The vacillating from "Trump can't be criminally liable for anything" to "impeachment doesn't have the same standards as a criminal trial" to "innocent til proven guilty", the standard of the criminal trial we were just told doesn't apply, is absolutely mind-numbing.
I'm not going to stick my hands into this tar baby. I'll just say both of you have some valid points. I'm of the, Trump did it, it's not illegal but looks bad, impeachment was a waste of time and resources camp myself...
Oh, that's right--I forgot. It is better to *kill* an American citizen without any due process, like Obama did--and then killed the guy's son, for good measure--than to *suggest* an investigation into an American citizen. It is difficult to keep up with the double standards Democrats demand from time to time.
Again, re: Vindland, Sondland, and others....remember the good old days when Obama aggressively targets whistleblowers and leakers? Did they really think there would be *no* consequences? It is not *right* to fire or reassign them, but it isn't *illegal*, either, and anything which is not expressly illegal is permissible.
Whatabout Obama... Whatabout double standards... How about we stick to the topic at hand. Two wrongs don't make a right do they? Yes Obama agressively targeted leakers that was wrong. Trump is doing it wronger and having Rand Paul read the whistleblowers name and these retaliation firings doesn't make it right because whatabout obama. Whatabout obama is not an excuse for your own actions.
These are not the actions of innocence at all. These are indications of a cover up and guilt.
Although an impeachment is not quite the same as a criminal trial, if I am put on trial for committing a crime and I am found "not guilty", then I may truthfully claim "I did not commit the crime". The same logic holds for impeachment--Trump may truthfully claim that guilty neither of "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" (neither or which are crimes since they are not violations of the U. S. Code).
Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. And you're right impeachment is not a criminal trial so that doesn't apply. What we have is multiple people testifying under oath about Trump's actions and a memo of a transcript that is incredibly damning vs a well documented liar who refuses to go under oath who claims he's innocent. We have stonewalling by administration officials (totally a sign of innocence right) and Senate Republicans who held a trial while calling no witnesses.
Fortunately for all of us, the recent impeachment has put us into the age of "allegation = guilt", so now all we have to do is levy an allegation and the person against whom we levied it must prove their innocence. Thank you, House Democrats. It will be nice to get back to "innocent until proven guilty" at some point. The pendulum has not made its full arc yet, though, so we have one or two more over-the-top allegations-proving-guilt before people get sick of it and demand a return to reality.
Right. Well whatever. Yeah when there's a lot of evidence and it gets ignored you don't get the reputation of being "innocent". Ask OJ about that one. Or Epstein who was not "innocent" either but had corruption help him out the first time.
I just want the same standards to apply from the left when it's one of their guys in office. Lyndon Johnson was a prick. I've heard folks on this forum praising him for his 'civil right's' stand while basically ignoring my pointing out his role in escalating the Vietnam War. W's war cost thousands of lives and the left bitched about it like it was WW1. Johnson's war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and all I hear is what a great President he was. Bullshit!
More examples of liberal whataboutism to counteract conservative whataboutism...
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
Carter was laughably incompetent. Couldn't accomplish shit with all branches of the government in his corner.
Obama? What was the real difference between him and W? Obamacare? Nobody could ever criticize Obama because 'racism' yet he still didn't accomplish a whole lot in eight years. You might not like Reagan but he got a Hell of a lot more accomplished with a hostile Congress than Obama ever did.
This is the selective outrage I'm referring to. I'm old enough to remember all this. Is it any wonder I voted for Trump and may now switch to Bernie? Fuck the establishment and their 'wisdom' and 'decorum'. Trump may not be likeable but maybe he's a pioneer...
Just wait until he is simultaneously both the target of anti-Semitic attacks and is accused of being anti-Semitic himself, despite being a practicing Jew. It's coming as sure as the sun rises in the East.
Some good points there @Balrog99 and I agree with your general argument that people should be judged by neutral standards and not their own brand of partisanship. Nevertheless, while I accept there's plenty of criticism that can be laid upon others, that should not be used as a reason to excuse Trump.
Clinton was impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice. However, the House Committee did vote in favor of two further articles - one of which was abuse of power. That was defeated in the full House though, with 81 of the 228 Republicans voting against it. I suspect many of those believed that the relationship with Lewinsky did represent an abuse of power (and I would agree with that), but felt that was not sufficient to provide grounds for impeachment (reflecting the same sort of reasoning as used by many Senators in Trump's case - he's clearly guilty, but the offence is not sufficient to justify removing him).
However, in Clinton's case the abuse of power was based around a personal power dynamic. I agree with you that it is a comparable situation to a doctor / patient or professor / student relationship and Clinton showed both a lack of morals and judgment in pursuing that. While deplorable though, I can't see that the abuse was in the same league as in Trump's case. Trump was not just taking advantage of his personal situation, but also deploying the power of his office by withholding aid & making meeting Zelensky conditional on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden.
The US (and of course other countries) have a long history of Presidents with dubious personal morals. One argument often made about this is that personal morality should not be confused with official capability and actions. Presidents in the past have tried to keep the personal and official separate, but Trump blurs the line constantly, e.g. through his Twitter outbursts and using his office to generate funds for his business - so it's often unclear if he is acting in a personal or official capacity. That's resulted in lots of problematic situations, but the reason why the Ukraine situation was chosen for impeachment was because it was such a clear example of Trump using official powers for personal gain, i.e. abusing those powers.
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
The key word here is consent.
And even though grab them by the pussy was the catch phrase, the real culprit in Trump's words were:
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.
This was during the height of the MeToo movement, where a lot of women were stepping up and saying stars can't do anything that they wanted. (The whole, girls let him do it, so it's consensual argument BS) You have a person, being recorded stating that he sexually assaulted women, while being accused of sexually assaulting women and he is proclaiming to the world that those women are liars and they are just after fame or whatever.
HIs response was also exactly a whataboutism. "Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close." Without providing any evidence that Clinton did say worse. Just take my word for it.
~~
History regards Carter as a mild president who was pretty much just there. Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for. It isn't a surprise that most conservatives like to compare Obama's first four years with Trump's first four years negating what Obama had to pull the country out of.
~~
I'll also comment on the whistleblowers and Obama's alleged crackdown on them:
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
It should be noted that she is in jail again because she wouldn't comply with a subpoena. How is that for your double standards?
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
Thomas Drake: A former senior executive at the National Security Agency, he was charged under the Espionage act for sharing classified information. Once again, proper channels were not followed to prevent the charge, but Drake is also a unique case as he argued that the problems of the NSA are “so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.”
If people are so concerned with his treatment, (which BTW amounted one year of probation and 240 hours of community service - oh the humanity!!) they'd be continuing questioning the role of the NSA and how it is functioning.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim: Went on Fox and told them that NK would conduct a nuclear bomb test. He said this before any of our allies in the region were informed. He pleaded guilty to his stupidity of disclosing classified national defense information to an unauthorized person and served a 13 month prison sentence.
It should be noted in this case, that what Kim blew the whistle on, had nothing to do with what the administrations actions were against its citizens. Keeping secret that we know what hostile states are doing should be a given as to let those hostile states know that we know.
James Hitselberger: This guy blabbed about US intelligence discrepancies off of a base. The thing to know with intelligence is that it isn't all 100% accurate. This guy might have been frustrated with the inaccuracies and discrepancies so he shared it off base with someone (I can't really find who) but he wasn't charged with espionage instead he settled for a plea deal that set him back $250. That's not a typo. Two hundred and fifty dollars. Whew these crack downs are brutal!
John Kiriakou : Exposed two of his colleagues of using waterboarding. Once again, if he went through the proper channels it might not have led to charges and 30 years of jail time. Oh wait, give me a second... two and half years of jail time after he submitted a guilty plea. If Obama's administration was actually cracking down on whistleblowers it would have been 30 years.
Shamai Leibowitz: 200 pages of documents of transcribed wiretaps from conversations between the Israeli embassy in Washington and the blogger Richard Silverstein. Silverstein's blog talks about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ultimate resolution to it, so you can imagine how sensitive this information might have been.
The former FBI agent plead guilty, served 20 months in jail for his actions.
Jeffrey Sterling: Was charged with leaking classified information regarding US efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program to the NYT. Even though Sterling, a former CIA agent, stated he did not leak secret information, he was convicted of espionage and served 3 and half years in jail.
So he pretty much broadcasted and admitted to one of America's hostile nations, that the US was conducting hostile actions against one of their national goals. Yep this is the type of whistleblowing that should be protected. Every CIA agent should openly admit to what they are doing for transparency!
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
The key word here is consent.
And even though grab them by the pussy was the catch phrase, the real culprit in Trump's words were:
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.
This was during the height of the MeToo movement, where a lot of women were stepping up and saying stars can't do anything that they wanted. (The whole, girls let him do it, so it's consensual argument BS) You have a person, being recorded stating that he sexually assaulted women, while being accused of sexually assaulting women and he is proclaiming to the world that those women are liars and they are just after fame or whatever.
HIs response was also exactly a whataboutism. "Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close." Without providing any evidence that Clinton did say worse. Just take my word for it.
~~
History regards Carter as a mild president who was pretty much just there. Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for. It isn't a surprise that most conservatives like to compare Obama's first four years with Trump's first four years negating what Obama had to pull the country out of.
~~
I'll also comment on the whistleblowers and Obama's alleged crackdown on them:
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
It should be noted that she is in jail again because she wouldn't comply with a subpoena. How is that for your double standards?
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
Thomas Drake: A former senior executive at the National Security Agency, he was charged under the Espionage act for sharing classified information. Once again, proper channels were not followed to prevent the charge, but Drake is also a unique case as he argued that the problems of the NSA are “so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.”
If people are so concerned with his treatment, (which BTW amounted one year of probation and 240 hours of community service - oh the humanity!!) they'd be continuing questioning the role of the NSA and how it is functioning.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim: Went on Fox and told them that NK would conduct a nuclear bomb test. He said this before any of our allies in the region were informed. He pleaded guilty to his stupidity of disclosing classified national defense information to an unauthorized person and served a 13 month prison sentence.
It should be noted in this case, that what Kim blew the whistle on, had nothing to do with what the administrations actions were against its citizens. Keeping secret that we know what hostile states are doing should be a given as to let those hostile states know that we know.
James Hitselberger: This guy blabbed about US intelligence discrepancies off of a base. The thing to know with intelligence is that it isn't all 100% accurate. This guy might have been frustrated with the inaccuracies and discrepancies so he shared it off base with someone (I can't really find who) but he wasn't charged with espionage instead he settled for a plea deal that set him back $250. That's not a typo. Two hundred and fifty dollars. Whew these crack downs are brutal!
John Kiriakou : Exposed two of his colleagues of using waterboarding. Once again, if he went through the proper channels it might not have led to charges and 30 years of jail time. Oh wait, give me a second... two and half years of jail time after he submitted a guilty plea. If Obama's administration was actually cracking down on whistleblowers it would have been 30 years.
Shamai Leibowitz: 200 pages of documents of transcribed wiretaps from conversations between the Israeli embassy in Washington and the blogger Richard Silverstein. Silverstein's blog talks about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ultimate resolution to it, so you can imagine how sensitive this information might have been.
The former FBI agent plead guilty, served 20 months in jail for his actions.
Jeffrey Sterling: Was charged with leaking classified information regarding US efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program to the NYT. Even though Sterling, a former CIA agent, stated he did not leak secret information, he was convicted of espionage and served 3 and half years in jail.
So he pretty much broadcasted and admitted to one of America's hostile nations, that the US was conducting hostile actions against one of their national goals. Yep this is the type of whistleblowing that should be protected. Every CIA agent should openly admit to what they are doing for transparency!
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Chelsea Manning's treatment was condemned by the U.N for the use of solitary confinement, a cruel and unjust punishment for the crime, I'm sure you will admit.
To put it in perspective, prosecuting 8 whistleblowers under the espionage act was more than all past ones combined. It remains an unprecedented assault on transparency, by the administration that promised more of it than anyone else. That also doesn't take into account the number of people who were threatened with lawsuits. It only takes half that number to put the fear into them all.
I'm not even going to go into the moral quagmire of justifying JAIL TIME for blowing the whistle on TORTURE. Listen to yourself, man. It doesn't matter if he got off with a few years, he deserved protection and not punishment.
This sort of thing deserves universal condemnation, and if it were a Republican it would get it here.
Some good points there @Balrog99 and I agree with your general argument that people should be judged by neutral standards and not their own brand of partisanship. Nevertheless, while I accept there's plenty of criticism that can be laid upon others, that should not be used as a reason to excuse Trump.
Clinton was impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice. However, the House Committee did vote in favor of two further articles - one of which was abuse of power. That was defeated in the full House though, with 81 of the 228 Republicans voting against it. I suspect many of those believed that the relationship with Lewinsky did represent an abuse of power (and I would agree with that), but felt that was not sufficient to provide grounds for impeachment (reflecting the same sort of reasoning as used by many Senators in Trump's case - he's clearly guilty, but the offence is not sufficient to justify removing him).
However, in Clinton's case the abuse of power was based around a personal power dynamic. I agree with you that it is a comparable situation to a doctor / patient or professor / student relationship and Clinton showed both a lack of morals and judgment in pursuing that. While deplorable though, I can't see that the abuse was in the same league as in Trump's case. Trump was not just taking advantage of his personal situation, but also deploying the power of his office by withholding aid & making meeting Zelensky conditional on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden.
The US (and of course other countries) have a long history of Presidents with dubious personal morals. One argument often made about this is that personal morality should not be confused with official capability and actions. Presidents in the past have tried to keep the personal and official separate, but Trump blurs the line constantly, e.g. through his Twitter outbursts and using his office to generate funds for his business - so it's often unclear if he is acting in a personal or official capacity. That's resulted in lots of problematic situations, but the reason why the Ukraine situation was chosen for impeachment was because it was such a clear example of Trump using official powers for personal gain, i.e. abusing those powers.
I could also post videos of what Clinton said after being acquitted and Trump's all-you-can-eat persecution complex buffet, but what would be the point?? Suffice to say, Clinton insulted no one, took total responsibility for putting the country through it, and apologized. Whether you believe it was genuine or not, it's what happened. The contrast is on tape for all-time for the historical record.
The Obama admin tactic was to ignore whistleblowers when they went through proper channels, and then prosecute them when they tried to go through a "respectable" news organization and bring that info to the public.
This is the best source I can find on the matter, which covers many of the individual cases, examples of how they threatened others with lawsuits, etc.
I thought this was well stated:
“You can either go through proper channels and risk prison, or you can go to the press and risk prison,” said John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who was the first to confirm specific torture methods, last year. “Or you can just keep your mouth shut. And the powers that be are banking that you’re just going to keep your mouth shut.”
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
The key word here is consent.
And even though grab them by the pussy was the catch phrase, the real culprit in Trump's words were:
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.
This was during the height of the MeToo movement, where a lot of women were stepping up and saying stars can't do anything that they wanted. (The whole, girls let him do it, so it's consensual argument BS) You have a person, being recorded stating that he sexually assaulted women, while being accused of sexually assaulting women and he is proclaiming to the world that those women are liars and they are just after fame or whatever.
HIs response was also exactly a whataboutism. "Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close." Without providing any evidence that Clinton did say worse. Just take my word for it.
~~
History regards Carter as a mild president who was pretty much just there. Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for. It isn't a surprise that most conservatives like to compare Obama's first four years with Trump's first four years negating what Obama had to pull the country out of.
~~
I'll also comment on the whistleblowers and Obama's alleged crackdown on them:
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
It should be noted that she is in jail again because she wouldn't comply with a subpoena. How is that for your double standards?
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
Thomas Drake: A former senior executive at the National Security Agency, he was charged under the Espionage act for sharing classified information. Once again, proper channels were not followed to prevent the charge, but Drake is also a unique case as he argued that the problems of the NSA are “so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.”
If people are so concerned with his treatment, (which BTW amounted one year of probation and 240 hours of community service - oh the humanity!!) they'd be continuing questioning the role of the NSA and how it is functioning.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim: Went on Fox and told them that NK would conduct a nuclear bomb test. He said this before any of our allies in the region were informed. He pleaded guilty to his stupidity of disclosing classified national defense information to an unauthorized person and served a 13 month prison sentence.
It should be noted in this case, that what Kim blew the whistle on, had nothing to do with what the administrations actions were against its citizens. Keeping secret that we know what hostile states are doing should be a given as to let those hostile states know that we know.
James Hitselberger: This guy blabbed about US intelligence discrepancies off of a base. The thing to know with intelligence is that it isn't all 100% accurate. This guy might have been frustrated with the inaccuracies and discrepancies so he shared it off base with someone (I can't really find who) but he wasn't charged with espionage instead he settled for a plea deal that set him back $250. That's not a typo. Two hundred and fifty dollars. Whew these crack downs are brutal!
John Kiriakou : Exposed two of his colleagues of using waterboarding. Once again, if he went through the proper channels it might not have led to charges and 30 years of jail time. Oh wait, give me a second... two and half years of jail time after he submitted a guilty plea. If Obama's administration was actually cracking down on whistleblowers it would have been 30 years.
Shamai Leibowitz: 200 pages of documents of transcribed wiretaps from conversations between the Israeli embassy in Washington and the blogger Richard Silverstein. Silverstein's blog talks about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ultimate resolution to it, so you can imagine how sensitive this information might have been.
The former FBI agent plead guilty, served 20 months in jail for his actions.
Jeffrey Sterling: Was charged with leaking classified information regarding US efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program to the NYT. Even though Sterling, a former CIA agent, stated he did not leak secret information, he was convicted of espionage and served 3 and half years in jail.
So he pretty much broadcasted and admitted to one of America's hostile nations, that the US was conducting hostile actions against one of their national goals. Yep this is the type of whistleblowing that should be protected. Every CIA agent should openly admit to what they are doing for transparency!
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Chelsea Manning's treatment was condemned by the U.N for the use of solitary confinement, a cruel and unjust punishment for the crime, I'm sure you will admit.
To put it in perspective, prosecuting 8 whistleblowers under the espionage act was more than all past ones combined. It remains an unprecedented assault on transparency, by the administration that promised more of it than anyone else. That also doesn't take into account the number of people who were threatened with lawsuits. It only takes half that number to put the fear into them all.
I'm not even going to go into the moral quagmire of justifying JAIL TIME for blowing the whistle on TORTURE. Listen to yourself, man. It doesn't matter if he got off with a few years, he deserved protection and not punishment.
This sort of thing deserves universal condemnation, and if it were a Republican it would get it here.
By TORTURE you mean the post 9/11 'enhanced interrogation' put in place during George W. Bush by Attorney General John Ashcroft? You are right Republicans are to blame for that one too. Some of the same people who okayed that are back working for Trump. Yes Obama scaled it back and he didn't prosecute these Republican criminals who implemented it so that is on him. Also Obama didn't close Guantanamo bay. Trump hasn't either.
So Obama scaled all that back. If he was a Republican you'd be celebrating him. Instead Trump says we should commit war crimes like killing terrorist families and there is not a word said about that by Republicans
I've moved far away from Bill Maher on alot of issues, but when it gets laid out like this, I don't see how one can argue he isn't entirely correct:
I long for the day where being an racist Islamophobe makes you as much a persona non grata in progressive circles as being any other sort of racist does.
Boosting the signal of a known bigot like Maher is not progressive, in every sense of the term.
I just want the same standards to apply from the left when it's one of their guys in office. Lyndon Johnson was a prick. I've heard folks on this forum praising him for his 'civil right's' stand while basically ignoring my pointing out his role in escalating the Vietnam War. W's war cost thousands of lives and the left bitched about it like it was WW1. Johnson's war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and all I hear is what a great President he was. Bullshit!
With all due respect, Johnson lost his chance to run for reelection due to being rejected by his own party, due in no small part to Vietnam. That's not a standard the right matched for Bush, even though it was already well-known in 2004 that his administration was guilty of either lying or gross incompetence to drag the country into war.
But still: LBJ was a corrupt bully, with contempt for the rules and norms of American governance, who started an unnecessary war that would kill millions (because I don't only care about American deaths). He also passed civil rights legislation that was a historically notable step on the road to full equality, and drew back from the precipice of nuclear war that his predecessor had almost ended the world due to. So he's a mixed bag, imo.
To put it in perspective, prosecuting 8 whistleblowers under the espionage act was more than all past ones combined. It remains an unprecedented assault on transparency, by the administration that promised more of it than anyone else. That also doesn't take into account the number of people who were threatened with lawsuits. It only takes half that number to put the fear into them all.
Does the quantity actually matter? As I said, which of the 8 did not commit a federal offense? And we are talking 8 people. Each distinct in their own charges. 5 of the 8 pleaded guilty. One is on the lam. One was commuted.
I'm not even going to go into the moral quagmire of justifying JAIL TIME for blowing the whistle on TORTURE. Listen to yourself, man. It doesn't matter if he got off with a few years, he deserved protection and not punishment.
If I stop a shoplifter with brute force, the argument shouldn't be "I deserve protection because I stopped a crime in action." The way I went about it was wrong, just like this guy. And it wasn't the torture that got him in hot water, it was disclosing the identity of a fellow CIA officer, that even the reporter who he told it to knew was wrong that it wasn't published.
The waterboarding accusations dated back to 2007. He chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional intelligence committees were already aware of it.
So who was in charge in 2007? Obama? Nope, the Bush administration charged him, but he was convicted in Obama's term. It's worth noting, as I did in the little mock up, that the Bush's administration was looking to get 30 years for his actions. He didn't because of the transfer of power that happened in 2010.
More examples of liberal whataboutism to counteract conservative whataboutism...
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
I get what you're doing here, but let's not diminish Trump by pretending that comment is his only known sin of this nature, or that there is any actual reason to believe his comment was much of a joke or exaggeration.
But you are completly correct that Bill Clinton is a serial predator and that how much the left excuses this (even the left that otherwise hates the Clintons!) is disgusting. You cannot have a consenting relationship with the gross imbalance of power that exists between the President and a white house intern, and if that wasn't sufficiently recognised in the 90s, there is certainly no reason not to recognise it now.
If Clinton's relationship was consensual, then so are relationships between teachers and students, or bosses and interns at any other job, etc.
MoreYou might not like Reagan but he got a Hell of a lot more accomplished with a hostile Congress than Obama ever did.
That's, uh, WHY I hate him, though? Getting things done is only admirable if the things you're trying to do are admirable. Reagan was a malicious snake who hid behind an affable image while systematically poisoning the well in America for race relations, labour relations, economic management and a host of other factors for generations. He was guilty as hell for Iran-Contra and should have been impeached for that, as long as we're at it.
Putting that aside, though, Obama and Reagan were dealing with entirely different situations, as a "hostile congress" is an entirely different thing post-Newt Gingrich.
To put it in perspective, prosecuting 8 whistleblowers under the espionage act was more than all past ones combined. It remains an unprecedented assault on transparency, by the administration that promised more of it than anyone else. That also doesn't take into account the number of people who were threatened with lawsuits. It only takes half that number to put the fear into them all.
Does the quantity actually matter? As I said, which of the 8 did not commit a federal offense? And we are talking 8 people. Each distinct in their own charges. 5 of the 8 pleaded guilty. One is on the lam. One was commuted.
I'm not even going to go into the moral quagmire of justifying JAIL TIME for blowing the whistle on TORTURE. Listen to yourself, man. It doesn't matter if he got off with a few years, he deserved protection and not punishment.
If I stop a shoplifter with brute force, the argument shouldn't be "I deserve protection because I stopped a crime in action." The way I went about it was wrong, just like this guy. And it wasn't the torture that got him in hot water, it was disclosing the identity of a fellow CIA officer, that even the reporter who he told it to knew was wrong that it wasn't published.
The waterboarding accusations dated back to 2007. He chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional intelligence committees were already aware of it.
So who was in charge in 2007? Obama? Nope, the Bush administration charged him, but he was convicted in Obama's term. It's worth noting, as I did in the little mock up, that the Bush's administration was looking to get 30 years for his actions. He didn't because of the transfer of power that happened in 2010.
"Whatabout Bush" doesn't cut it. I've been more than perfectly clear I was no fan of him or his policies.
You seem to want to condemn Bush but defend Obama, who was altogether worse on this question and bears responsibility for this trial which he could have ended at any time. It makes no sense.
And yes, obviously number matters. You don't think there were prosecutable whistleblowers before Obama? No, he chose to crackdown on innocent people releasing important information to the public.
If he was a Republican you would be celebrating him
This is common in this group, but not for me, and not on this question. Even as recently as the impeachment trial I was saying Bush's torture was far more worthy of impeachment than Trump's nonsense phone call. I will ever remain consistent on basic moral questions like this.
THERE IS NO CONSENT WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD HAS SEX WITH HIS INTERN.
Do you understand why professors should not have sex with students? It is not because of an age gap (because sometimes there isn't that big a gap). It's about power. Its about the implicit and explicit effect on consent inmaking overtures to someone who you in a very real sense control the future of.
Bill Clinton had far more power over Monica Lewinski's future than a professor has over a student.
That's not even getting into the fact that Clinton's entire career was dogged with numerous accusations of sexual assault and rape.
It is distasteful to excuse Clinton and attack Trump on this subject. They are not even two sides of the same coin - they are the same coin, full stop.
Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for.
In actual fact, economic historians know that very little of the economy under any President can be credited to them, good or bad. You could easily (and more accurately) say Obama was burdened with an economy Clinton destroyed (because Clinton era deregulation contributed to the eventual crash), but in either case, be consistent: either Presidents are responsible for their economies (in which case Trump gets credit for the good economy under his regime), or they aren't (in which case Obama gets no credit for the economy improving during his).
Oh, and saying "the economy only improved for the rich" is just as accurate about Obama as it is for Trump. Lefties had no problem seeing the stock market as an indicator of economic health six years ago.
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
Nelson Mandela got let out early from his life sentence, so I guess we all owe the South African government an apology for calling them racist.
BTW, there's a wee little thing in your Constitution called the "first amendment". You should look it up. Because, and stick with me here: WHISTLEBLOWING IS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That means it is not illegal, and your complaining about "proper channels" means exactly as much as criticising MeToo complainants for not going through "proper channels" (which, btw, does happen, and frequently). Thats why Obama used a kludgy century-old law about espionage to prosecute Manning - because what she did wasn't illegal. It also wasn't espionage, of course.
Obama jailed a hero who revealed crimes against humanity out of conscience, in jail said hero was tortured in contravention of the Geneva Conventions your country is a signatory to, and you give him credit brcause this unlawful imprisonment and torture for a heroic act of protected free speech was commuted to only 7 years?
I wonder, in their hearts, if Democrats can even convince themselves they would react the same way to Trump imprisoning a whistleblower under false charges and then allowing them to be tortured in prison, as they did when Obama did it.
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
True, if Snowden had gone through "proper channels" about the vast government conspiracy to spy on its own citizens, there would have been a very different outcome: we would never have heard about it.
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Your complete dismissal of the crime of wrongly imprisoning and torturing people is noted. I guess I'm not certain why lefties in the US thought Guantanamo Bay was such a big deal (until Obama got into office and they got collective amnesia about it, anyway).
Maybe you could also explain why Obama assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old American citizen son without trial (and then lying about his age to make it seem vaguely more plausible he was a scary terrorist) was a totally cool and Constitution-friendly use of his power that definitely shouldn't have led to his impeachment, but Donald Trump killing Awlaki's 9-year-old granddaughter was a horrific crime against humanity.
Because it's not about what you do, it's about what letter is next to your name when you do it.
And yes, obviously number matters. You don't think there were prosecutable whistleblowers before Obama? No, he chose to crackdown on innocent people releasing important information to the public.
How was Obama worse? because 8 people were charged? 4 of the 8 pleaded guilty. 2 others were found guilty by the court of law. They are not "innocent."
What above was important information that the public desperately needed to know? That NK was testing nuclear weapons? Yep. Fox news needed to know that more than South Korea or Japan. That the government conducted sabotage missions against a hostile state looking to get nuclear weapons? You are right that didn't jeopardize American lives at all. Oh wait, it's the $250 fine that irrepressible, but is yet treated equally to what Manning had to go through.
Boil it all down, you are really left with 4: Snowden (who is in hiding), Manning (who's sentence was commuted), Kiriakou who was charged with the same thing as Scooter Libby, disclosing the name of a CIA agent (not the actual torture), and Drake, whose original charges were actually dropped, hence the community service slap on the wrist.
Drake and Kiriakou, IMO are the two big ones. Kiriakou was charged during the Bush administration. Much like all acts of judiciary, other branches of government should never get involved with the proceedings. That doesn't mean that a better plea deal can be worked out for the person who committed a crime that was as severe as what Scooter Libby did. Wouldn't that be it's own double standard of justice?
Even though Drake's charges were dropped, the whole Trailblazer fiasco was heavily condemned at the time with the project starting in 2001 and it was the culture at the NSA since that time that he was combatting against.
With the case of Manning, it was the military that charged her and not Obama's DOJ since she was an active member of the military. Do you know how much up-in-arms the right would have been if Obama interfered in a military tribunal case? Probably more so than Trump's own interference.
Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
How was Obama worse? because 8 people were charged? 4 of the 8 pleaded guilty. 2 others were found guilty by the court of law. They are not "innocent."
This is literally the exact same argument people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. He was convicted in a court of law! That totally is the long and short of it, and there was definitely no chance whatsoever that the conviction was not legitimate because people who embarrass and threaten governments always get fair and aboveboard trials.
After all, it's not like any of these people got convicted under an obviously irrelevant century-old wartime law about espionage... oh, whoops.
Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
Manning and Snowden alone are more than sufficient to condamn Obama. Manning, alone, is sufficient to condemn Obama.
THERE IS NO CONSENT WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD HAS SEX WITH HIS INTERN.
Do you understand why professors should not have sex with students? It is not because of an age gap (because sometimes there isn't that big a gap). It's about power. Its about the implicit and explicit effect on consent inmaking overtures to someone who you in a very real sense control the future of.
Bill Clinton had far more power over Monica Lewinski's future than a professor has over a student.
That's not even getting into the fact that Clinton's entire career was dogged with numerous accusations of sexual assault and rape.
It is distasteful to excuse Clinton and attack Trump on this subject. They are not even two sides of the same coin - they are the same coin, full stop.
Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for.
In actual fact, economic historians know that very little of the economy under any President can be credited to them, good or bad. You could easily (and more accurately) say Obama was burdened with an economy Clinton destroyed (because Clinton era deregulation contributed to the eventual crash), but in either case, be consistent: either Presidents are responsible for their economies (in which case Trump gets credit for the good economy under his regime), or they aren't (in which case Obama gets no credit for the economy improving during his).
Oh, and saying "the economy only improved for the rich" is just as accurate about Obama as it is for Trump. Lefties had no problem seeing the stock market as an indicator of economic health six years ago.
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
Nelson Mandela got let out early from his life sentence, so I guess we all owe the South African government an apology for calling them racist.
BTW, there's a wee little thing in your Constitution called the "first amendment". You should look it up. Because, and stick with me here: WHISTLEBLOWING IS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That means it is not illegal, and your complaining about "proper channels" means exactly as much as criticising MeToo complainants for not going through "proper channels" (which, btw, does happen, and frequently). Thats why Obama used a kludgy century-old law about espionage to prosecute Manning - because what she did wasn't illegal. It also wasn't espionage, of course.
Obama jailed a hero who revealed crimes against humanity out of conscience, in jail said hero was tortured in contravention of the Geneva Conventions your country is a signatory to, and you give him credit brcause this unlawful imprisonment and torture for a heroic act of protected free speech was commuted to only 7 years?
I wonder, in their hearts, if Democrats can even convince themselves they would react the same way to Trump imprisoning a whistleblower under false charges and then allowing them to be tortured in prison, as they did when Obama did it.
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
True, if Snowden had gone through "proper channels" about the vast government conspiracy to spy on its own citizens, there would have been a very different outcome: we would never have heard about it.
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Your complete dismissal of the crime of wrongly imprisoning and torturing people is noted. I guess I'm not certain why lefties in the US thought Guantanamo Bay was such a big deal (until Obama got into office and they got collective amnesia about it, anyway).
Maybe you could also explain why Obama assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old American citizen son without trial (and then lying about his age to make it seem vaguely more plausible he was a scary terrorist) was a totally cool and Constitution-friendly use of his power that definitely shouldn't have led to his impeachment, but Donald Trump killing Awlaki's 9-year-old granddaughter was a horrific crime against humanity.
Because it's not about what you do, it's about what letter is next to your name when you do it.
Quick little fact, I'm Canadian, so it isn't my country. But please continue.
Manning's, as well as Wikileaks, fault was it didn't vet the information submitted. It just published the whole thing. And even though there was huge crimes against humanity that should have been brought to the light there was a lot more that should have stayed hidden regarding the two active wars. This information (which everyone neglects to mention because a lot of it wasn't reported because proper journalist know that sharing this information is unethical, put the US military in these war zones at a greater risk. That's the crime.
I've said it before, Assange isn't a journalist. He is just hiding behind that label. A true journalist would have went through the documentation, highlighted chief concerns, and brought those to light instead of just dumping the entire thing on the internet. If he took this course, he might have even been able to protect Manning's identity as a proper whistleblower. He didn't.
And when a person is given access to classified information, they waive their first amendment rights regarding that information. Hence why it is bad for a CIA agent to go to the media and explain how the US government disrupted Iran's nuclear capabilities. That isn't blowing a whistle. That is putting American lives, and the lives of our allies at risk. (Just imagine if every CIA and FBI agent did this).
Manning's treatment in prison has nothing to do with her charges BTW. I can personally condemn the way she was treated and still stand by the fact that she broke the law. It was Espionage. She handed classified information over to a foreigner (Assange). Her heart was in the right place, but her actions were still wrong. She even admits that she owns it.
How was Obama worse? because 8 people were charged? 4 of the 8 pleaded guilty. 2 others were found guilty by the court of law. They are not "innocent."
This is literally the exact same argument people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. He was convicted in a court of law! That totally is the long and short of it, and there was definitely no chance whatsoever that the conviction was not legitimate because people who embarrass and threaten governments always get fair and aboveboard trials.
After all, it's not like any of these people got convicted under an obviously irrelevant century-old wartime law about espionage... oh, whoops.
Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
Manning and Snowden alone are more than sufficient to condamn Obama. Manning, alone, is sufficient to condemn Obama.
You are comparing the current US judicial system to that of 1950's South Africa's. Really. Ok.
I honestly don't know if I should continue this discussion.
And once again, the US, at the time, actually still is, at war, hence why a wartime law is being used. It doesn't matter the age of the law, if it's still on the books, it is still law. They don't expire.
Wow, I feel like I just shot my bb-gun at a hornet's nest! Let's all argue and fight about who's party's worse and just forget that both of them are terrible. Trump lost my vote when he petulantly attacked a good man that used to represent me in Congress. Whether or not I piss my vote away on a Libertarian is totally up to the Democrats...
How was Obama worse? because 8 people were charged? 4 of the 8 pleaded guilty. 2 others were found guilty by the court of law. They are not "innocent."
This is literally the exact same argument people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. He was convicted in a court of law! That totally is the long and short of it, and there was definitely no chance whatsoever that the conviction was not legitimate because people who embarrass and threaten governments always get fair and aboveboard trials.
After all, it's not like any of these people got convicted under an obviously irrelevant century-old wartime law about espionage... oh, whoops.
Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
Manning and Snowden alone are more than sufficient to condamn Obama. Manning, alone, is sufficient to condemn Obama.
You are comparing the current US judicial system to that of 1950's South Africa's. Really. Ok.
I honestly don't know if I should continue this discussion.
And once again, the US, at the time, actually still is, at war, hence why a wartime law is being used. It doesn't matter the age of the law, if it's still on the books, it is still law. They don't expire.
Technically we're still at war with North Korea so any wartime law could probably be used at any time up until that armistice is made official. Just sayin'...
Quick little fact, I'm Canadian, so it isn't my country. But please continue.
Cool, so am I. So I guess I'll toss in some CanCon and note that ethics violations are still ethics violations even when Liberals do them? Or I could dig up dirt on the NDP and Greens that they should be called out on, as you prefer.
Manning's, as well as Wikileaks, fault was it didn't vet the information submitted. It just published the whole thing.
This is untrue, and doubly so because Wikileaks approached the "proper authorities" for assistance on redacting the information actually relevant to national security in the papers, and was rebuffed.
If I may be blunt, your erroneous belief that Wikileaks initially published the papers in unredacted form (this only happened a year later, after the unredacted cables had been leaked elsewhere) betrays that you have strong opinions about this subject but have never even so much as read the Wikipedia article on it (which clearly states that the cables were published in redacted form to hide the names of sources, people in vulnerable positions, etc.).
Trying to back up and say they were wrong to release to unredacted cables later will not change the fact your statement above was utterly false. They did vet the information, they did not "just publish the whole thing", and your entire argument rests upon a castle of sand.
And even though there was huge crimes against humanity that should have been brought to the light there was a lot more that should have stayed hidden regarding the two active wars. This information (which everyone neglects to mention because a lot of it wasn't reported because proper journalist know that sharing this information is unethical, put the US military in these war zones at a greater risk. That's the crime.
While you're regurgitating Republican talking points about "putting the troops at risk", maybe you can remind me a) just how many soldiers were killed as a direct result of Manning's whistleblowing, and b) how many of the architects of the crimes against humanity revealed by Manning were jailed and/or tortured.
The several prizes for journalism he's won, and the fact he's a member of the Australian journalist's union, say otherwise. So does Daniel Ellsberg - but what on earth would Daniel Ellsberg know about journalism or whistleblowing, anyway? What were your credentials to judge who is and isn't a journalist, again?
He is just hiding behind that label. A true journalist would have went through the documentation, highlighted chief concerns, and brought those to light instead of just dumping the entire thing on the internet. If he took this course, he might have even been able to protect Manning's identity as a proper whistleblower. He didn't.
According to you, Manning is a criminal who should have been prosecuted for using her first amendment protected speech to expose crimes against humanity, so maybe you shouldn't in the same breath also be criticising Assange for not sufficiently protecting her identity (which he could not have in any case).
Manning's treatment in prison has nothing to do with her charges BTW. I can personally condemn the way she was treated and still stand by the fact that she broke the law. It was Espionage. She handed classified information over to a foreigner (Assange). Her heart was in the right place, but her actions were still wrong. She even admits that she owns it.
Like, the person America unjustly imprisoned and tortured can say whatever they like, for whatever reasons they like, but I don't have to agree, you know?
BTW, it has been well-documented that Obama knew about her treatment and did not stop it despite it being wholly within his power to do so.
You are comparing the current US judicial system to that of 1950's South Africa's. Really. Ok.
I honestly don't know if I should continue this discussion.
Yep, I am (ignoring the fact Mandela was imprisoned in the 60s), because they were both unfair politically motivated trials where the government had a transparent stake in one outcome and are thus very comparable. And also because it was stated that Obama commuting Manning's sentence was against the "narrative" of his being the worst president in history at persecuting whistleblowers, and thus it was appropriate to point out that commuting a sentence, without context, doesn't actually mean much at all.
Incidentally, lots of lefties here routinely compare Trump's government to that of Nazi Germany. Are those uniformly unfair and unserious comparisons becuase the 1930s were a long time ago and Germany's government was really racist?
And once again, the US, at the time, actually still is, at war, hence why a wartime law is being used. It doesn't matter the age of the law, if it's still on the books, it is still law. They don't expire.
That is another regurgitated right-wing talking point. The United States is not at war, as how war is declared is clearly laid out, and this has not been done. The president does not actually get to just say "we're at war against a nebulously defined concept", legally.
Shouting "we're at war!" to shut down dissent, and pretending that whistleblowing revealing high crimes is a slippery slope to all classified material being revealed, is also of course a Bush-era talking point (though it predates him). They also said revealing the torture taking place at Guantanamo Bay was a crime because it endangered the troops - and had actually some justification for doing so, unlike you, since it did directly lead to more attacks on US soldiers. Which doesn't make their reasoning less ridiculous, of course, since the fault lies with those that aided, abetted and committed those crimes in the first place, not the people who revealed them to the public.
And once again, neither what Manning or Snowden did was espionage by any reasonable definition of the term. They leaked the existence of monstrous crimes and a vast government conspiracy to the public. There is no serious dispute of this fact, or of their intentions in doing so. Their persecution undermines the rule of law, it does not strengthen it.
Comments
Whatabout Obama... Whatabout double standards... How about we stick to the topic at hand. Two wrongs don't make a right do they? Yes Obama agressively targeted leakers that was wrong. Trump is doing it wronger and having Rand Paul read the whistleblowers name and these retaliation firings doesn't make it right because whatabout obama. Whatabout obama is not an excuse for your own actions.
These are not the actions of innocence at all. These are indications of a cover up and guilt.
Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. And you're right impeachment is not a criminal trial so that doesn't apply. What we have is multiple people testifying under oath about Trump's actions and a memo of a transcript that is incredibly damning vs a well documented liar who refuses to go under oath who claims he's innocent. We have stonewalling by administration officials (totally a sign of innocence right) and Senate Republicans who held a trial while calling no witnesses.
Right. Well whatever. Yeah when there's a lot of evidence and it gets ignored you don't get the reputation of being "innocent". Ask OJ about that one. Or Epstein who was not "innocent" either but had corruption help him out the first time.
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
Carter was laughably incompetent. Couldn't accomplish shit with all branches of the government in his corner.
Obama? What was the real difference between him and W? Obamacare? Nobody could ever criticize Obama because 'racism' yet he still didn't accomplish a whole lot in eight years. You might not like Reagan but he got a Hell of a lot more accomplished with a hostile Congress than Obama ever did.
This is the selective outrage I'm referring to. I'm old enough to remember all this. Is it any wonder I voted for Trump and may now switch to Bernie? Fuck the establishment and their 'wisdom' and 'decorum'. Trump may not be likeable but maybe he's a pioneer...
A message from Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.
I like how he's owning the fact that he's a Jew. Where was this with Romney and his Mormonism?
Sometimes I find a bit of wisdom in Spongebob...
Edit: No, I'm not saying Jews and/or Mormons are ugly. Get a sense of humor!
Clinton was impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice. However, the House Committee did vote in favor of two further articles - one of which was abuse of power. That was defeated in the full House though, with 81 of the 228 Republicans voting against it. I suspect many of those believed that the relationship with Lewinsky did represent an abuse of power (and I would agree with that), but felt that was not sufficient to provide grounds for impeachment (reflecting the same sort of reasoning as used by many Senators in Trump's case - he's clearly guilty, but the offence is not sufficient to justify removing him).
However, in Clinton's case the abuse of power was based around a personal power dynamic. I agree with you that it is a comparable situation to a doctor / patient or professor / student relationship and Clinton showed both a lack of morals and judgment in pursuing that. While deplorable though, I can't see that the abuse was in the same league as in Trump's case. Trump was not just taking advantage of his personal situation, but also deploying the power of his office by withholding aid & making meeting Zelensky conditional on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden.
The US (and of course other countries) have a long history of Presidents with dubious personal morals. One argument often made about this is that personal morality should not be confused with official capability and actions. Presidents in the past have tried to keep the personal and official separate, but Trump blurs the line constantly, e.g. through his Twitter outbursts and using his office to generate funds for his business - so it's often unclear if he is acting in a personal or official capacity. That's resulted in lots of problematic situations, but the reason why the Ukraine situation was chosen for impeachment was because it was such a clear example of Trump using official powers for personal gain, i.e. abusing those powers.
The key word here is consent.
And even though grab them by the pussy was the catch phrase, the real culprit in Trump's words were:
This was during the height of the MeToo movement, where a lot of women were stepping up and saying stars can't do anything that they wanted. (The whole, girls let him do it, so it's consensual argument BS) You have a person, being recorded stating that he sexually assaulted women, while being accused of sexually assaulting women and he is proclaiming to the world that those women are liars and they are just after fame or whatever.
HIs response was also exactly a whataboutism. "Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close." Without providing any evidence that Clinton did say worse. Just take my word for it.
~~
History regards Carter as a mild president who was pretty much just there. Obama is credited with turning around the economy that W. destroyed. You know, the same economy Trump is now taking credit for. It isn't a surprise that most conservatives like to compare Obama's first four years with Trump's first four years negating what Obama had to pull the country out of.
~~
I'll also comment on the whistleblowers and Obama's alleged crackdown on them:
Chelsea Manning: Handed over cache's of classified documents to WikiLeaks instead of going through the proper channels. Yes, there was some stuff that should have been brought to light within the documents, but there was a lot more that should have stayed classified while the US was waging 2 wars. She was charged, and found guilty of the espionage act.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama, in his ever crack down on whistle blowers reduced the sentence to 7 years... oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.
It should be noted that she is in jail again because she wouldn't comply with a subpoena. How is that for your double standards?
Edward Snowden: Was charged again with the Espionage Act, after leaking documents showing that the US was spying on its own citizens. Instead of facing the courts however, he had fled Russia. Once again, as stated early, if Snowden went through the proper channels first (IG) it would not have come this outcome. It should also be noted that Snowden still has not be convicted of any charges.
Thomas Drake: A former senior executive at the National Security Agency, he was charged under the Espionage act for sharing classified information. Once again, proper channels were not followed to prevent the charge, but Drake is also a unique case as he argued that the problems of the NSA are “so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.”
If people are so concerned with his treatment, (which BTW amounted one year of probation and 240 hours of community service - oh the humanity!!) they'd be continuing questioning the role of the NSA and how it is functioning.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim: Went on Fox and told them that NK would conduct a nuclear bomb test. He said this before any of our allies in the region were informed. He pleaded guilty to his stupidity of disclosing classified national defense information to an unauthorized person and served a 13 month prison sentence.
It should be noted in this case, that what Kim blew the whistle on, had nothing to do with what the administrations actions were against its citizens. Keeping secret that we know what hostile states are doing should be a given as to let those hostile states know that we know.
James Hitselberger: This guy blabbed about US intelligence discrepancies off of a base. The thing to know with intelligence is that it isn't all 100% accurate. This guy might have been frustrated with the inaccuracies and discrepancies so he shared it off base with someone (I can't really find who) but he wasn't charged with espionage instead he settled for a plea deal that set him back $250. That's not a typo. Two hundred and fifty dollars. Whew these crack downs are brutal!
John Kiriakou : Exposed two of his colleagues of using waterboarding. Once again, if he went through the proper channels it might not have led to charges and 30 years of jail time. Oh wait, give me a second... two and half years of jail time after he submitted a guilty plea. If Obama's administration was actually cracking down on whistleblowers it would have been 30 years.
Shamai Leibowitz: 200 pages of documents of transcribed wiretaps from conversations between the Israeli embassy in Washington and the blogger Richard Silverstein. Silverstein's blog talks about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ultimate resolution to it, so you can imagine how sensitive this information might have been.
The former FBI agent plead guilty, served 20 months in jail for his actions.
Jeffrey Sterling: Was charged with leaking classified information regarding US efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program to the NYT. Even though Sterling, a former CIA agent, stated he did not leak secret information, he was convicted of espionage and served 3 and half years in jail.
So he pretty much broadcasted and admitted to one of America's hostile nations, that the US was conducting hostile actions against one of their national goals. Yep this is the type of whistleblowing that should be protected. Every CIA agent should openly admit to what they are doing for transparency!
So there you have it. The Obama 8. Did I miss any? Which ones were unfairly treated in your opinion? I honestly don't know how that one guy is going to pay the $250 fine with the state that Obama left the economy in, but man did Obama really crack down on these guys. A total of 15 years in prison, that almost as much as Skating of the Freeway would get a person.
Chelsea Manning's treatment was condemned by the U.N for the use of solitary confinement, a cruel and unjust punishment for the crime, I'm sure you will admit.
To put it in perspective, prosecuting 8 whistleblowers under the espionage act was more than all past ones combined. It remains an unprecedented assault on transparency, by the administration that promised more of it than anyone else. That also doesn't take into account the number of people who were threatened with lawsuits. It only takes half that number to put the fear into them all.
I'm not even going to go into the moral quagmire of justifying JAIL TIME for blowing the whistle on TORTURE. Listen to yourself, man. It doesn't matter if he got off with a few years, he deserved protection and not punishment.
This sort of thing deserves universal condemnation, and if it were a Republican it would get it here.
I could also post videos of what Clinton said after being acquitted and Trump's all-you-can-eat persecution complex buffet, but what would be the point?? Suffice to say, Clinton insulted no one, took total responsibility for putting the country through it, and apologized. Whether you believe it was genuine or not, it's what happened. The contrast is on tape for all-time for the historical record.
This is the best source I can find on the matter, which covers many of the individual cases, examples of how they threatened others with lawsuits, etc.
I thought this was well stated:
“You can either go through proper channels and risk prison, or you can go to the press and risk prison,” said John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who was the first to confirm specific torture methods, last year. “Or you can just keep your mouth shut. And the powers that be are banking that you’re just going to keep your mouth shut.”
https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/
By TORTURE you mean the post 9/11 'enhanced interrogation' put in place during George W. Bush by Attorney General John Ashcroft? You are right Republicans are to blame for that one too. Some of the same people who okayed that are back working for Trump. Yes Obama scaled it back and he didn't prosecute these Republican criminals who implemented it so that is on him. Also Obama didn't close Guantanamo bay. Trump hasn't either.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
So Obama scaled all that back. If he was a Republican you'd be celebrating him. Instead Trump says we should commit war crimes like killing terrorist families and there is not a word said about that by Republicans
I long for the day where being an racist Islamophobe makes you as much a persona non grata in progressive circles as being any other sort of racist does.
Boosting the signal of a known bigot like Maher is not progressive, in every sense of the term.
With all due respect, Johnson lost his chance to run for reelection due to being rejected by his own party, due in no small part to Vietnam. That's not a standard the right matched for Bush, even though it was already well-known in 2004 that his administration was guilty of either lying or gross incompetence to drag the country into war.
But still: LBJ was a corrupt bully, with contempt for the rules and norms of American governance, who started an unnecessary war that would kill millions (because I don't only care about American deaths). He also passed civil rights legislation that was a historically notable step on the road to full equality, and drew back from the precipice of nuclear war that his predecessor had almost ended the world due to. So he's a mixed bag, imo.
Does the quantity actually matter? As I said, which of the 8 did not commit a federal offense? And we are talking 8 people. Each distinct in their own charges. 5 of the 8 pleaded guilty. One is on the lam. One was commuted.
If I stop a shoplifter with brute force, the argument shouldn't be "I deserve protection because I stopped a crime in action." The way I went about it was wrong, just like this guy. And it wasn't the torture that got him in hot water, it was disclosing the identity of a fellow CIA officer, that even the reporter who he told it to knew was wrong that it wasn't published.
The waterboarding accusations dated back to 2007. He chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional intelligence committees were already aware of it.
So who was in charge in 2007? Obama? Nope, the Bush administration charged him, but he was convicted in Obama's term. It's worth noting, as I did in the little mock up, that the Bush's administration was looking to get 30 years for his actions. He didn't because of the transfer of power that happened in 2010.
I get what you're doing here, but let's not diminish Trump by pretending that comment is his only known sin of this nature, or that there is any actual reason to believe his comment was much of a joke or exaggeration.
But you are completly correct that Bill Clinton is a serial predator and that how much the left excuses this (even the left that otherwise hates the Clintons!) is disgusting. You cannot have a consenting relationship with the gross imbalance of power that exists between the President and a white house intern, and if that wasn't sufficiently recognised in the 90s, there is certainly no reason not to recognise it now.
If Clinton's relationship was consensual, then so are relationships between teachers and students, or bosses and interns at any other job, etc.
That's, uh, WHY I hate him, though? Getting things done is only admirable if the things you're trying to do are admirable. Reagan was a malicious snake who hid behind an affable image while systematically poisoning the well in America for race relations, labour relations, economic management and a host of other factors for generations. He was guilty as hell for Iran-Contra and should have been impeached for that, as long as we're at it.
Putting that aside, though, Obama and Reagan were dealing with entirely different situations, as a "hostile congress" is an entirely different thing post-Newt Gingrich.
"Whatabout Bush" doesn't cut it. I've been more than perfectly clear I was no fan of him or his policies.
You seem to want to condemn Bush but defend Obama, who was altogether worse on this question and bears responsibility for this trial which he could have ended at any time. It makes no sense.
And yes, obviously number matters. You don't think there were prosecutable whistleblowers before Obama? No, he chose to crackdown on innocent people releasing important information to the public.
This is common in this group, but not for me, and not on this question. Even as recently as the impeachment trial I was saying Bush's torture was far more worthy of impeachment than Trump's nonsense phone call. I will ever remain consistent on basic moral questions like this.
THERE IS NO CONSENT WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD HAS SEX WITH HIS INTERN.
Do you understand why professors should not have sex with students? It is not because of an age gap (because sometimes there isn't that big a gap). It's about power. Its about the implicit and explicit effect on consent inmaking overtures to someone who you in a very real sense control the future of.
Bill Clinton had far more power over Monica Lewinski's future than a professor has over a student.
That's not even getting into the fact that Clinton's entire career was dogged with numerous accusations of sexual assault and rape.
It is distasteful to excuse Clinton and attack Trump on this subject. They are not even two sides of the same coin - they are the same coin, full stop.
In actual fact, economic historians know that very little of the economy under any President can be credited to them, good or bad. You could easily (and more accurately) say Obama was burdened with an economy Clinton destroyed (because Clinton era deregulation contributed to the eventual crash), but in either case, be consistent: either Presidents are responsible for their economies (in which case Trump gets credit for the good economy under his regime), or they aren't (in which case Obama gets no credit for the economy improving during his).
Oh, and saying "the economy only improved for the rich" is just as accurate about Obama as it is for Trump. Lefties had no problem seeing the stock market as an indicator of economic health six years ago.
He's literally the worst in the histoty of your country, objectively, but sure, okay, "allegedly".
Nelson Mandela got let out early from his life sentence, so I guess we all owe the South African government an apology for calling them racist.
BTW, there's a wee little thing in your Constitution called the "first amendment". You should look it up. Because, and stick with me here: WHISTLEBLOWING IS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That means it is not illegal, and your complaining about "proper channels" means exactly as much as criticising MeToo complainants for not going through "proper channels" (which, btw, does happen, and frequently). Thats why Obama used a kludgy century-old law about espionage to prosecute Manning - because what she did wasn't illegal. It also wasn't espionage, of course.
Obama jailed a hero who revealed crimes against humanity out of conscience, in jail said hero was tortured in contravention of the Geneva Conventions your country is a signatory to, and you give him credit brcause this unlawful imprisonment and torture for a heroic act of protected free speech was commuted to only 7 years?
I wonder, in their hearts, if Democrats can even convince themselves they would react the same way to Trump imprisoning a whistleblower under false charges and then allowing them to be tortured in prison, as they did when Obama did it.
True, if Snowden had gone through "proper channels" about the vast government conspiracy to spy on its own citizens, there would have been a very different outcome: we would never have heard about it.
Your complete dismissal of the crime of wrongly imprisoning and torturing people is noted. I guess I'm not certain why lefties in the US thought Guantanamo Bay was such a big deal (until Obama got into office and they got collective amnesia about it, anyway).
Maybe you could also explain why Obama assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old American citizen son without trial (and then lying about his age to make it seem vaguely more plausible he was a scary terrorist) was a totally cool and Constitution-friendly use of his power that definitely shouldn't have led to his impeachment, but Donald Trump killing Awlaki's 9-year-old granddaughter was a horrific crime against humanity.
Because it's not about what you do, it's about what letter is next to your name when you do it.
How was Obama worse? because 8 people were charged? 4 of the 8 pleaded guilty. 2 others were found guilty by the court of law. They are not "innocent."
What above was important information that the public desperately needed to know? That NK was testing nuclear weapons? Yep. Fox news needed to know that more than South Korea or Japan. That the government conducted sabotage missions against a hostile state looking to get nuclear weapons? You are right that didn't jeopardize American lives at all. Oh wait, it's the $250 fine that irrepressible, but is yet treated equally to what Manning had to go through.
Boil it all down, you are really left with 4: Snowden (who is in hiding), Manning (who's sentence was commuted), Kiriakou who was charged with the same thing as Scooter Libby, disclosing the name of a CIA agent (not the actual torture), and Drake, whose original charges were actually dropped, hence the community service slap on the wrist.
Drake and Kiriakou, IMO are the two big ones. Kiriakou was charged during the Bush administration. Much like all acts of judiciary, other branches of government should never get involved with the proceedings. That doesn't mean that a better plea deal can be worked out for the person who committed a crime that was as severe as what Scooter Libby did. Wouldn't that be it's own double standard of justice?
Even though Drake's charges were dropped, the whole Trailblazer fiasco was heavily condemned at the time with the project starting in 2001 and it was the culture at the NSA since that time that he was combatting against.
With the case of Manning, it was the military that charged her and not Obama's DOJ since she was an active member of the military. Do you know how much up-in-arms the right would have been if Obama interfered in a military tribunal case? Probably more so than Trump's own interference.
Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
This is literally the exact same argument people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. He was convicted in a court of law! That totally is the long and short of it, and there was definitely no chance whatsoever that the conviction was not legitimate because people who embarrass and threaten governments always get fair and aboveboard trials.
After all, it's not like any of these people got convicted under an obviously irrelevant century-old wartime law about espionage... oh, whoops.
Manning and Snowden alone are more than sufficient to condamn Obama. Manning, alone, is sufficient to condemn Obama.
Quick little fact, I'm Canadian, so it isn't my country. But please continue.
Manning's, as well as Wikileaks, fault was it didn't vet the information submitted. It just published the whole thing. And even though there was huge crimes against humanity that should have been brought to the light there was a lot more that should have stayed hidden regarding the two active wars. This information (which everyone neglects to mention because a lot of it wasn't reported because proper journalist know that sharing this information is unethical, put the US military in these war zones at a greater risk. That's the crime.
I've said it before, Assange isn't a journalist. He is just hiding behind that label. A true journalist would have went through the documentation, highlighted chief concerns, and brought those to light instead of just dumping the entire thing on the internet. If he took this course, he might have even been able to protect Manning's identity as a proper whistleblower. He didn't.
And when a person is given access to classified information, they waive their first amendment rights regarding that information. Hence why it is bad for a CIA agent to go to the media and explain how the US government disrupted Iran's nuclear capabilities. That isn't blowing a whistle. That is putting American lives, and the lives of our allies at risk. (Just imagine if every CIA and FBI agent did this).
Manning's treatment in prison has nothing to do with her charges BTW. I can personally condemn the way she was treated and still stand by the fact that she broke the law. It was Espionage. She handed classified information over to a foreigner (Assange). Her heart was in the right place, but her actions were still wrong. She even admits that she owns it.
You are comparing the current US judicial system to that of 1950's South Africa's. Really. Ok.
I honestly don't know if I should continue this discussion.
And once again, the US, at the time, actually still is, at war, hence why a wartime law is being used. It doesn't matter the age of the law, if it's still on the books, it is still law. They don't expire.
Technically we're still at war with North Korea so any wartime law could probably be used at any time up until that armistice is made official. Just sayin'...
Edit: I don't think Bernie 'pretends' to give a shit like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore, I actually think he DOES give a shit!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/02/08/why-jewish-voters-are-turning-on-bernie-sanders/amp/
A Jew who can get Muslims to vote for him but not other Jews. WTF???
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of all of his policies, but Holy Hell, he's a better protest vote than Trump ever was!
Cool, so am I. So I guess I'll toss in some CanCon and note that ethics violations are still ethics violations even when Liberals do them? Or I could dig up dirt on the NDP and Greens that they should be called out on, as you prefer.
This is untrue, and doubly so because Wikileaks approached the "proper authorities" for assistance on redacting the information actually relevant to national security in the papers, and was rebuffed.
If I may be blunt, your erroneous belief that Wikileaks initially published the papers in unredacted form (this only happened a year later, after the unredacted cables had been leaked elsewhere) betrays that you have strong opinions about this subject but have never even so much as read the Wikipedia article on it (which clearly states that the cables were published in redacted form to hide the names of sources, people in vulnerable positions, etc.).
Trying to back up and say they were wrong to release to unredacted cables later will not change the fact your statement above was utterly false. They did vet the information, they did not "just publish the whole thing", and your entire argument rests upon a castle of sand.
While you're regurgitating Republican talking points about "putting the troops at risk", maybe you can remind me a) just how many soldiers were killed as a direct result of Manning's whistleblowing, and b) how many of the architects of the crimes against humanity revealed by Manning were jailed and/or tortured.
The several prizes for journalism he's won, and the fact he's a member of the Australian journalist's union, say otherwise. So does Daniel Ellsberg - but what on earth would Daniel Ellsberg know about journalism or whistleblowing, anyway? What were your credentials to judge who is and isn't a journalist, again?
According to you, Manning is a criminal who should have been prosecuted for using her first amendment protected speech to expose crimes against humanity, so maybe you shouldn't in the same breath also be criticising Assange for not sufficiently protecting her identity (which he could not have in any case).
Legally incorrect. Morally also.
Like, the person America unjustly imprisoned and tortured can say whatever they like, for whatever reasons they like, but I don't have to agree, you know?
BTW, it has been well-documented that Obama knew about her treatment and did not stop it despite it being wholly within his power to do so.
Yep, I am (ignoring the fact Mandela was imprisoned in the 60s), because they were both unfair politically motivated trials where the government had a transparent stake in one outcome and are thus very comparable. And also because it was stated that Obama commuting Manning's sentence was against the "narrative" of his being the worst president in history at persecuting whistleblowers, and thus it was appropriate to point out that commuting a sentence, without context, doesn't actually mean much at all.
Incidentally, lots of lefties here routinely compare Trump's government to that of Nazi Germany. Are those uniformly unfair and unserious comparisons becuase the 1930s were a long time ago and Germany's government was really racist?
That is another regurgitated right-wing talking point. The United States is not at war, as how war is declared is clearly laid out, and this has not been done. The president does not actually get to just say "we're at war against a nebulously defined concept", legally.
Shouting "we're at war!" to shut down dissent, and pretending that whistleblowing revealing high crimes is a slippery slope to all classified material being revealed, is also of course a Bush-era talking point (though it predates him). They also said revealing the torture taking place at Guantanamo Bay was a crime because it endangered the troops - and had actually some justification for doing so, unlike you, since it did directly lead to more attacks on US soldiers. Which doesn't make their reasoning less ridiculous, of course, since the fault lies with those that aided, abetted and committed those crimes in the first place, not the people who revealed them to the public.
And once again, neither what Manning or Snowden did was espionage by any reasonable definition of the term. They leaked the existence of monstrous crimes and a vast government conspiracy to the public. There is no serious dispute of this fact, or of their intentions in doing so. Their persecution undermines the rule of law, it does not strengthen it.