Assange Says Wikileaks is 'Working On' Hacking Donald Trump's Tax Return (slate.com)

Julian Assange made headlines Friday when talk-show host Bill Maher asked him why Wikileaks wasn't hacking into Donald's Trump's tax returns. "Well, we're working on it," Assange replied. But it was apparently the culmination of a larger back-and-forth. An anonymous reader quotes Slate: Earlier in the interview, Maher said it sure looked like Assange was "working with a bad actor, Russia" to hurt "the one person who stands in the way of us being ruled by Donald Trump." Assange then tried to move the conversation toward what he thought was a smoking gun against Maher, saying he had found there was a "William Maher" who "gave a Clinton-affiliated entity $1 million." Maher explained he had famously given President Obama $1 million in 2012 and he never tried to hide it. When Assange pressed on whether he had also given money to Clinton, Maher shot back: "Fuck no."
Slate has a video of the entire interview, and while Friday WikiLeaks was publicizing Assange's appearance on the show on Twitter, Saturday they were tweeting a clarification. "WikiLeaks isn't 'working on' hacking Trump's tax-returns. Claim is a joke from a comedy show. We are 'working on' encouraging whistleblowers."

Comments

So the tax returns aren't public?

[Z00L00K]

So the tax returns aren't available to the public already?

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump has a right to keep his tax returns private. Nobody has a right to hack into a system to obtain them. As former President Bill Clinton said after Republicans impeached him, "even presidents have private lives." If you don't like Trump keeping his tax returns private, you're free to vote for someone else. However, you don't have a right to see his tax return without his consent. I don't like Trump, but I completely support him standing up for his privacy on this issue.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't have such a scandalous history I might agree, but this is someone running for president who filed for bankruptcy as recently as 2009. I'm pretty sure he has already asked Obama to present his.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Dog-Cow]

Why would they be?

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

No reason that they have to be. But in Norway all returns are public.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[ScentCone]

You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company.

If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[bloodhawk]

Trump has refused to show his returns until after he is elected. Could be he has something to hide or could be he just doesn't want people to know he details should he lose. Difficult to be sure!

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't have such a scandalous history I might agree, but this is someone running for president who filed for bankruptcy as recently as 2009. I'm pretty sure he has already asked Obama to present his.

I want Trump to lose, if only to prevent all the damage he could do, but I have to agree that he is not required by law to release them. Ethically he should, since this is the single most important job interview anyone can ever get, and it has material information that is required for the background check, but practically, at some point you have to trust the voters to see through the obvious lies.

Is he as rich as he says he is? That is almost certainly false. Forbes agreed he was probably a billionaire, but at least half if not more was lies.

Is their something really bad in those tax returns? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I truly believe he values his image more than the presidency or serving the
American people. If hiding those returns protects his image, then I think he is willing to pay any price for that.

Does he believe the stuff he says about Hillary? That answer is an obvious no, since he said the opposite when prior to becoming a candidate?

Does he care about the country? Perhaps on some level, but I rather suspect he cares about himself more.

Is he a republican? From what I can tell no. Nor is he a democrat. He is basically a con man/flim flam artist/etc etc. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, seemingly having few consistent principles beyond his brand, and to some extent his family.

Is he stable enough not to start a nuclear war? Probably. Even with the money from daddy, it still takes a certain amount of discipline not to lose it all. He is not stupid. No I think the damage he would do would be in other ways. He has publicly talked about abandoning allies. There is, however, a chance he would see striking back with a nuclear weapon as being bold and decisive, completely ignoring the clusterf*ck opening that can of worse would cause.

Those are my opinions. Voters can create their own. They should not need to see his tax returns at this point to smell the rotting fish. If Trump somehow manages to win then we will get the government we deserve. Heaven help us if that does occur...

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

As they are in Finland.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[covalamin]

No one believes an anonymous coward! Post with your main account if you want to have a n intelligent discussion. Anyway, your main reason for voting for the other guy is wrong. Trump would be prevented from doing much of anything by the House and Senate. Hillary is the one who could do some damage .... or maybe some good. Thus the question is do you really believe Hillary is going to do more good than harm? Personally, I'd rather have a phony outsider who has a love for his country than a corrupt politician who has repeatedly turned their back on Americans.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Rei]

Meh, learn to store all your money in Panama like we do over here in Iceland ;)

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Every Republican nominee since Nixon has made his tax returns public.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[tlhIngan]

Trump has refused to show his returns until after he is elected. Could be he has something to hide or could be he just doesn't want people to know he details should he lose. Difficult to be sure!

Well, the problem is D. Trump is apparently a terrible businessman - most of his businesses have failed. Excepting his corporate raider tactics on existing companies and cashing in on celebrity status, none of his ventures have made money. He's worth less today than in the past. He's riding the family fortunes to the ground. Luckily for him, there's a lot of it.

Well, slight correction, apparently his Russian businesses are quite profitable, if you ever wondered where the love for him in Russia comes from.

So there's that - people *assume* he's a good businessman simply because everyone has hear about him. (His flashy plane and other things also help advertise him). The truth is different, and hiding the tax returns is one way to prevent people from knowing it.

In the end, the real irony is when people talked about celebrity presidents, everyone assumed it would be something like a Kardashian or Justin Bieber or other entertainment celebrity. Trump IS a celebrity, except aimed at the more general voter base. So there you have it - the beginning of change in US politices from lying and cheating politicians to celebrities. Maybe in 10 years there really will be Kardashians running, when all those people grow up and become a solid voting bloc.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[bytesex]

Obama has pretty much said the same thing about the NATO allies - at pretty much the same point in time, too. With the exception of the US, the UK and Estonia, NATO allies are far behind in their defense payments, and have been for years. Some form of punishment is in order.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[bloodhawk]

I don't think too many people are "Assuming" he is a good businessman, his public record of repeated failures, bad business deals, borderline scams and family bailouts makes it impossible for someone to assume that unless they have been hidden from society for the past 30 years. Which is why I am not sure there can be too many surprises in his returns that aren't already well known. Perhaps he is one of those that lives in a bubble and doesn't think his past is on public record somehow.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Z00L00K]

Same in Sweden.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[johanw]

> since this is the single most important job interview anyone can ever get

I doubt it. The president has much of a figurehead, where the big companies and intelligence services are really ruling the country. It seems to go that way not only in the US but in most of the western world.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[johanw]

Good. Now kick us out and let us make peace with Russia instead of trying to start another cold proxy war.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Very few people read up on that stuff. His fans (we have them here in Europe as well) laud him for his business savvy, and think that'll make him a president who knows how to fix things and get things done. Point out how crappy most of his businesses actually did, and they'll dismiss those facts as slanderous lies.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Rockoon]

I don't think too many people are "Assuming" he is a good businessman

The thing is if you start 20 businesses and 17 of them go bankrupt, you are still doing ok as a businessman.

Most businesses have, regardless of who started them, failed. The majority of those failures occur within the very first year of operation. Thats what average looks like.

Businesses that are expanding typically do so on credit. A business running on credit needs to start showing a profit or there will eventually be a bankruptcy.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[jellomizer]

More to the point what information could you find in his tax returns that would sway people from voting for him?

You should know that the wealthy look rich to the shareholders and poor to the government. So his tax returns are not going to look stellar. We know this. This is why rich people are always under audit because his wealth is a disconnect to his taxable income so the irs will terming if any errors were done or laws broken. To be fair the tax code is so complex that the rich has the resources to abuse it without breaking laws.

Just because this election time we have Hillary Clinton who comes with her own political baggage and many people going I'll never vote for her no matter what. Gives Trump the only advantage. As he wasn't considered a political treat for 24 years. Allowing conservative media to dig up dirt of any type to go against her.

So now we have to vote for the corrupted or the corrupter.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[ThatsMyNick]

You know you can leave on your own, without the US kicking you out right? Just leave. Have fun, we wont miss you.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[reboot246]

The posters here are also confusing wealth with income. His tax returns will show how much he makes per year (income), not how much he owns (wealth).

Some posters are also exaggerating how many bankruptcies he's had. Even CNN reports exactly FOUR, not six, not seventeen, not dozens. If you take the risks and start a lot of companies, a few are going to fail. That's just part of business. Only the government can get away with failing over and over and over.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The posters here are also confusing wealth with income. His tax returns will show how much he makes per year (income), not how much he owns (wealth).

Donald Trump made a great deal of his fortune in buying or building, then selling, real estate. State and federal returns require declaration of capital gains on real estate and on stocks when they are sold, and on interest income.

Even in those years when he went bankrupt, he bought and sold property. That will show up even if his losses and deductions meant he spent nothing in taxes.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, Nixon's tax avoidance/evasion is the reason why the tradition evolved. He was the first president(al candidate) to do so, albeit after he was elected.

Also, his "I am not a crook" line was about his tax issues, not Watergate.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

"More to the point what information could you find in his tax returns that would sway people from voting for him?"

Who knows? You can't tell until you look. In Nixon's case, people found an error that the IRS also found and he had to pay a couple $100k extra in taxes after the audit. There was nothing illegal about it. It happens. Independent of possible errors, the more politically relevant issue is to know that a candidate's political decisions aren't skewed by their personal financial interests (e.g., pushing for legislation that would create loopholes that would be particularly beneficial to them). Basic conflict of interest stuff.

The point is, every other candidate for decades has made theirs available for scrutiny by the public, so what's Trump's problem?

Heck, Trump's campaign demanded 10 years of tax forms from the people being considered for the VP position. Apparently it's useful to assess the quality of candidates in their own campaign, but not good enough for the public?

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Romney released a single year of his tax returns, and that was only after considerable pressure from the left. Do not try to pretend that Republican candidates are some kind of bastion of transparency.

The Clintons have released their tax returns dating back to 1977 -- 40 years worth -- and have always been open with the information (ie: they were releasing this information publicly back when Bill Clinton was running for presidency).

So, Trump, where are your tax returns?

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[dbIII]

giant money-laundering operation

Um, guys, haven't you heard that Trump runs a great big pile of fucking casinos? Even if the Clinton Foundation is bent ten ways past Tuesday it's small change for a giant money-laundering operation compared with casinos.
Try another tack. Hillary has done a lot of stuff so I'm sure you can find something where she's worse than Trump without trying too hard. Here's a clue - Pfizer. Here's another clue - sending agents to get credit card details of allied diplomats to be used to blackmail them with incriminating false purchases if necessary (Manning leak, and why she's out for Assange's blood).

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.

Evidence? Mass media hearsay and speculation doesn't count. So if you have proof of a criminal operation, you are obligated by law to turn it over to the authorities, or be held as an accomplice.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

No one believes a pseudo anonymous coward! Post with your real name and address if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[ITRambo]

I'm more concerned about Hillary's current inability to continually focus for long periods of time during campaign speeches. Maybe she's tired. But there are recent videos of her speeches where she just freezes up and needs to be nudged to continue talking. The long brain farts scare me more than whether she's corrupt or not.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[neilo_1701D]

Also, his "I am not a crook" line was about his tax issues, not Watergate.

A point sadly lost in history and agendas.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[magarity]

Trump's name is on a bunch of casinos but he strategy is to build them and sell fairly promptly. He owns a lot less than the branding suggests.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Mashiki]

You know the federalist, NYT, WAPO and Bloomburg have all covered this and found it was true right? This is kinda the short summary on the entire thing.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[mt2mb4me]

Regardless of what the reference was, a guy who was a crook stated that he wasn't. That will go down in history with "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" , "I did not have sexual relationships with that woman", the Howard Dean's career ending "YEAHHHHHH!" and W's "I'm the decider!" (among others)

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[mt2mb4me]

Yes, only trump can make casinos go bankrupt. It was a fun way too. He killed all the Executive officers by putting them all in the same improperly maintained Trump Helicopter. I don't need tax returns to see the man trump is.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Enigma2175]

The thing is if you start 20 businesses and 17 of them go bankrupt, you are still doing ok as a businessman.

Most businesses have, regardless of who started them, failed. The majority of those failures occur within the very first year of operation. Thats what average looks like.

While all businesses do fail eventually (over the timespan of "forever", it's hard not to eventually fail), but it's certainly not in the first year. Most small businesses fail just because they are not worth anything to someone else. When the owner of a small business dies or retires, his business usually fails -- because nobody wants to pay money to buy "Henry Adelson Landscaping" when they can just start their own landscaping company. From a Washington Post Article on the subject:

As far as we can tell, there is no statistical basis for the assertion that nine out of 10 businesses fail. It appears to be one of those nonsense facts that people repeat without thinking too clearly about it.
...

About half of all new establishments survive five years or more and about one-third survive 10 years or more. As one would expect, the probability of survival increases with a firm’s age. Survival rates have changed little over time.

Donald Trump's bankruptcies are the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" scam. If the building project does well, he makes a bunch of money. If it doesn't, he just has the development company declare bankruptcy and all the subcontractors and suppliers that provided the labor and supplies to build the project get screwed.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

I'm just as suspicious as anybody on the matter. If a real crime was committed, somebody is not doing their job. So the only real mystery is the public silence. I figure at this point, it's the fear of Trump. That's too bad. For the republicans, Johnson is a perfectly viable alternative, and for the democrats there's Stein, though I don't think she's one to combat the sociopathy that permeates most of the world's leadership, plus she's off the deep end in regards to nukes and medicine

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[pjbgravely]

No one believes a pseudo anonymous coward! Post with your real name and address if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

Fusta,
(I have to assume that is your name)

You are missing the point. When you reply to a coward and they reply back, you have no idea if it is the original coward or a different coward. This makes having an intelligent discussion with cowards impossible. There could be 10 replies all by different cowards. The original coward may never even know you replied because all cowards share the same email account.

The only solution I have found to this problem is to never read or reply to cowards. Problem solved.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

:-) You are perfectly free to believe your fantasies as you see fit. I would find Hillary to be much more fitting if she were to run as a republican. She'd be one of the good ones.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

you have no idea if it is the original coward or a different coward.

So what? Don't use the messenger as a distraction and a cop out. Reply to the message, not the person.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[tylersoze]

Right except, you know, those people need that money more than a billionaires that wind up getting taxed at lower tax rate through legal means regardless.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[tylersoze]

"Only the government can get away with failing over and over and over."

Haha. And banks. And CEO's that get enormous balloon payments. And CEOs that have to step down after sexual harassment allegations.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, don't forget "if you like your coverage you can keep your coverage" but I'm sure you just "forgot" to include that one and "what difference does it make anyway?"

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[MightyMartian]

Nobody has a right to hack anything, and yet the DNC hack was trumped by Republicans high and low. And yes, you're right, no one is obliged to release their tax returns, but the lack of Trump's tax returns will raise suspicions; not necessarily that he's a cheat, but more likely that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just excuse the birther movement? To paraphrase you here and set the quote back in the 08-11 time frame:

but the lack of Obama's birth certificate will raise suspicions

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[JBMcB]

I suppose that's the norm for him, but there's no legitimate reason why he can't provide them. He doesn't want to. that's the sole reason. Which leads to the question why he doesn't.

Because he's under audit. There's no law stopping him from doing so, but, from a legal standpoint, it's a really bad idea.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/...

Basically, if someone he does business with is disgruntled, they can pull up his tax information, find some line item they are somewhat familiar with and tell the IRS he's lying. Then the IRS is obligated to do more investigation into that area of his tax return. The claim could be completely bogus, made anonymously, but it will still hold up the audit while the IRS does it's due diligence.

Now, when you're talking about a controversial presidential candidate, you *really* don't want to release anything. Nutjobs would be coming out of the woodwork making claims about his tax returns. The IRS would be obligated to follow up on all of them.

Normally this isn't an issue, as there would be no reason to release your returns. Slightly different situation when you are running for president.

I can see valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Personally I don't care, but I could see how you could.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fahrbot-bot]

More to the point what information could you find in his tax returns that would sway people from voting for him?

Most likely that his Returns won't portray him in the same light as he's been shining on himself. But, that's really only a problem for the naive. From Trump Admits That He Will Lose The Election If He Releases His Tax Returns (and other places):

Trump admitted that there is something in his tax returns that will cause him to lose the election. His reference to his own belief that something in Romney’s tax return cost Republicans in 2012 was about as close to an admission as voters are going to get from Trump.

Donald Trump defended his tax returns as legal, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. What Trump is most likely hiding is the fact that he hasn’t paid any personal income taxes for decades. Trump isn’t paying his fair share of taxes. That is what he is hiding. Donald Trump is trying to pass himself off as some sort of blue-collar billionaire while he is manipulating the system in a way that no working class American ever could.

For more info: trump romney tax returns

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[fahrbot-bot]

The thing is if you start 20 businesses and 17 of them go bankrupt, you are still doing ok as a businessman.

If they still go bankrupt after stiffing your sub-contractors and/or getting an illegal $3.4M loan from your father (excerpt below) to pay the bills, then you're not doing so OK. Furthermore, does that sound like someone you'd like to do business with - or run your country - or be head of the free world?

In December of 1990, a lawyer for Fred Trump walked into Trump Castle in Atlantic city and, according to reports at the time, deposited a check with the casino for $3.36 million in exchange for chips. Instead of using the chips to play in the casino, the lawyer left.

The result: an interest free loan to Trump from “Daddy-O.”

The loan scheme was ultimately found to be illegal, btw, and Trump kept the money but had to pay a $30,000 fine. That's a pretty good return on investment for breaking the law. Oh, and then this happened:

Fred Trump would make further payments to his son, and Donald Trump ultimately settled his debts.

More info: trump father illegal loan

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[fahrbot-bot]

Also, his "I am not a crook" line was about his tax issues, not Watergate.

Perhaps Trump is concerned that people will think the opposite of him.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[Alypius]

He emailed them to Hillary.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm just as suspicious as anybody on the matter. If a real crime was committed, somebody is not doing their job. So the only real mystery is the public silence.

That's a mystery? Did we not all see prosecutors tell us that they had solid evidence that Hillary lied to them, did all sorts of bad things with classified data and that even so, they just weren't going to file charges?

Did we not all read the leaks, wherein the DNC holds clandestine fundraisers with the Washington Post that their lawyers would "never" allow? Did we not read the emails in which they staged protests to create that fear of Trump. Not that I like him, but a lot of the media is fake. And if anyone dares criticize the DNC, they'll call your CEO to demand you apologize, as happened with Morning Joe, also visible in the emails. Ironically that last part was for criticizing the DNC for doing... exactly what they were doing according to the leaks. In other words, they wanted an apology from them for telling us the truth!

So yeah, I don't trust any of them. But I trust Hillary the least, she's far too able to get away with doing bad things and that scares me more than anything. At least I know there will be massive public outcry if anyone else tries to do bad stuff, hopefully enough to reconsider, because nobody else owns the media quite so thoroughly as she.

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[mschwanke97402]

Now, when you're talking about a controversial presidential candidate, you *really* don't want to release anything. Nutjobs would be coming out of the woodwork making claims about his tax returns. The IRS would be obligated to follow up on all of them.

No, only a presidential candidate who has played fast and loose with contractual obligations as a routine business practice need worry about reasonable people, who've been cheated by the candidate, need worry.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[mschwanke97402]

You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company. If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.

Yeah, no, Trump has been the prime mover in a number of major projects that he ran into the ground and then used bankruptcy to extricate his interests. He has even said as much when discussing the national debt. He claimed that he'd get a discount on the debt because he always does. He is basically telling us that he borrows money fully expecting that he won't be paying it all back.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

she's far too able to get away with doing bad things and that scares me more than anything.

Who is it that said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."? (Not Lombardi) And I'll paraphrase his other famous quote; *Beating [the opposition] is not a matter of life or death, it's more important than that.*

You gotta remember, they don't play under the same rules we do. It is a game of sociopaths. You should be scared of whoever wins.

And another thing, this election is a bigger reflection on us, the fans, than of the players and team owners. It represents the national character. Since nobody seems to care, you gotta wonder who is the bigger sociopath amongst us all.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[ScentCone]

a number of

And that number is ... 4?

Re:So the tax returns aren't public?

[jordanjay29]

I thought some of W's more flippant soundbites were more like "If you're not with us, you're against us." or "Mission Accomplished."

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Aighearach]

No, the casinos with his name on them belong to other people, because he mismanaged them and turned them over to his creditors to pay the debts related to them.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Yeah, let's all live in fear. That's worked out so well for us this century.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

Externalizing the blame is the culprit. It's always somebody else's fault.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Spoken like a true American.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

You mean, it really is somebody else's fault?

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

It's what your country was built on. Couple hundred years later, chicken littles like you are abundant.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[rch7]

Trump also has a right not to run for President it he doesn't want to be a public person. He can just go and hide somewhere in the woods and nobody will bother his privacy. Now he attempts to get into public position.

The obvious reason not to release returns is that they will show how lousy he was as a businessman and reduce his chances to be elected. Audit is just an excuse, it doesn't prevent release.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[rch7]

Check out how well peace with aggressor worked in 1938.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

:-) Very interesting.. Back from weekend therapy are we? You sure have built a very powerful distortion field around yourself. Must be part of that desire of yours to feel all superior 'n stuff, but all you reveal is insecurity with your "ire". You know, I really can't quite figure out whether you do it intentionally or if it's just automatic, whether you actually believe your misrepresentations. I feel safer believing you're just dicking around. The grief you express in your posts is all yours. I feel absolutely none of it.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

ou sure have built a very powerful distortion field around yourself

You keep saying things like this without any backing whatsoever. It truly is fascinating to have met someone who has so little faith in the arguments they make.

Of course, Occam postulates that you're just a troll, and a bad one at that. If you're trying to get a rise out of people, it helps to actually pay attention to what they say. It also helps not to recycle failure. Keep slinging that shit! Maybe something will stick someday.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

chicken littles like you are abundant... Keep slinging that shit!

Yes! Please do!

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[david_thornley]

Clinton did not do all sorts of bad things with classified data. She did very limited bad things, and nobody's come up with an example of someone who mishandled a small number of classified documents through negligence, with no evidence that it created any harm, and was criminally prosecuted. It may still be against the law (I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer), but similar cases have generally been dealt with administratively.

As far as other accusations go, I've seen so many lame accusations hurled at Clinton that I don't necessarily feel like investigating new ones, particularly ones involving the DNC rather than Clinton or her campaign. Once the accusations about Benghazi die down, I may become more interested.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Awww, look at you, sticking to your rubber/glue tactic! But it's easy to disprove: Unlike you, I can actually answer a direct question :P

See you in the next thread.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

Nice try with your preemptive "shhh". But do take your own advice. You asked no question. You're just following me around...

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

The person quoting that was Ricky Bobby's dad.

Really? And here I was thinking it goes a bit farther back. Feel free to confirm that if you think it matters. It seemed appropriately applied to the person I was speaking of. And the "scholarly debate" immediately became a troll fest right afterwards anyway. So the universe remains in balance.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Nice try with your preemptive "shhh"

That's not what it was, it had a different function.

You asked no question.

I've asked several, in fact. Would love to hear more about how rape's been redefined, for instance.

You're just following me around...

True story: At least three times in the last month, I've been replying to a comment before realizing it was you I was dealing with. You're not that special. But whatever keeps you warm at night.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

At least three times in the last month, I've been replying to a comment before realizing it was you I was dealing with.

:-) Uh huh... Please, pull the other other one. You know, at the right price, I just might buy one of your bridges some day.

You're not that special. But whatever keeps you warm at night.

Be sure to keep your score card up to date. You can pick up more at the pro-shop.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Please, pull the other other one.

Oh I'm sorry, you thought I expected you to believe that? Like many other things in life, just because it's true doesn't mean you won't think it's horseshit. This is one of the funner aspects of dealing with you. I can drop any lie or any truth I want and your inept paranoia will do all the work for me!

You know, at the right price, I just might buy one of your bridges some day.

Shouldn't be hard. You've already shown you'll swallow some truly implausible conpsiracies. Buying a fake bridge ain't exactly out of your range.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

just because it's true..

Well first off, it isn't.

it's horseshit

Yes, it is... something to make you feel good about your own self, as you like to put it. S'alright, I have no problem with it..

conpsiracies

Ah yes, the hand waving of something I never even implied... If it's not illegal, it can't be a "conspiracy". Merely sharing a common interest is no such thing. However I guess you have to call it "conspiracy" for the same reason I pointed out above.

Your entire response up there shows signs of weakening and fatigue. Maybe if you take another "long weekend" you can come back with something more salaciously gratifying.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

Well first off, it isn't.

In what way? Doesn't matter, I'll take the blame on this one. I thought a harmless anecdote about the vagaries of internet commenting might tickle your funny bone, but it was more important for you to weaponize it, I guess.

something to make you feel good about your own self

Yeah, no. I make myself feel better about myself by enjoying the good things in my life, not by sparring with idiots on the internet. Your take on this is very American.

the hand waving of something I never even implied

You want me to pull out the quotes again?

If it's not illegal, it can't be a "conspiracy"

That's...not how conspiracies work. That's not how any of this works.

However I guess you have to call it "conspiracy"

No, I use that word because you're claiming the GOP and DNC are in bed together to throw the election to Hillary. This is not rocket science.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

Oh I get it! It was a joke... Nice change up

The quotes you like to pull up say nothing about "conspiracy". They show what is left after washing away the bullshit that you take at face value. You are "grasping at straws" I believe is the phrase.

This is not rocket science.

And it's not a "conspiracy". It's a game.

But you can can work the definitions anyway you like, it's your game too.

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[Captain Splendid]

So what you're telling me is that this and this are mutually exclusive? My take on the english language is that loony tunes?

Re: So the tax returns aren't public?

[fustakrakich]

Can go either way. Do whatever you want with it. You're just another clown, as goofy as Bill Dawg.

Maher is an idiot

[93 Escort Wagon]

Look, I really dislike The Donald... but the president doesn't "rule" us.

Re:Maher is an idiot

[ChrisMaple]

The whole essence of the United States constitution is that the government doesn't rule us. That Bill Maher thinks it should is an indication of how corrupt his mind is.

Re:Maher is an idiot

[Bing Tsher E]

Maher is just a television performer. His big show was a comedy revue on a network that primarily airs comedy programs.

Re:Maher is an idiot

[CaptainLard]

I have a lot more faith in this being known to Bill Maher than to trump

Re:Maher is an idiot

[I'm New Around Here]

Pretty sure Maher intended that Trump expects to "rule" over us, regardless of what the position of the presidency is supposed to do. Trump has made it abundantly clear from his promises and bullshit that he doesn't understand the jurisdiction of the role. And what do you think will happen if Trump does win and realize that he doesn't get to sit up on high and dictate legislature? After a temper-tantrum he'll probably start massive public smear campaigns against any legislator who doesn't immediately toe his line.

So it will be Obama's third term?

Because that is exactly how President Obama has acted for the last 7+ years.

Re:Maher is an idiot

[Coren22]

Trump has made it abundantly clear from his promises and bullshit that he doesn't understand the jurisdiction of the role.

I would like to point out that frankly no one who tries to be president appears to know the powers granted to the president. Heck, Obama keeps getting smacked down by the Supreme Court for overstepping his bounds, and he is a constitutional scholar! It is the nature of our country that enough people believe the president has unlimited power that if they don't promise things they can't deliver, the people think they aren't promising anything.

Re: Maher is an idiot

[Coren22]

What does any of that have to do with the unconstitutional executive orders that were smacked down by the Supreme Court? You didn't actually say anything against what the prior AC posted, just tried to make it out to be an us vs them argument that wasn't even being made.

Shut down Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, hacking to access private information is illegal and unethical. There is no obligation for a person to release his or her tax returns. Candidates and elected officials still have the right to privacy and to have private lives. Tax returns are part of that privacy. This is highly unethical, but I suspect that most people here will defend Assange and Wikileaks. It will show that Slashdot users are seriously lacking in ethics.

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[sittingnut]

Last I checked, hacking to access private information is . ...

checked where?
there is nothing unethical about revealing information that shows unethical (including criminal) activity. or revealing private information about harmful institutions that engage in criminal activities.

in case of snowden with nsa, and in case of wikileaks with regard to hillary supporting dnc, revealing hidden information was ethical.

of course supporters of evil entities damaged by such revelations will claim such actions are "illegal and unethical"(eg you and maher)

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[msauve]

"there is nothing unethical about revealing information that shows unethical (including criminal) activity"

That's a non-sequitur, the GP made a point about how information is obtained, not what is revealed. Many would disagree with your implication, including the framers of the Constitution, which is why evidence obtained via illegal means is thrown out in court.

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[phorm]

"there is nothing unethical about revealing information that shows unethical (including criminal) activity. or revealing private information about harmful institutions that engage in criminal activities"

It might not be, but hacking into somebody because you *think* they may have said information IS unethical. Now if you're provided said information (say as a news agency) and then release it, that's necessarily unethical.

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[sittingnut]

well if you want to hair split, till somebody is convicted , you could claim there is nothing illegal or unethical about the hacked, hackers, leakers, or revealers.
and why do you 'think' wikileaks did the hacking(which it denies) instead of just revealing?
btw do you equate illegality with ethics? be clear, because they are two separate things.
and manning or snowden by doing what may be termed (and even convicted by usa law) as illegal still did act ethically, they btw did not have to 'hack'. and for all we know it was dnc staffer who gave data to wikileaks.
 

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[sittingnut]

no 'hacking' part, is certainly not necessarily 'unethical' , though it can be 'illegal' according to some laws. so my argument holds.

Re:Shut down Wikileaks

[phorm]

Obviously legality and ethics aren't the same, but they are often similar and hang out in the same bars.

As to hacking (cracking), there's a lot of "ends justifying the means" issues ethically there. It's not really that much different from B&E.
If I believe somebody has committed a severe crime on their premises, and break into said premises to reveal said crime but find nothing untoward, was I ethical? How about if I found a crack lab or a bunch of chained up sex-slaves? How about if I suspect something is going on in my neighbourhood but I'm not sure at which house exactly, so I break into a bunch of them before finding evidence of a heinous crime?

In any case, B&E without proper evidence is illegal, but in some it may have been ethical. The same applies to hacking/cracking, but in the computer world. The probably is that some so-called hackers often ignore collateral damage in search of their goals, or operate within realms of half-baked misinformation (for example "outing" people they think are criminals, but turn out to be the wrong person).

As for wikileaks *doing* the hacking. Wikileaks is not a person. Formally, there are people who may belong to the group, but if they say they're "working on something" then they've basically commissioned a particular act. Kinda like if I ask an employee to do something illegal versus farming the illegal act off a contractor or third-party. My hands still wouldn't be clean in either event.

Encouraging Whistleblowers?

[SeattleLawGuy]

A whistleblower is a person who publicizes information his employer or another entity with which he is affiliated does not want published, out of a desire to accomplish meaningful institutional reform.

Employees who hack you on behalf of their rival company or rival nation are not whistleblowers. They are thugs who think it will be useful if they knock you down and take your briefcase.

Re:Encouraging Whistleblowers?

[Antique Geekmeister]

> A whistleblower is a person who publicizes information his employer or another entity with which he is affiliated does not want published,

Please allow me to differ on this matter. Many "whistleblowers" are political opponents of the people or entities they report on, and go to considerable effort or even encounter danger to expose the behavior. This is also what good reporters do, and it's why Woodward and Bernstein received a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the "Watergate Papers".

Re:Encouraging Whistleblowers?

[Attila Dimedici]

There were no "Watergate Papers". You are combining the "Pentagon Papers", which were about U.S. involvement in Vietnam under LBJ, with the Watergate scandal, which involved an illegal attempt by members of the Nixon Administration to obtain information about the Democratic strategy in the 1972 Presidential campaign. Woodward and Bernstein had nothing to do with revealing the "Pentagon Papers". Woodward and Bernstein got their information on the Watergate scandal from a disgruntled high level member of the FBI who wanted to get revenge on Nixon for not making him the head of the FBI.

Re:Encouraging Whistleblowers?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Thank you for reminding me of the distinction.

Hacking

[Dog-Cow]

So Wikileaks has gone from technically illegal activity to morally-wrong activity?

A tax return is not like memos of secret negotiations or illegal spy activities. It is a document filed by a private citizen with its government. There is absolutely no moral ground to insisting it be provided to the public.

Re:Hacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, tax returns are a matter of public record. Please provide a moral justification for treating them in any other fashion.

Re:Hacking

[ScentCone]

Where I live, tax returns are a matter of public record. Please provide a moral justification for treating them in any other fashion.

Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so. Why should, for example, a business competitor get to be able to go over your personal tax return and figure out which new businesses or activities you're investing in? Why should the public get to know what sort of interest rate you got on your home loan, or which medical procedures you're paying for? That you're so used to your government making all of those things public that you can't understand why it's intrusive is pretty unsettling, actually. I feel sorry for your fellow citizens, whichever Orwellian nation it is you're living in.

Re:Hacking

[phantomfive]

So Wikileaks has gone from technically illegal

I don't think they've done anything illegal in the jurisdictions where they live (although Assange probably did illegal things unrelated to Wikileaks).

It is a document filed by a private citizen with its government.

He doesn't want to be a private citizen.

Re:Hacking

[Dog-Cow]

I don't think anyone should have to provide a moral justification for keeping any data private. Privacy should be the default position, and there should be a moral justification for making anything public.

There is no public good served by making a tax return public information.

Re: Hacking

[Dog-Cow]

Not that I agree that Obama should (have) release(d) his birth certificate, but at least a birth certificate is relevant to one's legal suitability to be POTUS, in so far as it documents one of the requirements for the office.

Re:Hacking

[Dog-Cow]

Do you want details of his bedroom activity too? Just because a person has a public job does not make every interaction of theirs public.

Re:Hacking

[quantaman]

So Wikileaks has gone from technically illegal activity to morally-wrong activity?

A tax return is not like memos of secret negotiations or illegal spy activities. It is a document filed by a private citizen with its government. There is absolutely no moral ground to insisting it be provided to the public.

And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?

I found that a bit distasteful, while I can see the public's right to know there's something off about trying to shame someone by surprising them with illicitly obtained private information.

Either way I think the big issue with Wikileaks and the DNC emails is they weren't a leak, they were a hack.

For a leak you need an insider who thinks things are so wrong that they're willing to risk their career, and even jail time, by leaking the information. It's a very random happenstance and tends to happen only when things are particularly bad.

But hacks tend to favour the more powerful entities (like Russia) who can dispatch sophisticated technical resources against their enemies. You don't need a massive egregious wrong, if you have an enemy you just need to hack their servers and go digging until you find bad. Russia didn't leak the DNC emails because the Democratic party was favouring Clinton, they leaked them because they were looking for anything to damage Clinton.

Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.

Re:Hacking

[Z00L00K]

Tax returns being public isn't even morally wrong, it's normal.

Re:Hacking

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I would LOVE to see you talking out the other side of your ass if it were Hillary who was (against all precedent) refusing to release her returns, and Trump had been releasing his annually since 1977.

Re:Hacking

[CaptainLard]

There is absolutely no moral ground to insisting it be provided to the public.

There is one special case in which there absolutely is: when someone is running for president of the US.

As an office that represents the will of an entire country and has immense sway over all manner of global issues (supposedly...maybe this election will be the nail in the coffin of that ideal), the public requires a complete picture of a candidate's character to make a well informed decision if they should vote for that person or not. Since money is at the top of the list of corrupting agents, a tax return is valuable knowledge for the public to ensure that, say, a candidate's livelihood isn't being kept afloat by Russia. I'm not aware of any substitutes.

Re:Hacking

[dbIII]

It's just a joke like "The Donald" asking his good friends in Russia to hack Hillary. A laugh from the audience and zero substance.

Re:Hacking

[khallow]

And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?

It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.

Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.

What's supposed to be bad about that? The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.

Re:Hacking

[poity]

It seemed to me that Assange mentioned Maher's donation as a way to reflect the "impure motivation" red herring back at Maher. Maher had, just a second before that, questioned Assange's motives by saying that he had, through his past dealing with the US government, developed a personal animus towards Clinton. This has been the common attack against Assange from the media in the aftermath of the DNC leak -- it goes like this: Assange's motives are not sufficiently pure, therefore the contents of the DNC email leak, no matter how true, must not be discussed, else we would play into the hands of someone else's agenda. This, of course, is fallacious thinking, and Assange tried to show Maher, through his own example, that a million dollar donation to a Democrat does not and should not cast a shadow upon Maher's brutal and regular take-downs of Republican people and ideas. The truth remains the truth, no matter who speaks it.

And that reminds me of something:

At best, the obscurantist attitude of saying that it is an undesirable document and better suppressed. And if for some reason it were decided to issue a garbled version of the pamphlet, denigrating Trotsky and inserting references to Stalin, no Communist who remained faithful to his party could protest. Forgeries almost as gross as this have been committed in recent years. But the significant thing is not that they happen, but that, even when they are known about, they provoke no reaction from the left-wing intelligentsia as a whole. The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books.

-- George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature

Re: Hacking

[Imrik]

Correction, according to the Republicans he wasn't eligible to be President. The requirements for Presidency are different from the requirements for citizenship.

P.S. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, just pointing out the difference.

Re:Hacking

[fustakrakich]

Do you want details of his bedroom activity too?

If he wants to regulate sexual relations through legislation, we have every right to know every little detail to make sure he too is in compliance. Power should come only with a very high price. We are supposed to hang the Sword of Damocles over all their heads.

Re:Hacking

[mt2mb4me]

Well, sure, but we don't have to, because they have released their Tax returns every year, faithfully without fuss. So, What are you getting at? That even though the clintons are transparent, republicans still can't get anything to stick on her? Yeah, that sounds right.

Re:Hacking

[wbr1]

Privacy should be the default position - for citizens.

Open access should be the default position for government, be it organizations or elected officials. The moment one chooses to put them selves in a position of governmental power over others by running for office, all data on that individual should be made public.

Re:Hacking

[quantaman]

And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?

It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.

I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".

Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.

What's supposed to be bad about that?

Don't accept leaks from outside hacks, especially if you believe the hacker has bad motives.

The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.

The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.

The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.

Re:Hacking

[Anonymous Coward]

when it was Bill clinton, how quickly did the whitewater investigation turn from whitewater into "We want to impeach you because you lied about getting a blowjob"?

I'm sorry that you don't find perjury a serious crime. Thankfully the Arkansas Bar Association & the US Supreme Court disagreed.

seriously they bitch and moan about classified emails that were made classified after they were sent.

So the ones which the FBI director said were classified at the time... don't matter?

Re:Hacking

[fahrbot-bot]

Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so.

However, Trump has made statements about all these things in relation to his character and many (if not most) of these claims have been demonstrated to be, if not outright false, exaggerations. His tax returns are more objective in this regard - which is what concerns Trump.

• Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.
• Five questions we still can’t answer about Donald Trump’s charity donations
• Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group

More info: trump charitable donation

Re: Hacking

[ScentCone]

Public employee salaries are part of government budgets. Those are public records. That's not the same as the public knowing your personal income. You might work as the local librarian, but also work part time for a family business, or have some equities you inherited from a dead parent, or be receiving income from a private settlement (say, from an insurance claim) that is only viable for as long as you don't violate a signed non-disclosure agreement. Yest, the taxpayers have every right to know what they are paying their employees. That is NOT the same as having access to a public employee's tax returns, which an include all sorts of other private information.

Re:Hacking

[khallow]

The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.

The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.

And the obvious rebuttal is that it is dirty laundry and stirs conflict between the powerful. A leak is by definition information which is acquired and released in a way that is nominally unethical and usually illegal. The whole justification for encouraging leaks in the first place is the moral value of exposing skullduggery by the powerful. If you are suddenly going to care about the morality of acquiring the information in the first place, then why would there be any moral value to Wikileaks in the first place?

Finally, how is Wikileaks going to evaluate the motives of a hacker and why did that suddenly become relevant? How would some of the more prominent leakers fare like Snowden?

I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".

If so, that is bizarre. The information just isn't that significant aside aside from the conflict of interest. It's pretty blinding obvious. It's on par with discovering that someone reads the Snoopy comic in its power to destroy.

Re:Hacking

[herbierobinson]

Hate to break this to you, but if he wins, we will be required by law to provide most of that information. To be in public service, you have to list everyone you have had significant business dealings with over the last three years. Actually, I take that back, you have to list everyone and every thing you have received income from. You don't heave to report who you have paid.

Re:Hacking

[david_thornley]

One problem with the DNC emails is that the release is one-sided. In isolation, we have no way of knowing whether this was business as usual, dirtier than usual, or cleaner than usual. I don't know that we have good reason to think they've been unaltered. Even if they're accurate, it isn't clear that this isn't an attempt to lie with partial truths. They're clearly an attempt by one or more foreign organizations, quite possibly an unfriendly foreign government, to illegally influence a US election, and we need to remember that.

If anyone changes their vote from Clinton to Trump on the basis of the emails, they're acting as the people releasing the emails, and quite possibly Vladimir Putin, want them to do. This means rewarding the malicious activity.

It's a complicated situation.

Re:Hacking

[poity]

illegally influence a US election

Here's what I wrote in an earlier post to another article about this word use:
https://slashdot.org/comments....

"affect our elections" is a phrase that has many meanings, and I see Democrats here and elsewhere relying on the broadness of that phrase to muddy the conversation. A foreign actor can "affect an election" through bribery, blackmail, intimidation, and other tactics. A foreign actor can also "affect an election" by exposing the anti-democratic behaviors of trusted officials. The former describes actions that impose influence upon a process and trespass upon national sovereignty, the latter does not. Thus, casting a foreign actor as "affecting an election" has no meaning unless his actions are further qualified.

As an example, if Reporters Without Borders were to release evidence that showed anti-democratic behavior among Iranian public officials in the lead up to elections, they would also be "affecting an election" by the broad definition of that phrase, but hardly anyone would accuse RWoB of imposing themselves upon Iran, or trespassing upon their national sovereignty. In fact, I'd surmise MOST people would celebrate RWoB for having exposed such corruption.

Clinton Transcripts

[stinkyjak]

When are we going to get some transparency from Clinton? I would rather an idiot, that wants to do good, be selected as our president. I will take the idiot over the clever con that will strategically cheat us out of all we have. Let us see the transcripts. Let us understand why so many large and powerful entities are funding the Clinton campaign.

Re:Clinton Transcripts

[quantaman]

I would rather an idiot, that wants to do good, be selected as our president.

Well at least Trump gets you halfway there.

Re:EditorDavid is an ass

[Mashiki]

You're surprised by this? I'm actually astounded at just how much the entire media establishment(US, CAN, UK, EU, etc all the big publications) is against Trump. It's literally frothing at the mouth hate of Trump, and they still don't understand that it's their actions, and the actions of the left that have catapulted him to the top. And these many months in, they still think that this stuff is going to work.

Keep going boys. At this point, I'm hoping for Trump to be elected just to watch your heads explode because your self-fulfilling echo-chambers broke. Maybe then you'll learn what journalism is vs editorials painted as journalism....or the entire media infrastructure will collapse and we'll enter a new era of actual journalists who report on issues neutrally again.

Re:EditorDavid is an ass

[loonycyborg]

It's like with brexit, people will vote for Trump as a form of vote of no confidence to current establishment.

Wikileaks: Propaganda arm of Russian intelligence

[beamdriver]

Everything they and Assange have done pretty much confirms this.

I mean, come on, every day Assange is telling us that he's going to release some new leak about Clinton that's going to lead to her indictment. He's essentially the Russian version of our old friend, The Iraqi Information Minister.

Misleading Headline

[Transist]

Assange said the headline was a joke. Whether he was actually joking at the time of the statement or not is up for debate, but Slashdot is still playing the clickbait/debate-baiting headline game.

Re:The reason for releasing tax returns

[Dog-Cow]

Right. Because anyone taking bribe money is going to put that on their tax returns. You are an idiot.

That was a made up quote too

[Anonymous Coward]

Another day, another fake Assange quote.... Assange never said any such thing, an anti-Clinton website called Zero Hedge simply made it up:

http://boingboing.net/2016/07/29/how-a-cooked-assange-quote-end.html

And here, Maher isn't quoting him either, he's trying to talk up a dull interview.

You seem to be reacting to the false quote attributed to Assange and doing an ad-hominen attack, but you've simply been suckered.

right

[Bender Unit 22]

It sounded more like a joke.

Re:EditorDavid is an ass

[Bender Unit 22]

I just want to see George Clooney's head explode. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

(no ,I don't like the parent channel.)

"being ruled by Donald Trump"

[Anonymous Coward]

ruled? he is a presidential candidate not heir to the throne.

Conspiratorial grab bag!! (pick one or more!)

[TheRealHocusLocus]

* Trump is evil businessman with secret tax deductions (little boxes checked with circles 'n arrows indicatin' father stabbin', mother rapin', dog kickin' 'n Putin lovin') and he must hide this at all costs
* He filed with EZ form and is embarrassed to admit it
* He wants all the clueless fascist idiots out there to reveal themselves to his voter base, as they publicly insinuate that this tradition of candidates' voluntarily releasing personal tax filings is mandatory and necessary to avert suspicion. So far we have had a Associate Justice of the Supreme Court revealed as one who does not understand this (implicit) right to privacy. Which is embarrassing to the country as a whole.
* Obama's IRS is actually delaying completion of the routine audit to make it seem as if Trump is trying to hide something. "Oh yeah? I'll give you something to complain about!"
* Obama's IRS is actually expediting completion of the routine audit, and this is what super-whizzy-fast Federal procedures look like in this computer-assisted people-dumb idiocracy. "Audits! It's what tax returns crave!"
* This audit delay is the act of a vengeful God. Everyone is simply trying their best and deserves a pat on the head and a prayer. A candlelight vigil in front of the IRS building may help.
* A man can dig a post hole in 60 seconds, therefore sixty men can dig a post hole in one second. Obama has tasked every one of the IRS's 89,000 employees to this single important audit. But the return is soo big that even so, it will take extra time.
* Unbeknownst to the average taxpayer it now takes the IRS ~28 months to process its annual tax returns, up from 12 months in 1965.
* The IRS is presently rolling back an inadvertently triggered Windows 10 upgrade.
* It's all a smokescreen to hide the other smokescreens.
* And mirrors, lots of mirrors! As the magician saws Trump in half, you must not be permitted to notice there is one hairy leg and one smooth leg.

Music with which to contemplate the release of Trump's tax return

Re:EditorDavid is an ass

[Mashiki]

It's like with brexit, people will vote for Trump as a form of vote of no confidence to current establishment.

Pretty much. Then again the growing dissatisfaction with the current establishment, elitists and globalists has been growing for over a decade now. That they don't seem to understand that people are voting for him and like what he says precisely because they are so pissed off will likely fly over their head. I wouldn't be surprised that if Trump wins, we'll see a slew of articles saying "this is why democracy is a bad idea" and "this is why average people shouldn't vote." Just like they did after the brexit fovte.

I can't believe so many people are this stupid

[poity]

It's been a decade since Wikileaks captured the public's attention, and most people still don't seem to understand that it's only a publisher that relies on others to provide info. I figured Bill Maher would know better. I figured journalists would know better. But they've all been speculating on the "Why hasn't Wikileaks hacked Trump yet?" question for the past week, as if they didn't know what Wikileaks is about.

Are they all this stupid, or just pretending to be fucking obtuse?

No... they MUST be pretending. Bill Maher has interviewed Assange in the past -- without questioning his motives or insinuating that Assange/Wikileaks exfiltrated secret documents themselves. He has demonstrated in the past that he knows Wikileaks is only a publisher. As well, there have been thousands of articles in the mainstream press since Collateral Murder and Cablegate, and they did not cast Assange/Wikileaks as hackers or to insinuate that they were enemy collaborators. Journalists have demonstrated in the past that they know Wikileaks is only a publisher.

No... they DO know better, I'm certain ALL of them know better. But they're so full of rage that no one has yet leaked Trump's info to Wikileaks while their favorite Clinton is being undermined, they've become the mirror image of the Fox-watching "Fairness and Balance"-demanding trogs that the left so often mocks and derides.

Re:I can't believe so many people are this stupid

[ebvwfbw]

No, they really are that stupid... actually the way you put it - that fucking stupid.
Go to any University. If you flunk out of anything else, you can still be a journalist. They take the dumbest of the dumb. Explains why they're almost all Democrats (rimshot in the background).

Re:What does he feed the squirrel on his head?

[Imrik]

The worst part is none of the other candidates are particularly good choices, except by comparison. I would really like to see a moderate run for President.

Re:The reason for releasing tax returns

[Imrik]

Why wouldn't they? They are far less likely to get caught for the bribery than they are for the tax evasion. Also, a lot of forms of bribery that politicians participate in are completely legal.

Getting dangerous and ugly

[nicoleb_x]

So if hacker activists set the Peruvian embassy on fire or just deploy (they wouldn't use drones would they?) lots of smoke bombs/generators and maybe even some tear gas into the embassy grounds to force an evacuation and potential arrest of Jullian that would be OK right? Just a hack, no big deal, nobody should get hurt. They certainly wouldn't use incendiaries that isn't a hack right that is something else? The Peruvians should have had better security and since they didn't...

Too extreme? OK, the hackers can just set off fire alarms which would bring the fire department and if planned in advance, maybe a few special service personnel to ensure that everyone evacuates.

I'd have to guess that WikiLeaks and JA are going down. This is getting dangerous and ugly.

Regulation

[JBMcB]

Probably not, mainly because an FBI probe is a legal matter, while an IRS audit is a regulatory matter. Both can be nasty for the person being investigated, but in different ways.

Re:Wikileaks: Propaganda arm of Russian intelligen

[willy_me]

When Wikileaks publishes some stolen documents it is generally just for the purpose of being open. When Wikileaks times the publishing of certain documents to effect the democratic process, they are playing politics.

In addition, if Wikileaks publishes documents that have been filtered by a third party that wishes to effect the democratic process, Wikileaks is straddling the boarder of playing politics. Such posts need to be identified so the reader can take this into consideration. Otherwise Wikileaks is lying by omission - and as a result, playing politics.

I love an impartial Wikileaks. But a Wikileaks that plays with politics is utterly useless.

Contribution limits?

[reboot246]

"Maher explained he had famously given President Obama $1 million in 2012 and he never tried to hide it."

There are limits on how much one person can contribute to a candidate, according to the Federal Election Commission. Looks like Maher broke the law. Fat chance of him suffering any consequences, though Obama should probably refund most of that million.

Re:ends do not (necessarily) justify the means

[sittingnut]

absurd strawman arguments are not rational and only reveal your arguments' bankruptcy. i hope you are educated enough to know that?

meanwhile, what do you have to say about specific cases of ethical nature of revealing criminal and unethical behaviors by nsa and hillery supporting dnc?

WikiLeaks deserves a better sokesperson

[quax]

The "I don't use condemns man" does the organization more harm than good at this point.

Re:EditorDavid is an ass

[loonycyborg]

Well, maybe democracy is a bad idea. At least its current implementation. The way things work resulted in perverse incentives which torpedoed government efficiency. This is what caused this rift between commoners and "elites" in the first place. Due to immense complexity of today's state machines it's not enough to elect someone who can fool people into liking him. There need to exist mechanisms to encourage actually competent (which is at doing their job, and not at convincing people they're competent which is a totally different skill) people to arise, and US's and UK's political systems clearly fail at that nowadays.

Pointless anyway

[DarthVain]

The left wants show them because it will likely show he is an unscrupulous billionaire. I would bet everything will be legal or at least reasonable defensible. I also bet if you looked at all billionaires 99% of them would also show that they are unscrupulous. So not really all that shocking I don't think. If Trump eventually does do it, he'll simple say, I follow the legal rules, it isn't my fault all the rules are in my favor, if you could do it wouldn't you?. If you want change who better to change the rules than someone that knows how to take advantage of them. Hillary has pretty much agreed to keep the status quo with wall street meaning such rules aren't about to change anytime soon under her.

Either way Trump gets media attention, which he enjoys and turns to his advantage.

Why Trump is Audited So Much?

[herbierobinson]

One of the reasons the IRS audits regularly is when they keep catching you doing sleazy things. They are like farmers: When they find fertile ground, they keep plowing it.

Re:Wikileaks: Propaganda arm of Russian intelligen

[david_thornley]

The US is not responsible for Assange's stay in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Assange is accused of rape. This is not just a strange Swedish legal concept, since the UK courts agreed that the allegations would constitute rape, and that Sweden had made an entirely legitimate extradition request. The UK required Assange to show up to be extradited.

Assange then decided to flee the UK justice system and hole up in the embassy. He is a fugitive from justice in the UK, and that remains the case regardless of whatever he did in Sweden.

In order to justify his actions, Assange made up stories about the US wanting him, with no apparent evidence. He was never in the US, and did not extract the classified information. Manning committed a crime (whether you think it justifiable or not), and has been convicted. Assange published what Manning leaked, and this is perfectly legal in the US. Assange said he was afraid of being sent to Sweden because he feared that US authorities would snatch him, which doesn't explain why he went to Sweden and the UK in the first place.

So, technically, your statement is true. If Obama and/or Clinton is responsible for keeping Assange cooped up, then any consequential statement makes the conditional true. If Obama is responsible, then the Universe is made of green cheese. Perfectly true.