Chelsea Manning’s "contempt" case is Wikileaks vs the United States. That’s the Grand Jury – and the case consists of charging Wikileaks with conspiring with Russia
Once again, you have hit on the key distinctions about Manning that the media has failed to report. Will never forget your first article and have remained steadfastly in agreement. A court martial would be far worse for Manning than federal prison. She must realize she’s got very few cards left to play and has consistently engaged in the public court of opinion. If she conflates her phony plight under any guise other than her alliance to Putin, she can incite the same people who refuse to see Assamge & Snowden for their true colors; Putin allies who commuted crimes against the United States. She can muster up sympathy with the LGBTQ communities or the misguided people thinking Assange is a journalist or Snowden is a whistleblower. Unfortunately for Manning, there is a trail of evidence linking her allegiance to those who conspire against us. The media has failed in the reporting on the distinction that the crimes committed by Assange, Snowden, Manning & Wikileaks have nothing to do with free speech or the idea of transparency in our govt. it’s always been an attack by our enemy.
Thanks Louise. It’s been such a long road following this and mentally exhausting too. As J.F said to a troll once, you have more American patriotism than anyone.
Should we worry about this near-reflexive "the mainstream media is bad" meme? Surely there's a lot of independent actors that comprise it with a variety of different motives, so it isn't even correct to talk about it as a single entity.
That said, could some of their hesitancy be explained as an interest in self-preservation in the context of Assange et al defending themselves as journalists and there being an expectation that reporting at a future time when more of the case is public-undeniable-fact rather than "reading the waves, deducing by logic" will be beneficial to real journalists because the distinction between them will be significantly more clear?
Thank you!! I never hear or see reporting about what’s going on with the Wikileaks problem. It’s an important subject to me and without your reports I wouldn’t be able to keep up❤️
History is rarely written as it happens, and this seems like a case that may shape the history of the Trump era in ways to which the "reporting" you refer to has not yet gotten.
Consider my mind blown.
Once again, you have hit on the key distinctions about Manning that the media has failed to report. Will never forget your first article and have remained steadfastly in agreement. A court martial would be far worse for Manning than federal prison. She must realize she’s got very few cards left to play and has consistently engaged in the public court of opinion. If she conflates her phony plight under any guise other than her alliance to Putin, she can incite the same people who refuse to see Assamge & Snowden for their true colors; Putin allies who commuted crimes against the United States. She can muster up sympathy with the LGBTQ communities or the misguided people thinking Assange is a journalist or Snowden is a whistleblower. Unfortunately for Manning, there is a trail of evidence linking her allegiance to those who conspire against us. The media has failed in the reporting on the distinction that the crimes committed by Assange, Snowden, Manning & Wikileaks have nothing to do with free speech or the idea of transparency in our govt. it’s always been an attack by our enemy.
Thanks Louise. It’s been such a long road following this and mentally exhausting too. As J.F said to a troll once, you have more American patriotism than anyone.
Should we worry about this near-reflexive "the mainstream media is bad" meme? Surely there's a lot of independent actors that comprise it with a variety of different motives, so it isn't even correct to talk about it as a single entity.
That said, could some of their hesitancy be explained as an interest in self-preservation in the context of Assange et al defending themselves as journalists and there being an expectation that reporting at a future time when more of the case is public-undeniable-fact rather than "reading the waves, deducing by logic" will be beneficial to real journalists because the distinction between them will be significantly more clear?
Thank you!! I never hear or see reporting about what’s going on with the Wikileaks problem. It’s an important subject to me and without your reports I wouldn’t be able to keep up❤️
History is rarely written as it happens, and this seems like a case that may shape the history of the Trump era in ways to which the "reporting" you refer to has not yet gotten.