It is an issue of the corruption of a political entity, a party, and is typical banana republic behavior, but not from some 3rd world sh*thole but the most powerful and richest nation on earth. And yet I do not hear MSM or the democrats at all concerned about it, treating it as if it were normal behavior, nothing to see here, move along. This is utterly unacceptable and democrats have no moral high ground on which to stand, let alone anything resembling democratic principles. They have reached new lows, IMO. Both the party and its voters, or many of them. Total corruption of a republic form of gov't.
I like Dershowitz. He is a democrat and a liberal/progressive, and like Greenwald doesn't mind speaking facts to the trump hating crowd, and hyper partisan democrats. MSM hardly ever talks to him these days, for very obvious reason, in that he gives the other side to the story, to the issues. And so FOX is one of the few media outlets that will let the man speak to the insanity using rationality, logic, reason, and the Law. I expect the trump haters to avoid Alan, and so I post this video for the non trump hating repubs and independents.
Post #900 - The Church & White reconstruction is a joke. Here's why: https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/ I did make an error going from memory. The constant rate is closer to 2 mm sea level rise per year not 3 mm.
Yes, years before the 2016 election. Do you know who's on the BOD of Comcast? It's not foreign actors.
Let's just ignore the right's relentless disenfranchising of voters. Their gerrymandering. McConnell's refusal to do his constitutional duty and send Garland's nomination to the floor for a vote. Yeah, it's just the left.
You are correct. My apologies. I did say the rate of sea level rise was accelerating rapidly. Of course that is a bit different from saying sea level rise is accelerating rapidly but that is admittedly a rather subtle distinction. And it is as my link clearly proves.
Knowingly being in possession of stolen goods/information is a crime. Knowingly and intentionally providing classified information to foreign nations is a crime. To pretend that Assange is innocent when he knew exactly what he was doing is nothing short of ludicrous. Anyone who receives and/or retains government records can be prosecuted under the Embezzlement of Government Property Act. The rest of your rant is a deflection and ignored since it will derail the thread to pursue it. Yes, you are entitled to your misformed opinion as to what compromises a "kangaroo court" but what is happening with Assange miserably FAILS to meet the actual definition of the term.
Funny how that works out. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/notice_how_democrats_are_never_indicted.html
Your link shows the flawed Church and White paper as pointed out. Starting in 1993 they splice satellite data into the tide gauge data (which has not been corrected for land mass movement). https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/
So then, if it had been up to you, Daniel Ellsberg would have been prosecuted for exposing Government lies and crimes?
You know the rules are only applied to the right. Because the Democratic Party is the party of goodness anything they do is justified to stop the party of evil.
Ellsberg was prosecuted for exposing government corruption. This was subsequently overturned when it was established that the government "evidence" against him was obtained through illegal wiretapping. Ellsberg did not set out to give anything of value to other foreign nations. His goal was to expose government crimes and corruption which made him a whistleblower. Assange is not a whistleblower. Instead his role is similar to that of the media that published the Pentagon Papers. The difference that matters is that the media back then did not publish classified information that would have been of value to foreign nations. They just reported on the cover up that was being perpetrated by the Pentagon about the Vietnam war. Assange has not taken any such responsible actions. Rather he has acted in a manner that aids and abets foreign nations. Therein lies the crucial difference IMO.
Because he does not fit the legal definition of a whistleblower. Even Ellsberg himself has made note of that fact in his own comments on the matter. https://employment.findlaw.com/whistleblowers/whistleblower-protections.html
So then a whistleblower is only what the government says it is? What did Ellsberg say that you refer to? The goal and purpose of traditional journalism, such as that referred to in the First Amendment, is to expose government wrong-doing, no matter what it is. That's what happened with Ellsberg. Declaring that only government employees may be whistleblowers is an artificial claim, a specious claim. Assange deserves credit for exposing the crimes of governments around the world. So does any other individual like Manning or Snowden, or any other person who becomes aware of criminal acts of government.
It it shocking the amount of propaganda that comes out of the MSM these days. The Establishment pundits that come on have full reign to spout what ever narrative they like .. and they are not challenged. The media editorialists are basically cheerleaders. God forbid someone says something that conflicts with the establishment narrative - then the demonization begins.
What is your definition of whistleblower ? Is it not someone who out's Gov't crimes ? Of course Assange is a Whistleblower that is one of the main purposes of the site. The Gov't classifies things that have zero to do with national security and everything to do with hiding ineptness or crimes of Gov't. The "publishing classified information that would be of value to foreign nations" narrative is complete nonsense. If Assange has the information - "It is no longer secret" .. the information is out there = its no longer classified. Just because the information is not published in the mainstream - does not mean the information has is not already out there. All Assange does is take information that is already out there and put's it out to the mainstream.
It makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. Just because someone is a US citizen does not mean they are not acting on behalf of foreign actors. (which is what folks are being charged with in Russiagate) The point of bringing up GE was because this was an example of media being directly influenced by foreign actors. Rupert Murdoch would be another example (Fox News) as he is Australian. You are dwelling on semantics and losing the point.
As stated previously - it is not a crime for the NY-Times to publish information that was"stolen". Your likening information to a stolen TV is abject nonsense ... as is your denial of reality in ignoring the fact that your "There is Zero Evidence for Kangaroo court" - claim is completely false. Just because you are in denial and choose to ignore the reams of evidence to the contrary - does not show that your claim has merit. Our Justice system is a clown show ... Kangarooland on Steroids.
Why did you not even bother to research the legal definition of whistleblower for yourself? Assange does NOT fit the definition. He does not even fit the definition of journalist either since all he has is a website with data dumps. That means that he is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment or the Whistleblower act. All he has actually done is to provide classified government information to our foreign enemies.
