You mean the site co-founded by Assange who signed a SF312?

Those newspapers did not sign a legally binding SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT of which every single person who holds a clearance must sign.

The very first sentence is:

Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information.

Other parts being

I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information

In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter.

This contract is binding FOR LIFE unless waived by an official.

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/classified-information-nondisclosure-agreement-1

In my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.

Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.

Looks like a computer vision fever dream

I do not think it will be effective. This has been done before in exactly the same way and that failed.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10600#:~:text=OLC%20asserts%20in%20its%20FY2020,addition%20to%20vesting%20the%20President

USA allows the deployment of forces with the War Powers Resolution of 1973

Limitations require Congress to be notified and that Congress approves an authorized use of force extension beyond 60 days

No President has followed this procedure in the past 23~ active interventions including the 4 wars that the United States has deployed forces in to this day:

Syria Niger Somalia Yemen

I think you are right about the withdrawing though. I found that this is not the first time Congress has put a treaty withdrawal restriction in a defense authorization bill and it has been ignored in the past with Open Skies.

Office of Legal counsel opinion says Congress does not have power outside of the initial agreement and rules within a given treaty.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10600#:~:text=OLC%20asserts%20in%20its%20FY2020,addition%20to%20vesting%20the%20President

https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2020/12/21/2018-10-17-nafta-wd.pdf

So even though they put this into a bill, if a future President pushes back against it, they likely will win without much trouble at all.

Congress will declare the state of war which is their constitutional power to do so.

SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash- ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern- ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(c) NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—

(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior to taking such action.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi- dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’, ‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text

Read your own constitution.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...

Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.

The Congress shall have Power To... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.

For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.

If you watch their hearings and assemblies a lot of Congress appears to be focused on trying to get sound bytes and Tik Tok clips out of what they say. The clips just seem so weird and forced when seen in context of what the topic of discussion is.

We didn't elect people to be actors on the clock, please make law and talk to the press later.

The user interface in my opinion is pretty bad. It looks like old reddit which wasn't that good. I have to manually expand each post to view it instead of just scrolling through.

Kbin is mostly better. But still a little rough on a few points.

Reddit in desktop mode is better.

Sync in card view mode was the best. Still looking for that experience.