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.
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
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)
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......
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.
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?
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.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: uncommitted
It's in the leaked emails, read it for yourself.
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.
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.
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.