Chelsea Manning's sentence for giving secret documents to WikiLeaks commuted by Obama

[JJ Husker]

I wonder if the decision to set Manning free was at all affected by her lobbying to get the gov't to fund her transgender operation? Commuting her sentence certainly *skirts* the issue.

 

Serious question. This is how little I know about this.

 

What gender was he/she before the surgery?

 

In the past couple of days I've seen some footage on TV of Manning, but I cannot tell if it was a man or woman. I know, shocker huh?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

 

And this doesn't cut both ways?

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

 

And this doesn't cut both ways?

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like you said she was convicted and has been in jail 7 years.

 

Many in the GOP don't even want to investigate that other thing. That's what the "outcry" is over.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

And this doesn't cut both ways?

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

What's different? This happened seven years ago. Manning was busted and did time in jail.

 

Surely you don't think a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power hostile to the United States is anything like a disgruntled soldier divulging classified documents?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

And this doesn't cut both ways?

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like you said she was convicted and has been in jail 7 years.

 

Many in the GOP don't even want to investigate that other thing. That's what the "outcry" is over.

 

I agree that it is hypocritical to ignore and not want to find out the truth of what really happened and who was involved in the Trump/Russian deal. But this does make sense if you look at how outraged some people are over an as yet unproven link to Trump but not a whole lot of outcry over a person having their sentence commuted when that is a proven case with the facts known. But you raise a good point, one is much fresher and the other happened 7 years ago and she has been at least partially punished for it. So yeah, I do get how the commentary here could be a little skewed toward the Trump deal.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

And this doesn't cut both ways?

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

What's different? This happened seven years ago. Manning was busted and did time in jail.

 

Surely you don't think a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power hostile to the United States is anything like a disgruntled soldier divulging classified documents?

 

I already replied above to Moiraine on the differences that I now see in the discussion between the two.

 

But as far as a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power....that seems a little over the top. They may well have tried and desired to manipulate the results of our election but they didn't tamper with any actual counts, no false votes were cast relative to their involvement, and the election was still decided by our process and our voters. I would maintain that all they really did was make more information known to some voters and, to my knowledge, none of that information was false. I sure don't like the fact that it was the Russians who did this or that apparently they got what they wanted by Trump being elected. And I sure don't like that there may be possible ties to Trump or his campaign as pertains to this. I do want that investigated and the truth to come out.

 

Are you saying that people are upset because they were not kept in the dark about truths about HRC and the DNC? Seems like a funny thing to get too bent out of shape about, being told the truth and all. Personally I would like as much information as possible when I cast my vote. And yes, I think the 2 issues are somewhat related. I think the side a person takes on these issues should be somewhat consistent. If a person is against relatively harmless information being made known by Russia, why wouldn't that person also be upset by potentially more damaging information being released? (and as I acknowledged above, I do see where one is fresher and the other is older and already somewhat punished-but this commutation of sentence is new info)

 

I find them both concerning but yes, I do find what Manning did to be more serious..... at least until Trump is actually proven to be behind the Russia deal. If that link is made, then I will change my opinion and that will be more disturbing to me as he is the President.

[NUance]

 

I wonder if the decision to set Manning free was at all affected by her lobbying to get the gov't to fund her transgender operation? Commuting her sentence certainly *skirts* the issue.

Serious question. This is how little I know about this.

 

What gender was he/she before the surgery?

 

In the past couple of days I've seen some footage on TV of Manning, but I cannot tell if it was a man or woman. I know, shocker huh?

 

 

She was born a biological man. I believe she has not had gender reassignment surgery yet. She may have started hormone therapy though.

[Danny Bateman]

To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the past punishments for people who disseminated classified information. That would be useful for comparison purposes. People like Petraeus and Clinton who disseminated classified info but served no jail time, and in the case of Petraeus, received only a slap on the wrist.

 

Manning, on the other hand, served 7 years. I DO think 35 seems very excessive, regardless of the crime, and it's hard to demand harsher punishment for Manning when others are getting essentially nothing.

 

As a rule, I'll say I'm not a fan of anyone distributing anything to Wikileaks. I think they and Assange are no longer true to their core purpose and have been compromised. So I don't want anyone sending anything of ours to them.

 

In a broader context, Obama's track record with whistleblowers and government surveillance has been rather distasteful for most liberals and anti-Big Brother types. I view Snowden much more favorably than I do Assange, but that's just me. In that sense, I was happy to see him make a move like this that is out of step with the rest of his actions re: whistleblowers.

[Landlord]

I would maintain that all they really did was make more information known to some voters and, to my knowledge, none of that information was false.

 

 

The information not being false isn't the same thing as the information being intended to deceive, or unethically influence. A very important and very key distinction is that the only information they wanted to make more known was information intentionally detrimental to Hillary Clinton.

 

You say they didn't affect the vote count etc. I'd counter with they didn't directly do so, but they did in fact do so.

[knapplc]

Once again, there are none so blind as those who will not see.


US intelligence report: Vladimir Putin 'ordered' operation to get Trump elected

US intelligence report concludes Russia ordered hacking campaign to improve Donald Trump's election chances

Intelligence Report: On Putin’s Orders, Russia Sought to Influence Presidential Election

[JJ Husker]

Once again, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

US intelligence report: Vladimir Putin 'ordered' operation to get Trump electedUS intelligence report concludes Russia ordered hacking campaign to improve Donald Trump's election chancesIntelligence Report: On Putins Orders, Russia Sought to Influence Presidential Election

I'm not being blind at all. I understand what happened and that they did want to affect the outcome. I just think it is a huge stretch to claim, as you did, that a foreign power decided the election. My personal opinion is that our voters were not too damn pliable in this election cycle. Seems virtually everyone had their mind made up prior to this information being known. The candidates and our politics have been so polarizing that I seriously doubt it affected the outcome. Anyone who was already thinking of voting for HRC surely was not swayed by even more dirt to vote for Trump at that point.

 

And LOMS I understand it was one sided and they didn't present equally damming information about Trump. I still don't feel there were enough people on the fence that it was a deciding factor. I could be wrong but that is the way I see it. I know people want to blame something for the result. IMO when both candidates suck so bad, well, you're going to end up in a bad place no matter what. In my case anyway, there was absolutely no information that could've been presented that would've caused me to vote for the other candidate. If one of them had knifed a baby on TV, I still wouldn't have voted for the other one.

[knapplc]

*I* didn't claim that, JJ. The United States Intelligence community did.

 

You're blowing off a foreign power hostile to the United States influencing the election as no big deal. That is mind-blowing.

[zoogs]

 

 

My personal opinion is that our voters were not too damn pliable in this election cycle.

 

I don't think this is true at all. Which is why I find it hard to go as far as saying Russia decided this election. Foreign powers will always seek influence if they can get it, especially adversarial ones who would benefit from our turmoil.

 

It's our own fault as an electorate for being so given to base influence. It's not like they did anything really sophisticated. Trump was an overtly disgusting candidate and a lot of Americans just went, "F--- yeah."

[Danny Bateman]

Let's not forget that Russia deliberately helped spread pro-Trump propaganda here to aid him as well. They may well have sat on damaging info they had on him, but they also conducted an extensive disinformation campaign on his behalf. Judging from what I saw, that was more than enough to keep a good number of folks firmly in his camp.

[JJ Husker]

*I* didn't claim that, JJ. The United States Intelligence community did.

 

You're blowing off a foreign power hostile to the United States influencing the election as no big deal. That is mind-blowing.

 

I'm not blowing it off as no big deal. I'm just doubting that it affected the outcome.

 

"deciding" and "influencing" are two different things. Sorry if "you" didn't claim that but this post of yours seems to indicate otherwise-

 

Surely you don't think a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power hostile to the United States.....

If you were just interpreting how you read the US intelligence report and mistakenly chose to say decided instead of influenced, then I'll agree with you. Or, please point me directly to where a report says it was a "deciding" factor.