Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange: Google is 'Directly Engaged' In Hillary Clinton's Campaign (infowars.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Infowars: Speaking to the "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream" symposium, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stated Google is "directly engaged" with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Assange said, "The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign." As reported by Quartz in late 2015, an under-the-radar startup known as "The Groundwork" was funded by Schmidt "to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election." Assange went on to say that "[...] once Hillary Clinton becomes president, those people in Google, like Jared Cohen, will be placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency." Controlling the majority of the world's smart phones, Assange adds, raises even more serious concerns in light of the company's growing and monopolistic influence. "Google controls 80 percent of the smart phone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself -- that people use to read -- then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well. [...] Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way," Assange stated. "It is the company that visits the White House more than any other -- averaged once per week in the last 4 years."
No company gets the breadth of google without getting in bed with the government.
And yet.. Somehow.. He seems to care more about the manipulation of democracy than you do..
Interesting. Isn't it.
Trump is a childish idiot.
Clinton is a corrupt weasel.
Good luck America. Really. It's going to be rough.
I suspect he isn't quitting because he can still win. It involves all the superdelegates switching sides, but it can still happen.
Now why would the superdelegates switch to Bernie? Well, the FBI hasn't finished their investigation in Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State yet...
I'm not convinced. Trump is an egomaniac who would likely spend most of his term fighting with congress and failing to get anything done. Hillary is a corrupt establishment authoritarian who knows the system well enough to actually achieve things (though things that are good for the people are not very high on her to-do list). I think I'd prefer that the US had an inept clown as President than someone who is effective but actively malicious.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't know - where's your dignity, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't know, concealed carried ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
The FBI has enough evidence that they believe is cause for an indictment. The Department of Justice is just sitting on it and not pursuing the indictment. Why would they? Why would the Democrat lead DoJ do something that would wreck the candidacy of their party's Presidential candidate?
The larger risk to Hillary right now isn't even the email scandal. It's perjury and that's why there's pushes to get Obama to issue a preemptive pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes she may have committed. A charge of perjury is not likely to be taken lightly because it can easily be played into the lying politician bias that most people have.
The whole thing is sleazy and it's showing just how incestuous DC can be.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Glad they are picking the better side.
Easy to say that if you do most of your research using Google.
To see the bias in an easy visible way, just look at the candidate photos they use for Hillary vs Trump on the primary results page.
And then click on the candidates and see the 3 pics they have on the side to represent
Hillary
https://www.google.com/search?...
Trump
https://www.google.com/search?...
You don't have to like Assange or support him to believe what he says. I'm sure there are a lot of people fact checking right now and if we don't hear any rebuttals, we can assume he's more or less right.
We're all media whores now that social media is a thing ;)
Re: "they are charging him for rape" -- No they aren't. No charges have been made.
Two women filed complaints of "sexual misconduct," which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. Sweden has some very progressive, pro-feminist laws to protect women from being sexually exploited, which is a good thing, but in this case, the law is being abused.
One of the women has since withdrawn her complaint.
Extraditing Assange under these circumstances would be unprecedented under UK legal history.
This is one of many reasons why several countries offered Assange political asylum.
The UK is also breaking international treaties by not allowing Assange safe passage to his country of asylum.
There's more than likely a sealed indictment against Assange in the US and Sweden would more than likely agree to extradite him to the US.
Looking at recent history, there's a very real likelihood that Assange wouldn't get a fair trial in the US.
Also, looking at recent history, Assange would more than likely be subjected to cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment, and possibly torture in the US.
Assange's main crime is investigative journalism that led to some very powerful people getting embarrassed. Assange will more than likely continue to be persecuted and vilified as a "lesson" to anyone else considering doing some effective investigative journalism.