There is no reason to fire Comey? LOL How soon you folks choose to forget..
You would have canned him when he disclosed that Hillary WAS under investigation during the campaign, then you loved him when he let her off, then you hated him when Weiner's laptop came up and he "re-opened" the investigation and by the time he "closed" it again I'm sure you where exasperated by him, just like I was the whole time. He should have done the Hillary investigation and punted the whole thing to the AG and kept the FBI out of the campaign.
How soon you forget... I remember that Trump was calling for Comey's head during the campaign (about the time you loved him) for letting Hillary off the hook. (You recall the "lock her up" chants right?) Did you forget all this? Perhaps if you remembered this, you might have to admit that Trump's "He's a Showboat" reason might be enough to fire the FBI director. Surely you admit that Comey was way too political during the campaign, which itself is enough to justify canning him.
But no, you have memories that are too short and simply MUST take everything Trump says and does in the worst possible way, even if you had previously held the same position...
Those who throw their hopes in Impeachment are nuts. Unless the republicans loose bigly (tm) in the midterms, and I mean unprecedented losses, there is no way they will agree to impeach Trump, even then I don't see any upside for republicans who do this. Impeachment has a snowball's chance, so if you've pinned your hopes on that, prepare for disappointment...
IF Trump dies in office, his VP will take over. Pence was chosen to placate the conservative right in the party and I seriously doubt the left will be very happy with HIS positions should he take office. He won't be an easy target either because he's a bit more PC in most ways.
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
Did Michael Flynn resign or not?
Flynn was fired for not telling the whole truth to Pence. Apparently Flynn didn't fully disclose his foreign financial dealings as required and may pay the price for his omissions. However, other than a side show, how does Flynn's mess reflect directly onto Trump or his administration? They canned him when they became aware of the problem, what else would you suggest they should have done? They made a mistake and hired the wrong guy (who was approved by the Senate by the way, including democratic votes) and let him go when the mistake became known. Obama hired this guy too you recall....
So what does Flynn have to do with your theory? If you think he was the one who was doing the colluding for Trump, just grant him immunity and see if that's true, but I'm guessing that will only give up the only real possible prosecution you can hope for here.
Be prepared for exactly the opposite conclusion.. After 10 months of probing by the FBI and Congress there is no smoking gun in sight. There's been a LOT of looking, and nothing has really shown up yet (and we have TRANSCRIPTS of some of these calls now)! Where this doesn't prove evidence doesn't exist the sad truth is that you cannot prove a negative or require the accused to do so.
So, I'm going to ask you an important question. Do you see a possibility that no crime was committed here? If not, is there anything that could cause you to question that belief? Remember, you cannot prove a negative, which is why in the USA the legal system assumes the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
If you still are saying "no, it's not possible that I'm wrong and nothing will convince me otherwise" then you are just admitting you are not an unbiased party here.
Did anybody hear the congressional testimony this week, the parts where they admitted that Trump's campaign WAS under surveillance?
And why were they under surveillance? Oh, right. Their highly unusual communications with Russia.
Nothing to see here, move along peon.
Well there is that collusion idea that's been nursed along for 10 month now or perhaps it was done for political purposes? Could it be that the Obama administration was snooping on the Trump campaign and used this as an excuse? Oh? I have no proof of that? You are right, except that it now seems Trump's "wire tapped" Tweet was correct, even though he was laughed at back then.
BTW. Unusual doesn't imply a crime was being discussed or collusion (the big lie in all this) was going on between Trump and the Russians any more than "Unusual monitoring" means Obama was colluding with Clinton to try and spy on Trump's campaign in a way reminiscent of Watergate only worse.
Either conclusion has about the same support with the known evidence, only we are actually finding evidence that Trump was illegally monitored by the previous administration. Beware, we have a special investigator now, so all bets are off as to what he's going to find, except Trump has been examined in detail for 10 months now and no significant evidence has made an appearance. That tells me that there isn't a good chance they will find anything on Trump, or it would have leaked out by now.
Jesus christ, don't start with that bullshit. What right do you have to clean water? I don't see that in the constitution.
You don't have a right to clean water then....
Actually, in all seriousness, the US constitution only defines the rights the government may not infringe and/or must protect. Other rights exist but they are NOT within the preview of the government to insure or protect. For instance, the individual's right to "pursue happiness" is a given, but the government is NOT responsible to ensure your happiness should you be unhappy with your life..
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
Why?
Personally I'm fine with them developing capabilities to destroy drones and not telling me the technical details about how it works. I'm fine if they want to blast a drone out of the sky, just as long as they are not out using it on a whim and the destroyed drone is someplace it's not allowed, just make sure it's clear where I may and may not fly.
If my device strays from the airspace it's permitted to be in, it's my fault it gets destroyed, assuming I had ample opportunity to know I wasn't allowed to fly there. I don't see a problem with the actual technology used to destroy a drone is not made public.
Ketchup is cooked.... I like ketchup, pizza, even tomato soup or sundried tomatoes mixed in my pasta... Heck, I even like tomato chunks in hot soups (as long as they are cooked). But RAW tomatoes? You can have mine... PLEASE take mine....
You got to dig deep to keep up the pretense... I understand...
Can you at least admit that it just MIGHT be what Trump says all this is? That there was no collusion with the Russians and Firing Comey was intended from the beginning (just like he said during the campaign)? I'm not asking you to agree with all these, but at least accept that there is a possibility that the truth here is exactly the face value of what Trump claims?
All the "evidence" we have right now of any of this amounts to sound bites and accusations of wrong doing coming mostly from political opponents of Trump or anonymous sources that reporters claim are "highly placed"..... We have lots of smoke and a whole lot of huffing and puffing from those trying to claim there is a raging forest fire...
I believe that there is a group of people who are so aggravated with Trump for running and wining that they are obsessed with his destruction at any cost, including the truth. They have to keep up the pretense of Trump's presumed guilt or their whole world view will collapse..
BTW... Remember the "I was Wiretapped" Trump claim? Did anybody hear the congressional testimony this week, the parts where they admitted that Trump's campaign WAS under surveillance??? (Of course you didn't, but it happened.)
LOL... Sorry there bit troll... Trump is president and will continue to be president for at least 3 years and 7 months more, you'd best get used to it...
So you believe... You can be stupid but get lucky all your life? I guess that's your only hope of success then.. I whish you luck, you are going to need a lot of it.;)
Now you can keep saying nothing has been found, but the FBI is finding stuff every day, and is building a report. Donald Trump admitted (to the Russian ambassador at the center of the investigation) in the Oval Office that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation.
LOL.. Ever heard of a "pull quote" and know what a "sound bite" is?
Look, If Trump *really* fired Comey to stop an investigation into something, it was a really, really stupid blundering attempt to do so and would have been obviously doomed to failure. If you hold Trump in *that* much distain and think he is *really* that stupid and clueless, I don't see how you can believe he would be smart enough to be colluding with the Russians to throw the election, yet manage to not leave a smoking gun at the crime scene for some reporter to find. Trump may be brash, braggart and a rich white guy from New York, but he's obviously NOT that stupid or he'd lost his money a long time ago...
Personally, I'm called to question your objectivity here... But hey, to each their own.
Seriously, I think this blindly following one's political position is a two way street...
You can argue that there are more lanes on one side or the other, but in the end there are still two sides. For example...
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known. IF you say "no-way" then chances are you support Trump...
Truth is, this is more about campaign donations and politics than anything else.... Few on either side will admit to that though.
Um.... not really. The "improvements" used to make an 808 horsepower car have little to nothing to do with making a car more fuel efficient.
Huh? I think you are wrong...Being able to tweak out a few more horses from the same hardware DOES have an affect on efficiency.
My 2016 F150 pickup has a tiny V6, which because it is turbocharged has quite a bit of power when you need it, but doesn't weigh much more than a V6 w/o a turbo. It also gets great mileage for a full sized crew cab pickup. In this case, the performance improvement of a turbo DOES have a LOT to do with it being efficient.
Virus writers will target the largest market portion. If that's Windows, they'll write viruses for Windows. If it's Mac, they'll write viruses for Mac. If it's Linux, they will start writing viruses for Linux.
Just because more vulnerabilities in Windows are known, does not mean there are less total in Linux. And short of taking away admin/sudo access from users completely, malware can always social engineer it's way into administrative privileges during an installer or something similar.
Where you are right in a way, you are wrong in other ways. Yes, being a small percentage of the market helps you stay secure, but security by obscurity is not a good policy or a valid rule. Linux IS attacked and it is a pretty juicy target. BUT the rest of your post is wrong.
Linux is more secure by design than Windows, and always has been. Remember Windows was derived from DOS, which was an operating system with ZERO protection from privilege escalation attacks because there was no privilege limits, you had them all. System protections where limited to the write protect tab on the boot floppy. Windows developers suffer from having to support all the legacy security holes or risk breaking something, and have only arrived to a reasonably secure system in the last few releases (and broke a lot of stuff for their users in the process)
Linux/Unix has ALWAYS been a multiple user system without universal privileges given to all. It STARTED more secure and has less legacy baggage. It's not perfect, but it started out life in a much better place and has been maintained with security as a consideration.
Personally, I think Linux IS more secure when properly deployed and operating over a Windows box doing the same job, at least on average. There is a good reason why the majority of webservers are Linux based, especially the non-compromised ones.
Seriously? About all you can tell is when they happen to use their card to pay for something. You think that's an issue?
Most Key Card room access devices DO NOT remotely log anything. They may keep a record of what kind of cards got swiped, but in most cases it takes physical access to the lock to dump the log, so that doesn't help. You might get some kind of intel from things like Pay Per View or Room service transactions, but my guess is that won't help you much.
Also, I can assure you that when the president is present you won't be monitoring ANYTHING. Not to mention, as soon as you emit any RF, they are going to be on you like ugly on a frog if you are inside the exclusion zone. The military and secret service take an active approach to possible threats. How do I know this? I've seen it in action, being close to the president's motorcade route a couple of times with GW Bush (the younger) and noticing my garage door and cell phone being useless for a time.
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
Then there is the whole, what did you actually hack into? A lightly defended public WiFi network where the WEP key is on a sign in the lobby? Heck, even the Point of Sale and reservations systems? How's that an issue for national security? It's not like we don't already know when Trump is there and when he's not... What else you got? The ability to charge Trump's room for some pay-per-view movie? Yea that might embarrass him I guess...
I start with the assumption that the law is morally correct until proven otherwise, even then, I follow it when I can while advocating for it's change. You see, the burden of proof falls on those who contend the law is immoral as applied and it is a MORAL requirement that you peruse the changing of the law while you follow it. Laws exist for a reason in this country and the laws about classified information and treason are necessary and valid morally from my perspective.
I live in an HOA. I don't like their rules, but I follow them. I'm also trying to get the rules I don't like changed, while I follow them by lobbying the board to rewrite them.... See the principle?
Oh? Moral high ground? In this case, the moral high ground would have been following the law... Manning didn't do that, so has no claim to being moral. But hey, you really don't want to make this a moral argument with Manning as your poster child do you? LOL, that would be rich...
Manning did not exhaust all possible legal channels. Neither did Manning expose any evidence of anything improper. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Manning was properly convicted of violating military law which is proof of what I'm saying. Yours is a Google search?
Your point (apart from bashing Trump) escapes me. Perhaps you missed my point? I'll try again..
IF what Trump said to the Russians was treason (as some claim) then what was what Manning did? Heck, how about what Hillary did with those classified E-Mails?
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens? Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason to fire Comey? LOL How soon you folks choose to forget..
You would have canned him when he disclosed that Hillary WAS under investigation during the campaign, then you loved him when he let her off, then you hated him when Weiner's laptop came up and he "re-opened" the investigation and by the time he "closed" it again I'm sure you where exasperated by him, just like I was the whole time. He should have done the Hillary investigation and punted the whole thing to the AG and kept the FBI out of the campaign.
How soon you forget... I remember that Trump was calling for Comey's head during the campaign (about the time you loved him) for letting Hillary off the hook. (You recall the "lock her up" chants right?) Did you forget all this? Perhaps if you remembered this, you might have to admit that Trump's "He's a Showboat" reason might be enough to fire the FBI director. Surely you admit that Comey was way too political during the campaign, which itself is enough to justify canning him.
But no, you have memories that are too short and simply MUST take everything Trump says and does in the worst possible way, even if you had previously held the same position...
Those who throw their hopes in Impeachment are nuts. Unless the republicans loose bigly (tm) in the midterms, and I mean unprecedented losses, there is no way they will agree to impeach Trump, even then I don't see any upside for republicans who do this. Impeachment has a snowball's chance, so if you've pinned your hopes on that, prepare for disappointment...
IF Trump dies in office, his VP will take over. Pence was chosen to placate the conservative right in the party and I seriously doubt the left will be very happy with HIS positions should he take office. He won't be an easy target either because he's a bit more PC in most ways.
For example...
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
Did Michael Flynn resign or not?
Flynn was fired for not telling the whole truth to Pence. Apparently Flynn didn't fully disclose his foreign financial dealings as required and may pay the price for his omissions. However, other than a side show, how does Flynn's mess reflect directly onto Trump or his administration? They canned him when they became aware of the problem, what else would you suggest they should have done? They made a mistake and hired the wrong guy (who was approved by the Senate by the way, including democratic votes) and let him go when the mistake became known. Obama hired this guy too you recall....
So what does Flynn have to do with your theory? If you think he was the one who was doing the colluding for Trump, just grant him immunity and see if that's true, but I'm guessing that will only give up the only real possible prosecution you can hope for here.
Be prepared for exactly the opposite conclusion.. After 10 months of probing by the FBI and Congress there is no smoking gun in sight. There's been a LOT of looking, and nothing has really shown up yet (and we have TRANSCRIPTS of some of these calls now)! Where this doesn't prove evidence doesn't exist the sad truth is that you cannot prove a negative or require the accused to do so.
So, I'm going to ask you an important question. Do you see a possibility that no crime was committed here? If not, is there anything that could cause you to question that belief? Remember, you cannot prove a negative, which is why in the USA the legal system assumes the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
If you still are saying "no, it's not possible that I'm wrong and nothing will convince me otherwise" then you are just admitting you are not an unbiased party here.
Did anybody hear the congressional testimony this week, the parts where they admitted that Trump's campaign WAS under surveillance?
And why were they under surveillance? Oh, right. Their highly unusual communications with Russia.
Nothing to see here, move along peon.
Well there is that collusion idea that's been nursed along for 10 month now or perhaps it was done for political purposes? Could it be that the Obama administration was snooping on the Trump campaign and used this as an excuse? Oh? I have no proof of that? You are right, except that it now seems Trump's "wire tapped" Tweet was correct, even though he was laughed at back then.
BTW. Unusual doesn't imply a crime was being discussed or collusion (the big lie in all this) was going on between Trump and the Russians any more than "Unusual monitoring" means Obama was colluding with Clinton to try and spy on Trump's campaign in a way reminiscent of Watergate only worse.
Either conclusion has about the same support with the known evidence, only we are actually finding evidence that Trump was illegally monitored by the previous administration. Beware, we have a special investigator now, so all bets are off as to what he's going to find, except Trump has been examined in detail for 10 months now and no significant evidence has made an appearance. That tells me that there isn't a good chance they will find anything on Trump, or it would have leaked out by now.
Jesus christ, don't start with that bullshit. What right do you have to clean water? I don't see that in the constitution.
You don't have a right to clean water then....
Actually, in all seriousness, the US constitution only defines the rights the government may not infringe and/or must protect. Other rights exist but they are NOT within the preview of the government to insure or protect. For instance, the individual's right to "pursue happiness" is a given, but the government is NOT responsible to ensure your happiness should you be unhappy with your life..
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
Why?
Personally I'm fine with them developing capabilities to destroy drones and not telling me the technical details about how it works. I'm fine if they want to blast a drone out of the sky, just as long as they are not out using it on a whim and the destroyed drone is someplace it's not allowed, just make sure it's clear where I may and may not fly.
If my device strays from the airspace it's permitted to be in, it's my fault it gets destroyed, assuming I had ample opportunity to know I wasn't allowed to fly there. I don't see a problem with the actual technology used to destroy a drone is not made public.
Ketchup is cooked.... I like ketchup, pizza, even tomato soup or sundried tomatoes mixed in my pasta... Heck, I even like tomato chunks in hot soups (as long as they are cooked). But RAW tomatoes? You can have mine... PLEASE take mine....
NOT on my salad... Where I don't "hate" them.... What am I saying, I hate raw tomatoes in all forms, salads, sandwiches you name it.
You got to dig deep to keep up the pretense... I understand...
Can you at least admit that it just MIGHT be what Trump says all this is? That there was no collusion with the Russians and Firing Comey was intended from the beginning (just like he said during the campaign)? I'm not asking you to agree with all these, but at least accept that there is a possibility that the truth here is exactly the face value of what Trump claims?
All the "evidence" we have right now of any of this amounts to sound bites and accusations of wrong doing coming mostly from political opponents of Trump or anonymous sources that reporters claim are "highly placed"..... We have lots of smoke and a whole lot of huffing and puffing from those trying to claim there is a raging forest fire...
I believe that there is a group of people who are so aggravated with Trump for running and wining that they are obsessed with his destruction at any cost, including the truth. They have to keep up the pretense of Trump's presumed guilt or their whole world view will collapse..
BTW... Remember the "I was Wiretapped" Trump claim? Did anybody hear the congressional testimony this week, the parts where they admitted that Trump's campaign WAS under surveillance??? (Of course you didn't, but it happened.)
LOL... Sorry there bit troll... Trump is president and will continue to be president for at least 3 years and 7 months more, you'd best get used to it...
So you believe... You can be stupid but get lucky all your life? I guess that's your only hope of success then.. I whish you luck, you are going to need a lot of it. ;)
Now you can keep saying nothing has been found, but the FBI is finding stuff every day, and is building a report. Donald Trump admitted (to the Russian ambassador at the center of the investigation) in the Oval Office that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation.
LOL.. Ever heard of a "pull quote" and know what a "sound bite" is?
Look, If Trump *really* fired Comey to stop an investigation into something, it was a really, really stupid blundering attempt to do so and would have been obviously doomed to failure. If you hold Trump in *that* much distain and think he is *really* that stupid and clueless, I don't see how you can believe he would be smart enough to be colluding with the Russians to throw the election, yet manage to not leave a smoking gun at the crime scene for some reporter to find. Trump may be brash, braggart and a rich white guy from New York, but he's obviously NOT that stupid or he'd lost his money a long time ago...
Personally, I'm called to question your objectivity here... But hey, to each their own.
Seriously, I think this blindly following one's political position is a two way street...
You can argue that there are more lanes on one side or the other, but in the end there are still two sides. For example...
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known. IF you say "no-way" then chances are you support Trump...
Truth is, this is more about campaign donations and politics than anything else.... Few on either side will admit to that though.
Um.... not really. The "improvements" used to make an 808 horsepower car have little to nothing to do with making a car more fuel efficient.
Huh? I think you are wrong...Being able to tweak out a few more horses from the same hardware DOES have an affect on efficiency.
My 2016 F150 pickup has a tiny V6, which because it is turbocharged has quite a bit of power when you need it, but doesn't weigh much more than a V6 w/o a turbo. It also gets great mileage for a full sized crew cab pickup. In this case, the performance improvement of a turbo DOES have a LOT to do with it being efficient.
Virus writers will target the largest market portion. If that's Windows, they'll write viruses for Windows. If it's Mac, they'll write viruses for Mac. If it's Linux, they will start writing viruses for Linux. Just because more vulnerabilities in Windows are known, does not mean there are less total in Linux. And short of taking away admin/sudo access from users completely, malware can always social engineer it's way into administrative privileges during an installer or something similar.
Where you are right in a way, you are wrong in other ways. Yes, being a small percentage of the market helps you stay secure, but security by obscurity is not a good policy or a valid rule. Linux IS attacked and it is a pretty juicy target. BUT the rest of your post is wrong.
Linux is more secure by design than Windows, and always has been. Remember Windows was derived from DOS, which was an operating system with ZERO protection from privilege escalation attacks because there was no privilege limits, you had them all. System protections where limited to the write protect tab on the boot floppy. Windows developers suffer from having to support all the legacy security holes or risk breaking something, and have only arrived to a reasonably secure system in the last few releases (and broke a lot of stuff for their users in the process)
Linux/Unix has ALWAYS been a multiple user system without universal privileges given to all. It STARTED more secure and has less legacy baggage. It's not perfect, but it started out life in a much better place and has been maintained with security as a consideration.
Personally, I think Linux IS more secure when properly deployed and operating over a Windows box doing the same job, at least on average. There is a good reason why the majority of webservers are Linux based, especially the non-compromised ones.
And what you got, ain't much.
Seriously? About all you can tell is when they happen to use their card to pay for something. You think that's an issue?
Most Key Card room access devices DO NOT remotely log anything. They may keep a record of what kind of cards got swiped, but in most cases it takes physical access to the lock to dump the log, so that doesn't help. You might get some kind of intel from things like Pay Per View or Room service transactions, but my guess is that won't help you much.
Also, I can assure you that when the president is present you won't be monitoring ANYTHING. Not to mention, as soon as you emit any RF, they are going to be on you like ugly on a frog if you are inside the exclusion zone. The military and secret service take an active approach to possible threats. How do I know this? I've seen it in action, being close to the president's motorcade route a couple of times with GW Bush (the younger) and noticing my garage door and cell phone being useless for a time.
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
Then there is the whole, what did you actually hack into? A lightly defended public WiFi network where the WEP key is on a sign in the lobby? Heck, even the Point of Sale and reservations systems? How's that an issue for national security? It's not like we don't already know when Trump is there and when he's not... What else you got? The ability to charge Trump's room for some pay-per-view movie? Yea that might embarrass him I guess...
I start with the assumption that the law is morally correct until proven otherwise, even then, I follow it when I can while advocating for it's change. You see, the burden of proof falls on those who contend the law is immoral as applied and it is a MORAL requirement that you peruse the changing of the law while you follow it. Laws exist for a reason in this country and the laws about classified information and treason are necessary and valid morally from my perspective.
I live in an HOA. I don't like their rules, but I follow them. I'm also trying to get the rules I don't like changed, while I follow them by lobbying the board to rewrite them.... See the principle?
So is that too simple for you? Too bad.
Go... Away.....
(frail attempt at a joke... )
Oh? Moral high ground? In this case, the moral high ground would have been following the law... Manning didn't do that, so has no claim to being moral. But hey, you really don't want to make this a moral argument with Manning as your poster child do you? LOL, that would be rich...
Manning was legally tried and convicted under military law and rightly so. Manning broke the law. End of report.
Manning did not exhaust all possible legal channels. Neither did Manning expose any evidence of anything improper. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Manning was properly convicted of violating military law which is proof of what I'm saying. Yours is a Google search?
Your point (apart from bashing Trump) escapes me. Perhaps you missed my point? I'll try again..
IF what Trump said to the Russians was treason (as some claim) then what was what Manning did? Heck, how about what Hillary did with those classified E-Mails?
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens? Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.