Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say

Rolling in the Deep

Lil' Donny is Toast

Drumpf and Schiklgruber (2 Peas in the Same Pod).

Oh, and On topic, Manafort is a career criminal.

He fits in well with The Trump Crime Family.

 

Thread win!

(But I don't think DT is toast...)

 

He might not be (in the criminally convicted sense).

But, in the political sense, 2020 will be very telling.

In any event, as always, Trump will gladly let somebody else take the fall

 

You are actually throwing out an earlier part of your argument to make a point. Badly I might say. Trump (or Obama or Bush, or Clinton..) going after leakers have nothing to do with this. You had said this...

...in order to argue that leaking from the government was perfectly fine, but now you have a problem with Trump going after leakers? The fact that you are contradicting yourself in the same thread makes me think that:

a) you are not serious about your argument and are just trolling

b) you are sorta serious, but your real point is that leaking is fine when it helps Democrats and bad when it helps Republicans

Which is it?

Now let's take this nice and slow, because you need the help on this: When Snowden stole US national security secrets, The Guardian, as well as The New York Times, Washington Post , Wikileaks,and several newspapers printed the material. They knowingly printed material that they knew was stolen. Yet, they didn't face any legal liability. According to your "logic" they should be in jail. In fact, the legal liability falls directly on Snowden. HE is the criminal.

If you can follow that, you should understand why Assange, via Wikileaks, as well as the The New York Times, Washington Post, and many others that also printed the contents of the hacked emails, shouldn't face legal liability. This doesn't mean the hacking itself wasn't a crime, it was, as was Snowden's theft. However our First Amendment, or as you might refer to it, our troublesome First Amendment, allows them the freedom to publish.

Burning down the First Amendment in order to "get" Trump is so shortsightedly stupid that I find it incredible that liberals are more than willing to do it. It's a constant fight to protect the Bill of Rights on this forum, because if you had your way it would be sanctioned just like those emails.

 

Lil Mike for PF Press Secretary!

 

Keep proving me right little buddy.

 

Sometimes the tuna net catches the turtles...

 

All hat no cattle. Come back when you have more than your emotional state to back your claims up.

 

Smart ass.

 

Can you please point to the amendment that mentions "personal email" in the Constitution for us and how it negates the 1st Amendment?

 

Best back & forth ever.

But can you tell me who's on first...?

Of course in the meantime, Stormy will be smuggling Top Secret US Goobmint info. to Putin in her underpants.

 

How to spot fake news.....

the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said

A well-placed source has told

According to the sources

one source said

According to sources

One person familiar with

one source in Quito suggests

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...cret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

When ever you see lots of unnamed sources, more than likely it's crapola.

 

It doesn’t negate it, just like slander laws, bribery laws etc don’t negate it

 

What is the difference between "Liberal" and "Left"?

 

Liberals are closet conservatives; there are only minor differences between them and declared conservatives.

Those minor differences are, of course, grossly and endlessly magnified and debated.

But liberals don't generally object to being falsely associated with the left because the left embraces meaningful & positive social values.

And conservatives love to falsely associate liberals with the left because instead of debating the minor differences noted in good faith, they can dismiss liberals & their arguments as leftist, making the ridiculous associative leap to totalitarian communism, Stalinist collectivism & so forth.

It's a form of ad hominem fallacy that permits DCs to avoid looking closely at their own similarities to their CC cohorts, and also sidestep addressing their own dissonances.

 

Interesting perspective, mine differs, though perhaps only in labeling.

"Progressives" took over the term "Liberal" and what was American Liberalism prior to the Progressive movement are now known as Libertarians.

There is very little difference between elected Conservative Representatives and Progressives to immense frustration of the Conservative Base. The Base's rebellion against the Establishment that defrauded us, is what led to the election of Trump.

 

First it was about stealing private emails, which Assange didn't do. You continue to ignore the totally valid legal arguments that people have presented to you. I mean, you don't even counter them. You go into some goal post moving tirade without thinking about the situation. Assange didn't steal the emails. Wait. Lets approach it like this.

Snowden stole government files. He broke the law. WaPo and The Guardian published the files. There were no charges filed. The press is protected by the 1st Amendment against being charged for publishing private or classified information. Read this article then get back to me. Don't ignore the article and continue to rave about why you think it's wrong. That's just an emotional argument and in the long run emotional arguments just don't work. The only thing they might have on Assange is violation of the National Espionage Act. That is real questionable.

"It is unlikely that the US government will try to prosecute a whistleblowing organization with the Espionage Act. Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor, explained that the Act draws no distinction between the leaker and the recipient. For example, the Espionage Act does not differentiate between a whistleblower such as Julian Assange, a recipient of leaked government information, and a regular US citizen who opens a classified document on WikiLeaks at home. Therefore, if the US government tried to prosecute Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, then the mainstream media could face federal prosecution in the future. Since the press is protected by the First Amendment, such a prosecution could be seen as unconstitutional. According to Vladeck, the US government has attempted to prosecute someone other than the thief of classified information only once with the Espionage Act, and the prosecution failed."

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/WikiLeaks/legality.html

 

Well, they didn't happen, and even if they had, still a nothing burger.

What say?

 

Three days later, and the only person seriously defending this ridiculous story now is a former *intelligence* officer speculating via Politico that Russia - !!! - may have planted the story and somehow fooled the august Guardian into publishing it.

At this point, it ACTUALLY looks like GB, the US or even Ecuador itself - via their *intelligence* apparatus - cooked this insane lie up & spoon fed it to the Guardian who then eagerly published the nonsense because journalism is dead.

I'm curious if any Russiagater will acknowledge that this ghost of a lie of a nothing burger is anything other than this now.

 

You were fooled; the story was likely a plant by US, GB or EC *intelligence* actors.

Comment?

 

The story was a fabrication about events meaningless if true.

Post-mortem thoughts?

 

As I've said again and again - no named source = no source. Baseless conjecture.

 

In this case, yup.

All that's left now is to see if ANYONE who bought into this nonsense will cop to having done so in error.

 

If it's worth asking us to believe you, it's worth putting your name to it and if necessary staking your career on it.

 

Yeah, but it's not how *intelligence* actors operate.