PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: NippleBoy on April 11, 2019, 03:33:49 AM
-
In case the name doesn't ring a bell, he's the Australian Wikileaks.
I hope they fry his a$$ for espionage.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ecuador-withdraws-asylum-from-julian-assange-arrested-by-uk-police
-
Well, he isn’t American so they can’t get him for treason. And they can’t very well convict him of espionage and let Brantley Manning go since Assange just accepted the information.
I am wondering about the authority of US Law over an Australian citizen in Britain.
-
Wikileaks is interesting. They publish documents on their website that incriminate people, but it is my understanding that said incriminated people have never denied that the documents are real. They just get mad that the documents were exposed for all to see.
In my mind such a thing serves a purpose. It is perhaps as close to objective truth as we can ever get about the basement-level operations of government.
-
Wikileaks is interesting. They publish documents on their website that incriminate people, but it is my understanding that said incriminated people have never denied that the documents are real. They just get mad that the documents were exposed for all to see.
In my mind such a thing serves a purpose. It is perhaps as close to objective truth as we can ever get about the basement-level operations of government.
I certainly believe in the rights of a free press. Legitimate journalists will apply some sort of filter. Some of what Assange released needed to be released.
But intentionally releasing sensitive information that can put our troops at risk should not be "protected speech", at least in my opinion and our government has the right to intervene, just as we have the right to protect ourself from an invading force. Something about ". threats, foreign and domestic"
Assange was no purist. He did what he did because he hated America. America has the right, and the duty to hate him back. And woe be unto the guy that America hates.
-
All their going to charge him with is Conspiracy. He'll spend 5 years in the Federal pen, max, probably less. He's been in the Ecuadoran Embassy longer.
-
Remember when journalist sang the praises of the "Pentagon Papers"? Ellsberg was a folk hero.
I'm trying to see the difference.
-
All their going to charge him with is Conspiracy. He'll spend 5 years in the Federal pen, max, probably less. He's been in the Ecuadoran Embassy longer.
He is charged with conspiring with Chelsea Manning. Obama gave Chelsea Manning clemency in 2017.
-
Tucker Carlson nailed it.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/04/11/tucker-assanges-real-sin-was-preventing-hillary-clinton-from-becoming-president-743716
Tucker Carlson ridiculed Republicans and Democrats who insist that Julian Assange is a Russian agent saying it’s clear that the real problem is that Assange embarrassed everyone in Washington by publishing their secrets — and that his “real sin” was stopping Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
“Just so it’s clear,” he said, “whatever his sins, Assange did not steal documents from the United States government. He did not hack the DNC servers. He did not break into John Podesta’s gmail account.”
“There is no proof that he is working for the Russian government, or ever was worked for the Russian government. Assange has never been charged with any of that and wasn’t today, no matter what they tell you,” he said.
“Assange’s real sin,” said Carslon, “was preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president.”
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/how-you-can-be-certain-us-charge-against-assange-fraudulent
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/dershowitz-no-constitutional-difference-between-wikileaks-and-new-york-times/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/dershowitz-no-constitutional-difference-between-wikileaks-and-new-york-times/
Yeah, but at times, I think NYT should be prosecuted too. They often step out of bounds of "journalism".
edit: I say that only partly in jest.
-
Yeah, but at times, I think NYT should be prosecuted too. They often step out of bounds of "journalism".
edit: I say that only partly in jest.
No jest required, it’s objective truth! Joe, you’re getting toxic liberal drift from your wife and in-laws! Step back from the precipice!
-
Yeah, but at times, I think NYT should be prosecuted too. They often step out of bounds of "journalism".
edit: I say that only partly in jest.
It's not just the New York Times. I've posted this list before several times. Just a few examples are CNN, NBC/MSNBC (Comcast), ABC (Disney), CBS, PBS, Washington Post (Amazon), AP, Reuters, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others. It has gotten to the point where they are entirely comfortable reporting lies, and omitting critical stories in order to fit the Far Left Narrative as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.
There is no accountability because they are the very organizations that would hold people accountable with investigative "journalism". There is no journalism, and truthful sources don't matter, allegations and made up allegations suffice. All we can do is "turn them off", but they are willing to run at losses because large, far left corporations run them and are willing to do so.
A tremendous amount of the populations still rely on these Media outlets (not news) to get their OPINIONS. That is the purpose of these organizations. Mold opinions to agree with their leftist agenda. That is their sole purpose. Not to "inform". In additions Tech, and Social Media are the other outlets and they even admit they are far leftists.
-
It's not just the New York Times. I've posted this list before several times. Just a few examples are CNN, NBC/MSNBC (Comcast), ABC (Disney), CBS, PBS, Washington Post (Amazon), AP, Reuters, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others. . That is their sole purpose. Not to "inform". In additions Tech, and Social Media are the other outlets and they even admit they are far leftists.
I only specified the NYT because Lucifer's link specifically addressed the NYT. There are worse outlets out that, and you listed a few of them.
-
Other than make my criminals like hilary and barry look like the corrupt pigs they are, I fail to see any difference between this and cnn.
-
I only specified the NYT because Lucifer's link specifically addressed the NYT. There are worse outlets out that, and you listed a few of them.
I understand that. No worries. I just love to post my "list" of deplorables!
-
If you want to be correct, it's not equivalent to the NYT. More like the Sydney Morning Herald.
Which US law would be applicable if they published the Afghanistan information in their paper or helped someone hack into a Pentagon database?