I have to say I do agree with him that there should be a public interest defence to leaking classified information. In which case the only possible trial mechanism would have to be a jury, to test whether the leak did meet the “public interest” test. And he explicitly says that, if guaranteed a jury trial, he would willingly come back to the USA to face the music. He said several times that in the seven years since 2013 the USA has not been able to point to a single life lost through terrorism or any damage done to the USA because of his actions, whilst the USA has shut down some of the illegal (as in against the US Constitution) programmes he revealed. Now he would say that, wouldn’t he, but he came across as genuine and very careful about what the (respected) press he leaked to was able to print. It certainly changed my ill-informed view that he was just another Assange, leaking state secrets which would cost countless lives. A much more credible, thoughtful person.
It would be a pretty random legal system lacking all judicial certainty if juries decided on inherently legal test standards. Not gonna fly. Furthermore in Nat Sy cases open court isn’t always the best place to air dirty linen. Provided you have an independent judiciary it can be done. The US problem is the extent to which their judiciary is politicised.
Because you made a very public statement about not being happy at some peoples views & comments and then flounced off. The thread that has since been removed by ‘The Management’ in an attempt to pretend it never happened after banning the big Wuff men that wobustly defended their view. They have successfully got you & others to return, meanwhile another 30 of us that were top contributors on here have gone. So you and your friends enjoy the sanitised version of TTF that remains, where members with an opposing view keep quiet in fear of being told off by teacher. The rest of us now have another place where bikers chat & sometimes argue without fear for being banned.
That's factually incorrect, but hang on a minute - I thought you were all for "robust debate"? Does that mean it's okay unless somebody expresses disagreement with the herd view, then? What I actually said was that I was going to log off for a while - you may call that a flounce but I'm not sure that's how I'd describe it. What happened here thereafter is nothing to do with me whatsoever, nor did I know anything about it.
There is more than one herd, obviously! Very hard to have a debate when you are banned? Not prepared to support a place where friends of mine that have contributed a huge amount to the forum get banned for expressing their view, I don't always agree with their view but robustly defend their right to express it. So enjoy the new normal, a sterile & PC place, less vibrant, less busy .... just less!
discussed hundred time .. Robust debate includes puff naming, libtards plastic liberals everywhere, conspi bullshit at all level ? Add your "robust debate bit" there ______ I liked Bad Billy posts he was always measured. That's bad.
What about the views of those you don't consider your friends? I'd have thought that everyone should be able to express their views, assuming they follow the defined rules of engagement on here?
I disagree, the 'other' forum that Billy refers to would appear to have been "done by invitation only, for the selected few thought worthy of it" from what I can tell. But that's not an issue, there's no compulsory requirement that you can't go and form your own group somewhere else when you join the Triumph Forum. If only others had realised that....
You seem to be missing the point and contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter whether it's a closed or open group, people aren't banned from forming groups just because they're on the Triumph Forum. Either way there's room for both groups in the world...
I don't think you are being fair to Wayne. As far as I can see it was Rob's decision to remove Jez not Wayne's.
From The Times: President Trump considered martial law to try to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, according to several accounts. The possibility of using the military to enforce a second term is said to have been emphatically rebuffed by many of his closest advisers, but the fact that it was raised in a chaotic Oval Office meeting on Friday marks a new, severe turn in his attempts to defy his defeat. Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, two of Mr Trump’s most passionate public advocates, were at the meeting. Ms Powell, 65, is a lawyer who has led many of the failed court attempts to allege voter fraud . Her elaborate conspiracy theories — for example that Hugo Chávez, the former Venezuelan president who died in 2013, was part of a plot to swindle Mr Trump out of his victory — caused the rest of the president’s legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, to cut ties with her last month. Mr Flynn, 61, a former general, lasted 22 days as Mr Trump’s national security adviser before being brought down in a scandal about contacts with the Russian ambassador. He pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI before firing his lawyer, hiring Ms Powell and trying to retract his plea. Mr Trump pardoned him last month. At the meeting Mr Trump discussed naming Ms Powell as a special counsel overseeing an investigation into voter fraud, The New York Times reported. He also asked if he could give her security clearances to help her challenges. His advisers, including Mr Giuliani, pushed back against the martial law idea and suggested instead seizing voting machines to investigate fraud. The homeland security department said that it did not have the authority to do this. The ideas were also “aggressively” opposed by Mark Meadows, Mr Trump’s chief of staff, and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. The meeting “became raucous and involved people shouting”, the newspaper said, with Ms Powell accusing the president’s advisers of being “quitters”. Martial law was previously suggested by Ms Powell and Mr Flynn. Appearing last week on Newsmax, a news channel popular with Trump supporters, Mr Flynn said that Mr Trump “could take military capabilities and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states”. He said that martial law was nothing new and had been imposed 64 times. Mitt Romney, a former presidential candidate, said that the meeting was “sad” and “embarrassing”. He told CNN: “The president could right now be writing the last chapter of this administration with a victory lap with regard to the vaccine . . . Instead he’s leaving Washington with a whole series of conspiracy theories and things that are so nutty and loopy that people are shaking their head.” A feud between Melania Trump and her stepdaughter Ivanka has returned to the spotlight after a former aide to the first lady claimed that she referred to Mr Trump’s eldest daughter and her husband Jared Kushner as “snakes”.