Trump 'associates' offered Assange pardon in return for emails source, court hears

[TheGreatSatan]

What I find truly amusing is that Democrats are incensed to the point of apoplexy about the fact that emails from the DNC were leaked.

But, are positively silent on the incriminating and embarrassing things contained in those emails.

Like the criminal who is incensed about police for catching him in his crimes, but makes no effort to deny them.

I remember Democrats telling me that it is normal for Democrats to have giant paintings of kids in their underwear chained to walls like John podesta has.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

 

[Polishprince]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

So those who revealed the Pizzagate scandal are whistleblowers, as well as those who revealed that Michelle Obama is actually a man?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

So those who revealed the Pizzagate scandal are whistleblowers, as well as those who revealed that Michelle Obama is actually a man?

Oh dear. No, they are loons.

 

[Aletheia4u]

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

So those who revealed the Pizzagate scandal are whistleblowers, as well as those who revealed that Michelle Obama is actually a man?

Who remembers John podesta art collection?

Bet the guy watches cuties too...

 

[Dekster]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

Idiot.

Inbred idiot.

 

[Dekster]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

No it is not exactly what they are for. They are for internal reporting to the appropriate authorities, not protecting thieves who leak things to the press or outside parties.

 

[gipper]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

Idiot.

Inbred idiot.

Statist loving Orwell dick sucking dumb ass.

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

That is exactly what they are for. A whistleblower by definition is telling the public what they need to know. E.G. when poiticians or corporations are breaking the law.

No it is not exactly what they are for. They are for internal reporting to the appropriate authorities, not protecting thieves who leak things to the press or outside parties.

The "proper authorities" were reported to. More than once. Congress had hearings on it where Clapper lied under oath about what was happening. Snowden then proved it was a lie. You can't report to people who are willing to commit perjury understanding there would be on repercussions for doing so and expect them to do anything.

One day we will create monuments to Snowden.