Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Will Not Hand Himself In Because Chelsea Manning's Release Won't Happen Immediately, Lawyer Says (independent.co.uk)
President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's prison sentence yesterday, reducing her time required to serve behind bars from 35 years to just over seven years. Prior to the commutation, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Roughly 24 hours have passed since the news broke and it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice. The Independent reports: Mr Assange's lawyers initially seemed to suggest that promise would be carried through -- telling reporters that he stood by his earlier comments -- but it appears now that Mr Assange will stay inside the embassy. The commitment to accept extradition to the U.S. was based on Ms Manning being released immediately, Mr Assange's lawyer told The Hill. Ms Manning won't actually be released until May -- to allow for a standard 120-day transition period, which gives people time to prepare and find somewhere to live, an official told The New York Times for its original report about Ms Manning's clemency. "Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning's sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought," Barry Pollack, Assange's U.S.-based attorney, told the site. "Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately."
liar liar pants on fire
>"it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice"
And that surprises anyone? I see it now: "Oh, I said pardon, not reduced sentence." "Oh, I meant immediately." "Oh, I meant within 5 minutes of it being announced." "Oh, I only meant if the record was expunged completely too". Whatever.
Come on. Show of hands. Who thought Assange would really leave the embassy just for Chelsea Manning? He's holding out for that sweet Fox News money once Trump makes him an official member of the politburo. He's blond, so he might be Megyn Kelly's replacement.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Julian Assange pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Roughly 24 hours have passed since the news broke and it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice.
Great. Has the US asked for extradition? Is there a warrant for his arrest? I have not seen that.
How has what he has done any different than any other journalistic source?
Assange posted he'd turn himself in IF Manning was granted clemency.
The words "Immediate release" are not in the Tweet.
Obama could have signed a Pardon to reduce the 35 sentence to 34 years,
And that would still be clemency requiring Assange to turn himself in.
Assange broke his promise and proves he can't be trusted.
Now that Assange is playing dirty, the US probably just needs to play dirty and send some thugs out in the dark at night to sneak into the embassy and capture assange to extradite, whatever the risks.....
Actually if you're rich you don't get a fair trial either, it's just unfair in the other direction.
If he truly believed in the righteousness of his cause he would come out of hiding present his case to the public. Really hoping Trump will force him to answer the accusations against him.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
He never intended to turn himself in. The game plan from day one was simply to attention whore a bit and get his name in the news, which is literally the *only* thing Assange cares about.
This is wrong. You are also an idiot.
Snowden was a sysadmin you tool he had legitimate access to all of the stuff he released because the NSA/CIA gave it to him.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for. When he saw what happened to people who tried to raise issues "through proper channels" he realized that he could either uphold his oath or continue working for those agencies. He chose to tell the world, but more importantly Americans, about how their constitutional rights were being pissed all over by a security apparatus who simply didn't give a shit about the little people or the constitution.
That make him a whistle blower.
IIRC Manning didn't have legitimate access to a lot of the stuff he passed on, he was accidentally given higher access than he warranted by mistake.
Actually, Snowden never turned *anything* over to WikiLeaks at any point in time. He turned those documents over to respected journalists, who he believed (rightly) would be careful to ensure that no potentially damaging information about the US would become public. There was a time when a whistleblower might reasonably turn information over to WikiLeaks, but by the time Snowden released his documents WikiLeaks had proven itself irresponsible and hell bent on causing harm to the US.
IF he had turned his documents over to WikiLeaks, THEN you could make the case that he was not a whistleblower but a traitor. But he did not. He turned them over to journalists, and exposed a hell of a lot of government corruption and civil rights violations in the process. Most people consider exposing corruption while taking great precautions to ensure no undue damage occurs to be whistleblowing, which is why people keep referring to Snowden as a whistleblower.
It is legal to grab pussy on a whim in well over half the world.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
From the WIkileaks twitter account:
"Assange is still happy to come to the US provided all his rights are guarenteed despite White House now saying Manning was not quid-quo-pro."
This is what I said on Ars. It applies equally here.
1. It is premature to say that Assange is weaseled out until Manning is actually out of jail.
2. There is a difference between a pardon and commutation. Manning certainly will not be able to live the same life as though Mannig were pardoned. There are still restrictions placed on a person whose sentence was commuted. Whether those differences are significant enough is up to debate.
3. The biggest thing to strike me is that this suggests that there will be no last minute pardon of Hillary. The arguments that Obama gives for not pardoning Snowden apply equally to Hillary. We shall see.
Assange never said that. Totally made up. Another example of the lying media.
And he attempted to cover it up.
Play Command HQ online
Maybe he would return if our prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than abuse and over-revenge without any regard to the fact that released prisoners are angrier, less remorseful, and more evil?
Maybe he would return if the prosecutors saw the justice system as something other than a game they must win?
Why would anyone subject themselves or anyone else to our justice and prison system? Why would anyone subject anyone besides the worst violent criminals to it? It doesn't do anything but further scramble the criminal mind.
Clemency = {pardon, commuting, reprieve}
(possibly others, but those are the only ones I can think of)
Do you have some evidence of any "hardon"? There have been some pretty intemperate remarks from the US intelligence community about Assange, and obviously the current US Administration, not to mention quite a few lawmakers in both parties, don't like the man, but there's been no charges laid against him, no request for his extradition, indeed no legal proceedings at all. I've heard many a tale spun about how he's going to end up in some Third World hellhole with car battery leads tied to his testicles while a CIA operative takes notes, but since that sort of thing is thus far unevidenced conspiracy theory, I see no reason to give it any particular credence. He's wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities on allegations of rape, and wanted by the British police and the Home Secretary because he's a foreign national on British soil who is supposed to be extradited to Sweden and is currently evading arrest.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Exactly. Probably the single biggest blow to Wikileaks, and the point where I think that organization jumped the shark, is that Snowden eclipsed it both in the extent of the leak, and in the fact that, whatever you think of Snowden, he worked with actual journalists
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
May 2010. It took me about 15 seconds to look it up, why didn't you bother to?
And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.
(Homer Simpson voice) Now who's being naive?
Wow! The most Insightful post of the year!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
For all of this spectacle, all the attention paid to the actors and pawns in this charade--Assange, Manning, Snowden, Obama, the US government, Sweden, UK--what has ever come of the actual substance of these disclosures? Has no one bothered to ask who should be held accountable for the lives of those journalists shot down in Iraq? Has no one lifted a finger to ensure that the NSA does not continue to violate the US Constitution?
Why is this such a difficult issue for so many people to stay focused on? Why is it that, even now, people are still focused on the players and not the crimes? Assange is no less guilty than the US government for playing his part to deflect attention from the real issues in his desire to grandstand in the spotlight. That nothing has come of these revelations that Manning and Snowden brought to the attention of the American people and the entire world, is the greatest success that fascists could ever hope for, because it means that even when massive criminal wrongdoing is exposed, the people will not force change: there is zero accountability and the government can act with impunity.
> whatever you think of Snowden, he worked with actual journalists
So did Wikileaks previously. I guess everyone just forgot that part where they were originally working with the NYT & co.?
Julian Assange parses words and meanings. Essentially he is going back on his word.
then != than
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
There are no US charges or extradition orders against him, so what would he be handing himself to the US for?
This is Julian playing opportunistic political games in a changing US political environment trying to get the admissions of truth he wants and perhaps being let off the hook by sympathetic Trump at the same time.
Hes using this as a way to force US officials to admit there is a grand jury investigation against him and they've intended to extradite him from Sweden all along which has been denied by the US but why he has always resisted being extradited to Sweden.
If he were to leave the Embassy, the European extradition is still in place and he would be arrested by British police and deported to Sweden.. its what happens next he wants to try and negotiate.
BTW he is not wanted in the US, he is wanted in SWEDEN
Obviously you don't know all the particulars of Mr. Assange. He is wanted in Sweden for question regarding some rape accusations. He is also wanted in the US for publishing US Government secerts. Very bad. This is why he refuses to leave the embassy, because if he does, Britain will arrest him and extradite him to the USA. Sweden would probably also do the same thing after they were finished questioning him. That's the whole thing. Mr. Assange is TERRIFIED of the fact the USA has captial punishment and worries they may execute him.
There now you and anyone else should have the short version!
PS: I might be incorrect about Sweden having extradition with US. I remember there being something about Mr. Assange trying to sneak to the airport and failing. Britain had (still has?) police stationed around the embassy to try to catch him attempting to sneak out. So the whole issue might be Britain wanting to arrest him on sight and extradite. That's why he can't even leave the embassy.
It is you who isn't clear on the particulars. He is NOT wanted in the US for anything. He's just spent all this time playing up the idea that once he's in Sweden the US might then decide to charge him, although it's difficult to imagine with what crime because there is no such crime as a foreigner publishing US government secrets. Manning, on the other hand, did commit an actual crime - although many would suggest it should not be a crime. Assange really doesn't want to face Swedish court on the allegation of rape, and he probably also enjoys being the centre of media attention.
The key is to wait sincerely.
Earlier today, Melinda Taylor (one of Julian Assange's lawyers) spoke to RT from The Hague. But unfortunately the interviewer stacked so many different questions on top of each other in his interview with Taylor, she could easily escape having to plainly answer whether Assange will turn himself in to the US sometime in May after Manning walks free. At one point (2m06s) the interviewer asked:
RT's article about this (https://www.rt.com/on-air/374100-assanges-lawyer-melinda-taylor/) currently redirects to their news page instead of showing the article "Assange's lawyer Melinda Taylor talks to RT".
Digital Citizen
Actually, he WAS owed for his contributions to the war then bypassed by nepotism then accused of stealing when he actually used his own personal funds. Benedict did had genuine grievances and reason to flee his sleazy enemies. It's not hard to research either.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
How dare you insult St Hillary you filthy misogynistic alt-right neckbeard virgin!
So not only do you expect prisoner exchanges (when the US hasn't even asked for you) on your terms, despite being a criminal in the UK for skipping bail, but when the part you demand happens (whether related or not, I'm guessing not to be honest) within a few days despite the intense complications of such an action, it has to have been immediate for you to keep your promises?
He's an attention-seeking prat, and always will be.
Ecuador - kick him the hell out of the door already.
They can have him, once he's served time for contempt of court / skipping bail in the UK.
You believed him?
....oh wait!
It's not as though he had it written on the side of a bus or something
Everyone's all "he's such a weasel, yeah like we didn't see this coming" ... c'mon, you can't see in his case why it would be critical whether Manning was pardoned vs. just let out early?? C'mon, use those brains God gave you to see through your personal prejudices on the issue.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
This is just typical Assange style attention seeking. He has been out of the news for a while and desperately needs people not to forget about him.
The main reason he won’t be handed over to the US any time soon is because he is not wanted by the US. If Assange was wanted by the US there would have been an arrest warrant and an extradition request.
The best chance for the US, if the US indeed had some interest in him, would have been while Assange was walking around freely in the UK between his extradition hearings trying to stop being extradited to Sweden. The US-UK extradition treaty is extremely one-sided in favour of the US so he could been put on a plane the same day.
Now, considering nobody has ever seen a US arrest warrant for Assange and the US has never attempted to have him extradited it is safe to assume that is not one of his major worries.
Right now, Assange is a fugitive of two police forces. The British justice system wants him for jumping bail, the Swedish justice system wants him for a double rape inquiry.
Assange has always maintained he doesn’t want to go to Sweden because he worries about being extradited to the US (even though that is a very weak argument, see above). If he would now have fewer issues with going to the US, why doesn’t he just go to Sweden and face the rape inquiries if he is so confident he has done nothing wrong?
A 20th century equivalent was Vlasov, a Soviet general captured by the Nazis, and who then changed sides (so a reverse of the German general Paulus), not particularly effectively, a major reason being distrust of him by the Nazis, a distrust that was not entirely unjustified when "at the war's end he changed sides again and aided the Prague uprising".
... argued that Vlasov adopted a pro-Nazi German stance in prison out of opportunism, careerism, and survival, fearing Stalinist retribution for losing his last battle and his army.
In 2016 Russian historian Kirill Alexandrov in his habilitation thesis analyzed the careers of 180 Soviet generals and officers who joined the Vlasov army and concluded that most of them personally experienced atrocities committed by the NKVD during the Great Purge and previous purges in the Red Army, which made them disillusioned with the leadership of Stalin and motivated them to defect to the Nazis. Alexandrov's work was reported to the FSB by Russian nationalists as 'inciting hatred' but his university, regardless of the political pressure, voted in favor of its scientific value."
"Vlasov claimed that during his ten days in hiding he affirmed his anti-bolshevism, believing Joseph Stalin was the greatest enemy of the Russian people, and there is evidence that suggests Vlasov may have changed sides in a bid to give his countrymen a better life than the one they had under Stalin. His critics
This is wrong. You are also an idiot.
Snowden was a sysadmin you tool he had legitimate access to all of the stuff he released because the NSA/CIA gave it to him...
Wrong.
How ironic you want to call others idiots when you clearly fail to understand how Sensitive Information is in fact Compartmentalized (also known what the letters "SCI" stand for, labeling Snowdens security clearance).
He did work with others to extract classified information. He had to, because he did not have legitimate access to everything. Whether or not he held root is also irrelevant when need to know is a factor defining legitimate access as well. Many Sysadmins have rights to read the CxO's email. Access alone doesn't magically make that activity legitimate. Doubly so when it comes to information controlled under SCI.
Regarding the definition of whistle blower, that is another matter entirely since it would appear the protections surrounding whistle blowers have changed over time, much like the definition of terrorist.
Its incredible the double standard around here.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country;
On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.
when he published a bunch of leaks w/o taking any of the irrelevant personal data out of it. Most for leaks that hurt the Democrats. At that point he was obviously just lashing out. That said, he was pretty obviously framed for screwing with the ruling class. Which is legitimately terrifying. The Chelsea Manning clemency tells me Obama is not entirely unsympathetic to his cause. The fact that Obama couldn't accomplish anything meaningful for that cause tells me we've got a long way to go.
That's the trouble. This is a complex, adult situation. There's no simple answer because there's too much in play.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
involving tax dodging by European economic elites (they're 1%ers). Europe actually enforces these sort of things and so those elites had to pay back a lot of money. Basically, Assange's first couple of leaks cost a lot of very wealthy people a lot of money.
On a side note, the lesson here isn't that government can act with impunity. It's that the rich can. Government is a tool. We've been so afraid of it that we've chosen to leave that tool in the hands of the rich least we hurt ourselves with it. This is the result.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He should say that he'll come when she's been released. And do it.
Maybe the Ecuador embassy is too good to give up. Have you thought about that? I have no way of knowing of course, just a thought.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Spot on.
Everyone's all "he's such a weasel, yeah like we didn't see this coming" ... c'mon, you can't see in his case why it would be critical whether Manning was pardoned vs. just let out early?? C'mon, use those brains God gave you to see through your personal prejudices on the issue.
You could also READ what Assange said and see that he asked for "clemency" which does NOT mean a pardon. It can include a pardon, but it is not limited to a pardon. So who is failing to use the brains that God gave them? What we see here is Assange moving the goalpost and it suggests that even if Manning had received a pardon Assange would have still made an excuse as to why he couldn't turn himself over to Swedish (and not US) authorities.
As long as he hand himself over in May when Manning is released.
you can't see in his case why it would be critical whether Manning was pardoned
I know you know what that word means, but did you know Assange never used it?
My personal prejudice is that Assange is every bit the man he has just proven to be. He demanded Clemency, Manning got Clemency, and his criticism is well deserved.
Well, it's close enough to call him a liar and a fraud and a KGB collaborator and whatever else. So, clearly what the US government ordered.
Now let's see if this is enough to flush Assange out where charges of Swedish rape weren't. My money is on "not".
"Douchebag weasel" is a frame grab appropriate to people who decided on the school playground how to decide matters, and haven't updated their model since.
How the Human Brain Decides What Is Important and What's Not
The ultimate algorithm (almost an oracle):
Douchebag / not douchebag.
QED.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for
Well, technically he also swore an oath to not divulge classified material when he was granted the security clearance that gave him access to that information.
Assange never demanded a pardon for Manning. This is exactly what he said:
"If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness https://t.co/MZU30S3Eia"
He's breaking the agreement: his statement is a lie.
Where are you getting "pardon" from? Go ahead and link it, thanks.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Lying under oath to Congress IS illegal, and she did it.
So did Trump's nominee for Secretary of State.
I won't bother going through the rest of your items, but almost every single one is either false or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.
If you want to throw Clinton in jail you're going to run into some serious issues of double standards.
I stole this Sig
Actually, he WAS owed for his contributions to the war then bypassed by nepotism then accused of stealing when he actually used his own personal funds.
You mean where he *claimed* to be owed more than he actually spent. There's no doubt that he spent some of his own money in the Quebec campaign, but he failed to document just how much that was (or lost the documentation.....doesn't matter, he didn't have it). If I go to my boss asking for reimbursement for something without any receipts or actual proof that the money was spent, I wouldn't expect him to just pay it.
Benedict did had genuine grievances and reason to flee his sleazy enemies. It's not hard to research either
In his mind, "genuine" just meant "I'm not being paid what I want". I don't expect the average Revolutionary War combat soldier to be too sympathetic a man who was essentially an 18th century 1%'er with that type of attitude.
"Money is this man's God, and to get enough of it he would sacrifice his country"
-- John Brown, Army Officer, said before Arnold defected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I was especially disgusted when they claimed Snowden was trying to court favor with Obama to get a pardon, and then stated that they "saved Snowden's ass":
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/...
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Commutation is not at all the same as a pardon, so it's perfectly understandable Julian would not turn himself in.
Like many, I championed his cause and firmly stated that he was being unfairly politically persecuted. But the reality is that he's just a douchebag that found a cause to stand atop and be the king of. It's just another power-play. He's as principled as a toaster oven.
this is the opposite of what every study ever conducted has found
No. http://journals.plos.org/ploso... found that suicide rates increase dramatically a few years after surgery, and reaches a level substantially higher than the general population. Or to use their own words:
Conclusions
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.
There's evidence that this is nonetheless significantly lower than suicide rates amongst pre-op transexuals but sure as shit doesn't suggest that surgery left everybody in a happy place.
Make promise (vague or via a contract), insist terms weren't met, laugh as everyone who wants to hold you accountable is powerless to do so.
Assange and Trump seem to have similar goals - maintain the cult of personality.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
He isn't charged with anything or wanted by anyone in the US. While he's not a "most favorite person" in the US, he's not wanted for anything there, so turning himself in is pretty much moot? He *is* wanted in Sweden on rape charges though. If he offered to turn himself in to Swedish authorities maybe we'd all take this as more than cheap theater?
Irrelevant.
See above.
GOP shenanigans do not excuse Democratic shenanigans, and vice versa. Case in point, you probably didn't give Trump a pass for being a sexually harassing womanizer during the election last year, because Bill Clinton did it first.
Irrelevant.
We'll I'll admit there's one big difference.
When Trump's nominee said something that was untrue to congress he almost certainly knew it was untrue.
When Clinton did the same she probably thought she was telling the truth.
or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.
See above.
GOP shenanigans do not excuse Democratic shenanigans, and vice versa. Case in point, you probably didn't give Trump a pass for being a sexually harassing womanizer during the election last year, because Bill Clinton did it first.
Fine, I'll go through point-by-point:
She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.
False.
She took $600 million in bribes for directing State Department mandates.
False.
She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.
True, but very common.
She stored classified information on unsecure servers.
True, but also very common.
She had a non-cleared house cleaner go into her secure room and get secure faxes for her.
True, but again I suspect it isn't unprecedented.
She failed to turn over all classified information she had after finishing her term.
She failed to report mishandling of classified information.
That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.
Her classified information ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Unknown... and a really confused statement which actually reveals a bunch of misconceptions about the whole scandal.
Hillary Clinton did not use Anthony Weiner's laptop, her aid Huma Abedin did, likely with her official State Dept email address.
IF there was classified information on the laptop, it's because it was sent to Huma's official email, probably by another person who wasn't Clinton, and this other not-Clinton was probably using an official government email address.
And this scenario, where two government employees sent each other emails containing classified information using their official government email addresses, is exactly the same thing Clinton is accused of. The fact that Clinton's email address was on a private server is irrelevant.
The reason why the GOP focused so much on the private email server is because it you just focus on the actual crime, sending classified information over unclassified channels, they'd look ridiculous when it became clear that a huge portion of high level government employees were guilty of the same crime.
I stole this Sig
If Assange's promise was predicated on Manning being pardoned, he need do nothing to keep that promise.
A commutation is not a pardon. The pardon hasn't happened. Not yet, anyway.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
So, the she's-an-incompetent-moron defense used for the "smartest person in the room". Sounds like Catholic hospitals who suddenly start arguing that a fetus isn't a person the second they are sued for a preventable miscarriage.
I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?
Very much horseshit, to be technical. She is the only SoS to use a private email server exclusively. And starting a mere two years after she publicly blasted the Bush Administration for their private servers. She also deleted tens of thousands of emails with the same authorization she had in setting up her server (none) which would have had her serving a few decades in prison for obstruction of justice, if her name was Hillary Smith.
Pure sophistry. Hillary knew full well that the information she was dealing in was born classified. Think about it for two seconds: if the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan sends an email about the state of nuclear tensions between that country and India, does it have to be marked classified before it is treated as such? You might not know the answer, but Hillary did as an Original Classification Authority, a high-level official who was given extensive training and responsibility over classified materials.
Her agency, her responsibility. Ask any military base commander that's been sacked after some grunt screws something up with security or nuclear weapons.
FTFY. Hillary Clinton ran her own unsecured, unauthorized server and deliberately deleted evidence before an investigation. Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?
Is someone said they knew for certain he had ties to Russia I'd call BS.
But probable ties? Probably. And he could easily disprove business ties by releasing his taxes.
Yeah, she was hypocritical on that count. Also not unprecedented in a politician.
Actually she's in the clear there. The law explicitly gives the official the right to identify official correspondence in their personal records, deliver it for retention, and then delete the rest. It was the responsibility of the law firm to properly sort the emails.
So do you want to imprison the ambassador then?
Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
You mean the guy who was sneaking around the sub in off-hours to take photos of things he knew were classified, possibly to sell to a foreign government?
What about the guy who sent classified information with foreign governments without authorization? I don't think he got punished... in fact I think he just got a new job.
I stole this Sig