Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Assange about to be arrested?


Ashotep
 Share

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Lilly said:

As for Mr Trump, any speculation on what he might or might not do in a similar circumstance has no bearing on what Mrs Clinton actually did do. The notion that Trump's evasion of prosecution for 'other things' somehow makes Clinton's evasion of prosecution less egregious is a logical fallacy. See here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

You're the one who raised the issue of whether or not Trump would evade prosecution. I merely responded to it.  At no time did I suggest that his evasion of prosecution in the past in any way made Clinton's evasion of it less egregious. Please re-read my posts.

I agree that what Hillary did was wrong. Even she admits it (albeit reluctantly and without sincerity). And like you, few people are happy that she got away with it. Am I glad that we found out about it? Absolutely. But why we're discussing it here evades me because WikiLeaks had nothing to do with exposing her use of that server. State Department members reviewing the Benghazi attacks discovered some correspondence between Hillary's private email account and the government email accounts of her staff. The State Department then issued a formal request asking Hillary to hand over all of the emails, and eventually made 30,000 messages (many of which were partly redacted) public. So there you have it.. transparency without help from Assange.

Edited by Clair
Added stuff about Hillary.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, Clair said:

You're the one who raised the issue of whether or not Trump would evade prosecution.

I took this: "Sure it's great fun as long as Hillary's the one being targeted, but I'm sure Trump would be singing a whole other tune if ever the tables were to turn." combined with this: "As for Trump, he's evaded prosecution (and persecution) on other things."  as indicating Trump could readily do similar illegal things if given half a chance. If you didn't mean that then I was mistaken.

Edited by Lilly
addition
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I took this: "Sure it's great fun as long as Hillary's the one being targeted, but I'm sure Trump would be singing a whole other tune if ever the tables were to turn."  as meaning Trump could readily do the same things if given half a chance. If you didn't mean that then I apologize.

No need to apologize Lilly. In re-reading that I can understand why you interpreted it the way you did. It's my fault for not being clear. What I meant by it is that if Trump, instead of Hillary, was the one being targeted by WikiLeaks, he probably wouldn't be too happy about it. At the moment he's enjoying the leaks and even encouraging them, something I do not think he would do if information casting doubt on his integrity kept surfacing.

As much as I believe in transparency, I do not like what's happening to Hillary and I would dislike it just as much if it were happening to Trump. I mean think about it. A hostile, agenda-driven twerp, in collusion with who knows whom, is targeting one of our candidates and many of us are laughing about it. But I don't see what's so funny about it. I really don't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Clair said:

As much as I believe in transparency, I do not like what's happening to Hillary and I would dislike it just as much if it were happening to Trump. I mean think about it. A hostile, agenda-driven twerp, in collusion with who knows whom, is targeting one of our candidates and many of us are laughing about it. But I don't see what's so funny about it. I really don't.

Okay so what would you say in a situation where a whistleblower released information that saved people's lives. I dunno something like the government was deliberately trying to poison everyone. I know that's extreme, but you hopefully you know what I'm getting at.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zenith said:

Okay so what would you say in a situation where a whistleblower released information that saved people's lives. I dunno something like the government was deliberately trying to poison everyone. I know that's extreme, but you hopefully you know what I'm getting at.

.

Exposing Hillary Clinton could save lives -- lots of them if her politics and collusion with a shadowy globalist government
outside democratic control leads to a serious conflict with Russia -

@Clair -  -  I see you are going down the Shoot the Messenger road  /  cul de sac  -  

.

Edited by bee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, the FBI didn't even want to see Mrs Clinton's 'personal and private details' email (about her yoga classes or daughter's wedding). She was only required to provide emails pertaining to government business...and claimed she had done so. However, it turns out that was not the case. Mrs Clinton is not an innocent victim in all this, she could have given the FBI everything, she could have refrained from using bleach bit and hammers, she could have told the truth instead of lying. And of course...she could have stayed within the guidelines of the law to begin with and avoided the entire mess.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Down to brass tacks...If it weren't for Assange and other hero's, we (the people) would not know the honest details regarding- 1 world government (soros etc), elimination of borders, unbridled immigration, a very sick (and twisted) clintons. Who by hook or crook -will do anything to further their personal interests.

Reminds me of the OJ trial. The evidence was overwhelming, but oj  walked away a free man- to the cheers of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-10-24 at 7:37 PM, Zenith said:

Okay so what would you say in a situation where a whistleblower released information that saved people's lives. I dunno something like the government was deliberately trying to poison everyone. I know that's extreme, but you hopefully you know what I'm getting at.

Sorry, I missed this question earlier.  I can give you an extremely long answer because there are so many different kinds of situations that can be examined, but I will keep my answer short and will even spare you the caveats. Yes I'm generally pro-whistle blowing under such circumstances.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.