeo

Assange didn't steal it, he only published it.

If they charge him they need to charge the NYT, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and every other newspaper that published wikileaks stuff.

As well as any news outlets that ever published a leaked government document.

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: CoramDeo

Assange didn't steal it, he only published it.

If they charge him they need to charge the NYT, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and every other newspaper that published Wikileaks stuff.

As well as any news outlets that ever published a leaked government document.

The crime is in the mishandling.

He knew what he had, and how it would damage US interests.

It doesn't matter that he didn't steal it.

Hillary didn't steal the classified data found on her homebrew toilet servers.

She mishandled classified infromation, and she needs to stand trial as well.

I know this point of view probably pisses a bunch of people off on this thread, but I'm a law and order kind of dude.

A big part of the Q movement, a core tenet in fact, is to finally see justice done to those who have, for too long, remained untouchable due to status, power, money, influence, etc.

If the US has a case against him, and I think they do, he should stand trial.

Equality under the law.

DJT Tweet

"Last year, I signed the landmark VA Accountability Act to ensure those who mistreat our Veterans can be held fully accountable. Since my inauguration, we have removed more than 3,600 government employees who were not giving our Vets the care they deserve...."

This matters. During the hell that was Shrub's reign, I knew someone pretty high up, and very well thought of, in the mental health area of the VA. Those who used the Shrub for cover purposefully and systematically destroyed the VA on purpose. 3600 is quite a lot.

a reply to: CoramDeo

You point of view doesn't piss me off.

I just disagree.

Hillary was a government official while Assange is a publisher.

Do you feel the same way about the Pentagon papers?

What about all the newspapers that also published the leaks?

a reply to: CoramDeo

Hillary didn't steal the classified data found on her homebrew toilet servers.

Hillary is a citizen of the US. She is subject to US law.

Assange is an Australian citizen, subject to Australian law.

Let me put it to you this way:

Why can't the Saudis charge US citizens for not wearing appropriate clothing or for blasphemy?

Assange is not required to consider US interests. He is not one of your citizens.

If a foreign citizen is actually in the US, then they can be charged.

As for your example, El Chappo is in the US and can be charged, unless of course you guys kidnapped him, in which case, the kidnapping is illegal.

Clean your own house first.

P

originally posted by: CoramDeo

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: CoramDeo

Assange didn't steal it, he only published it.

If they charge him they need to charge the NYT, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and every other newspaper that published Wikileaks stuff.

As well as any news outlets that ever published a leaked government document.

The crime is in the mishandling.

He knew what he had, and how it would damage US interests.

It doesn't matter that he didn't steal it.

Hillary didn't steal the classified data found on her homebrew toilet servers.

She mishandled classified infromation, and she needs to stand trial as well.

I know this point of view probably pisses a bunch of people off on this thread, but I'm a law and order kind of dude.

A big part of the Q movement, a core tenet in fact, is to finally see justice done to those who have, for too long, remained untouchable due to status, power, money, influence, etc.

If the US has a case against him, and I think they do, he should stand trial.

Equality under the law.

Tough one Cor, if Q has revealed one thing: Rules for above are not the same as below.

The question becomes can we separate out the message from the messenger - per Q?

Has our collective reality expressed altered in way that we must rethink some forms of order in order to liberate. Folks here know my take on Assange as a person being a hero is misguided. Sky and I disagreed (damn it sky :devil but over time I watched whatever he really is create leverage. He's evidence, without him I think Seth Rich dies for nothing - at least publicly. He's a symbol now for better or worse...

Binney met with Pompeo and told him what he told all of us: DNC hack was internal. All circumstantial evidence points to Seth. Assange said it was not Russia but STRONGLY hinted it was Seth. Assange has something that scares them all. It is believed by many he has been in US protecion since January and he hasn't been learning baseball.

Vice has a new Q hit piece. Trash

But seems odd that James Alefantis' name itself, a top 50 important DC person, was left out of the piece...

This might explain the reason.

J'aime l'efaint = I love babies.

Symbols will indeed be their downfall.

Good Evening All

So much good stuff to catch up on, Oh Boy ! LOL... you know you're a little crazy when catching up on Q thread is relaxing ! I'm sure everyone here has asked themselves, " Is Ignorance Bliss ? " for myself the answer is No ! If you weren't paying attention you missed the message written on the corner of the chalkboard that said you could leave class early !

A mystery fairy flag, fascinating. Creepy porn lawyer arrested, delicious, HRC going back on the hot seat, encouraging, an American Flag, a Bible and a wedding ring found unharmed in the fire rumble, a miracle !

Thanksgiving dinner's should be epic this year, lol, stay calm and cool folks, let the momentum of foolishness crash into the abyss of it's own insanity. We should come up with a few talking points or funny one liners to prepare ourselves when confronted by the " Stuck on Stupid " folks.

Maybe Tom can give us a recipe of something that starts with Q, that would be Fun !

a reply to: tiredoflooking

I'll be honest and say that I have never looked into the Pentagon papers in depth, but I believe what Assange or Wikileaks as a clearinghouse for information did falls into a different, and more dangerous category.

I believe the Pentagon Papers fall into a category of revealing misdeeds carried out by the US government that mislead the American People (shorthand, uninformed version). This differs from secrets that can legitimately harm national security interest of the US in keeping people safe.

I think JA/WikiL crossed a line with the release of Vault 7. That goes to level similar to publishing the encryption codes used to guide Air to Air missiles, or some other piece of information that potentially harms the security of the US and its allies, and puts us at a defensive or offensive disadvantage.

Please don't misunderstand me, JA would probably have been OK revealing how the CIA was using the tools at it's disposal illegally against US citizens, but revealing what those tools were crossed a line with me.

At that point you aren't looking out for the interests of the people, you are potentially removing a tool that could avert harm to people around the world.

I'm guessing that if he is brought to trial, the case will make its way the whole way to the supreme court as a test of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I found a Huffpo article from 2006 that actually does a good job talking through this issue. Better than I can anyway. Remember when Huffpo wasn't a bunch of liberal screeching estrogen-banshee? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

Freedom of the Press v. National Security

In the end, the article comes down on the side of the press, and the reasoning is sound, but it makes an assumption that I think no longer stands. Mainly, that the press is capable of and willing to check itself where revealing leaked classified information may do harm to the National security interests of the country. We no longer have a responsible press. It's all about clicks and eyeballs on the page.

Rules have changed , we know MSM .=. CIA
5 eyes never had a chance



DARPA. LoL

a reply to: CoramDeo

I do understand what you are saying.

There is a fine line there and who decides how that line can be crossed or not is important.


Assange has had a lot of criticism for publishing leaks he receives in full with no redactions.

I don't feel his motivation was the same as the MSM.
For ego or fame as has been portrayed.

If he wanted money or fame he could have redacted and sold his info and not be where he is now.

I can't know for sure, but my gut tells me his motivation is sincerely to bring transparency of government for the people.

He is a tiny outlet fighting against major governments and they have made it their priority to smear him in everyway possible.


It's through his published leaks , and those that came before him, that we have learned what governments will do and how they have harmed and abused power.

I feel like governments need to have someone holding them to account.

Also the fine line here is dangerous.

Who gets to decide what is and isn't published?

a reply to: pheonix358

We Americans tend to think we run the world. The reason is that we have it pretty good and assume other countries want what we have.

With that attitude comes a sense of "entitlement" to fair treatment. We want to export our brand of justice when we've been violated.

I think it's largely human nature to want to control things to the extent you can punish someone for harming you.

We're used to being the world's policeman. I can't wait for the day when we dump that responsibility and hold other countries responsible for their own protection.

originally posted by: butcherguy

Regarding Post 11, what kind of knowledgeable person, especially a military person, would refer to the President of the United States as 'Commander and Chief'?
Comes off like an Internet goofball that didn't finish high school living in mom's basement.

microsoft.com/en-us/help/14198/windows-7-dictate-text-using-speech-recognition

support.microsoft.com...

T op Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Justice – 2018




"...U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court relating to a certain U.S. person."

A Certain US person???

It does seem hard to believe that they have enough "challenges" to actually have to make a report, because, well, you know, the people in the bleachers are sure there are none at all.

a reply to: pheonix358

Assange is an Australian citizen, subject to Australian law.

Assange is an Australian and Equadroian citizen. The US has extradition treaties with both countries.

Why can't the Saudis charge US citizens for not wearing appropriate clothing or for blasphemy?

No US extradition treaty with SA, no beheadings. Probably has something to do with Burkinis on the beach.

If a foreign citizen is actually in the US, then they can be charged.

Actually, if they act against interests of the US while committing cyber crimes, or as a co-conspirator with someone else who commits crimes on US soil, they might just get a free plane ride to our shores. It happens a lot.

As for your example, El Chappo is in the US and can be charged, unless of course you guys kidnapped him, in which case, the kidnapping is illegal.

We have an extradition treaty with Mexico, too...aaaaaand I'm pretty sure he crossed the border to commit a crime or two. So, I'll give you that.

Clean your own house first.

We're gonna need a bigger mop. Working on it.



I see the charges, if brought going one of two ways.

1. He is brought up on charges by Mueller trying to tie him ot hacking the DNC server.

If this is the case, and he were extradited and tried, it would be a good thing for him and because of the info that would be revealed against the dirty bunch in the US government. I also believe that he would eventually beat the charges against him or get a light sentence for cooperating.

2. He is brought up on espionage charges by the DOJ, with or without the Mueller investigation referring the case.

This is a little more serious and goes to the point that I made to ToL about the Vault 7 stuff crossing a journalistic line. This would be more serious in my opinion, and might end up in front of SCOTUS, absent a law that clearly defines publishing of sensitive, classified information.

I honestly think, either way, he's not going to do any jail time. We (mostly) don't prosecute celebrities.

twitter.com...

Well going to wait and see.

This is fully disgusting ...charge him but not HRC not Podesta...

Nice show.

a reply to: pheonix358

Don't forget...

How the DOJ almost offered an immunity deal to Julian Assange

In the spring of 2017, one of Julian Assange's lawyers Adam Waldman negotiated with the Justice Department on a possible deal to get the WikiLeaks founder limited immunity and safe passage out of a London embassy to talk with U.S. officials.

In return, Assange would provide technical information to the U.S. ruling out certain suspects in the release of hacked DNC emails key to the Russia case, identify vulnerabilities in the CIA's computer systems and talk about measures to protect certain sensitive information in future releases by Wikileaks.

The outlines of the deal were memorialized in a March 28, 2017 email between Waldman and Justice Department counterintelligence section chief David Laufman.

The proposed deal: html2-f.scribdassets.com...
Laufman's response: html1-f.scribdassets.com...

How Comey intervened to kill WikiLeaks' immunity deal

But an unexpected intervention by Comey — relayed through Warner — soured the negotiations, multiple sources tell me. Assange eventually unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.

...and Bruce Ohr.

Waldman contacted Ohr, a Justice official he’d met during the Russia election case. They talked by phone and encrypted text messages in early January, then met Feb. 3, 2017, in Washington, records show. In between, Waldman met three times with Assange in London.