The DNC had their email server itself hacked, which is an entirely different level of compromise.
Of course, they crafted a narrative that “republicans were hacked too!” which of course is true but highly misleading (typical of such propaganda campaigns).
This was highly effective, as it’s still popping up in discussions like this one 5+ years later.
Based upon the talking points at the time, establishment Democrats very much wanted this to be true. This makes sense since the Russians are a convenient scapegoat.
>suppressing damaging information on Republicans.
They wanted this to be true but it didnt happen:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_...
In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well, journalism.
It makes him a journalist who doesnt appreciate being threatened with a drone strike by a sitting secretary of state for practising journalism.
The fact people give him shit for this is pretty unbelievable.
Excusing Russian style journalist assassination is not compatible with respect for Democracy.
Do you expect him to have been neutral on her candidacy?
"if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters"
They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of winning:
"we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting"
He still didnt conceal any leaks in pursuit of that goal and he wasnt a russian spy. Nonetheless, both claims are frequently made in the mainstream media linked to Democrats.
They are lies.
lol I kid. Literally 0% chance CNN will give him one.
Every establishment critic faces the same choice:
1) appear on PressTV or RT
2) face ridiculously hostile interviewers
3) dont appear on TV
Mostly they go for a mix of 1 and 2.
Much like I can - randomly or otherwise - choose any faction in the Nigerian elections.
Or is their some planet-wide law that he fell under?
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions of others into account?
How do you pardon a foreign citizen?
Furthermore, as Assange isn’t an American citizen and doesn’t get to vote in the USA, none of them have no reason to put personal dislike aside and defend him or his actions.
Hell, he might have been a lot better off now if he was a USA citizen, or even if he’d been officially working for Russia.
Right now, he’s a conveniently unlicensed hot potato: held personally liable by the powers, not even really seen as a journalist even if he was one.
Indeed, hate away.
But its a big jump to imprisoning (or as some would like killing) him.
Just as - and focus here - its not ok to extradite atheists to Saudi Arabia for heresy committed in say New Zealand.
Its after all just a wee election.
[1] https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-nw-nyt-tru... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-said-considering-pardo... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/tr...
https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/republicans-2016-edw...
I think this shows on either side of the aisle, there is little love for Snowden and people alike.
If it wasn’t Snowden it would have been someone else, matter if time.
Here’s what the gov should do:
1.) Pardon Snowden publicly 2.) Work with Snowden as public front, to build a better (more privacy conscious) surveillance network and win back the public’s trust
Will this ever happen? Probably not
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/leaker-of-drone-secrets-ge...
No need to steer away from "deep state" so hard you go hyperbolic.
Maybe use "Multiple competing power cabals", if you prefer?
It's no deep state conspiracy that the Pentagon or the CIA have their own opinion on world politics. If anything, the Trump administration has shown that there are still some restraints to the president's power. At some point details were made foggy or even left out in Trump's security briefings out of fear they might get leaked to Twitter. The end result of this process isn't to keep the elites in power or to control the people, it's much more tame than that. People don't like change and when a new guy rolls in and decides that the way some government body does something is wrong, people will naturally resist.
There is always a power balance, usually in favour of the democratically elected officials, between the elected government and the government that sticks around. When push comes to shove the elected officials always have the power to overrule the unelected ones, but any future endeavours related to these parties would become difficult once you force matters.
The CIA, FBI, DoJ and FDA don't get a complete reshuffle every four years. The figureheads and even organisational top can get replaced, but there are many layers of middle management below them that have cemented their ways in difficult to change processes, workflows and office culture.
The system has its advantages, notably that the country doesn't collapse after giving a complete lunatic the reigns for four years, but also a great many disadvantages, notably elected officials being worked against in their quest for improvement and change. This effect can be increased or decreased, but it won't ever go away and denying that there is more to politics than elites at the top is just nonsensical in my opinion.
It will erode away as American influence does. Just ask the Brits what happened with their War Office, India Office, Colonial Office etc etc etc. No one thought those were ever going away either.
Biden might pardon Snowden at the end of his term, but don't count on it. I haven't seen a single sign that Biden (or any American presidential candidate for that matter) would side with anyone for leaking government secrets. The government is sitting on many more juicy details that'd upset the global political balance and transparency is not in the USA's interests.