Julian Assange: All That Malware On Wikileaks Isn't a Big Deal (vice.com)

WikiLeaks celebrates its 10th anniversary today. At a press conference, its editor Julian Assange hinted that Wikileaks could soon disclose more things about the U.S. election. Making use of the occasion, Motherboard asked Assange about the malware that Wikileaks website contains. To which, Assange responded (via Motherboard): âoeThe [Hillary] Clinton campaign has been going around saying 'don't read Wikileaks, because there's malware,'" Assange said in response to a general question about malware on the site from Motherboard. Talking specifically about malicious files that were included within a recent dump of emails from Turkey, Assange emphasised that there wasn't an issue for users who just visited the site, and that people needed to download the files themselves. "However this same risk exists for most '.exe' or '.doc' files downloaded elsewhere from the internet or received by email. As time goes by we flag documents to alert readers," a print-out given to journalists at the press conference reads. Assange even thought that the presence of malware itself was noteworthy. "There was malware sent to [the ruling Turkish party] AKP, either from criminals or from state attacks on the AKP. That's extremely interesting," he said.

Comments

Ferris Beuler

[Anonymous Coward]

Is my hero.

Democrat misinformation

[Tontoman]

Hillary's campaign would love it if everyone is too afraid to read Wikileaks.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[norweeg]

Misinformation? They leaked emails containing malware targeted at the people they were originally sent to. Rather than adopt any kind of editorial oversight, wikileaks is a firehose of irrelevant (emails to/from targets family), not-newsworthy (SSNs of donors whose names are already public record), privacy invading (names of gay Saudis, where homosexuality is punishable by death), and occasionally malware-laden (because why not target malware at high-profile politicians), leaks with only a few nuggets of anything of interest delivered with transparent animus and bias

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Opportunist]

So you have to shovel a buttload of spam and rubbish to sieve out a valuable gem?

Sounds like a job for a spamfilter.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[norweeg]

AKA editorial review. A spamfilter cannot tell what is and is not newsworthy

Re:Democrat misinformation

[norweeg]

really? flamebait? Can't stand the facts, eh? Flaimbait would have been if I pointed out that releasing the names and ssns of donors (the biggest of whom are already publicly known) is essentially intimidation aimed at discouraging people from donating to the campaign.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point I wonder if WikiLeaks keeps threatening stuff against Hillary to see if they can get Obama to agree to leave him alone and not ask for extradition if Asange agrees to leave Hillary alone.

And possibly he is hoping for a friendly response from Trump if he helps him win.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Opportunist]

I'm fairly sure the average spamfilter can at least determine what is certainly NOT newsworthy.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[norweeg]

if only it were as simple as removing ads for viagra and horny moms in the area. There is a lot of non-spammy noise which is also not newsworthy

Re:Democrat misinformation

[MightyMartian]

Thus far Assange's big leaks have been little more than damp squibs. There's going to come a point very soon when he's just going to fade into obscurity, locked in his embassy prison, and no one giving a shit any more. Snowden stole the torch anyways, and is a far less complex hero for those that want data to be free.

Re: Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because only information filtered through someone that knows what is important to us should be available.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer that Wikileaks release everything they have, without comment. If they start filtering content, bias will inevitably corrupt the process.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[wisnoskij]

Well it is incredibly important for Wikileaks to not play an editorial role. Then they would be supplying opinions, not raw data.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[sexconker]

"Editorial review" is unethical when it comes to whistle-blowing.
The whole point is that bad shit is going down and transparency is needed. Picking and choosing what to show only leads to bias and spin.

Lay it all out under the sun for the world to see and judge.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Megol]

Unless Sweden have changed the statue of limitation of rape he will soon be able to leave his "prison" (he can exit if he want to) and then be able to again visit Sweden or other countries without any problem.

The two victims never aimed for the rape charges BTW, in Sweden police have to act if they are made aware of a crime and waking up being fucked without giving permission (it's apparently a fetish for some) is rape. Realizing the rapist doesn't use a condom even though it was agreed upon is sexual misconduct and possibly causing of bodily harm if the rapist have any STDs.

So the victims wanted Mr. ASSange tested and went to the police to ensure that testing was done, they then mentioned the circumstances and the rape charges was ensured. The problem was willingly caused by Assange and could easily be solved by Assange (he could man up and take responsibility instead of making up bullshit).

Re:Democrat misinformation

[clong83]

I suppose that is true to a certain extent. However, I don't think removing malware, or at least isolating it from the original email and providing it separately and with warning for those interested enough to dig into it is really "editing". More of just making sure they protect their own audience.

I also disagree with things like releasing the names of known homosexuals when that information could put their life in danger. Redacting to protect a life seems like a bright enough editorial line that can be drawn without losing sight of their core mission.

But then again, I also think that some things are secret for a reason, and thus don't support wikileak's mission at all.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

If Wikileaks edited the information, then they would be accused of trying to manipulate the public, withholding essential information, etc.

Fact is that Wikileaks has done a great service to humanity and has exposed many scandals (not just in the US). That more and more people only recently started to believe otherwise is the foreseeable result of a pretty extensive media campaign, it is natural for people to get influenced by these types of campaigns which are usually directed against particular persons to distract from the real issues.

You just have to continue discrediting an organization in media outlets and after a few years public opinion will magically swing against them. It works the same way as spreading doubt about facts works - just repeat false stories, fill them up with concrete details that are somehow appalling (people believe concrete stories more than abstract ones), and be sure to talk about particular persons rather than the organization or their message. Don't forget to make jokes about them, etc. That works all the time. It's propaganda 101. You could do the same with the Pope and in a few years he'd be as unpopular as Assange is now.

But the funny thing is: You don't even need a campaign. Anybody in the public spotlight will become partly unpopular and polarizing opinions after some time, just for being "known" by many.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[clong83]

Right, but as soon as he walks out of that embassy, the US will charge him with espionage and ask for extradition, regardless of the rape charges. That's why he's hiding out in an embassy from a country with no extradition treaty with the US. Not to dodge the rape charge, but to avoid being dragged before a US court. I imagine he'll stay there until he gets some guarantee from the US not to charge him. He won't get that, and he'll spend a significant portion of his life cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy for as long as they'll have him, and probably prison after that.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[MightyMartian]

At the very least he would be charged by British authorities with defying a court order. There's no way that Assange doesn't spend time in prison.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[MightyMartian]

The only person discrediting Wikileaks is Assange himself.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you think, no doubt about that.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rather than adopt any kind of editorial oversight,"

The beatings will stop when morale improves. Editorial oversight will improve when the death threats stop.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[MightyMartian]

Largely because I'm not vested in keeping up the facade of Assange as some sort of freedom fighter.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

If polarizing the public is your ultimate endgame I hope you get to enjoy the inevitable consequences. WikiLeaks and the release of the Snowden files have been political and biased since day one. Why would anyone trust WikiLeaks or Greenwald any more than they distrust their targets? The Snowden documents released have been cherry picked and followed a planned release strategy that guarantees the people doing the releases keep their names in the public spotlight.

Out of all the documents Snowden stole that reference intelligence programs where is the rest of the information? If you create the technical means to covertly gather information there will be literally thousands of supporting document covering everything from infrastructure, software, hardware, implementation, and user operations. Instead all that has been released are documents that only contain maybe a program name and intended use. Where are all the supporting documents? What about the documents that contain information on programs that have been cancelled or never even made it off the whiteboard?

Assange releases video of an Apache helicopter attack in the middle of an active war zone and makes sure the entire episode is taken out of context making it look like the pilots just decided to fly downtown and kill people out taking their Sunday stroll through the neighborhood. No mention of the pitched battle raging a couple blocks over. No mention of the insurgent fighters abducting a few journalist from their hotel by gun point and marching them over to capture some video they could use in their upcoming advertising campaign looking to attract new fighters. And I am sorry but bringing a child onto the battlefield is stupidity of the highest level. Any death or injuries to the child rest solely on those putting the child into danger. That whole clip exposed what happens during war. It exposed why war should always be the last resort but when engaged the object is to kill enough of your enemies to end the war as fast as possible. This is something the US has forgotten. The US military could have pacified both Iraq and Syria if not for the ridiculous ROE the politicians force upon them. WW2 was a war with an undisputed winner and an undisputed loser. This outcome was achieved by blowing shit up and killing people until the losing side could no longer field an army and no one was left to wage any kind of insurgencies after the war. It was also a war in which the feckless UN was not around to get in the way.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

More of THIS shit?

Ecuador DOES have an extradition treaty with the United States. You can go read its text here:

http://www.mcnabbassociates.co...

What Assange is relying on is the exclusion in Article 3, which reads: "The stipulations of this treaty shall not be applicable to crimes or offenses of a political character; and the person or persons delivered up, charged with the crimes specified in the foregoing article, shall not be prosecuted for any crime committed previously to that for which his or their extradition may be asked."

Of course, as you know, Sweden and the UK both have extradition treaties (treaty text: Sweden | ) with the US.

In Sweden's treaty, you'll find Article 5, which reads as follows (please note bullet 5 below):

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.
2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.
3. When the person sought has been or will be tried in the requesting State by an extraordinary tribunal or court.
4. When the offense is purely military.
5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.
6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.

In the UK's treaty, you'll find the following - note the part about "political opinions."

81 Extraneous considerations
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

So, a treaty between Ecuador and the US most certainly exists, and treaties exist which contain substantially similar wording between the US and each of Ecuador, Sweden, and the UK.

What it boils down to is that Ecuador is willing to play the part of little big man, "standing up" to the US in a case where it costs them nothing, but they can posture loudly about standing up to a big bully. If the US wanted him, he would be in US custody. And Ecuador, for all its posturing, will not remain particularly defiant if the US starts pressuring Ecuador with any real intensity. We send them a fair amount of foreign aid and military aid, and losing that income would probably be a lot less palatable to Ecuador than handing over Assange.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[david_thornley]

What the heck would we want him for? Unless he worked with Manning to extract the classified information, he's a publisher, and that's perfectly legal (that was established in the 60s). There's plenty of annoying people around the world that the US leaves alone.

The only reason Assange is babbling about what the US will do is that he doesn't want to go back to Sweden and face charges, so he's looking for excuses. He probably also doesn't want to face UK judges about his being a fugitive from justice for all these years.

Re:Democrat misinformation

[strikethree]

The only reason Assange is babbling about what the US will do is that he doesn't want to go back to Sweden and face charges, so he's looking for excuses.

This may be true... but I would be terrified of the American government if they were upset at me. It is clear that they have no reason to follow the laws that they are supposed to be following and if such a reason does happen, they are prepared with every excuse imaginable to say their behavior is lawful.

Unbridled power begets unbridled corruption.

Re: Democrat misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Picking and choosing what to show only leads to bias and spin."
Fox news already does this and you have NO problems with that.
Why hold another to a higher standard when you're already compromised?

Sensible enough to include but warn

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't put words in his mouth. He didn't say 'no big deal'. The gist of what he said was more that, for security researchers and people interested in this sort of thing, having the malware available for analysis within document dumps can prove a fruitful line of enquiry, and people downloading and extracting these dumps are unlikely to be the mouthbreathing 'hurr durr an exe gotta run it see what it does' idiots.

Doc files, I can see some merit in providing two dumps, one with any autoplay macros neutered. Or at least, putting a massive great warning reminding researchers to take care.

Re:Sensible enough to include but warn

[phantomfive]

Doc files, I can see some merit in providing two dumps, one with any autoplay macros neutered

Doesn't Microsoft already stop macros from playing without warning in documents downloaded from the internet?

Re:Sensible enough to include but warn

[unixisc]

For a moment, I thought that we'd need wikileaksleaks to give us the inside dirt on wikileaks

Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[bit trollent]

Julian Assange is a KGB agent, on a mission to elect Donald Trump.

This Malware helps the Kremlin conduct surveillance with with the to aid in their efforts to undermine our democracy.

Vladamir Putin sees Donald Trump as a useful idiot, and an ally in Russias second cold war on the United States.

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang it, where's my "mod inciteful". All I have is insightful.

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that moderation alot.

Score: - 1 True

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. go back to sleep.

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is a "poe's law" mod. The comment definitely should not have been modded down.

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[jfdavis668]

Assange thinks the Obama administration is out to get him. And, since Hillary was Secretary of State, she is wrapped up in his conspiracy theory. Breaking into the DNC email system unearthed all the backroom politics to get Hillary elected. Breaking into the RNC would only get you all the dirty details on how they tried to STOP Trump, not get him elected. All that is already out in the open, so kind of pointless to release that.

Re:Julian Assange is a KGB Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be modded 'damning', not 'insightful'...

Too much bias ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... discredits any organization. They're not journalists. They're not activists. I'm not sure what they are apart from a platform for Assange to enter the spotlight at will.

Re:Too much bias ...

[norweeg]

They've really gone downhill. Editorial review would go a long way. Release only what needs to be known. Releasing it in a sea of noise and irrelevant details that make victims of innocent people is not journalism or even responsible activism.

Re: Too much bias ...

[LordLucless]

No, editorial review is what would inttoduce bias. They're not journalists, and they're not really activists, except in the narrow realm of information trandparency - they're a data source. Sure, there's a lot of noise with the signal, but thats why other organisations that *are* journalists filter through it and provide editorialised opinions on it.

Don't make wikileaks into something its not - we need an open data dump more than we need someone selectively picking the facts that support their position and rolling them up into an article. We've already got plenty of those.

Re: Too much bias ...

[norweeg]

Not disclosing information irrelevant information that harms innocent people who are only tangentially related to the leak is not bias, it's responsible and ethical

Re: Too much bias ...

[Frank Burly]

"Editorial review" is not just redacting or withholding of certain documents, it is also choosing the time and context of the release. I'll also point out the obvious:that they almost certainly withhold documents harmful to Wikileaks

Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign.

Re: Too much bias ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton

Anyone that isn't a violent sociopath dislikes Hillary Clinton.

Re: Too much bias ...

[DaveMikulec]

"Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign."

A-men. That's it in a nutshell.

Re: Too much bias ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Editorial review" is not just redacting or withholding of certain documents, it is also choosing the time and context of the release. I'll also point out the obvious:that they almost certainly withhold documents harmful to Wikileaks

Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign.

This. Absolutely. Nailed. It.

It amazes me that partisan (alt-right, libertarian, republican -- if there's even a difference anymore) idjits cheer a foreign power using an accused rapist to target our electoral process in a one-sided manner designed to disrupt and undermine our democracy. If Hillary were the beneficiary, and were the one calling for Russia to hack her oppoents, I would come down on her like a ton of bricks. How interesting it is that the other side lacks the same common sense.

Re: Too much bias ...

[parkinglot777]

Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton

Anyone that isn't a violent sociopath dislikes Hillary Clinton.

Sounds like Trump himself is posting this. Very much the same way that he accuses opponent of his own trait. :P

Re: Too much bias ...

[MightyMartian]

If Assange's goal is to damage Clinton, then this faux-press release only helps her by discrediting Assange and Wikileaks. Since his previous "killer revelation" turned out to be some emails bad mouthing Sanders, it really was a "and...?" kind of moment. When you consider what Ted Cruz did DURING the RNC, it really came off as an example of hyperbole which only served to make Wikileaks look foolish.

Maybe Assange is finally cracking, maybe he has become yet another tired celebrity trying desperately to manufacture another 15 minutes, I have no idea. What I do know is that an organization that once revealed corruption in places like Turks and Caicos now seems hellbent on ruining itself with overhyped claims.

Re: Too much bias ...

[LordLucless]

How is the timing specifically geared to harm Hillary? Surely any period in the year-long shitstorm that is the American electoral process would be equally harmful, except possibly directly before the election, such that there isn't time to run damage control if it proves necessary.

Re: Too much bias ...

[Frank Burly]

The term "October Surprise" exists for a reason. If I were Assange, I would leak in the 24 hours before a debate, or in the 72 hours before the election. We'll see what he does.

Re: Too much bias ...

[LordLucless]

To be honest, as a non-American, this was the first time I'd heard that phrase.

WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[wiredog]

Trump backers realize they've been played as WikiLeaks fails to deliver October surprise

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I think much of Assange, but didn't they say Wednesday? As in, tomorrow Wednesday, and not yesterday (Monday)?

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves them right, fuckers....

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[squiggleslash]

Assange made it clear he'll carry on with the leaks over the next month, so I'm not sure it really means much he didn't today.

Whether any (a) will actually be of substance, and (b) will affect someone who, frankly, has had so many BS allegations made against her that if she was found with a dead hooker in her closet tomorrow we'd be wondering who planted it there, remains to be seen. Her opponents have apparently never read the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! They said Wednesday! And tomorrow they'll say Thursday! And then they'll say next week!

But I will keep believing them. They will release information someday, and then Hillary's campaign will fall like the house of cards it is! TRUMP 2016!

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Mashiki]

Seems like to me the media is pretty damned desperate. What's the date by the way? Oh November 4th you say? I guess WAPO is right. Oh October 4th....how silly of me.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Minupla]

"OK, I admit I rickrolled you this time, but click on my link NEXT time, because I'd never rickroll you again, honest!"

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[jandrese]

I thought he released that email where Hillary said roughly "Assange is a pain in the ass, What could we do to stop him? Maybe a drone LOL? Ok, how about some real ideas people!" And he's freaking out that drone comment and assuming that everybody else in the world will be shocked that anybody might even jokingly talk about hurting his precious body.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Maritz]

Did they ever release the Bank of America stuff? Pretty sure they said they were going to release that. Amounted to fuck all. Zero credibility. An organisation that purports to be what Wikileaks purports to be should not have psychopathic narcissists like Assange smearing their noxious 'personality' over everything.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary got to Assange - the check cleared, suddenly no leak.

Total corruption.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your wife fails to deliver a baby the second week of pregnancy that does not mean she was lying to you about the pregnancy.

A failure to deliver significant news within the month of October is not trolling when the date is only the 4th.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[MightyMartian]

Anyone in Wikileaks who actually wanted the organization to carry on its mission is long gone. Assange didn't want an organization, he wanted a cult, and he's got one.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Tablizer]

had so many BS allegations made against her that if she was found with a dead hooker in her closet tomorrow we'd be wondering who planted it there

There's no room in the closet; it's full of unauthorized servers.

Re: WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you downnnnn.

Got him again. Too easy.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Maritz]

It's too bad a legit version of Wikileaks hasn't showed up. An organisation like that run responsibly would be excellent for transparency, reform, etc. Another example of how we can't have nice things, I guess.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[lgw]

An organisation like that run responsibly would be excellent for transparency, reform, etc.

Ah, you mean: an organization that would only publish stuff harmful to the Right, and not even the slightest embarassment to the Left? That's already 95% of mainstream media, but what the heck - start one if you're passionate about it.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[parkinglot777]

Hillary got to Assange - the check cleared, suddenly no leak.

Total corruption.

Another conspiracy theory... Hope it is going to stick, huh?

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[MightyMartian]

They just keep making it up, over and over and over again. When you're a demented partisan, there's no claim so idiotic or outrageous that it isn't worth floating.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you mean: an organization that would only publish stuff harmful to the Right, and not even the slightest embarassment to the Left? That's already 95% of mainstream media, but what the heck - start one if you're passionate about it.

You triggered Poe's law so hard I have no idea what your point is.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[lgw]

My point is that recently the hive mind on Slashdot is attacking WikiLeaks instead of supporting it. What changed? Hillary was criticized, that's what changed. Can't have a source of news that's not carefully controlled, can we?

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[david_thornley]

What changed is that Assange did his best to make Wikileaks all about himself, at the expense of credible leaks. He's a fugitive from justice who tries to get noticed every so often.

Pity about that, an organization devoted to leaking things wouldn't be a bad thing to have.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

if his body was that precious, he might wash it now and then.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. Assange has turned the organization into his personal podium, and much more dire, into his own tool of revenge. There was a time when it truly had few if any biases, but now that Assange wants to eke out his vengeance on enemies real and imagined, it's simply become a tool of one political faction in the US, or possibly even a tool of Russia, if some conspiracy theories are to be believed. But whatever Wikileaks could be, Assange's actions and his general persona have discredited it. The organization would be well placed to dump him, but the organization is now little more than Assange and his supplicants, most of the people who believed in its original cause are long gone.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Maritz]

Ah, you mean: an organization that would only publish stuff harmful to the Right, and not even the slightest embarassment to the Left?

Um no, not what I mean. I think you're saying more about yourself than about me, tbh.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[strikethree]

Did they ever release the Bank of America stuff?

Release stuff that upsets the American government?

Check.

Release stuff that upsets a bank?

WTF?

The claim that he was going to release documents concerning a huge scandal at BofA and then having nothing makes me realize WikiLeaks is just a sideshow. I no longer care about what they promise to deliver. They suck. Julian Assange sucks

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Rakarra]

Hillary got to Assange - the check cleared, suddenly no leak.

Total corruption.

Another conspiracy theory... Hope it is going to stick, huh?

It happened before -- Assange started forgetting his promises of Russian leaks around when Putin started to praise him about his defiance. Funny how that works.

Re:WikiLeaks is pretty good at trolling.

[Rakarra]

My point is that recently the hive mind on Slashdot is attacking WikiLeaks instead of supporting it. What changed?

They stopped curating and redacting information, that's about when they lost me.

The Internet

[cloud.pt]

So I shouldn't hang around the web, because I might stumble across a site with malware in some ad, flash code or whatever. I shouldn't connect my "things" to the web because they might become part of a botnet, quite easily apparently.

Can we get some sense in here and agree that Assange is in his right to tell you to disregard obvious attempts to discredit wikileaks before an important leak??

Re:The Internet

[CaptainLard]

Can we get some sense in here and agree that Assange is in his right to tell you to disregard obvious attempts to discredit wikileaks before an important leak??

You mean the leak of when the leak will be leaked?

In other news can we get some sense in here and agree that "look at all our stuff right now that we know contains a lot of malware cause eventually we'll let you know where the bad files are and, oh btw [conspiracy theory]" is a pretty bullshit response? How bout "the raw stuff is dangerous but we've verified all the stuff on XYZ part of our site has been cleared of malware"

Re:The Internet

[Kierthos]

But if he's got an important leak, why didn't he make it? Instead, they were hawking books. He's turning into an infomercial.

Don't get me wrong, I think if he's got an important leak to make that would affect the election, I think we should know about it. The problem is, Trump is hiding a bunch of shit as well, and that information could affect the election, and Assange is basically giving him a free pass. (For the record, I consider both major party candidates to be terrible. But Trump is getting away with all kinds of things that would sink any other candidate because the media is in love with ratings.)

And hell, I honestly consider Trump to be the more dangerous candidate when it comes to a free and open press. Hell, he's said he wants to make it easier to sue publications if they publish something he doesn't like.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

He does a fine job of discrediting WikiLeaks without any help at all. Remember when it was a place to actually post meaningful leaked documents and not a way for a blatant attention whore to get his rocks off?

Re:The Internet

[Opportunist]

Could we let him leak before we decide about its quality? Personally, I'm waiting. Not holding my breath, but if he delivers, let's judge it. If he doesn't, well, meh.

Re:The Internet

[Mashiki]

And hell, I honestly consider Trump to be the more dangerous candidate when it comes to a free and open press. Hell, he's said he wants to make it easier to sue publications if they publish something he doesn't like.

You mean easier to sue publications that publish things that are a lie. Like the a-typical clickbait, full of lies type of garbage that most of the media is publishing these days? Or the "we're gonna scour social media, ruin someones life, and when they get bullied/lose their job/commit suicide over it" that the media is running wild with these days. Oh I can see how people would be upset over that, especially people who work for companies like Gawker, Buzzfeed, or Huffington Post.

Re:The Internet

[Opportunist]

Most likely he just doesn't have any stuff on Trump. What should he do, step in front of cameras and declare boldly that he doesn't have jack shit about Trump?

Assange is a sales man. He knows how to sell what he has. But even he knows he can't sell what he doesn't.

Re:The Internet

[meta-monkey]

You should read more about Assange. That's always been his MO. You just didn't mind when he leaking information about the US military but now that he's crapping on the Democratic party he's a bad bad man.

Re:The Internet

[Kierthos]

Trump's already threatened legal action against the New York Times for releasing a couple pages of his tax returns from years ago. He'd likely lose that lawsuit, mind you, even if it actually comes to that, but Trump is opposed to anything that shows him in a light other than the one he projects.

Re:The Internet

[Kierthos]

Well, it's not like Assange is the one "hacking all the internets" himself. I'd find it highly unlikely that some information on Trump hasn't been sent to Wikileaks, but I suppose it's possible. However, given Trump's reticence to release his tax records (even after promising to do so), it would seem like the kind of thing that someone would try and dig up to send to Wikileaks.

Re:The Internet

[danbert8]

Stuff on Trump doesn't need to be sent to Wikileaks. Any news outlet at all will publish anything they receive about Trump. Except for Fox News, which no one will believe, no media will actually release any dirt on any Democratic candidate or organization.

Re:The Internet

[CaptainLard]

We sure could "let him leak" as you put it, but if he says "ZOMG BIG NEWS TUESDAY" where the big news turns out to be "big news coming soon for real this time but for now buy my book!" we justifiably get to place him in the probably full of shit category. In the meantime we get to debate the merits of hype men in the internet age.

Re:The Internet

[Opportunist]

So? I have long ago ceased to care for such announcements and just wait for the actual news to hit the floor.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're one of those guys who still thinks Sweden is just a puppet for the US trying to extradite him aren't you?"

"Still"? What evidence has come to light that would undermine that hypothesis? Assange obviously believes it and the Ecuadoran government accepted this explanation before he was granted asylum.

The Swedish authorities want him for questioning, yet they refuse to fly to London to interview him and refuse to do it via a videoconference. Why? It's not like this is against Swedish law or has never been done before. No, the Swedish government is demanding that he appear in Sweden. At which point the U.S. government will have him extradited and arrested for "espionage", "aiding terrorists" and whatever other bullshit charges that they can throw at him. Given the fact that U.S. government has deprived accused terrorists of due process by indefinite detention without criminal charge and even assassination, Assange has a valid argument that he would not receive fair treatment in U.S. custody.

Re:The Internet

[Mashiki]

Trump's already threatened legal action against the New York Times for releasing a couple pages of his tax returns from years ago. He'd likely lose that lawsuit, mind you, even if it actually comes to that, but Trump is opposed to anything that shows him in a light other than the one he projects.

No reason why he shouldn't either. Keep in mind that his tax returns aren't public record anymore then yours are or mine are.

Re:The Internet

[MightyMartian]

Let's imagine for a moment that Sweden concedes to Assange's offer, and at the end of it, they are dissatisfied with responses. What exactly would happen? Unless Ecuador agrees to allow him to be taken from the Embassy, all that's happened is Assange has once again jerked their chains.

And let's be even clearer. Even if Sweden abandons prosecution, Assange still violated British law, so the only two possible ends to this whole process at this point is his removal in handcuffs or in a coffin.

Re:The Internet

[Captain Splendid]

Except for Fox News, which no one will believe, no media will actually release any dirt on any Democratic candidate or organization.

Provably false if you've read a newspaper in the last 25 years.

Re:The Internet

[phantomfive]

For the record, I consider both major party candidates to be terrible. But Trump is getting away with all kinds of things that would sink any other candidate

Both candidates do. That's why they are still in the race. A crucial skill in a world where negative ads are so common.

Re:The Internet

[CaptainLard]

Yet here we both are, 4 replies deep in the span of an hour. I'm at work, whats your excuse?

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for Fox News, which no one will believe, no media will actually release any dirt on any Democratic candidate or organization.

Provably false if you've read a newspaper in the last 25 years.

Newspaper!? They are all part of the Lame Stream Media!

Re:The Internet

[Kierthos]

The thing is, assuming that the New York Times didn't steal the material in question, there's very little they could be sued for successfully. (If Trump just wants to launch nonsensical suits against them, that's different.) It can clearly be argued that the information in question serves the public interest. And if the information wasn't altered, then it's the truth, and generally speaking, the truth is a defense against libel.

Now, Trump is still free to sue them, but it should be a difficult case to win. And nothing is stopping Trump from rambling on at three in the morning about how awful/sad/whatever the Times is.

But that's about all he can do.

Re:The Internet

[Kierthos]

I feel I didn't make myself clear.

You have the Republican candidate attacking veterans for being captured, attacking the families of fallen veterans, and attacking veterans who suffer from PTSD, just to name a few things Trump has done.

If this were any other candidate who ran for the nomination this year, not only would they never have said these attacks, they would have torpedoed their candidacy by doing so.

He's single-handedly destroying any attempt at outreach to the Latino communities that the Republican party acknowledged that they needed to make after 2012, he's talked about ignoring treaty obligations like it's a business deal you can walk away from, AND he's got nothing but praise for Putin. For any Republican post-Reagan, that last one especially should tank his campaign completely. And yet it hasn't. (Okay, it is having an effect... projects.fivethirtyeight.com has his chances of winning the Presidency at just above 27%, and it's been falling for a couple days now. But with the campaign he's been running, it should be a lot lower.)

Now, it could be argued that a lot of his supporters are just along for the ride, because hey, at least it's an entertaining ride, right? And the press (both print and television) has effectively given him a ton of free advertising, because they're addicted to ratings. They can't wait to show us the next clusterfuck that Trump propels himself into.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

There are companies designed to "manipulate" public opinion. We know Hillery uses them. We know they are on slashdot. Whenever I see a personal attack against Assange or some fake named idiot that doesn't like/trust/etc him I just write it off as garbage.

The fact that this whole malware "thing" is even a issue is a joke. On slashdot even!

I'm not American, I don't live in America, but even I can see what a career criminal she is. Oh, that makes me a Trump supporter now does it? Fuck you too. Two party system joke of an election.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary has illegally sold arms to militants and dictatorships. This is a fact. Trump is, well, trump. But looking at track records to say he is more dangerous is just intellectual dishonesty at least and flat out idioticy at most.

Re:The Internet

[moeinvt]

Of course the Swedish authorities could still claim that he needed to appear in Sweden to face charges, but there's no reason he couldn't have been questioned in Britain anytime in the last 4 years.

As of now, Assange is subject to arrest in Britain or any European country, but only because of treaty obligations related to the extradition request from Sweden. If that goes away, so does the EU-wide arrest warrant. What crime did he commit in Britain? Something like "resisting arrest" because he ducked British authorities and fled into the embassy?

Re:The Internet

[phantomfive]

You have the Republican candidate attacking veterans for being captured, attacking the families of fallen veterans, and attacking veterans who suffer from PTSD, just to name a few things Trump has done. If this were any other candidate who ran for the nomination this year, not only would they never have said these attacks, they would have torpedoed their candidacy by doing so.

My point was, that knowing how to handle these sorts of problems without it torpedoing your campaign is a crucial skill for modern presidential candidates. The Clintons maybe mastered it first (and watching them is like watching a great artist at work), but Trump is good at it, too.

Re:The Internet

[MightyMartian]

He was due to surrender to British authorities to be extradited to Sweden, so he almost certainly would still face charges in the UK. Now if the Swedish charges still stand, I'm certain British authorities would stay their own proceedings, but if Sweden drops their charges, I think the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard both would like to send a rather strong message to anyone else thinking of using an asylum scheme to evade arrest and/or extradition.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary has illegally sold arms to militants and dictatorships. This is pulled out of my Breitbart-believing rear end, with no evidence except for my wishful thinking.

FTFY.

Re:The Internet

[danbert8]

Newspaper? You mean the window cleaning paper that gets left at my door at hotels?

Re:The Internet

[Opportunist]

Work back when I made the last comment, now insomnia.

Re:The Internet

[david_thornley]

Back when he published the Manning leaks, I didn't know much about Assange and what he was doing, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Since then, he's been systematically removing the doubt.

Since then, he's been a fugitive from justice, and blamed the big bad US for his own misconduct. He's pulled personal publicity stunts in an effort to stay relevant. The fact that he's trying to leak biased information to influence a US election for personal reasons is absolutely no surprise.

Re:The Internet

[meta-monkey]

In what way is the information "biased?" Was the information he released biased before, or is it only biased now?

Re:The Internet

[Mashiki]

Now, Trump is still free to sue them, but it should be a difficult case to win. And nothing is stopping Trump from rambling on at three in the morning about how awful/sad/whatever the Times is.

But that's about all he can do.

Well he's right about the Times being awful/sad/whatever. Since they were right up there lauding him with huge heaping's of praise for doing exactly what he did in 1995/1996. Which should tell you just how far invested they are in Clinton.

Re:The Internet

[david_thornley]

When he was getting what he could from Manning, he wasn't showing bias. By publishing private emails from one specific private organizations, he's showing bias.

Re:The Internet

[meta-monkey]

But that's the organization he has the emails from. Should he not release DNC emails unless he also has RNC emails to leak?

Re:The Internet

[david_thornley]

Why does he have DNC and not RNC emails? Why is he releasing them now, in an apparent attempt to influence the election? The release of DNC email and not RNC does not contribute to people's understanding of the situation, and functions as an act of deception.

Re:The Internet

[meta-monkey]

Why does he have DNC and not RNC emails?

Do you think Assange has all emails for all organizations or something? He has what people give him. He doesn't have RNC emails because no one gave him RNC emails.

Why is he releasing them now, in an apparent attempt to influence the election?

Because they're relevant now.

The release of DNC email and not RNC does not contribute to people's understanding of the situation, and functions as an act of deception.

Wait, so revealing the DNC's corruption is an act of deception? That is a truly twisted worldview.

You liked Assange when he was leaking US military documents (was that an "act of deception" since he didn't release non-US military or Al Qaeda documents at the same time?) because you don't like the US military. Now that he's leaking documents from somebody you do like, you think Assange is a bad man. It doesn't sound like Assange is the one who's biased here. Pretty sure that's you.

Would you feel the same way if he were leaking only RNC documents and not DNC documents?

Re:The Internet

[cloud.pt]

You went a bit out of topic but I totally agree with you. Maybe I made it sound that I supported the bashing of Hillary, which I don't. I would also rather prefer she'd won.

Thing is, I actually think such a leak about Hillary could be beneficial to her. Just look at her email server fiasco: she handled it with poise, and Trump kept making an a** of himself when using it to attack her, while she fended him off, in my opinion, in a stoic way but simultaneously showing off her technical and policy strong background, even though she did so in admitting there are limits to what one can control in those departments...

If this new leak is something like her getting some more money than she should from sponsoring events, or her making a tough decision during wartime, I think it will add to her character if Trump decides to use that: she already has her taxes made public and it would only make her look "smart" if she did manage to hide it - something Trump followers praise; similar results if something like having to issue a drone kill order arose, which would be a display of something most voters can't grasp being done by a woman like Hillary - her main weakness actually is appearing weaker than Trump.

In sum, like for Trump, there isn't such a thing as bad press for Hillary - the logic-unbounded voter who already decided for Trump isn't gonna change his mind anyway, but a logic-sensible voter on that side of the fence might have a compelling reason to jump if he sees a stronger, street-smarter in Hillary's skill-set. I would say Hillary might even be in harsh need to get some more dirt in her character in order to win.

Re:The Internet

[david_thornley]

I'd feel much the same way if he was leaking only RNC documents, except I wouldn't find it quite as annoying. He's a foreigner who is trying to influence a US election by underhanded means. That is bad. (BTW, I like the US military in general.)

I've been something of a compulsive truth-teller, so I have learned how to lie with the facts. In fact, no organization looks good according to their internal emails, so displaying the dirty underwear of one side and not hinting at the other's dirty laundry is deceitful. I see no reason why I shouldn't wonder whether Assange is just publishing what he gets or if he exerts some influence over what he gets or editorial control over what he releases. He's clearly either a liar or mentally disturbed (which I didn't know when he released the Manning leaks).

Re:The Internet

[Rakarra]

The Swedish authorities want him for questioning, yet they refuse to fly to London to interview him and refuse to do it via a videoconference. Why? It's not like this is against Swedish law or has never been done before. No, the Swedish government is demanding that he appear in Sweden. At which point the U.S. government will have him extradited and arrested for "espionage"

This doesn't make any sense -- are you implying that Sweden is more likely to extradite Assange than the US BFF, Great Britain is? That he would be in total danger of this in Sweden, but somehow he'd be totally safe in London? No, he's worry that he'd be tried for a Swedish crime under Swedish law.

Blame Obama

[AndyKron]

I blame Obama for everything good, or bad.

Re:Blame Obama

[Maritz]

"blame" is a weird word for good stuff bud.

This is smearing

[Dagmar d'Surreal]

We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors. It should come as a surprise to no one that the mail spools of gov't officials would contain malware, because they're just bound to be targets for spearphishers. To people who can manage to examine files without uncontrollably clicking on them until they execute, this malware poses *zero* threat. ...and yet here this headline and article is, trying to make it sound like WikiLeaks has been in some way *infected* with malware that is a danger to visitors of the site, and that Assange is improperly and unprofessionally downplaying that threat. Whatever Clinton is paying you, it's not worth it. Your integrity is worth more than money.

Re:This is smearing

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the mail spools of gov't officials would contain malware, because they're just bound to be targets for spearphishers. To people who can manage to examine files without uncontrollably clicking on them until they execute, this malware poses *zero* threat. ...and yet here this headline and article is, trying to make it sound like WikiLeaks has been in some way *infected* with malware that is a danger to visitors of the site, and that Assange is improperly and unprofessionally downplaying that threat.

Whatever Clinton is paying you, it's not worth it. Your integrity is worth more than money.

Slashdot and SourceForge Sold, Now Under New Management.

Re:This is smearing

[110010001000]

Uh, what is misrepresentative here? The website hosts files that contain malware. Just because you expected it did, doesn't make it not a threat. Do you think journalists who are downloading the files are viewing them in a VM sandbox? Most likely they are now infected with malware. If you visit Wikileaks then you are likely going there to get these files. Most people who read those files are going to get infected because most people aren't going to take precautions.

Re:This is smearing

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think journalists who are downloading the files are viewing them in a VM sandbox? Most likely they are now infected with malware.

Holy shit. If true, then we need to encourage a society where taking precautions is the norm, and people who refuse to take precautions are considered to be negligent. Shame on any so-called "journalist" who just blindly executes whatever you find. That's no different than a "journalist" who blindly believes everything they hear.

This is fucking infuriating, that in such a scenario, the person making the mystifying decision "hey, I think I'll execute these programs!" is somehow considered a victim. I would lump them into the same group of people who decide to jump off bridges and skyscrapers.

You could get away with such a ridiculous attitude in 1994, maybe. But how can you defend it now?

MALWARE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. YOUR BAFFLING DECISION TO RUN IT IS THE PROBLEM.

Re:This is smearing

[Anonymous Coward]

you absolute fucking retard

"snuck one past the editors"

THE EDITORS ALLOW THIS KIND OF SHIT ALL THE TIME
because they are the fucking ones who write it

you naive little lamb of an overgrown middleschooler

Re:This is smearing

[lgw]

We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors

Have you been in a coma since 1998? Click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines are almost all Slashdot does these days. At least the new management has damped down the sexism/racism-related clickbait articles - I'll give him that much - but it's still mostly clickbait.

Re:This is smearing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary haters and Wikileaks defenders are on Full Defense here

Rapist

[110010001000]

Assange fits the profile of a serial rapist. Self-centered and egotistical and completely psychotic and sociopathic. If you have some "leak", just come out with it. You don't need to "wait until Wednesday". And if the leak is that Hillary is gay, who the fuck cares? Grow up you little psychopaths. Who you are fucking doesn't matter, unless you are in a relationship with the people who are actually fucking.

Curious

[argStyopa]

Considering the HRC campaign seems to not only have the FBI, NYT, and the NY state atty general in their pocket, I'm utterly unsurprised that anyone criticizing her might be the subject of aggressive malware attacks.

Re:Curious

[cdrudge]

So Wikilinks is under a malware attack when they release files and documents that were already infected? That's like saying you got beat up by your own fist punching yourself.

Re:Curious

[hey!]

Yes, it is a vast conspiracy. The New York Ties in particularly loves Hillary. The thousands of federal agents who pored over Clintons emails were each one pinkie-sworn to secrecy too.

Most Important Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he gay?

Re:Most Important Question

[Opportunist]

No. For an obvious reason. If he could somehow even remotely prove he is, the whole charade about him hiding in that embassy would be over and he could travel about and be the flamboyant self-promoting narcissist that he is.

Whose side is he on?

[Daetrin]

He's definitely biased, but i'm not quite sure yet if he's anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, or just pro-watching-the-world-burn.

Unless they just came into the info in the last couple months they should have released any damning revelations they had about Clinton during the primaries when it might have helped Sanders win.

At this point however the only realistic options are Trump and Clinton. And honestly even if wikileaks did have proof that the Clintons make a habit of murdering their political opponents (citation needed oh so very much) i'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump doesn't know what an act of war is, he doesn't know how treaties and alliances work, he thinks nuclear weapons were made to be used, and he has a propensity for letting his temper get the better of him at 3am and lashing out. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.

From a pure game theory standpoint in this situation i'd far rather hold my nose and vote for a known murderer who also happened to be skilled at international politics.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[MightyMartian]

It's not about who cares about you or not. Trump has made it pretty clear for most of his adult life that he doesn't care about anyone beyond perhaps his immediate family (wives excluded). It's about who actually seems to have a fucking clue. The man cannot even make it through a 90 minute debate without being baited into saying idiotic and offensive things.

In some ways, he reminds me of Napoleon III, another populist (though one of more demonstrable ability) from the not-so-distant past whose ego allowed him to be manipulated by a much cannier or more cynical operator in the form of Otto von Bismarck.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Daetrin]

Where did i say i have any belief she cares about me?

Everything i've read about both the email servers and Benghazi so far make them sound like pretty mundane fuck-ups, the kind that pretty much all politicians make from time to time (and Bush in particular did much worse.)

But let's assume that Assange is about to leak documents proving that _everything_ the Hillary haters say about her is true. In that case then as long as i don't become a vocal political opponent of hers i can expect that she won't actively attempt to murder me. On the other those same documents would also prove that she's a savvy politician who knows how to deal with other politicians. (She can't be trading political favors for Foundation money if she doesn't know how to wheel and deal after all.)

However based only on the things that _he himself has said_, i don't trust Trump not to blunder into a nuclear war and end civilization as we know it.

Again, game theory. In the _worst_ case scenario, i'd prefer a competent but corrupt politician who isn't actively trying to murder me (even if she is trying to murder a small subset of other people) to someone who puts the entire world (including me!) at a non-trivial risk of total annihilation.

I think one could make an entirely fair argument that Clinton is far better than that worst case scenario, but given the existence of Trump that argument isn't really even necessary at the moment.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

I'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump [.. is basically Hitler]. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.

Which is exactly what the Left said about Reagan, Bush, and Bush (and probably more before I was born). Very tired old propaganda. I'm sure he's also racist, sexist, transphobic, Isamaphobic, and all the new bad things that, well, are also too played out for anyone serious to care about.

Trump has been a moderate Democrat most of his life, and most of his positions are still the same. His only real talking point is immigration, and he doesn't seem too firm on that. In short, nothing worth worrying about.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

(and Bush in particular did much worse.)

Bush lied under oath to Congress? Clinton did.
Oh wait, there was Scooter Libby that "lied" in that he misstated something during an investigation into something that wasn't deemed a crime. He was sentenced to a year of jail for that, and no crime had been committed for that investigation.

Yea, Bush did worse in that he didn't.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What convinced you she is good at international politics?

Do you even read the news? Ever?

She fucked up the entire Middle East, the so called reboot with Putin, and China is now on the verge of becoming an active military enemy - something we haven't had to worry about since Nixon(R)m went to China.

You're either very very very naive and ignorant or a paid Hilary shill. I'm not sure which is worse, but she definitely has a war monger track record and a 100% failure rate at international affairs.

Think long and hard before you vote for someone as stupid, incompetent, racist, mean spirited, unethical, and anti-American as Hilary Clinton.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Daetrin]

I was in my teens for Reagan and the start of the first Bush administration, so my memory of what was said about them is pretty fuzzy. But i don't recall a big deal being made about nuclear war being made, and that certainly wasn't my biggest concern during either the election for Bush 1's 2nd term or either of Bush 2's terms.

But Trump has said that he's okay with using nuclear weapons offensively:
https://thinkprogress.org/9-te...

Trump has also said that he won't guarantee defending our allies, which is potentially a very destabilizing action:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

He said during the first debate that attacking an Iranian ship would not start a war. (To be fair, doing so wouldn't _definitely_ start a war, but almost identical actions have been considered acts of war in the past and could easily be considered so again, so saying that it definitely wouldn't is 100% wrong.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And i can find any number of references for the off the wall stuff Trump has posted on twitter at 3am, in fact there has been analysis presented here on slashdot about the emotional tones of his tweets then vs when his staff is in charge:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Now normally i wouldn't say "this person acts unhinged on twitter, therefore they'll end civilization." However he has stated himself that he's willing to cause turmoil among our allies, which will lead to politically unstable situations, he's said himself that he's willing to preemptively use nuclear weapons, and he's said things that seem to indicate he doesn't know what is and is not an act of war.

If you combine that with the kind of temper and tendency to get unhinged when he feels he's been attacked or insulted that he's demonstrated both in real life and in his late night twitter sessions, i feel that it's reasonable to be very concerned.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[MightyMartian]

Apart from his positions, which seem to shift depending on the audience, the time of day, his blood sugar levels, position of Uranus as compared to Mercury, or whatever it is that shifts Trump's views, the chief issue as I see it is his temperament. The first debate showed that so very well, that he really cannot hold it together for more than a few minutes, and responds to be baiting in a sadly predictable fashion by lashing out, saying absurd things, being offensive, and in general behaving like a demented ass.

The person who commands the most powerful military the world has ever known shouldn't be someone who is so easily bruised, who so frequently lashes out, and in general simply doesn't seem to have the personal confidence to shut the fuck up and let his opponents bugger themselves over. Whatever you think of Clinton, she demonstrated one important aspect of good strategy, and that is to never interfere when your opponent is making a mistake. She's far from perfect, but she does in general seem capable of self control, and of some degree of self understanding.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

So, what you're telling me here, is that Trump is the one politician who's campaign statements you actually believe?

Trump could do wonders for the Congress and the courts remembering that they're supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government, instead of just rolling over for the president on almost everything, letting executive orders go unchallenged, and so on.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's this sort of ass-clenching dramatic reporting that turns news into opinions.

- If the Red Army had penetrated the lines in Germany, we would have nuked them. Germany is in Europe. That was on the table for 50 years.

- This isn't about defending allies. He believes NATO is not a bad deal for America. If Europe wants a shared defense, he is all for it--but they need to start doing more or start demanding less. We can't be the world's military piggy bank forever.

- Until a couple decades ago, if an Iranian ship approached our ships like they are doing now, they would have been sunk. And they knew it.

- Finally, the tweets. Ok, write a paper and get it reviewed. Then we will call it science.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Daetrin]

She fucked up the Middle East? You mean there was some point prior to Hillary coming along where the Middle East was unfucked up? When was that exactly?

I don't know about you but i've been worried about war with China since the 90s, and it was only that late because that's when i first learned the history of the region. Taiwan has been a ticking political time bomb since the 50s, and there was a big uptick in the potential for conflict when the Taiwan Relation Act was passed in 1979, after Nixon and well before Hillary came around.

The First and Second Taiwan Strait Crisises happened in the 50s. The Third happened in 95 and 96. In addition to that in 1951 China "peacefully liberated" Tibet, they've been trying to claim part of India, and there's some Japanese territory they want too. And of course they've never really stopped propping up North Korea.

If you think China's belligerence is some new thing that Hillary is responsible for you're the one who hasn't been paying attention to history.

I certainly don't think Hillary has been perfect, (Benghazi was certainly a fuck-up, even if it wasn't a crime) but you seem to believe in some prior perfect state of international affairs that i don't seem to recall.

And finally, according to the Hillary haters she's been negotiating the trade of political favors for cash, she's been using leverage on the FBI and Congress to get away with treasonous activity, and she's been orchestrating unprovable political assassinations.

So is she a total incompetent incapable of getting anything done, or a master politician and backroom dealer who can literally get away with murder?

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's definitely biased, but i'm not quite sure yet if he's anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, or just pro-watching-the-world-burn.

Pro tip: he's not a US citizen. He may just not give a fuck.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[david_thornley]

The Bushes weren't going to start a nuclear war.

Reagan, on the other hand, deliberately pushed the Soviet Union into a position where they could attack or collapse, their choice. The Soviets chose to collapse, but that's not the automatic choice, and lots of regimes under great pressure have gone to war to try to fix things on the home front (and that does include Russia not too long before the Bolshevik takeover). I think we were in greater danger than we'd been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your defense of Trump's insane statements is, "Hey, he was probably just lying." Seriously? Do you actually listen to yourself or do you find you drift in and out?

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Skeptic sense tingling. I checked your first assertion.

On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough claimed Donald Trump asked a “foreign policy expert” who was advising him numerous times about “why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”

Emphasis mine. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the rest of your links are either not direct quotes or severely misrepresenting his positions like just about any outrageous claim about Trump.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

I assume all politicians are lying at all times. Doesn't any reasonable person? Past actions are useful to examine however.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

Reagan understood the USSR better than you do. Weakness invites attack; strength doesn't. That's just how bullies think. Why is it people think an enemy is just someone we haven't hugged enough? I blame lack of studying history.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[david_thornley]

Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can. It's possible to do some primitive mathematical modeling of trade relations and military rivalry between countries, and predict whether an arms race is stable or not. As long as it's stable, it's just expensive but not otherwise dangerous. When it gets unstable, one side is likely to think that war is it's last chance to rectify the balance. It's happened before. One reason for the German role in starting WWI was that Germany was losing its perceived military superiority. I can make a case that Hitler's attack on Poland was similar, but it's not as strong.

You can understand relations of great powers to minor powers in party as bullying. It doesn't work for relations between great powers.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can.

Yes, Exactly. That was the strategy. Cause the collapse of the USSR, while maintaining the show of strength to prevent them from attacking us. It worked, and ended the cold war and threat of global nuclear war (at least for a couple generations).

It seemed more scary at the time than it was, because we could only assume the USSR was as strong as it looked, but it turned out they were only putting on a show. Most of they're nuclear silos were empty (built just to show up on our intel photos), and most of the actual missiles hadn't been maintained and couldn't launch. Most of the military equipment stored for use when needed had been sold on the black market. They had very minimal modern armor, and were moving their modern tank brigades around quickly on trains, letting them get photographed at on place and then another, to create the illusion of strength. How much of that did Reagan know? More than we did, for sure.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Exactly. That was the strategy. Cause the collapse of the USSR, while maintaining the show of strength to prevent them from attacking us. It worked, and ended the cold war and threat of global nuclear war (at least for a couple generations).

Nope, wasn't a strategy at all, that was the outcome, but only after the fact did they claim that was what they wanted to happen. Which they pretend they were doing in secret, but if you buy that, I'll sell you a bridge in Arizona. It's a good bridge. Totally.

But no, I'd argue it put us through a couple of decades of the threat of global nuclear war, and escalated tensions across the world, leaving us with much of the mess of today.

It seemed more scary at the time than it was, because we could only assume the USSR was as strong as it looked, but it turned out they were only putting on a show. Most of they're nuclear silos were empty (built just to show up on our intel photos), and most of the actual missiles hadn't been maintained and couldn't launch. Most of the military equipment stored for use when needed had been sold on the black market. They had very minimal modern armor, and were moving their modern tank brigades around quickly on trains, letting them get photographed at on place and then another, to create the illusion of strength.

And thus their show did nothing but help harm their own economy, they'd have been better off with another plan. Meanwhile we had escalating debt and our own misuse of resources.

So far, you're making a very convincing argument that the USSR's strength to match strength was an ineffectual solution. Not to mention their aggressiveness. It didn't work. They chose poorly.

Of course, the US could have pursued a different policy, and possibly ended it all sooner, with less bother for everybody. I suppose we can be thankful that Chernobyl happened, and that pushed them right over the edge. But only 3 years before that, they were worried about Able Archer, so maybe we should be especially thankful.

Or worse yet, we could have ended up like Eminiar and Vendikar, stuck in a war nobody wanted, but that they felt obligated to continue. Gorbachev was fortunately a smarter man than Reagan, and not attached to the concept of an inimical war, nor even his own pride, and even then, if not for Yeltsin, it might have backfired.

How much of that did Reagan know? More than we did, for sure.

I wouldn't count on it, he was rather senile, and they kept him out of the loop. He didn't even know we were selling arms for the CIA to fund itself and pay off the Iranians to get the hostages back.

Of course, the real solution, if it was known, would have been to crow about it, and make it the story, not rely on a policy of fear and terror to keep the masses in line as you siphoned off their productivity for your own enrichment.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[lgw]

Of course, the US could have pursued a different policy, and possibly ended it all sooner, with less bother for everybody.

Or, you know, killed us all in a nuclear holocaust. But in the real world, the plan actually did work, the USSR crumbled, the cold war was over, no nuclear war. Happy ending.

But some people will criticize anything, it seems.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the US could have pursued a different policy, and possibly ended it all sooner, with less bother for everybody.

Or, you know, killed us all in a nuclear holocaust.

Yes, we are fortunate that didn't happen, but wouldn't you have preferred not having any nuclear scares? Or any pointless brush-fire wars that accomplished nothing but left many to suffer?

But in the real world, the plan actually did work, the USSR crumbled, the cold war was over, no nuclear war.

You mean a lucky combination of events, not an actual plan. Like I said, they want to say "Just as planned" but if you're going to buy that, I'll still sell you that Bridge.

Happy ending.

But some people will criticize anything, it seems.

Nothing wrong with recognizing that things could have gone better. You can learn even when you are the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

And let's face it, the Cold War was not that pretty. Not a perfect season by any means. Not that we could change it (unless you believe that show Timeless, or the older Quantum Leap, is a legitimate principle), but there's always a tomorrow, where we could learn better, and know what to do different.

I'd feel the same about any number of events. Why are you so intent on avoiding it? Do you really feel some moral obligation to defend what happened to the point of indignation and resentment of a desire for some improvement?

Even crowing about the USSR being a paper bear would have done some good, but instead we get Red Storm Rising...

Re:Whose side is he on?

[david_thornley]

I don't really care whether it was an intentional strategy or just Reagan doing stuff day-to-day. It was risky.

You're telling me that we now know that the Soviets didn't have the strength to do anything (although I'd like to get cites on that, as the sources I've seen say that the conventional forces were indeed there). That doesn't change how risky the strategy was when it was evaluated and put into practice.

The really dangerous part of an arms race is when one side has some sort of superiority and is going to lose that soon. Deliberately provoking that moment is risky, despite what the outcome is.

Re:Whose side is he on?

[Daetrin]

"Emphasis mine. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the rest of your links are either not direct quotes or severely misrepresenting his positions like just about any outrageous claim about Trump."

You mean you checked the first sentence of the first article, and assumed that that first sentence represented the whole of the first article, and continued on to assume that it also represented the whole of all the other articles?

Because the second paragraph agrees with you, acknowledging: "Scarborough's claim was thinly sourced. He didn't reveal the identity of the expert advising Trump or even where he learned the information. Information attributed to anonymous sources is inherently suspect."

But then it _continues_ by saying: "But one need not rely on anonymous sources to glean Trump's views on nuclear weapons. He has broached the subject repeatedly on the campaign trail. Several of his public comments are similar to Scarborough's account while others are terrifying in their own way."

And then proceeds with the numerous direct, sourced quotes of the kind that you just assumed wouldn't be present.

It's mind boggling that you would make such a huge assumption when it can so easily be proven just be reading another couple sentences that you're in direct contradiction of reality.

And now, your daily dose of tinfoil hattery

[Iamthecheese]

Nice hit piece bro, but check this out. Internet outages across the US coincided with the time of the press release.

Re:And now, your daily dose of tinfoil hattery

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a direct link so the Libtards don't complain about all the alt-right conspiracy bullshit on that page.

http://imgur.com/a/XxdLI

Re:Kremlin shill

[Opportunist]

The idea that he doesn't care for either side and only cares about his own well being is impossible? Really?

Personally, that's what I'd assume first.

Re:Kremlin shill

[danbert8]

Indeed. It's a sad state of the world when Russia is the only country willing to shelter people who expose the lawlessness of the US government.

Re:Kremlin shill

[MightyMartian]

Russia isn't sheltering Snowden out of the goodness of their heart. It's a deliberate kick in the face.

Clinton psychological effect

[Okian Warrior]

This Twitter post gave me a chuckle

If you're mad about not getting an #OctoberSurprise from @wikileaks today, consider the psychological effect waiting has on Hillary.

Re:Clinton psychological effect

[Anonymous Coward]

the psychological effect waiting has on Hillary.

...No effect at all?

She, unlike the idiots that waited with their tongues hanging out and bits of drool dripping off, knew they didn't have anything to speak of.

Re:Clinton psychological effect

[MightyMartian]

And further she knows that even if something damaging were released, Trump would bury it in the next news cycle by saying something awful or moronic.

But at this point, is there anybody beyond Trump's most dedicated supporters that still thinks Assange has any information of any significance?

Soon

[ThatsNotPudding]

One of these days, Ecuador is going to have a press conference:

You know what? Yes, the US and UK are obviously Imperialist a-holes, even to the point of lying the world into a war that has massive consequences including so many people fleeing the West-caused destruction, that is threatening the future of the EU itself...

but Julian Assange is just as big an a-hole; you can find him rolled up in a carpet in our alley.

Accused rapist? Nice smear there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Accused rapist? Nice smear there.

Here in America we have a value: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Thanks for showing you don't share American values. I, and other real Americans can now ignore your irrelevant rant.

Re:Accused rapist? Nice smear there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in America we have a value: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Except with Hillary. She's guilty until PROVEN innocent, right? All the conspiracy theories and lies pumped out daily by Breitbart and Fox are true! Heck, even after they're PROVEN false they're still true!

credibility = zero

[Sebastopol]

Assange lost all credibility when he played his partisan hand this session. He is no longer democratizing information, he is selectively choosing information to further his "side" because he has a grudge. He blew it. Someone else needs to take the helm.

Re:credibility = zero

[S48D31F68E4S2]

Re:credibility = zero

And your credibility == zero.

He blew it? You'd rather go on having everyone believe that the DNC and the Clintons DIDN'T rip off the primary from Sanders? That HRC ISN'T a wanton criminal who, along with her aides and lawyers, criminally destroyed tens of thousands of emails (documents) and physically destroyed dozens of mobile devices AFTER congress requested them as part of their investigation? I mean, this stuff is straight out of a frickin' movie, it's stuff that she ACTUALLY DID, and YOU'RE STILL DEFENDING HER.

Now slither along to the next message board to have a go with your agitprop there, because your post here is a failure. And perhaps the DNC will spare you four bullets in the back if they really believe you're defending them like you mean it. They really like to be absolutely sure that you're on their side. Now, don't beat around the bush by trying to discredit a source like Assange - you need to clearly and affirmatively state your defense of HRC herself. Think of it as a little pro-tip from your shill colleagues. Anyway, I guess either way, they're going to get their message across. Nothing speaks more loudly and clearly to fellow DNC operatives than the cadaver of a DNC staffer suspected of less than enthusiastic support, found with four bullet holes in its back (perpetrated in broad daylight), has nothing stolen from it, and comes shortly after a disastrous info leak that exposes the DNC/HRC campaign

Re:credibility = zero

[Maltheus]

In other words, you support Hillary Clinton. You sound just like the Bush supporters when Assange revealed their secrets. I bet you didn't call him partisan back then.

Re:credibility = zero

[Anonymous Coward]

"DNC will spare you four bullets in the back"

Bahahahaha! Go back to your sissy hypno vids on 4chan.

Re:credibility = zero

[Citizen of Earth]

It's not Wikileaks' fault that Hillary is way more corrupt and way more incompetent with technology than Trump.

Re:credibility = zero

[Sebastopol]

I know, I heard all about how good Trump and his son Baron are at cyber. Very smart, his son. Very smart at cybers.

Re:credibility = zero

[Sebastopol]

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/1... ...AND BURN!

Lol. Sucka.