• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it time to be very afraid?

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
26,035
Reaction score
23,645
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN)
President Donald Trump has ordered all major US intelligence agencies to assist Attorney General William Barr in his review of surveillance issues surrounding Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, delegating significant authority to Barr to declassify intelligence materials as the attorney general sees fit.
and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
In a stunning escalation of the Trump administration’s war on the press, the Justice Department has indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for revealing government secrets under the Espionage Act. It’s the first time a publisher has been charged under the World War I-era law.
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)
 
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN) and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)

1. I suggest you stay away from multimedia echo chamber talking potato heads. They rarely give you reasoned, factual information because they always have their own spin to feed you.

2. Regarding Trump's orders on declassification, you have a totally wrong idea what is going on. This has nothing to do with "policing" or "disloyalty". It has everything to do with the actions of the Obama administration and letting you, me and the rest of the public know about those actions. If you want a very good analysis and explanation of the declassification process that Trump has started, I suggest this: BOOM! – Process Started – President Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification…. | The Last Refuge

3. Here is a good analysis of the Assange indictment: What Does the Julian Assange Indictment Mean? | Law & Crime
 
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN) and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)

This is the way a police state behaves BECAUSE we live in a police state. Thank you Mr. Occam!
 
1. I suggest you stay away from multimedia echo chamber talking potato heads. They rarely give you reasoned, factual information because they always have their own spin to feed you.

2. Regarding Trump's orders on declassification, you have a totally wrong idea what is going on. This has nothing to do with "policing" or "disloyalty". It has everything to do with the actions of the Obama administration and letting you, me and the rest of the public know about those actions. If you want a very good analysis and explanation of the declassification process that Trump has started, I suggest this: BOOM! – Process Started – President Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification…. | The Last Refuge

3. Here is a good analysis of the Assange indictment: What Does the Julian Assange Indictment Mean? | Law & Crime

If the Trump was honestly wanting to know the truth, he would place an independent investigator in charge and not someone who has already shown to be his biased lacky.
 
A lot of people wanted Obama to investigate the Bush administration's use of torture, but he resisted because it sends us down a slippery slope towards political leaders using the government to investigate their political opponents. This is something we expect from what Trump describes as ****hole countries.

In light of Trump already claiming that Comey, whose last minute comments about Clinton and her emails helped put him in the White House, is guilty of treason, I would say he brought a toboggan to this slippery slope.

So, yeah, its time to be afraid.
 
If the Trump was honestly wanting to know the truth, he would place an independent investigator in charge and not someone who has already shown to be his biased lacky.

It's not Trump's call. It's up to Barr.

Now...it very well might come to Barr assigning a special prosecutor to deal with the corrupt Obama admin pukes.
 
It's not Trump's call. It's up to Barr.

Now...it very well might come to Barr assigning a special prosecutor to deal with the corrupt Obama admin pukes.

Barr is Trump’s personal lawyer. He does what he is told.
 
It's not Trump's call. It's up to Barr.

Now...it very well might come to Barr assigning a special prosecutor to deal with the corrupt Obama admin pukes.

Soon you'll be crying again that Obama didn't do enough to stop the Russians and Trump. He's got you guys running in circles.
 
Soon you'll be crying again that Obama didn't do enough to stop the Russians and Trump. He's got you guys running in circles.

???

What are you blathering about?
 
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN) and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)

This is an interesting case and it really needs to be tried.

in the past, there was a saying warning that you should never get into an argument with a guy that buys printing ink by the barrel.

Now, anyone has access to the internet and can assume the role of a "journalist" by writing something and making it available for public consumption.

Was the role played by Assange different than the role played by Danial Ellsberg and WaPo in releasing the Pentagon Papers?

The newly evolved definition of "The Press" due to the newly evolved opportunities presented by the internet seem to demand regulation or at least definition.

The advent of the revenge porn actions taken by jilted lovers could be a protected act under the First Amendment, but, there are considerations included not necessarily related to free speech in this action.

Are considerations of privacy and protection of information important considerations? How important are they?

Our legal system is supposed to resolve this kind of a consideration. Maybe we should let it do what it's intended to do.
 
Nonsense.

Uh, he picked Barr after Barr snet him a 19 page letter criticizing the Mueller investigation.

Who read the letter to Trump, or summarized it for him, is not known.
 
???

What are you blathering about?

One day you are complaining that Obama spied on Trump, the next day you are complaining that Obama didn't do enough to deal with Russian interference - interference that Trump supported and engaged with and lied about.

You want it both ways - He did too much, he didn't do enough.

The con man has you all running in circles.
 
This is the way a police state behaves BECAUSE we live in a police state. Thank you Mr. Occam!

We live in a police state because there are so many things to police?
 
If the Trump was honestly wanting to know the truth, he would place an independent investigator in charge and not someone who has already shown to be his biased lacky.

SIAP. How is Barr Trump's lackey?
 
Barr is Trump’s personal lawyer. He does what he is told.

Right. Barr does what the law tells him to do. Which begs the question, what do you want Barr to do? Certainly not what the law tells Barr to do...
 
One day you are complaining that Obama spied on Trump, the next day you are complaining that Obama didn't do enough to deal with Russian interference - interference that Trump supported and engaged with and lied about.

You want it both ways - He did too much, he didn't do enough.

The con man has you all running in circles.

The only way I want it is for illegal, corrupt action by Presidential administrations to be revealed and punished.

Frankly, Obama refusing to deal with Russian election interference is part of his corrupt actions. That is part and parcel with his entire administration...the one that has been spying on American citizens and organizations that he doesn't like. Including Trump.
 
The only way I want it is for illegal, corrupt action by Presidential administrations to be revealed and punished.

Frankly, Obama refusing to deal with Russian election interference is part of his corrupt actions. That is part and parcel with his entire administration...the one that has been spying on American citizens and organizations that he doesn't like. Including Trump.

You want him to go after the Russians, but ignore the useful idiots, Trump and his campaign members, who the Russians targeted and responded to that targeting.

This makes no sense. It can only be read as a biased screed.
 
Right. Barr does what the law tells him to do. Which begs the question, what do you want Barr to do? Certainly not what the law tells Barr to do...

Barr got his job by sucking up to Trump.

He already had a history of protecting another president, George Bush, from the Iran-Contra scandal.
 
Barr got his job by sucking up to Trump.

He already had a history of protecting another president, George Bush, from the Iran-Contra scandal.

George HW Bush and the Iran contra deal?
 
Last edited:
You want him to go after the Russians, but ignore the useful idiots, Trump and his campaign members, who the Russians targeted and responded to that targeting.

This makes no sense. It can only be read as a biased screed.

Oh...so you support Obama's violations of the 4th Amendment and you support him letting the Russians interfere with our election.

Dude...your priorities are disturbingly skewed.
 
Barr got his job by sucking up to Trump.

He already had a history of protecting another president, George Bush, from the Iran-Contra scandal.

Barr, under Trump, still follows the law.
 
Right. Barr does what the law tells him to do. Which begs the question, what do you want Barr to do? Certainly not what the law tells Barr to do...

Not lying would be a good first start.

Telling us “no collusion, no obstruction” about the Mueller report? Seriously? What, he thinks we can’t read?
 
Oh...so you support Obama's violations of the 4th Amendment and you support him letting the Russians interfere with our election.

Dude...your priorities are disturbingly skewed.

So the Russians are doing it again now. Sounds like you’re totally OK with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom