Powell on Liz and Dick Cheney, "They are idiots."

[kalm]

How do you know that?

What's your source?

It couldn't possibly be the very same government he exposed. Oh wait, we can't tell you because it's classified. But trust us!

Oh, for starters, Congressional testimony by General Dempsey (former chair of the Joint Chiefs) to the effect that the vast majority of the documents Snowden released had nothing to do with personal metadata and everything to do with highly sensitive military and intelligence-related information.

But go ahead and stick with George Soros, Danny Glover, and Susan Sarandon! Your boy should be canonized!

I rest my case.

[Ivytalk]

Oh, for starters, Congressional testimony by General Dempsey (former chair of the Joint Chiefs) to the effect that the vast majority of the documents Snowden released had nothing to do with personal metadata and everything to do with highly sensitive military and intelligence-related information.

But go ahead and stick with George Soros, Danny Glover, and Susan Sarandon! Your boy should be canonized!

I rest my case.

Typical knee-jerk klamism. No analysis of the purloined info. Nothing to see here.

[Ivytalk]

You are either stupid or just intentionally ignoring what I have said for the sake of your meaningless argument.

Snowden, if not legally, is still a whistleblower when it comes to the domestic spying program. That should be a mitigating circumstance if he is ever brought to justice. But 99.9% of the docs he pilfered had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. So his sentence should have 0.01% knocked off of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to you, the government, and the establishment media?

According to you, Huffpo, and The Guardian!

[CID1990]

[quote="kalm"][quote="CID1990"][quote="kalm"]

Adversaries can be domestic too...government lover.

also nuance...

:lol:[/quote]

You are either stupid or just intentionally ignoring what I have said for the sake of your meaningless argument.

Snowden, if not legally, is still a whistleblower when it comes to the domestic spying program. That should be a mitigating circumstance if he is ever brought to justice. But 99.9% of the docs he pilfered had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. So his sentence should have 0.01% knocked off of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

According to you, the government, and the establishment media?[/quote]

1.5 million documents. ALL classified. Only a small percentage pertaining to NSA domestic surveillance. The NSA doesn't deal in deliberative processes or Putins favorite borscht recipes. They deal completely in ELINT and HUMINT.


It doesn't matter one bit what the unrelated documents contain - they are classified and it is against the law to disseminate them. It is NOT against the law to take them to Congress because THEN you can claim whistleblower protections.

Regardless of what you think, your hero downloaded millions of classified documents and then absconded to China and Russia with them. You and the rest of the nut roots can claim all day that since the evidence is classified we must take the government's word for what's in there as being somehow exonerating, but there are multiple classifying agencies involved here. That means a large portion of the documents were not generated by the NSA. That alone tells me all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

You are either stupid or just intentionally ignoring what I have said for the sake of your meaningless argument.

Snowden, if not legally, is still a whistleblower when it comes to the domestic spying program. That should be a mitigating circumstance if he is ever brought to justice. But 99.9% of the docs he pilfered had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. So his sentence should have 0.01% knocked off of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to you, the government, and the establishment media?

1.5 million documents. ALL classified. Only a small percentage pertaining to NSA domestic surveillance. The NSA doesn't deal in deliberative processes or Putins favorite borscht recipes. They deal completely in ELINT and HUMINT.


It doesn't matter one bit what the unrelated documents contain - they are classified and it is against the law to disseminate them. It is NOT against the law to take them to Congress because THEN you can claim whistleblower protections.

Regardless of what you think, your hero downloaded millions of classified documents and then absconded to China and Russia with them. You and the rest of the nut roots can claim all day that since the evidence is classified we must take the government's word for what's in there as being somehow exonerating, but there are multiple classifying agencies involved here. That means a large portion of the documents were not generated by the NSA. That alone tells me all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

According to you, the government, and the establishment media?

1.5 million documents. ALL classified. Only a small percentage pertaining to NSA domestic surveillance. The NSA doesn't deal in deliberative processes or Putins favorite borscht recipes. They deal completely in ELINT and HUMINT.


It doesn't matter one bit what the unrelated documents contain - they are classified and it is against the law to disseminate them. It is NOT against the law to take them to Congress because THEN you can claim whistleblower protections.

Regardless of what you think, your hero downloaded millions of classified documents and then absconded to China and Russia with them. You and the rest of the nut roots can claim all day that since the evidence is classified we must take the government's word for what's in there as being somehow exonerating, but there are multiple classifying agencies involved here. That means a large portion of the documents were not generated by the NSA. That alone tells me all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poor Cidney. The insults only make you sound shrill and desperate.

No one, including Snowden is denying the illegality. We're arguing whether he should be pardoned. Other cases suggest that if he'd gone through proper channels he would have still be prosecuted. If he comes back now there's nothing to suggest he'd be able to fairly defend himself as a whistleblower.

Just trust the government. They'll be honest and just.

[CID1990]

1.5 million documents. ALL classified. Only a small percentage pertaining to NSA domestic surveillance. The NSA doesn't deal in deliberative processes or Putins favorite borscht recipes. They deal completely in ELINT and HUMINT.


It doesn't matter one bit what the unrelated documents contain - they are classified and it is against the law to disseminate them. It is NOT against the law to take them to Congress because THEN you can claim whistleblower protections.

Regardless of what you think, your hero downloaded millions of classified documents and then absconded to China and Russia with them. You and the rest of the nut roots can claim all day that since the evidence is classified we must take the government's word for what's in there as being somehow exonerating, but there are multiple classifying agencies involved here. That means a large portion of the documents were not generated by the NSA. That alone tells me all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poor Cidney. The insults only make you sound shrill and desperate.

No one, including Snowden is denying the illegality. We're arguing whether he should be pardoned. Other cases suggest that if he'd gone through proper channels he would have still be prosecuted. If he comes back now there's nothing to suggest he'd be able to fairly defend himself as a whistleblower.

Just trust the government. They'll be honest and just.

OK Spandos

The answer is no, he should not be pardoned.

rule of law and all that. He had alternatives and he chose unwisely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Poor Cidney. The insults only make you sound shrill and desperate.

No one, including Snowden is denying the illegality. We're arguing whether he should be pardoned. Other cases suggest that if he'd gone through proper channels he would have still be prosecuted. If he comes back now there's nothing to suggest he'd be able to fairly defend himself as a whistleblower.

Just trust the government. They'll be honest and just.

OK Spandos

The answer is no, he should not be pardoned.

rule of law and all that. He had alternatives and he chose unwisely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever Hillary.

Ever hear of Thomas Drake? How about John Kiriakou?

Btw, aren't presidential pardons a part of the rule of law and all that?

[CAA Flagship]

OK Spandos

The answer is no, he should not be pardoned.

rule of law and all that. He had alternatives and he chose unwisely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever Hillary.

Ever hear of Thomas Drake? How about John Kiriakou?

Btw, aren't presidential pardons a part of the rule of law and all that?

You act like a Presidential Pardon is similar to a video review in football or baseball.

[kalm]

Whatever Hillary.

Ever hear of Thomas Drake? How about John Kiriakou?

Btw, aren't presidential pardons a part of the rule of law and all that?

You act like a Presidential Pardon is similar to a video review in football or baseball.

It's a well known fact that Kalm has been a supporter of video review since at least December of 2010. This has been re-confirmed early in 2011 and again yesterday with Shaq Hill's TD against NIU.

We rely upon these things to "get it right" in the end.

But...please feel free Jeffery Toobin, to go ahead and lay down your scholarly rebuttal of presidential pardons (that you read somewhere)

(Eating popcorn)

[CAA Flagship]

You act like a Presidential Pardon is similar to a video review in football or baseball.

It's a well known fact that Kalm has been a supporter of video review since at least December of 2010. This has been re-confirmed early in 2011 and again yesterday with Shaq Hill's TD against NIU.

We rely upon these things to "get it right" in the end.

But...please feel free Jeffery Toobin, to go ahead and lay down your scholarly rebuttal of presidential pardons (that you read somewhere)

(Eating popcorn)

What does a President know, that can't be cleared up in a court of law?

[kalm]

It's a well known fact that Kalm has been a supporter of video review since at least December of 2010. This has been re-confirmed early in 2011 and again yesterday with Shaq Hill's TD against NIU.

We rely upon these things to "get it right" in the end.

But...please feel free Jeffery Toobin, to go ahead and lay down your scholarly rebuttal of presidential pardons (that you read somewhere)

(Eating popcorn)

What does a President know, that can't be cleared up in a court of law?

Take that up with Article of the Constitution, Vinny.

[CAA Flagship]

What does a President know, that can't be cleared up in a court of law?

Take that up with Article of the Constitution, Vinny.

Bullshit.