Slashdot Mirror


Assange Internet Link Cut By State Actor, Claims Wikileaks (rt.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report by RussianToday: WikiLeaks has activated "contingency plans" after its co-founder's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet. The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world. Facing extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, which he denies, the Australian computer programmer has been holed up in the embassy in West London since 2012. He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating WikiLeaks. The unverified claims of state sabotage come as WikiLeaks continues to release damaging documents, most recently thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta.

475 comments

  1. Does anybody ... by Martin+S. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Still believe his line of bullshit?

    1. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Explain. You think the e-mails he is disseminating have been falsified? If not, what is your point?

    2. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Still believe his line of bullshit?

      Don't believe in free speech? Or are there two rules - one for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and one for the rest of the world?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Clinton went out of her way to avoid denying they were real. That's like Sherlock Holmes "The Case of the Dog that Didn't Bark." If they weren't real, why didn't she say so, instead of saying "they might not even be legitimate"? After all, she sure as hell knows if they're legitimate - or is this another example of her brain shutting off for 3 months from that concussion so that (she claims) she can't remember any briefings about security procedures?

      She's no more credible than Trump - and in the process, she's managed to drag down Barack Obama. How can you have a secretary of state who admitted she went around in a brain fog for 3 months and NOT NOTICE???

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Does anybody ... by s.petry · · Score: 1, Troll

      Believe Assange? Are you asking if we believe the email dumps are real of if we like the guy personally? I don't know him personally but respect his rights to speech, just like I respect yours. Your question is invalid given the subject matter at hand.

      Do I believe the emails are real? Yes, I do. These dumps are as damaging to other high level politicians as they are Hillary. They demonstrate very clearly how far into the Banana Republic the USA has already gone.

      Do I believe the emails are damaging to those in the same Banana Republic? Yes, which is why they have thus far dominated media coverage to generate appeals to emotion against one opponent and ignored the emails and even the published policies by the candidate they wish to install.

      Do I think you get it, comprehend how far gone the USA really is, or care? Nah, not a chance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Does anybody ... by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Sure, I do. Could be Russia to force him to release the whole 'insurance' dump automatically, which surely contains lots of painful material for the Democrats. Could also be an extremely lame attempt at silencing him at least until the last presidential debate is over. Less likely though, because it would be so stupid. Or Hillary is so sure of her win or so angry that she already prepares for Assange's prosecution, which requires that he is forced to dump the 'insurance' info first, so can later be arrested for the completely unedited publication. Could also be a secret deal of the US government with Ecuador, while not being aware of the insurance files. After all, you never know how stupid government officials are until it's leaked by Wikileaks, right? It could also be Assange on an ego trip to raise press coverage for his next release.

      Or it could be incompetence of the ISP of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We'll probably find out soon...

    6. Re: Does anybody ... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      She probably doesn't have the time to go compare 30k emails (or whatever it was) leaked to the originals.

    7. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it could simply be a load of bullshit - how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection? Or did they have a new line put in and gave the billing contact as "Julian Assange"?

      Lets quote the article on something:

      He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating WikiLeaks.

      Oh look, lets see how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK, where he fled to to avoid any easy extradition to the US. Lets pick a random story from Slashdot, a few stories below this one on the front page right now - Accused British 'Flash Crash' Stock Trader To Be Extradited To The US.

      Assange is full of bullshit, and this is just another story designed to keep people talking about poor lil 'ol Assange, holed up in some shithole embassy in London - just like the last story was, when they cancelled his royal appearance due to "security concerns".

    8. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fair argument, but can I suggest that nobody has had a chance to fully explore the document dump yet? If my e-mails were made public, and I was asked to verify that they were authentic, I would be very cautious about stating they were mine, for fear that they might have been altered. I probably sent 1000+ e-mails this year, and it would be impossible for me to go through and make sure they were all intact.

    9. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There ought to be. Smart and sophisticated people like President Barack Hussein Obama and future President Hillary Clinton can not and should not be counted with the stupid, boorish, ignorant, gun-toting rednecks whose very existence should be a crime. Those who do not have the scope to accept this should be ignored, they do not have the right to hold an opinion. End of debate.

    10. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      The emails aren't her's, they're from and to a friend of her's, Podesta. She has absolutely no ability to tell how many, if any, of the emails are legitimate. So actually her comments are absolutely the right thing to say, and it would have shown poor judgement to say anything else.

      FWIW, once passed through the Russian media filter, at least one series of emails was attributed to her that had nothing to do with her, resulting in false allegations Clinton had used the N-word to describe her supporters. This smear was sufficiently believed by the anti-Clinton groups that I saw it posted over and over again in the comments sections of various news sites I read during that time. Again, this underscores how unwise it would have been to "confirm" jack shit.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Does anybody ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?

      I wonder if there's any way to use the internet without a physical connection? Dude, I bet if you invented such a mythical "wireless internet connection" you'd get hella rich.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Does anybody ... by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.

      If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't possibly "go through and make sure they were all intact" because "diff" and "select and compare" is broken on every computer you have ever tried? BS.

    14. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh look, lets see how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK

      Technically, he's not in the UK. He's in Ecuador.

      Embassy grounds are considered foreign territory.

    15. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or it could simply be a load of bullshit - how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection? Or did they have a new line put in and gave the billing contact as "Julian Assange"?"

      Um, you threaten Ecuador - unless they cut off his internet "something bad" happens to their country....

    16. Re:Does anybody ... by MrLint · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are presuming that he's using the connection of the main Ecuadoran embassy (for which it may have more than one). And, yes doing so would likely cause a diplomatic issue, However I'd like to propose a couple of things : * It does not say which state. If the connection is a separate one facilitated by the Embassy, it does not say that Ecuador did not cut it. * If could be a separate connection not used for official business by the Embassy, but for visitors etc. but on contract facilitated by the Embassy that was then cut by a request to the provider by the UK. There are a number of ways this could be setup, and still be consistent with the published statement. Perhaps notching back on the histrionics would provide, overall, a better perspective on whats actually in play here.

    17. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't possibly "go through and make sure they were all intact" because "diff" and "select and compare" is broken on every computer you have ever tried? BS.

      No, I couldn't do it because I don't know how to do that. Don't be an asshole.

    18. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Or it could be incompetence of the ISP of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We'll probably find out soon...

      Assange doesn't use the Ecuadorian embassy's network.

    19. Re:Does anybody ... by XXongo · · Score: 2

      Explain. You think the e-mails he is disseminating have been falsified? If not, what is your point?

      What he actually said is that we don't know if any of the e-mail in the links were altered.

      This would be the first thing I'd wonder about in a disinformation campaign.

    20. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      The cops can't enter the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest someone without creating an international incident, unless they've been invited into it for that express purpose. They can't even go in to put out a fire without permission.

      (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.[11] International rules designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents.[citation needed] The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but normally only in this broader sense.

      As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country.

      Do you remember the Americans hiding in the homes of 2 Canadian ambassadors in Iran?

      Same as diplomatic pouches aren't searched - they can't even be x-rayed by the TSA or anyone else.

      Inviolability of Diplomatic Pouches

      In accordance with Article 27.3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), properly designated diplomatic pouches “shall not be opened or detained.” Although inspection of a pouch by X-ray would not physically break the external seal of the shipment, such an action constitutes the modern-day electronic equivalent of “opening” a pouch. As a result, the United States does not search properly designated and handled diplomatic pouches, either physically or electronically (e.g., by X-ray) and considers it a serious breach of the clear obligations of the VCDR for another country to do so.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is most amusing to me is that, when Assange's target was the U.S. Military during the Manning document dissemination, he was the darling of The Left and villified by The Right. Now that the leaks speak Truth to a Power of The Left, The Right is crowing and The Left is trying to intimidate those who support him.

      The fact that he has so thoroughly infuriated knuckleheaded idealogues on both sides just validates what he has to say, IMHO.

    22. Re:Does anybody ... by XXongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be the Ecuadorians are getting annoyed with having to live with a random, annoying guy 24/7 and cut it themselves, hoping it might convince him to go somewhere else.

    23. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my e-mails were made public, and I was asked to verify that they were authentic, I would be very cautious about stating they were mine, for fear that they might have been altered.

      As would I. But I would also state in crystal clear terms "I don't fucking know, there's thirty thousand of them to sift through".

      But I will admit that I do not know how clear Hillary was, and how out-of-context that "they might not even be legitimate" quote is (assuming she even said it).

    24. Re:Does anybody ... by mrbester · · Score: 0

      Not a supporter, but he didn't "flee" to UK, he went here after having been told he could leave Sweden as there were no obligations for him to remain after the initial investigation into the rape (Sweden's legal interpretation of the term) allegations. Whilst in UK he was under effective house arrest. Then, a grand jury was convened in US, while the Swedish prosecutor decided (on her own and aided by false testimony) that more questions needed to be answered, but rather than travel to UK (as had been done for suspected murderers) issued a EAW instead. This then gave "legitimacy" to UK police to arrest him. He then sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has been for over four years. During that time, there have been repeated requests for the Swedish prosecutor to question him in the embassy as a guest of the Ecuadorians. She refused every single one and never gave a reason why, something that got her censured by her own people for basically fucking around over what, on the face of it, was a simple and straightforward case.

      If you had been accused of a crime, released without charge and assured that you were free to leave the country, and then a continent-wide warrant is issued with every possible legal avenue taken to question you again (plus an illegal one, a threat to storm an embassy. That last happened in UK to Iran's, where they had hostages) except the *easiest*, wouldn't you think there is possibly some hidden agenda?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    25. Re:Does anybody ... by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Heck, he may have just failed to pay his ISP for this month.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    26. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Histrionics?

      They are the ones claiming this is a "state action", and lets not forget that Assange and his group has form for outrageous claims - such as that when he was on bail in the UK, someone set up spy cameras outside the bail address, only for those cameras to be proven to predate Assange and also be nothing more than sensors for speed signs...

    27. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You couldn't possibly "go through and make sure they were all intact" because "diff" and "select and compare" is broken on every computer you have ever tried? BS.

      No, I couldn't do it because I don't know how to do that. Don't be an asshole.

      And she doesn't have the resources to hire someone who can do it for her? Or is the problem that, if she did that, the emails would be verified as real, and not give her even "implausible deniability" (and someone else who can then testify to the email contents under an immunity grant)?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re:Does anybody ... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?

      Go to the rack and unplug the ethernet cable whose other end is in Assange's room. Change the wifi password and only tell people the new one along with the instructions "don't share your password, especially with that Assange guy."

      The "state actor" was Ecuador, or else it didn't happen. That's the only government capable of doing it.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    29. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will violate international law when it suits them.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

    30. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And what does that have anything to do with anything? Or are you forgetting that Assange voluntarily came to the UK and spent more than a year living under bail conditions in the UK while he fought the European Arrest Warrant against him? He was even in a British prison for a time.

      Where was his fear about being extradited from the UK directly to the US?

      In short, Assange didn't give one shit about how easy it was to be extradited from the UK to the US, despite it being demonstrably easier than from Sweden. Until it became something he could use to rally supporters that is...

    31. Re:Does anybody ... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      It sure would be a shame if something were to happen to this fancy embassy of yours....

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    32. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep hearing this stupid talking point. I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election. If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton and if he just released them instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the releases actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what he's doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why he's lost so much respect.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    33. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree completely

    34. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The leaked speeches are, without a doubt, legit. It's so obvious she's squirming, what with her "maintaining a public position and a private (favoring the banks an 0.1%ers) position".

      If Hillary doesn't know what her campaign chairman is up to, she's incompetent. If she doesn't have the guts to ask him whether they're legit or not, it's because she wants to maintain a semblance of deniability - which again, not asking Podesta if they're legit or not means she is either afraid of the answer or again incompetent.

      Of course, there's still more to come. That may be why "desperate times call for desperate measures."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    35. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      If that was the case why just threaten them to shut off his internet? Why not make them expel him from the embassy so he can be taken into custody since that's what they really want?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    36. Re:Does anybody ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election. If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton and if he just released them instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the releases actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what he's doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why he's lost so much respect.

      Maybe because the only dirty player in this election is the Clinton team? Maybe Bernie and the GOP were playing by the proper rules - rather than rigging the entire thing for themselves, so there IS no dirt on Trump or Bernie - just Clinton.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    37. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the clarification!

    38. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't and personally I'll be very happy when Hillary wins and makes it her mission to rid us of assange and his delusions of grandeur...

    39. Re:Does anybody ... by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      That's about the gist of it these days, isn't it?

    40. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe Assange has an agenda.

      You seriously think Trump is clean?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A few points about your post...

      investigation into the rape (Sweden's legal interpretation of the term) allegations

      This seems to be a common fallacy about the Assange story - that the Swedish allegations wouldnt be valid in any other country.

      Not just Swedens legal interpretation - under UK law, unless specifically excluded by treaty, there has to be "dual criminality" involved in the extradition charges for the warrant to be valid in the UK. At every stage of Assanges extradition hearings, each judge found the charges to meet the dual criminality requirement in full - what the Swedes called "rape" is also rape in the UK under UK law.

      So its not just Swedens legal interpretation of the term, its the British legal interpretation of the term as well. You can go and read any of the extradition judgements against him, they all affirm this decision.

      During that time, there have been repeated requests for the Swedish prosecutor to question him in the embassy as a guest of the Ecuadorians. She refused every single one and never gave a reason why, something that got her censured by her own people for basically fucking around over what, on the face of it, was a simple and straightforward case.

      Also what seems to be ignored is the following:

      1. Assange has been "arrested in absence" and under Swedish law cannot be charged before being interviewed. The prosecutor has repeatedly stated that the intention is to charge Assange, which is why he hasn't been interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy - it wouldn't achieve the goal that the prosecutor has.

      2. There was a scheduled meeting between him and the prosecutor that Assange failed to return to Sweden for - it was at this interview that Assange was to be arrested and formally charged by the prosecutor. The failure to attend this meeting triggered the EAW application.

      3. Why should any prosecutor interview a suspect on the suspects terms?

    42. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK could not extradite him to the USA. What he did wasn't illegal in the UK and he's a UK citizen. He's not a Swedish citizen and they CAN extradite you to any country who asks for you, *if you are suspected of a crime*.

    43. Re:Does anybody ... by isotope23 · · Score: 1

      As a response, let me use a phrase I've heard from government apologists since the Bush administration -

      If You've done nothing wrong,
      YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.

      --
      Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    44. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I hold private citizens to a different standard than career politicians.

    45. Re:Does anybody ... by rholtzjr · · Score: 2

      He is countering the MSM (main stream media) by only providing information at the most opportune time. Typical mudslinging campaign style which both sides have extensively used.

    46. Re:Does anybody ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Assange is going to have to move out of his Ecuadorian mom's basement some time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    47. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And she doesn't have the resources to hire someone who can do it for her? Or is the problem that, if she did that, the emails would be verified as real, and not give her even "implausible deniability" (and someone else who can then testify to the email contents under an immunity grant)?

      I believe the phrase you're looking for is "presumption of innocence." I know it's a hard thing to remember in this day and age where somebody makes a tweet and that's enough to rile up the Internet Mob Justice Machine, but it is not HER job to prove her innocence - it is her ACCUSER'S job to prove that she is guilty.

      Yes, the rule of law ALSO applies to politicians. You can dislike Hillary Clinton all you want, but she's still presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of her peers. If you want to change the standard of practice to be "anybody I dislike for whatever reason gets thrown in jail," then you should probably move to America, and vote Trump. Move quickly, the election's coming quick!

    48. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should she verify stolen information?
      To give the Hacker some Cred?

    49. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Britain is almost certainly not going to cut off the Ecuadorian Embassy's Internet, and indeed, if it had, by now there would be a formal protest lodged by the Ecuadorian Ambassador with the British government.

      There are a few explanations that do not involve an international incident.

      1. A rather mundane outage, perhaps a backhoe severing a fiber link, or a cell outage (since we have no idea how Assange actually connects, it could be either).
      2. Hardware failure (i.e. his laptop's WiFi went dead)
      3. If he's using wireless data, perhaps they've targeted his phone and shut that down.
      4. He's full of shit.

      I would put "5. Britain commits a hostile act against a foreign embassy in London" very low on the list, somewhere around where Assange's credibility is these days.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    50. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very thoughtful and interesting idea. The record has been corrected and .05 has been deposited to your account.

    51. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Oh yay, some one who didn't take note of the very example I posted in my original post in this thread - the one where someone who did nothing illegal in the UK was extradited to the US. I even linked to the very story here on Slashdot. This has been done several times.

      Assange could easily be extradited to the US under that same treaty, without having done anything illegal in the UK.

    52. Re:Does anybody ... by Marful · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What crime did Assange commit in the UK?

      In order to be "extradited" you first have to be a criminal suspect or a convicted criminal, Assange is neither in the UK.

      But, because of the EU treaties, any member of the EU can hold an individual for a crime that was committed in any other EU territory. In this way, because Sweden claimed criminal wrongdoing, the UK held Assange so that he could be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for the crimes alleged there.

      Assange has to first go to Sweden before the US can ask for Extradition, because Sweden is the one alleging criminal wrongdoing. If the UK simply sent him straight to the US, it would be obvious that the whole thing was a farce as it would have been an illegal extradition because Assange is not wanted for any crimes in the UK.

      The whole pretense for the arrest warrant issued to Assange was so that the Swedish Prosecution Authority could interview him on the particulars of the case. Assange had offered to be interviewed multiple times by Swedish Investigators, but they all declined. Making it pretty clear that the point of the arrest warrant wasn't to interview him, but to get him onto Swedish soil.

      The question then becomes: why?

    53. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the government use digitally signed emails?

    54. Re:Does anybody ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to âoedroneâ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.

      If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.

      Pfft!

      They'd drone you for a Klondike Bar! :P

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    55. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If he's using wireless to connect, it's conceivable that the British government could have ordered the wireless ISP to kill his account. That I could buy. Mind you, the solution is equally easy, just get a new cell phone or wireless dongle or whatever he's using. Heck, I'm sure there are more than a few people that would happily let him use a phone in their name, so it could become very hard to target him in this way.

      But as Wikileaks has released absolutely no details as to what happened, I have little reason to simply accept a "state actor" was involved. Assange is notorious for his persecution complex.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    56. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone on Clinton's side is worried about the last debate. Thus far Trump has shown an astonishing inability to capitalize upon Clinton's negatives. Quite the opposite, in fact, he seems to have become a master at magnifying his own issues.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    57. Re:Does anybody ... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      In fairness to Assange, if I were cooped indoors in one building for years, with torture and murder at the hands of the CIA awaiting me should I ever leave, I'd probably be going a bit batty and attention-seeking myself. So while, yeah, he's behaving like a tool, I can sympathize.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    58. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who would then get rid of Hillary and her delusions of grandeur? It seems we need a third actor like e.g. Bert from Sesame street to fix the world.

    59. Re:Does anybody ... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe Assange has an agenda.

      If someone tried to assassinate me, personally, I'd have an agenda too.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    60. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it a stupid talking point, when you readily admit that you're pissed at Assange for releasing dirt on the left? How did this get +5, Insightful?

    61. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

      Of course he has an agenda. But that does not make what he is releasing not factual or a cause for concern. Because nobody has released anything on Trump doesn't mean we should ignore what's come out about Clinton. The woman was part of a rigged election vs. Sanders! How does that get a pass?

    62. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since he is an unlawful fugitive from justice, the UK is within their prerogative to deny him his rights right now. He can get them back by giving himself up and submitting to the Swedish court system, then serving whatever sentence he's given should he be found guilty.

    63. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK could not extradite him to the USA. What he did wasn't illegal in the UK and he's a UK citizen. He's not a Swedish citizen and they CAN extradite you to any country who asks for you, *if you are suspected of a crime*.

      No, they fucking cannot. Jesus christ, learn how the system works before you claim it's not working.

      Sweden would have had him on an EAW from the UK. They CANNOT - without breaching agreements with every other member of the EU - render him on to the US without securing the agreement of the UK. What you're asserting is that - somehow - Sweden cares more about appeasing the US than it's EU neighbors.

      Furthermore, the Swedish / US extradition treaty has more or less the same exact wording on extradition (and exclusions for "political" crimes) that the UK/US extradition treaty has.

      So in essence, you're asserting that somehow it's easier for the US to get Sweden to pull Assange to Stockholm, then breach it's treaty obligations to the EU and send him along to the US, than for the US to get the UK to extradite him directly. Given the recent Brexit results, I'd say it's actually a lot more likely that the UK would be willing to give the rest of the EU a big "fuck you" by handing him over the US extrajudicially than Sweden would be.

      If all three of these countries don't care enough about the law and their treaty obligations enough that they'd conspire to render him to the US in contravention of their laws and treaties, then you're asserting that three rich, powerful states are, simultaneously:
      1) Capable of creating an international conspiracy with complete disregard for the laws and consequences;
      2) Incapable of hiring someone to make it look like a crackhead jumped him on the street somewhere and silenced him for good in a mugging gone awry.

      Think about what you're saying for a second. If your assertions hold true, then Assange would already be dead. If they are not true, then all of your doom-and-gloom whining is a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    64. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      To be extradited to the US from the UK, Assange didn't have to have committed a crime in the UK, he simply has to be extradited under the concept of dual criminality - and yes, receiving and publishing classified information does indeed breach several UK statutes which are the equivalent of US laws.

      As for the repeated crap about being interviewed within the Embassy, see my other post on that topic - the intention of the prosecutor is to charge him, and under the Swedish criminal legal process, he has to be questioned before he can be charged. So there is no point in interviewing him at his leisure within the embassy, because he cannot be forced to leave by the Swedish prosecutor.

    65. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to be "extradited" you first have to be a criminal suspect or a convicted criminal, Assange is neither in the UK.

      Whether he's accused of a crime in the UK is completely irrelevant. (Though now he is guilty of a crime in the UK: jumping bail.)

      All it takes to be extradited is that you're accused of a crime in a different country, and then that other country makes a demand, and the country you're in determines that the demand has sufficient evidence to be upheld.

    66. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning. That she plotted to badmouth him shouldn't surprise anyone, that's how politics works. And it's not as if Bernie's supporters weren't badmouthing her, there just wasn't enough of them to make a difference.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    67. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either Trump is an arrogant buffoon, which you have claimed many times, and thus he doesn't want to hide anything yet we have not found any dirt or he is better at statecraft and hiding his mistakes than even Hillary Clinton and thus is the better candidate.

      This is your reasoning. You have used this before. Trump is a buffoon. He is so arrogant he cant protect state secrets. And if Hillary does hide her mistakes that makes her the better presidential candidate.

      I think Trump does what Trump does without much regard to hiding anything, just like he lacks much regard in anything else. Hillary intentionally hides her wrongdoings, and does so poorly, but has enough people under her influence that nobody cares when, for instance, she takes money for a political campaign from foreign governments. That is a felony. The evidence is available for all to see. Nobody cares.

      She could rape a child during the next debate and it would be spun as her loving children more than that awful Trump does followed by nine registered democrats coming out saying they were raped by Trump as children thirty years ago.

    68. Re: Does anybody ... by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It's most likely a British Telecom technician made a mistake in the junction box. Seems a bit remiss that he doesn't have a backup what with his life being a bit constrained as to what else he can do. Doesn't he have data on his phone?

    69. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump's running for president - kinda the pinnacle of American politics. He doesn't get to be graded on some imaginary curve.

    70. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing she didn't talk about grabbing pussy -- she might finally have to be held to a different standard.

    71. Re:Does anybody ... by ichthus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning.

      You managed to contradict yourself within the first two sentences. Yes, the democrats have a system -- a rigged system. But, please, describe what you mean by "people like Sanders". In this case, the definition was: people who aren't Hillary.

      --
      sig: sauer
    72. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      "Maybe because the only dirty player in this election is the Clinton team?"

      Are you shitting me?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    73. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      How is that a response? It has nothing to do with what I said.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    74. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you would be torn apart for those crystal clear terms. Politicians don't speak vaguely because they're natural liars, they speak vaguely because absolutely everything they say is scrutinized, dissected, taken out of context, and lied about. Obama misspoke about 57 states 8 years ago, and people are still mocking him for it. Trump misspoke when he apparently confused a court date with the day of the election, and people are ceaselessly attacking him for it.

      You said you don't know if you wrote those emails. Are you being deceptive? Do you not remember because you have some neurological disorder? You claim that there are thirty thousand to sift through; are you just delaying? Are you incompetent?

    75. Re:Does anybody ... by sabri · · Score: 1

      I believe the phrase you're looking for is "presumption of innocence."

      The presumption of innocence is a rule of law that indeed also applies to politicians. However, you're forgetting one aspect:

      She is not on trial in a court of law. She is on trial in the media. And that works a bit differently.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    76. Re:Does anybody ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Verifying stolen information would prove the stolen information is legitimate. Refusing to verify the stolen information proves that they are legitimate and also reinforces the perception that she can not be trusted to be honest.

      Maybe a person with more integrity could pull the "I'm not going to dignify these accusations with a response", except that everybody knows that she would immediately call them out as fake if they were indeed fake, and use that incident to associate that false accusation with all other accusations against her.

      Yes, maybe keeping quiet is the best legal strategy (she is a lawyer afterall). But she is a politician running for president that most people fucking hate because of how dishonest she comes off. The only reason she is winning is because she is running against the only other person more disliked than she is.

      Honestly? What would be the downside to just being honest? She is going to win anyway. Maybe she could try to foster some good will for once. Even if she is just going to be calculating, she is presumably going to want to win re-election in 2020, and she won't be running against Trump then.

    77. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      There's a reason the Democrats have superdelegates, and it's to prevent another 1972. Even if Sanders had somehow managed to do what Trump did and get enough delegates on board to sideline Clinton, the superdelegates would have eliminated him, but that wasn't even necessary.

      I think Trump is a pretty good reason for the GOP to adopt a similar system.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    78. Re:Does anybody ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with people trying to manipulate our election with the truth. Were the people who leaked the Donald Trump pussy tape manipulating our election also? Elections are supposed to be manipulated, that's why we have debates. Since Hillary is already going to win, I think it's probably a good thing to start her off with as little of a mandate as possible. I would want the same thing if it looked like Trump was going to win. Fuck both these candidates and both these parties.

    79. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see her squirming, right now it looks like she's doing victory laps. Nobody gives a rat's behind what's in those emails aside from a group that frankly will never vote for her any way. It's over. Assange tried an "October surprise", and thanks to the incompetence of the Russian media and the usual gaggle of far right nutcases, it collapsed.

      You're so blind to it you even repeated one without realizing it had the opposite impact - oh apparently a politician said there may be private and public reasons for supporting something. And this makes them unusually... what? Dishonest for a politician? Is that what you're trying to say? And, oh, hold on, her words were describing Abraham Lincoln's strategy for getting support for some of the most important and revered constitutional amendments in history? So they weren't even damning of general politics-as-usual?

      It was stupid to make a big deal of it. You make big deals about big deals, not about minor gotchas.

      The emails have done no damage to Clinton. Enough have been overhyped and subsequently laughed at that if something came in that was a serious, bona fide, scandal it wouldn't even be taken seriously. That's why it's having no affect whatsoever on Clinton's popularity. She's as high in the polls as she ever has been, she's on the verge now of breaking the 50% mark - which is remarkable considering she's a shitty campaigner, has the charisma of a wet slug, is as relatable as a Koch brother, is as enthusiastic about military interventions as her husband was unenthusiastic in the 1960s, and has a smile that would terrify a clown in a horror movie.

      As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm baffled you'd make either assertion. Clinton will have had her campaign staff vetted, and will have some idea of what they're like as people, but the idea she knows the content of every single email sent and received during a specific period is ridiculous.

      And even if it weren't, even if she were that big a privacy-invading nerd, as I said, we've had multiple instances of the Russian media inserting bogus versions of the Podesta emails into the public discourse. She would be wrong if she made any assertions that imply emails associated with Podesta are right.

      Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    80. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is a contradiction any surprise? I mean he is defending a the Democratic party that some how has the LEAST democratic primaries in America.

    81. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What standard is that? Trump admitted saying those things; should we refuse to accept his own statements that he said them? As far as I'm aware, there's no controversy or debate over whether or not he is a crass boor who has a long history of reprehensible "locker room talk." So I feel no compunction about judging him to be a relatively terrible person for thinking and behaving this way for his 70 years on earth.

      As far as the actual accusations made by several women so far, I'm also quite comfortable asserting that he should be held to the same standard: presumed innocent, with the burden of proof on his accusers. Just because he's a crass boor does not mean he's a rapist, and while I may not particularly LIKE Mr. Trump, I will absolutely argue in favor of his due process.

    82. Re:Does anybody ... by norweeg · · Score: 1

      I don't. This wouldn't make any sense. Wikileaks is more than just assange. What good does cutting off his and only his internet do? At best it's ineffective, at worst it's self-defeating because it lends credence to him.

    83. Re:Does anybody ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Trump is clean in the sense that his dirt is out in the open. I think we know enough about Trump to know who he is, and now he is going to lose the election. We don't really even need to dig up any more dirt on him. The last thing we need is for people to forget what an awful person Hillary is once she is in office. I don't want everyone to be in the mindset of "we won" on November 9th. I want everyone to be thinking "OK now we dodged the trump catastrophe, let's work on shutting down Clinton". I hope all her dirt comes out and we get a primary challenge from the left in addition to a decent republican opponent, and maybe even a serious 3rd party opponent(s).

    84. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they sell stuff on the drug store for that bad case of butthurt you have, take advantage of it!

    85. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the fuck have you been for the last 50 years? Trump has been dirty since day one of his business dealings. He's crooked through and through, not honest in any way shape or form and completely uneducated about pretty much anything other than how to grease palms.

      HRC is not perfect by any means and both are a complete joke for President, but voting in Trump would be the equivalent of voting in a child who is clueless about how the world works at a higher level than just bribery and bullying.

    86. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can deny it all you want, but after claiming a $900+ million dollar business loss and not paying a cent in tax since is quite a statement. That means he is either incompetent in business or selfishly hoarding millions. Neither of them are decent candidates but Trump is far from an angel.

    87. Re:Does anybody ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on your definition of rigged. For many people the definition of rigged would fit right into your own sentence "The Democrats have a system *rigged* explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning".

      I personally don't think it makes a difference whether you break the fair rules in a fair election, or follow the unfair rules in an unfair election.

      I don't even think it is Hillary's fault that the election wasn't fair, and I'm not mad at her for winning. I am more mad at her for being a liar, and a bad person. Maybe most politicians are liars and bad people and she's not any worse than them. Ok fine. I don't think Bernie was like that.

      I actually think there were more people who prefer Bernie to Hillary, but the democratic primaries only allow a subset of those people to participate. I'm not saying this is Hillary's fault. I'm saying that she benefited from closed primaries and people being prevented from voting, and this runs counter to the narrative that "she got more votes"

    88. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think she is as stupid as you want her to be. I have no love for Assange, but if anybody bombed London that would be an act of war and reacted to as such, regardless of the target.

    89. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't think Trump actually wants the job. He's never really even tried to act like someone who is President, and he's going to be rewarded with a defeat. His only trick right now is to spin a defeat as some sort of victory, or at the very least as an undeserved defeat.

      If the Republicans had selected someone like, say, Marco Rubio, no one would even be having this discussion, but of course, to the Tea Party, which is Trump's support base, Rubio is another RINO. So long as the Tea Party continues to wield such vast influence, the Republicans will keep having increasingly horrible presidential nominees.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    90. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And as I pointed out, your "example" is full of shit because they guy who was extradited wasn't in another country's embassy. Give it up, or at least try harder when you want to troll.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    91. Re: Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      A party can set any rules it likes. Clearly there are a lot of Democrats in the US, more than there are Republicans, so it suggests that Democrats are willing to put up with the system used to pick presidential candidates.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    92. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point! I wonder if that trump audio has been modified!

    93. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      There is most certainly a point for interviewing him at the embassy - it could very well convince the prosecutor that there is no case. Prosecutors drop cases all the time.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    94. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And you *still* miss the point!

      Assange didnt give a fuck about the ability for the UK to (just as easily as Sweden) extradite him to the US in the significant time between him arriving in the UK and him absconding UK bail to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

      So how about you take your nose out from between Assanges ass cheeks and get a grip on what is actually being discussed, because you don't seem to be understanding basic concepts in this thread.

    95. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And if the prosecutor wants all options? Why would they waste a trip if they can't act on the likely outcome? What new information does Assange have at this point that he can clear his name with in such an interview?

    96. Re: Does anybody ... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Quite a few of us actually.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    97. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why isn't she winning by 50 points, you might ask.

      She's a cunt nobody likes her. The fact the polls are so close is proof of this.

      People are only saying Hillary out of fear of reprisal - but actual ballots are cast in secret.

    98. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      "Presumption of innocence" is ONLY for criminal courts. The "presumption of innocence" doesn't work for someone who's already been caught being deceptive and lying. Let's face it, there's enough stink going around that she has to respond to it, not hide. The onus now is on her, because at this point it's more likely than not (which is the rule for civil trials - preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that she's not "innocent" in any sense of the word.

      Trump and Clinton are two peas in a pod. They're both power-hungry lying scumbags.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    99. Re:Does anybody ... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I don't think Trump actually wants the job.

      I am of the same opinion. I really think that Trump loves to be the center of attention and this has probably got to be about the ultimate high for the guy. So many people with Trump on their lips and in their minds.... I am sure he is loving every minute of it. But I don't think that even Trump expects to be president. It would be serendipitous, of course, but I don't think he cares that much. POTUS is a hard and thankless job... I don't see him as the type of guy who would thrive in that kind of environment.

      He is kind of set either way though. If he does win (he won't) he will be POTUS and guaranteed to be in the limelight whenever he opens his mouth. But the runner up position is just as good or probably a lot better given the freedom he will have (won't be locked away by secret service and monitored/policed 24/7). He will be given exclusive pundit status as well as even more business opportunities due to notoriety, going forward.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    100. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you telling me they never sent an investigator to question someone who was disabled or in a hospital or otherwise unable to be brought to them before being charged? Because you are full of it.

      If he is only wanted for an interview we have this thing now called Skype. They can ask the exact same questions and get the exact same answers. Hell, every other job interview I get these days says Skype as an interview option.

    101. Re:Does anybody ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.

      Yeah, and Assange is so afraid of Trump trying to kill him that he's working overtime to release information that is only damaging to Democrats.

      Quick question - when Wikileaks released the State Department dump that was handed to them by Manning, who was in charge of the State Department during that time?

      There's a reason why Assange is anti-Hillary, and it's because she's out to get him. He embarrassed her department and herself, and if you think she's not the kind of person to hold a grudge then I'm not sure you're looking at the same person. If she gets elected Assange probably thinks that he'll spend the next 40 years in prison. He does not seem afraid of Trump at all, and I haven't heard Trump say anything bad about Assange.

      If Trump gets elected it's going to be because the Democrats managed to nominate the single person capable of losing to Trump, and because of the information leaked by Assange. Trump isn't going to turn around and try to kill him.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    102. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you do a diff on 30k emails that no longer exist?

    103. Re:Does anybody ... by retroworks · · Score: 1

      The issue is that the leaked emails were stolen and are being released by an actor with the capability of altering them (replacing the word "didn't" with "did" for example, or deleting context). If you cannot eliminate the potential for contaminated data, then you cannot either confirm or deny. So no, it isn't the Dog that Didn't Bark. If the press or HRC or Podesta says "these are real" and then a fake one is found, how do you go back and undo that?

      If it is Russia, they will certainly release all real ones until the final week, and then who knows? What if we all accept they are "of course real" and report on them as such and then one appears the last minute (insulting Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, NC etc) that alters a swing state?

      --
      Gently reply
    104. Re: Does anybody ... by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      You mean, does anybody trust wikileaks after several successive rounds of leaks being admitted legitimate by the leaky party? Maybe you should check the news, but you probably won't like what you see. To answer your question, yes, plenty trust wikleaks, except those who only consume cable TV news are shilling for the establishment or clinton campaign on sites like this. I would be surprised if one of those two didn't describe you as well, Martin.

    105. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Except that the US has already intercepted an aircraft they thought he was on, and are determined to do the same should he ever attempt to go to Sweden. He would simply never make it there.

      The US has no credibility when it comes to this - same as Obama's extra-judicial kill list, which is a violation of international law.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    106. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But she did get more votes, and the best you can produce is that you *think* Bernie would have got more votes under another system. I see little evidence that that is true.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    107. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      You seem intent on ignoring the fact that these leaks aren't coming from Russia, but from Wikileaks, who have a pretty good track record of getting it right. And let's face it - now that we know Hillary's "I have one position for the public and another private position when talking to the rich and powerful", whoever copied the docs deserves a public service medal.

      How anyone can vote for either candidate is beyond me. The western world is scratching it's collective head wondering WTF happened.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    108. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone still believe the Russia line? I mean come on, we're talking about the party where their last president candidate said to Putin, on a hot mic, "Once I am re elected it'll be easier for me to work with you".

      their excuse that "russia did it" is a way to try to shake belief among conservatives. "Why are you supporting Wikileaks? You hate Russians!"

    109. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe Assange has an agenda.

      You seriously think Trump is clean?

      It only takes about a 3rd grade level of reading and internet savvy to confirm that Trump lies 72% of the time, Assange is irrelevant here because the truth value of his releases are questionable. That being said, it has been known for over 20 years that there is a cabal of Republicans who will spend millions trying to mudsling at the Clintons and they have failed 99.9% of the time. That should tell you something if you are a person who is into credible evidence.

      I know the Trumpsters on here are going to try to tear this apart with logical fallacy based arguments and the "Lock her up!" mantra... but look at the facts for once people! What is it about Trump and his supporters about not basing their statements and arguments and positions on actual FACTS? If they had gone to college they would have totally failed again and again and again on the concept of citing credible evidence to support their claims. Take this into account when you are in the voting booth people!

    110. Re:Does anybody ... by skids · · Score: 1

      I'm just enjoying watching everyone who says "There's no real evidence it was Russia" do an about face on WikiLeaks's ability to determine it was a "state actor".

    111. Re:Does anybody ... by InsectOverlord · · Score: 1

      Hollywood myth. Embassy grounds remain part of the host country's territory. They do have a special status by virtue of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. So the embassy controls who gets into the premises and the host country cannot raid or search the embassy under any circumstances unless authorized by the ambassador. But the embassies still have to respect local law and they remain under the host's sovereignty and in the host's territory.

    112. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, most of Trumps negatives are also Clinton's negatives.... He said bad stuff in what was supposedly a private environment? Shocker. Clinton has said some pretty bad stuff publically, especially at minorities. She also persecuted her husband's victims.

    113. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing this stupid talking point. I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election. If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton and if he just released them instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the releases actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what he's doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why he's lost so much respect.

      I don't like what NBC executives are doing right now because they are trying to manipulate our election. If they weren't exclusively trying to harm Trump and if they just released the tapes when they got them 3 months ago instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the released tapes actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what NBC is doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why they lost so much respect.

      Face it, proxies for both candidates are running a scorched earth campaign now. There are no issue on the table, only yelling. Most polls indicated a majority of people voting *against* a candidate, not for any of the candidates.

    114. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      He was about to be handed over to the Swedes when he jumped bail. The Swedes have since agreed to interview him at the embassy, and that interview was supposed to take place today. Of course, nothing is simple about this case.

      Sensible people would damn well have jumped bail rather than certainly being snatched by the US. Gitmo was supposed to be temporary - here it is 10 years later, and it's still not closed. The US has a hard-on for Assange over the 779 Gitmo files that were leaked. The US also has the cooperation of the US media in trying to paint a different picture of what's really going on at Gitmo.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    115. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Try to keep up. The Swedes already agreed to question him at the embassy. As for what information Assange has, well, that's what the interview is for. To determine if there are reasonable grounds that a criminal offense was committed. That's how these things work.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    116. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you obviously haven't ever had responsibility for more than one internet connection going to one building: yes that is possible.

      Also yes the ISP can figure out at least up to your modem who is using the modem.

      I can agree at least though that he should maybe show the evidence that is the basis of the claim at least though.

    117. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the government use digitally signed emails?

      We've been talking about the personal e-mail from the Gmail account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

    118. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      So what if they were stolen? So were the Pentagon Papers., which outed the US's secret and illegal expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos, and the lies the government was using to sell it to the public. Ditto with Edward Snowden's documentation of the US's illegal and massive surveillance of American citizens on American soil.

      Whistle-blowers should be rewarded, and in an honest and open government they would be.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    119. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry your computer knowledge came from faux news. I'll let you in on a little secret, it only compares what is on your set. What's on you set is right, what on everyone's else's set may be different. You have to compare all, remember, there was others in the middle.

    120. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And yet again you miss the point - I'm beginning to think on purpose.

      The public reason Assange doesnt want to go to Sweden is because he fears an onward extradition to the US.

      And yet he didn't seem to have the same fear while being within the UK's jurisdiction. He was quite willing to live here, use the legal system, stay at a UK address, and even surrender himself briefly to a UK prison until bail was arranged. He didn't seem to fear extradition to the US then - even though its as easy to extradite to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.

      At any point between Assange arriving in the UK and fleeing to the embassy, the US could have filed for extradition - but they didn't, and Assange was free to use the English legal system for 18 months and live in the UK.

      The only time he started to fear extradition to Sweden was when it became a certainty - he doesnt want to go to Sweden to face the accusations against him. The US extradition aspect is nothing but bullshit he enjoys feeding to his supporters to divert them from the fact that he simply doesn't want to go to court in Sweden.

      Is that clear enough for you? You have tangentially skirted the issue in each reply now, posting a reply that isn't quite a reply, just more pro-Assange bullshit. If Assange truly feared extradition to the US, he would never have come to the UK in the first place. And yet he came - to a country that very famously has a relationship that is called the "special relationship" with the country he purportedly is terrified about being extradited to. Is he just plain stupid? Was he too engrossed in a good book that day? Or is his excuse simply that, a shockly shite excuse?

    121. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The concept of a 'rigged' election involves actual fraud and criminal manipulation of the votes. The primary system of neither party is acceptable to me, let alone the electoral college, but I don't call them rigged. Just unrepresentative.

      So it just wasn't friendly to Sanders. Maybe if they made Vermont votes count 20 to 1?

      But ok, he didn't need to run as a Democratic candidate, I'd have told him to run as an independent. With Trump and Hillary, he'd have a better shot than Perot.

    122. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I do keep up - the Swedes agreeing to interview him (by the way, they agreed that at the start of the year - and then Ecuador blocked it) to shut people like you up, so you cant use that stupid argument. The process to charge Assange was started a couple of years ago, when he was arrested in absentia - this interview at the embassy won't change a single thing, the Swedes aren't expecting it to come to anything.

    123. Re:Does anybody ... by HBI · · Score: 1

      I think you're being a bit premature, as no one has had the chance to properly go over these tranches. Let's come back in a few weeks and see about "victory laps".

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    124. Re:Does anybody ... by Tesen · · Score: 1

      There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning.

      You managed to contradict yourself within the first two sentences. Yes, the democrats have a system -- a rigged system. But, please, describe what you mean by "people like Sanders". In this case, the definition was: people who aren't Hillary.

      Or you do not understand how the democrat system works? I disagree with the super delegate system, but it exists in the democrat rules. Hardly "rigging" of a system, since Bernie ran in the democrat primary, which means he obviously accepted the rules of the game.

    125. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election.

      I don't like how the Clinton and Trump campaigns are trying to manipulate the election either.

      It'd be nice to have an election where both candidates presented their solutions to problems without attacking one another. Though, I realize that's a pipe dream, so I'll give them both the finger and abstain.

    126. Re:Does anybody ... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      1 is a lie, using events after the fact to support it.

      2 Fuck that prosecutor. There was no legal obligation for him to return. Would you willingly travel to a foreign country so you could be arrested? No, didn't think so.

      3 They were perfectly happy to interview suspects in other countries as well as UK, so why not Assange?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    127. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if that trump audio has been modified!

      Well, he admitted to and "apologized" for the pussy tape, so I'm guessing it's accurate.

      He hasn't admitted to or apologized for any of the Trump video "leaked" by Saturday Night Live, so I'm going to take that with a grain of salt.

    128. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      How stupid can you be? He only went into hiding after his final appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. Until then, he wasn't in hiding. After the appeal was rejected, he had 10 days to turn himself in to be extradited.

      The US has already tried to grab him when they thought he was on a flight that landed in Austria.

      Austrian media later reported that when the plane landed in Vienna to refuel, US Ambassador to Austria, William Eacho, “claimed with great certainty that Edward Snowden was onboard” and mentioned a “diplomatic note requesting Snowden’s extradition."

      The US extradition aspect is hardly bullshit when the US Ambassador to Austria already tried it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    129. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm sensing that the Libertarian faction on /. are generally backing Trump pretty vigorously. The only theory I offer is that it is yet another iteration of the Salem Hypothesis.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    130. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is not on trial in a court of law. She is on trial in the media. And that works a bit differently.

      We are talking about legal issues here - there would be no discussion if this were not a matter BarbaraHudson felt should be adjudicated in a court of law. If you're going to play armchair lawyer and shout about how somebody broke the law, you can't pretend that the existence of a court and due process is irrelevant.

    131. Re: Does anybody ... by 2ms · · Score: 2

      Didn't Hillary actually say something about wanting to "drone" Assange? Anyway, Trump is toast. The election is already over. This has got to be far and away the most pathetic pair of candidates in presidential history. One is utterly corrupt and incompetent, having utterly screwed up every single thing she's done in her career. Look what a nightmare everything she touched in the Middle East has been and how almost comically failed the outcome of her Russia reset has been. They don't get any more failed than her. But Trump is a complete and total idiot obviously completely unfit for presidency.

    132. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friend? Maybe, maybe not, but he's *certainly* the Chairman of her campaign, you fool.

      Also, learn how to apostrophe.

    133. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it could be that they are professionals who will not act like passive aggressive bitches in the face of trivial annoyance.

    134. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Presumption of innocence" is ONLY for criminal courts.

      No, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only for criminal courts. In BOTH types of courts - civil and criminal - there is a presumption of the innocence of the accused, and the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal courts and "based on the preponderance of the evidence" in civil courts) rests solely with the accuser. The accused has NO pre-emptive obligation to "prove" that they are innocent, to you, a jury, or any other court of law. They are presumed innocent until the accuser offers facts and evidence that supports their claim of the guilt of the accused to the standard of proof required of the trial.

      The "presumption of innocence" doesn't work for someone who's already been caught being deceptive and lying.

      You are aware, of course, of the rich irony that the presumption of innocence is exactly intended to eliminate the "this person seems scummy to me," response you've just made? But hey, right on - Trump 2016!

      Let's face it, there's enough stink going around that she has to respond to it, not hide. The onus now is on her, because at this point it's more likely than not (which is the rule for civil trials - preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that she's not "innocent" in any sense of the word.

      Great, as soon as there's a formal accusation in a court of law, I'm sure she'll begin defending herself vigorously. Of course, the mishandling of classified information that you're accusing her of is NOT a "civil" offense, either - she would face criminal prosecution. So "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is what she needs to defend herself against. IN A COURT OF LAW. In the court of "BarbaraHudson's opinion," she can offer a big fat "fuck you" if she wants. Sure, she risks losing your vote, but given that based on your posting history, I'm pretty sure you're not a US citizen, I don't think she's losing sleep over the fact that BarbaraHudson doesn't really like her, and wouldn't vote for her.

      Trump and Clinton are two peas in a pod. They're both power-hungry lying scumbags.

      That's like saying that Pol Pot and Justin Bieber are two peas in a pod. Sure, they may both be crummy people, but the degree of their terribleness is many orders of magnitude apart. They may be two peas from the same 3000 acre factory farm, but they sure aren't fruits of the same plant, much less occupants of the same pod.

    135. Re:Does anybody ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Cleaner than Clinton, absolutely. Without doubt.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    136. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day the internet is cut just so happens to be the same day Swedish authorities are interviewing him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-questioning-julian-assange-rape-allegation

      Wouldn't make sense that during the interview, the fucking Swedish Chef muppet got let loose and wandered out of the kitchen and tried using a laptop?

      Maaar de burrdee baahdee gurr!

    137. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is anything marked "leaked" or "hacked" beyond reproach? They seemed to be thought of as immutable, and we immediately trust those who provide them to us.

      So easy to trust evidence of something we want to believe.

    138. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Obama's will IS international law. Defy it at your peril.

    139. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loathsome vs. Shady 2016!

    140. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has already tried to grab him when they thought he was on a flight that landed in Austria. [wikipedia.org]

      You realize that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are two separate people, yeah?

      There is ZERO evidence that the US has ever tried to "grab" Julian Assange. Your own link shows Assange made some showboating claim to try and claim responsibility for the grounding incident. Nobody ever believed HE was on that plane.

      Fucking dumbass.

    141. Re:Does anybody ... by NetNed · · Score: 1

      The tech community that come on Slashdot was restoring my faith in them last week. Modding this a 5 is destroying it. Come on Slashdot! We know as educated tech savoy people that there is no way these emails came from Russia in any way. I could claim any number of countries are trying to hack my office based off the MX records that the DNC claims as irrefutable proof it was Russians.

    142. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I feel no compunction about judging him to be a relatively terrible person for thinking and behaving this way for his 70 years on earth.

      Well, technically he was a naïve and careless young man of only 59 when he said those things iirc.

      I'm sure he's matured and is all growed up now. :/

      </sarcasm!>

    143. Re:Does anybody ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nope. We've got ample proof that Clinton is dirty. That she accuses others of the very thing her own team does, like cozying up with Putin. Not a lot in terms of Trump, other than some unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct (the very conduct that Bill and Hillary love to simply laugh off as a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    144. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly, there is tons of dirt on Trump just like there is tons of dirt on Clinton, honestly don't think they can find much on Sanders, from what I can tell, that man has practiced what he preached for years and is so clean he practically squeaks.

      The thing is, all of Trumps dirt is already pretty much public except for his tax records. All Clinton's dirt has been hidden under lock and key and is shaping up to be much worse than Trumps already publicly aired garbage.

      As it stands, the only reason Clinton is even seen as a viable candidate at this point is because of Trump on the other end. And to be honest, it is starting to feel like he was a plant to make her look more electable and force the voters hand. Every single time she has had dirt come out, he has to try to out do her like it was a contest to who could lose voters faster trying to drown her out.

      As for RobotRunAmok saying the left hate him now. From what I have seen, the left are cheering him on, it is the establishment left that hate him which isn't the true left at this point.

    145. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats wrong with you?

    146. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The facts that we have indicate that the charge is bogus. The rape charge comes from him not using a condom - not forcible rape. The two women were willing participants, and don't deny it. One of them continued to sleep with him The timing of the accusation is also very suspicious.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    147. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's bullshit, then why don't they just ignore him like they ignore all other bullshit artist?

    148. Re:Does anybody ... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      They're also still the party of racism. All you have to do is look at their policies.

    149. Re:Does anybody ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      But she did get more votes

      I didn't dispute this.

      and the best you can produce is that you *think* Bernie would have got more votes under another system.

      I don;t have an agenda. I'm not trying to push an agenda, so I don't need to do my *best* to convince you of anything. I don't know for sure what would have happened in a hypothetical national election between Hillary and Bernie. Nobody does. But I don't think it is so far fetched to to say that Hillary won the democratic nomination because she was more popular among the people voting in the democratic primaries. Bernie has a higher popularity rating nationally. I don't think there will ever be more convincing evidence that someone would win an election, than polling on the favorability of candidates.

      The reason why Hillary is beating Trump right now is because her favorability is higher than Trump's

      Is this "little" evidence? That's subjective. I'm saying this is the *only* evidence their could be short of an actual election.

    150. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been living in a cave? There are a large number of email leaks from HER server, and supporters of Trump know that Hillary will get us into a World War and also a Civil War. In fact, Obama will be the one to get us into a World War if Trump wins the election.

    151. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    152. Re:Does anybody ... by kqs · · Score: 1

      "People like Sanders" probably means "non-democrats who want the democratic nomination".

      Look, I like Bernie. He's many things, most of them good. But one thing he isn't is a Democrat, and he'll be the first person to admit that. If a lutheran priest tried to become pope of the catholic church (really, "cardinals" and "superdelegates" aren't so different), it wouldn't matter how great a person that priest is, they'd face massive pushback from catholics.

      So yeah, the democrat establishment didn't want him to be the democratic nominee, discussed this at length in private email, and may have (or may not have) tweaked some things to make it harder for him. That doesn't change the fact that he never had a chance, never got more votes than Clinton in larger states, never really challenged her. There is no evidence that the primary was rigged or that the DNC was particularly active or effective against Bernie. Saying otherwise is just like Trump's "rigged election" claims; it's sour grapes when your preferred candidate did not win, and it shows that you prefer vitriol over facts.

    153. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing to see the faux progressives claiming all her rightist skeletons are worked. She openly admits supporting coup backers in Guatemala and that isnt even in the WL dump afaik.

    154. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP didn't say the issue was they were stolen. They said the issue is they were stolen and are being released by an actor with the capability of altering them. I understand why you might respond to the part of a sentence that you find disputable while ignoring the part you don't want to argue with, but it's a bit stupid to do that in quite such public view.

    155. Re: Does anybody ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Good point! I wonder if that trump audio has been modified!

      Pull down a copy and run it through an audio spectrum analysis program. Splices stand out like a sore thumb on a frequency-vs-time graph.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    156. Re:Does anybody ... by shilly · · Score: 1

      It's really weird to see how some Sanders supporters are still expressing their sour grapes when their preferred candidate has asked them to get over it. WTF is the point of saying "we want Bernie as leader" if you won't actually follow his lead?

    157. Re:Does anybody ... by judoguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or maybe Assange has an agenda.

      You seriously think Trump is clean?

      Actually, yes, at this point.

      Here is a guy who's being audited by the Obama administration and has the full force of the Clinton political machine digging into every aspect of his life.

      Man, he really must be squeaky clean if all they have is that he only paid the taxes he had too legally and he said "pu$$y" 11 years ago.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    158. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      There is no "accused" in civil courts. It's a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Only defendants in criminal proceedings are referred to as "the accused." In civil cases, there's the plaintiff and the defendant.

      And Clinton did commit criminal acts with the emails - but the government, oddly enough, refused to apply the law because "they couldn't show intent" - even though intent isn't necessary to secure a conviction. It's all bullshit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    159. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he has a line of fragrances and intimate wear thats bullshit. His stuff on neocon antics of establishment hacks in US politics is solid though. Which were you referring to?

    160. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      President Obama can forget his legacy. This is the guy who hasn't closed Gitmo, started the US kill list, aka disposition matrix, failed at real health care reform, made the really stupid decision of giving arms to rebels with the predictable result that it would further destabilize the region.

      He's not the only one to blame, of course. Previous governments have almost always been ready to help overthrow any government that is against US business interest, and ignore the human rights records of those with oil.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    161. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      My point is that if they're ready to grab one illegally, they're certainly ready to grab the other. In the eyes of the US administration there is no difference between them.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    162. Re: Does anybody ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      The 2 major parties have both managed to nominate possibly the only candidate who can lose to the other one. No matter who wins, the loser will have deserved to lose to that person. In any other election year either of these candidates would basically be handing the victory to the other party, but somehow we've managed to nominate the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling to face each other. It's awful. It would be comedic if it weren't for the inevitable tragic outcome.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    163. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They certainly have the ability to release their copies to prove that the leaked docs have been modified. They haven't because the leaks are legit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    164. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't possibly "go through and make sure they were all intact" because "diff" and "select and compare" is broken on every computer you have ever tried? BS.

      No, I couldn't do it because I don't know how to do that. Don't be an asshole.

      And she doesn't have the resources to hire someone who can do it for her? Or is the problem that, if she did that, the emails would be verified as real, and not give her even "implausible deniability" (and someone else who can then testify to the email contents under an immunity grant)?

      Funny how my above comments have dissipated into the void. Oh well, as long as BarbaraHudson is quoting my replies, maybe someone will still be able to see them.

      This argument is going nowhere. There was a leak, and you are asking why she doesn't deny it. I suggested that it would be a pretty ugly business to check through all of the e-mails and verify that they hadn't been modified. You suggested that it would be a simple "diff" or "select and compare." We both know that is not true, and that it is not so easy (whoops, I threw in some random Cyrillic or extra whitespace at random intervals. Look, the e-mails are different!).

      Let's be honest here, would you believe HRC if she paid an independent consultant to dig through the e-mails and verify/refute them? Probably not. If you are already convinced she is a liar, then you are basically never going to believe her, regardless of any evidence. That's why she hasn't said they are fake, because it doesn't matter to her detractors.

    165. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    166. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a description "people like Sanders" == "people who won't win the 2016 general election"

      I know it sounds inflammatory, but keep in mind, it's true.

    167. Re:Does anybody ... by shilly · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is in two minds about this, as he is about virtually everything. There's part of him that thinks as you describe, and then there's another part that says "I'm a winner! I never lose! I am the best thing ever!!" -- that side is really not enjoying the prospect of losing.

    168. Re:Does anybody ... by shilly · · Score: 1

      Not a lot in terms of Trump? Wow, you are really firmly in the bubble, aren't you?

      To refresh your memory, over the course of 40 years, corruption allegations against Trump have ranged from "mafia ties to unscrupulous business dealings, and from racial discrimination to alleged marital rape"

      http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

      But but but MSM, terrible conspiracy against poor ickle defenceless Donald, etc etc. I know you won't believe any part of it. That's part of the hilariousness of it all.

    169. Re:Does anybody ... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't bomb London, they would bomb Equador. Yes, it is confusing, but Westminster will probably be okay with it if they actually went ahead and did it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    170. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is that if they're ready to grab one illegally, they're certainly ready to grab the other. In the eyes of the US administration there is no difference between them.

      And my point is that you're retarded, and can't seem to distinguish between Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, so you assume that nobody else can, either.

      If the US wanted to grab Assange, do you think there ever would have been much difficulty in doing so? Like, during the time he was being detained by the British government? Or at ANY point in the last 15 years, when he's been gallivanting around the world talking shit to anybody who will listen?

    171. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has leaked much about him. If he's so dirty, where's the dirt?

    172. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      defendant: (n) an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.

      I'm not sure where you got your law degree, but I'm pretty certain you never passed the bar if you can't reason out that the "defendant" and "the accused" are identical concepts. There are "defendants" and "plaintiffs" in both civil and criminal cases, counselor.

      And Clinton did commit criminal acts with the emails - but the government, oddly enough, refused to apply the law because "they couldn't show intent" - even though intent isn't necessary to secure a conviction.

      "Necessary criminal intent" is what they can't show. And it is absolutely required to secure a conviction, based on the precedent set in Gorin v United States (1941). Go read this article, it gives a fantastic summary of the legal reasoning, and shows just why you don't know what you're talking about.

      http://warontherocks.com/2016/...

    173. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      You're ridiculous.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    174. Re: Does anybody ... by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 1

      I'll clarify what I think was the point of the post you're responding to: Trump isn't a career politician. He hasn't arranged his every waking moment to look squeaky clean to the American electorate. Up until this point, he hadn't any political aspirations, and therefore, it would have been pointless. This is just a fancy way of saying that career politicians are artificial as a side effect of trying to get elected repeatedly. Trump has never run for elected office before, and so he hasn't been fake -- at least not in the same ways that an experienced politician would. As to whether or not he'll be graded on a curve... that's really for the voters to decide.

    175. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can only harm the election if there is something "damaging" in the emails, if there is something damaging in the emails then the voters have a right to know.

    176. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. No one who describes himself as a "socialist" is going to be elected President of the United States.

      So, from the DNC's point of view, it was either get behind Hillary, or lose the election.

    177. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is which?

    178. Re: Does anybody ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      This is the guy who hasn't closed Gitmo

      I'm a little curious how he was supposed to do this, given he had no support from either Democrats or Republicans in Congress, which controls the purse-strings for any gitmo-related action. Given the opposition that the states had to relocating detainees in US states, the only way I could see this happening is if Obama played an extreme game of chicken, ordering all detainees released entirely (to Cuba? Just leave them on the beach?) and all staff returned to the US, letting Congress scramble to 'fix' the situation which is under their power. Man, Obama's 'legacy' would be far more tattered then than it is now if he tried that.

      Obama isn't the sort to play Chicken, though. He's more the guy who blinks first.

    179. Re:Does anybody ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't bomb London, they would bomb Equador. Yes, it is confusing, but Westminster will probably be okay with it if they actually went ahead and did it.

      He's not located in Ecuador, he's located in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London which, contrary to popular believe, is not Ecuadorian soil.

    180. Re:Does anybody ... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      And Clinton really has had nothing to hide. It has been a total yawner.

    181. Re:Does anybody ... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      3 because he is in Ecuador?

    182. Re: Does anybody ... by maeltor · · Score: 2

      My faith in WikiLeaks died when Assange (several years ago) went on The Daily Show and admitted to Jon Stewart that videos and releases of information are edited for (and I quote) "maximum political effect." Assange is no more for legitimate transparency than Putin is for free and unrestrained press...

    183. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Validation of a single email sets you up for an eventual doctored email too close to the election without time to debunk

    184. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't see how an intelligent person can compare Trump and Clinton in the same sentence. What universe are you in, they are not in the same league.

    185. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person jumps a wall to get into an embassy. One of the many possible reasons is that they wanted to Assassinate Assange, but considering it's a embassy, there's only about a million other items of interest in it which might have been the target.

    186. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton

      Look, this should be obvious, but someone needs to provide leaks on Trump before Wikileaks can release them.

      Would you be so kind to hack into the republican equivalent of the DNC?

    187. Re:Does anybody ... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I've always been first to agree that the whole case against Assange is poorly handled, I wont say it's cooked up because I accept there is a possibility he is guilty, but there has clearly been a desperation to get him to Sweden when he could in fact have just been questioned via videolink, something even Sweden's highest court eventually declared criticising the Swedish prosecutor for not doing so.

      But he did commit a crime in the UK, he skipped bail. This is a criminal offence in itself. Were the Swedish case dropped he may be able to get away with this because the case he was being bailed over turned out to have no case to answer, but whilst there is still a case to answer, and whilst he's skipping bail, he is a wanted fugitive under the UK justice system.

    188. Re:Does anybody ... by lwmv · · Score: 1

      They could bomb Ecuadorian Embassy in London then claim that the bombing was based on an outdated map, just like what Bill Clinton did to Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999.

    189. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning. That she plotted to badmouth him shouldn't surprise anyone, that's how politics works. And it's not as if Bernie's supporters weren't badmouthing her, there just wasn't enough of them to make a difference.

      Sanders appeared closer than he was due to proportional representation on the democrat side. Would I have rather had him win? Sure. Could we have done without the DNC crap? Sure. Do the republicans wish they had the democrat's system? Probably. The superdelegates might have kicked trump to the side for the good of the party, and the proportional representation would have made it harder from him to win.

      A better solution would have been to replace first past the post with something better. Hillary may have still won the primary. I'm not sure on the Republican side. That would be complex. Somebody would have to do the math. Probably not trump though. The general might even go to a third party without first past the post, though you would still need better candidates.

      For instance, if it was say if somehow it still was Hillary versus Trump and Romney said, "there is no way I'm accepting that", and he was the only other credible candidate, then, well, he would likely win in a system that used say a decent form of instant run off/ranked voting.

      Now, I'd actually prefer Hillary over Romney, but I'd much rather have instant run off/ranked voting/etc in place... It eliminates protest voting. It eliminates voting for the lesser of two evils, though that may still be what you get if the alternative can't get enough votes..

    190. Re:Does anybody ... by houghi · · Score: 1

      But, because of the EU treaties, any member of the EU can hold an individual for a crime that was committed in any other EU territory.

      So you are saying that Assange is responsible for Brexit? That would be more logical than what they have been telling me.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    191. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Your comments aren't "disappearing in the void". Get an account and log in, fool!

      As for diff, it's super easy when used in conjunction with sort and uniq (unless you don't grok *nix). You could do al 30,000 with one command. Then again, if they hadn't been using Windows, they wouldn't have been hacked so easily. While the barrier to entry for *nix isn't that high., it does serve to keep the riffraff out.

      Let's be honest here, would you believe HRC if she paid an independent consultant to dig through the e-mails and verify/refute them? Probably not. If you are already convinced she is a liar, then you are basically never going to believe her, regardless of any evidence. That's why she hasn't said they are fake, because it doesn't matter to her detractors.

      Hey, I don't like Stallman, but if she paid him to compare all the emails, I'd trust him. As for "she hasn't said they are fake, because it doesn't matter to her detractors", sure it does. If she says they're fake and it turns out she's lying, her own supporters will walk. Ditto if she say's they're real, Keep hand-waving - you're as full of shit as the people who support either candidate.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    192. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Your link doesn't support your contention. Even Snopes says that the originals from Wikileaks don't contain the phrase you're complaining about as "proof".

      Not long after that WikiLeaks dump hit the Internet, multiple Twitter users claimed it documented that Clinton had called progressive voters a "bucket of losers" during one paid speech:

      What twitter users have to say about something in no way detracts from the authenticity of the original leaked materials. You might want to go back and look at the title of the article you linked to, or actually READ the article instead of just posting a link that has nothing to do with the question of whether the originals are valid or not.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    193. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a guy tries to break into an embassy doesn't mean he was after Assange.

      There are literally thousands of worthwhile items to steal, take, or photograph of value in there. Assange is only one item of interest, and only Assange is stating it was an assassination attempt.

      It seems that Assange is more about building his personal brand, while struggling to stay in the media. To do so, he'll announce assassination attempts, declare document releases and not follow up, and basically try to be part of any political muckraking as long as it is a ticket to heavy free advertisement.

    194. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Hey moron, this has nothing to do with the espionage act. Intent doesn't enter into it according to the plain text of the law. People have been convicted with NO proof of intent presented, because it's not needed. So much for your "reasoning." You're argument has no basis in fact because that's not the law that Clinton broke.

      As for the "defendant" and "accused" being the same, they simply are not. You are only the accused in a criminal case. You are NOT the accused in a civil case. Here's what I wrote, again ...

      There is no "accused" in civil courts. It's a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Only defendants in criminal proceedings are referred to as "the accused." In civil cases, there's the plaintiff and the defendant.

      There is NO "presumption of innocence" in civil cases. As long as one side can show their case is even the slightest more probable than the other, they win. "Presumption of innocence" is a much higher standard. In civil courts, NOBODY is presumed to be "innocent" or "guilty." If you make a civil case against someone, and they show up but refuse to argue because they think that there's a "presumption of innocence" working in their favor, and you haven't overcome that "presumption of innocence", you will have your ass handed to you pretty much by default. You HAVE to show that your version of events is more likely than the other side - whoever does that wins, even if it's only by a fraction of 1%.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    195. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of the saying "don't make promises you can't keep"? And why couldn't he just release them all and let Congress sort out their shit? It's not like keeping Gitmo open is doing anything except making more converts to terrorism. Kind of counter-productive, unless you really want to prolong the "war on terror." Then again, it's been quite profitable for certain parties ... follow the MONEYYYYY!

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    196. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If those are the only things you are measuring Trump on, you're avoiding the tons of other items that are in the news.

      Saying the word is a tiny infraction, compared to the multiple rape charges filed against him.

      Not paying taxes pales in comparison to stiffing his contractors and not paying his employees.

      He's complaining about Hillary's $200K speaking fees, when he collects (17 times, by his own bravado) $1.5 million to speak.

      An he started a "University" without a license, which he later altered into a "seminar" which has most of the attendees suing him for failure to deliver on his promise of "providing top real estate professionals" to teach them (once it was discovered he was hiring people without real estate experience).

      And let's ponder why he uses his properties for his election, billing himself, but paying with donor money (at prices he couldn't rent for two years ago).

      Yeah, he's squeaky clean. His last "building project" is in lawsuit because he advertised it was going to be built from the ground up by him, but then he put his name on a job that another company did, and it was a light remodeling of an existing property.

      The man's a saint. He's used charity money to buy portraits of himself, he's used charity money to buy football paraphernalia. He stiffs people and then tells them it will cost more to sue him than the difference.

      The only reason he wants to be President is to feed his ego while he figures out how to personally profit. Expect federal work contracts for the wall, with his company collecting the profits (last time that happened was Halliburton, where I personally witnessed $20K per foot chain link fence, and Western bathrooms installed at $200k each.

    197. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So logically she should just release all of them today and be done with it - except that she can't because they would kill her campaign.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    198. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, when are people going to learn that we need to learn to love things exactly as they are and never expect anything better.

    199. Re:Does anybody ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Allegations, yes. Convictions? None. With Clinton we have the FBI basically saying about the Secretary of State and 30 year political animal that is Hillary that "she's so incompetent she didn't realize she was BREAKING THE LAW". We have her husband impeached and paying off people to stop sexual assault (not words, actual actions) lawsuits. We have their attorneys and business partners going to jail for deals made with the Clintons. We have constant revisions of tax forms for their foundation for "forgetting" millions and millions on foreign donations received whilst Hillary was Secretary of State.

      But, as Jim Wright said about the Dan Rather/George Bush controversy, "It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters". Ignore the facts, there's mud to be slung!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    200. Re: Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on! No rational court in the world would accept this stuff as evidence of anything. Even in your friendly banana republic. Why are you prosecuting Hillary on nothing but stolen garbage?

    201. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron, this has nothing to do with the espionage act.

      Hey MORAN, yes, it has everything to do with the Espionage Act, if you want to make a criminal case out of her mishandling of sensitive information. Ch 18 USC 793(f) is the specific offense you're driving at, and it only applies if she is guilty of "gross negligence." Which is defined, legally speaking, as follows:

      a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

      So yes, if you want to make a criminal case out of her negligence, and accuse her of gross negligence, then her intent is very relevant. This has been established in precedent in Gorin v United States (1941). I don't make the laws, I'm just aware of them. You seem not to be.

      As for the "defendant" and "accused" being the same, they simply are not. You are only the accused in a criminal case. You are NOT the accused in a civil case.

      The defendant is the person who defends himself. Pray tell, friend - against what is he to defend himself, if he does not stand "accused" of something? And if he is accused of something, why do you seem to get so hung up on that person being referred to as "the accused"? It's almost as if, confronted with your own lack of understanding of the law, you're simply lashing out with idiotic semantic quibbling to somehow salvage your own illusion that you're "correct."

      There is NO "presumption of innocence" in civil cases. As long as one side can show their case is even the slightest more probable than the other, they win. "Presumption of innocence" is a much higher standard. In civil courts, NOBODY is presumed to be "innocent" or "guilty." If you make a civil case against someone, and they show up but refuse to argue because they think that there's a "presumption of innocence" working in their favor, and you haven't overcome that "presumption of innocence", you will have your ass handed to you pretty much by default. You HAVE to show that your version of events is more likely than the other side - whoever does that wins, even if it's only by a fraction of 1%

      You are, in a word, WRONG. In Anglo-American common law, there is a presumption of innocence on behalf of the defendant in ALL court proceedings. You are presumed innocent, and the burden of proof is on your accuser to demonstrate your guilt. You are correct that civil cases only require a "preponderance of the evidence" as the standard of proof for a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, but that does not mean that the defendant is not presumed innocent before any evidence is offered. If he weren't then the mere act of filing suit would be enough for the court to issue a judgment in my favor - I'd have no duty to even offer a SHRED of evidence to support my claim.

      If you make a civil case against someone, and they show up but refuse to argue because they think that there's a "presumption of innocence" working in their favor,

      You really don't understand "presumption of innocence," do you? It's not a get out of jail free card. It's not an "I win" button. It's a baseline setting which the jury takes as a starting point. An accusation is leveled against the defendant, and in the eyes of the court, they are presumed innocent of the charge at the start of the trial - which means the burden of proving they are guilty rests on the accuser. This doesn't mean the defendant has no interest in or duty to offer a defense in his own favor against the evidence presented against him, it simply means that the accuser must present enough evidence to meet the standard of proof required by the type of case being tried. That standard of proof, as you've cor

    202. Re: Does anybody ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of the saying "don't make promises you can't keep"?

      I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a politician follow that. Making promises that you have no power to keep is the essence of campaigning in the 21st century.

      And why couldn't he just release them all and let Congress sort out their shit? It's not like keeping Gitmo open is doing anything except making more converts to terrorism.

      If Obama had done that, we would have President Romney right now. People don't like Gitmo, but their rage at that would pale compared to the sheer anger of the American public if we just.. you know, did a mass release of a ton of terrorism suspects.

    203. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Stop with the court bullshit. We are not in a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, and public opinion has always been that she's power-hungry and people don't trust her (68% say she can't be trusted, and only 38% like her).

      32% saying she's trustworthy is nowhere near the "balance of probabilities" to win a civil case, if you insist on a court analogy. So the real question is, WTF happened to your electoral process to produce two of the worst candidates possible, candidates that the majority simply don't trust. It's not hard to figure out - Citizen's United. Unlimited 3rd party funds. Nobody can even hope to run unless they can raise a billion bucks during their campaign - and that's no guarantee of winning. Both Obama and Romney spent over a billion last time around.

      Also, "Why are you prosecuting Hillary on nothing but stolen garbage" - it would be very easy to disprove the email dumps - just release her and Podesta's copies. Of course, the reason why that's not going to happen is because the email dumps are accurate. Obama produced his birth certificate, but the Clinton campaign won't release their copies any more than Donald Trump would release his tax returns - it would confirm they are both liars.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    204. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      There is NO presumption of innocence in civil cases because there is no verdict of guilt or innocence. That's why cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, not "innocent until proven guilty." When you say "guilty based on peponderance of evidence" it shows you don't get it - there is NO finding of guilt because NO CRIME HAS BEEN ALLEGED, and that's why the standard for winning is only the preponderance of the evidence. Nobody is found guilty in a civil trial, just liable. Go argue a few criminal and civil cases in court like I have and maybe you'll learn the difference.

      Or look at the difference between OJ's not being found guilty in his criminal trial but liable in his civil trial.

      Civil trials are about liability only, not guilt or innocence.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    205. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they would get mad at Congress because Congress is responsible? "They won't allocate the money to close the prison, it's in violation of international law, its' existence provokes more people to become terrorists ... do you really want to help ISIS by keeping it open, because that's what Congress is doing."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    206. Re: Does anybody ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Good job, correcting the record.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    207. Re:Does anybody ... by shilly · · Score: 1

      You go right ahead convincing yourself that Trump is as pure as the driven snow and Clinton is the devil incarnate*. It's a sure sign of precisely how well your critical faculties are working.

      * I remain astounded by the fact that we are in 2016 and there are actual human beings who believe it is literally true that Clinton is the devil incarnate.

    208. Re: Does anybody ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they would get mad at Congress because Congress is responsible?

      If the President started a staring match with Congress and Congress didn't blink, then people would blame the person who started the staring match. Or, put another way, it would be framed as "the President made the reckless decision to free all these people, imperiling our safety, and Congress scrambled to reduce the damage of his mistake." That would be pretty difficult to defend against.

    209. Re: Does anybody ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If "the league" is "the list of the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling", then they are in fact in the same league.

      Guess what the #1 reason for voting for either candidate is? Because they are not the other person, because the voter dislikes their opponent even more than they dislike the person they're voting for. They aren't voting for that person because they like them, in fact they don't like them, they're voting for them because the don't like them slightly less than the other candidate. So, they have that in common too, maybe that's "the league" you were referring to. The league where candidates get votes not because of their own merits, but because of how historically awful the other candidate is.

      Or maybe you're referring to the league where the candidate who wins the election is going to be the one who speaks the least, because no one wants to hear what either of them has to say, and whenever they open their mouths their favorability rating and poll numbers drop. That's the league where people shut up and let the other person defeat themselves. They're also both in that league.

      I suppose they're in a lot of the same leagues, actually.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    210. Re: Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It would be very easy to defend. As I pointed out, Gitmo breaks international treaties (it also breaks US law, but that's another matter). It also promotes the propagation of terrorism by making it easier to get recruits, and to portray America as the great Satan. This isn't speculation.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    211. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Rational thought went out the window long ago. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want a rational voting population. And of course, everyone went for the bait - shoot the (purported) messenger instead of looking at the message. Who cares where they came from? Clinton and Podesta can release their copies (Clinton certainly has her speeches - she allowed only 1 copy to be made, and it was exclusively for herself).

      Her defense is the same as what Trump would say if his tax returns were leaked - to divert attention to the source, even though he could just release them and clear up any questions.

      Does anyone expect either of these two to respect the rule of law?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    212. Re: Does anybody ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, Gitmo breaks international treaties

      A very very large segment of the US does not particularly care about international treaties, they care only about US law. And yet since it's not in the US, they find ways to dismiss that problem too.

      Since 9/11, the citizens of the US have been pretty willing to compromise previously-dearly-held ideas like prisoner torture since for them, the gloves come off when they're facing terrorists. Jack Bauer was their hero. They don't particularly care about "international opinion."

    213. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "tech community that come on Slashdot" is more literate than you? I never once said the emails came from Russia. I said that the Russian media took the emails Wikileaks released and posted false stories based upon garbled versions of them. That's a matter of public record.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Hillary, is that you? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

    Is Barack Obama interfering with the election process by cutting off free speech that can be damaging to Clinton and the democrats? Sure can't blame that one on the Russians.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  3. cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DrumpfLeaks has activated "contingency drumpfs" after its co-drumpf's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet. The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assdrumpf, who has been locked up in the Ecuadrumpfian Embassy in Londrumpf for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world. Facing extradition to Swedrumpf over allegations of rape, which he denies, the Australian computer programmer has been holed up in the embassy in West Londrumpf since 2012. He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating DrumpfLeaks. The unverified claims of state sabotage come as DrumpfLeaks continues to release damaging documents, most recently thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Drumpfton's campaign manager John Podrumpfsta.

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CLAIMS. Where is the proof? Internet gos down and the first thing you do is blame a "State actor". waaaaahhhh everyone is out to get me. Can't wait till they scoop this turd up.

    1. Re:Really? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the US can blame the Russians ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Really? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 2

      Mike Pence is blaming the Russians now too. And he may be in a better position to know, since Roger Stone (Trump campaign bigwig) has copped to coordinating with Wikileaks.

      http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

    3. Re:Really? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And how is this distraction supposed to be more important than the actual contents of the leaked documents, that show Clinton is a two-faced liar? If the Russians leaked them, they did a public service. Same as if they were to leak Trump's tax returns. Shoot-the-messenger because you don't like the message?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Really? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      When people talk about the Russians, they are complaining about the thief, not the messenger.

    5. Re:Really? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They can be one and the same, you know. It's not like they're mutually exclusive. Besides, the US does it all the time to governments around the world, actively interfering in elections. So stop your hypocritical whining. It's embarrassing.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Really? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      Exclusivity is so beside the point that I'm not sure why you mentioned it. I would not be better disposed to a thief who claimed: "but after this I'll be a messenger!"

      I concede that the Russians have long complained that we encourage western-style democracy in their former satellites, and there is nothing hypocritical about it. Nor for that matter is it hypocritical for Putin to attempt to install (by hook and crook) a poor man's Putin as President of the United States. But neither the thief nor the messenger is actually interested in advancing democracy, so the people calling them out on their agenda re neither hypocritical nor whining.

    7. Re:Really? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Oh look, some fuckwit conflating wikileaks with Russia.

      Wikileaks may or may not be receiving leaked/hacked documents from Russia but someone talking to some cunt at Wikileaks has fuck all to do with Russia.

    8. Re:Really? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The United States has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments, always over economic interests of American business. Just look at Iran. Or Venezuela. Or look at the list of 57 countries the US has either overthrown or tried to overthrow since WW2. Or the countries which the US meddled in from which we get the term banana republic.

      And then there's assassinations and attempted assassinations. Cuba and the Bay of Pigs, anyone? Or Obama's creation of an extra-judicial and illegal hit list.

      So no, you're totally, totally full of shit when you say that the US encourages western democracy. "Only when it suits US business." We wouldn't be seeing the problems in the middle east if the democratically elected government hadn't been overthrown. Iran would be secular (as it was before the overthrow), and an anchor of stability. But no, oil oil oil.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Really? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      The U.S certainly throws is weight around, and threw it more freely when Putin's former employer was still kicking. But Russia's current distemper has a lot less to do with the Bay of Pigs than Ukraine and Syria (and Estonia and Poland And Latvia and . . . )

      And Cuba is next! Good times.

    10. Re:Really? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If Cuba is next, it's because of decades of US stupidity in the face of almost universal criticism of the blockade - the only other nation to support the blockade at the UN was Israel (and the US and Israel are always pulling each other's strings).

      Now would be the ideal time for Russia to invade the Baltic nations - they would be in control of the capitals within 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 days, and there's nothing much that NATO can do about it. And that's assuming the tanks only move at the glacial pace of 5 mph (see link elsewhere to RAND Corp study). Of course, the ideal time to do it isn't yet - the day before the next president takes the oath of office, or that day, would be much more effective.

      And since the US has openly said they're going to break into Russian computer systems (like the US hasn't been doing so all over the world - ha!), Putin could say that the original order was generated by hacked communications systems, but that once it started, the best option for the Russian people was to see it through to the end.

      Same as if the US accidentally launched a nuke directed towards Moscow - many in the US would feel that, given the high likelihood of a massive retaliation, better to follow through with everything you've got rather than go "oops - sorry, won't happen again."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Good to see some patriotism. by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's good to see the NSA step up to patriotically ensure Hillary's ascendancy to the throne. They were slacking compared to the loyalty of the DOJ who selflessly made sure to destroy the laptops of anybody on her staff who might have had incriminating evidence.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      "Only an out-of-touch idiot like Romney would ever think that Russia is our enemy! -- Hillary Clinton
      Flag as Inappropriate"

      Damn! Hilliary said something I agree with! Romney is an idiot. It's an amazing day.

    2. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by freedom_surfer · · Score: 1

      This comment comes with a complimentary free tin hat!

    3. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      He should have run. His campaign motto could have been "I told you so". But we got Trump instead.

    4. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, the NSA hates Hilary. The people in the NSA understand that Hilary did stuff they would have life in prison for, and they don't like her at all.

    5. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You can call Clinton a number of things. I'm not a fan, so I'm inclined to agree with many of them. But stupid, she is not.

      And that is what she would have to be to get involved with this sort of thing when she's so clearly ahead in the election. Her dilemma at this point is not "win at all costs", but "How can I expand the Democratic footprint?".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      I guess they have to do what the commander in chief tells them. Isn't that how military organizations are supposed to work?

    7. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, they don't know how to spell her name.

    8. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Internet quotes spread by social media have no value. "Deception is the new internet reality." - Orville Wright (2012) which if you notice that is dated 100 years after he died and has the same actual legitimacy as your out of context and fabricated quote above.

    9. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, if you hold a security clearance, supporting Hillary Clinton is considered "adverse information": it indicates a willingness to ignore proper processes and procedures for personal gain, and means that such people will be placed under greater scrutiny for the possibility of wrongdoing by the people in charge of protecting United States secrets.

    10. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      But Romney's a Mexican.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we can – Mexican!

    12. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, YES?!

      Have you not been paying attention to anything Wikileaks has been leaking? She never wants to "play fair" and "leave things in the public's hands," she's all about making sure everything goes her way no matter what it takes.

      Hell, do you remember Richard Nixon? He was going to win the election when Watergate happened, and he did it anyway, and it's safe to say that Nixon was much smarter than Hillary Clinton.

    13. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think she "is so far ahead" you are as immersed in blue-state media hype as the infamous crucible is in urine.

    14. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by CByrd17 · · Score: 1

      Orville was around quite a bit longer than 1912. As a young man, my grandfather (who was born in 1912) met him.

      Per Wikipedia:
              On January 30, 1948, Orville died after suffering a second heart attack. He is buried at the Wright family plot in Dayton, Ohio.

    15. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced even now that Romney would have been any better than Obama.

    16. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well hell, I didn't make the quote, I simply repeated it and more as a joke than anything serious. I must have hit a nerve, if you missed the humor I'm sorry for you.

    17. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I think he just got the name wrong. Clearly that quote should be attributed to Wilbur Wright, who did die in 1912.

      source

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    18. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitlery? Or Shillery?

    19. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald, we told you—Slashdot will eat you alive.

    20. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      He should have run. His campaign motto could have been "I told you so". But we got Trump instead.

      Trump is nice for any cultural-conservative European.

      He doesn't look good and may not be the smartest of all people but at-least he has the right values going for him.

      If I were a US voter the guy who would always have my trust to make America great again would had been Arnold Schwarzenegger though... But he can't become a president in the US =P (Sure he's immigrant but whatever, would you mess with the fucking terminator, Mr. Universe, Mr. Olympia, the one who can set that fat comedy guy (like, Italian?), what is he called? - Danny DeVito, in his right place, successful with the ladies, relaxed with drug usage..)

    21. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't have to be better than Obama. He just has to be better than Trump.

    22. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, I'm "immersed" in data as opposed to what my Facebook feed looks like, or what my friends say.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      He may or may not have been smarter, but the guy was straight-up paranoid. History might reveal the same about Hillary, but so far we don't have evidence of this.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      You like data?

      Immerse yourself.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    25. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I was speaking about the "I told you so" motto. And really we had a Romney surrogate in !Jeb and look how that worked. Slick lying insiders aren't in vogue this election year on the Republican side, the Democrats have a monopoly on that this year. The voters were a little tired of the usual bullshit from their elite betters that run the R machine inside the beltway. They figure that with all his warts Trump is better than having more Romney style bullshit crammed down our throats. If I want a whore owned by Wall Street and the MegaCorps I can vote for Hilliary. Why do the Republicans think they need to mirror image her?

    26. Re:Good to see some patriotism. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's good to see the NSA step up to patriotically ensure Hillary's ascendancy to the throne

      Wikileaks right now is acting as an undiscerning distribution point for documents provided to them by foreign-state hackers. These aren't "leaks", and the targets are private US citizens. If some fake material is included, we have no way of knowing that, and the hackers have plenty of opportunity, capability, and motivation to spread fake info. There's at least one case where the widely-reported info was not in the actual emails, and several where the targets have disputed the contents.

      There is a term for doing this to a foreign country: Information Warfare.

      Information warfare (IW) is a concept involving the use and management of information and communication technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[citation needed] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.

      I don't care which candidate they are concentrating on. They could be doing this only to Trump instead of Clinton, and it wouldn't matter to me. Targeting our election like this is an attack on the USA, and it is our government's job to respond. Just sitting back and letting them destabilize our Democracy is for chumps. Shutting down their outlet is the bare minimum they should be doing. Hopefully there's more to come.

    27. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I assume I'm supposed to interpret this is some way that shows that Trump will win?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does that mean I could have voted for taco trucks on every corner?

      If Trump doesn't win, I'm going to be demanding those taco trucks!

    29. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Why not both? Shitlery for President! I'm With Führer!

    30. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Just estimate the turnout and find that spot on the regression lines.

      If you need help estimating the turnout, look around for Trump and Hillary signs. Or ponder the turnout in the party primaries.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    31. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Turnout is obviously important, but this is somewhat lessened by the electoral college and the tendency of states to go one direction or another based on geography. Yard signs are nice, but most of these polls do make an effort to determine "likely voters". There are also simply more Democrats than Republicans nationwide (again, tempered by the geographic differences).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    32. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Despite all of the evidence available to you, you still think that these polls are attempting to solicit information?

      Go find some more data. Those same polls are plotted in other ways, such as a time series. The left/right shifts on those polls are clearly dictated by the needs of the Clinton campaign and are not the product of randomness. The samples are carefully selected in advance to obtain (roughly) the desired result. Also, people predicted the twists and turns of the polling months and years ago, before anyone knew who the candidates were going to be.

      Trump is going to win by 6-12 million popular votes. (I've sen estimates up past 20 million vote spreads, but those are based on circumstances that I don't expect to happen, so I stick with very conservative numbers.) That could translate into a narrow electoral majority on the low end, all the way up to 45+ states on the high end. Bookmark this and come back on the 9th. You don't believe me today, but you will then.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    33. Re: Good to see some patriotism. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Also, people predicted the twists and turns of the polling months and years ago, before anyone knew who the candidates were going to be.

      Couldn't that just mean that people behave predictably around elections, rather than indicating that the polling is manipulated?

      Bookmark this and come back on the 9th. You don't believe me today, but you will then.

      I'll agree to that if you agree, when the popular vote is 6 million votes against him, not to claim electoral fraud.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  6. Hillary wiped out the link with her cloth by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    Assange should watch his back, wouldn't want her to use her cloth on him!

  7. State Actor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that... the British workman with the backhoe who ripped up the conduit?

    The paranoia is strong with this one

    1. Re:State Actor? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It is rather odd that a sovereign embassy gets it's Internet cut by the host state and nobody bothers repairing it. If it was just an outage, it would've been fixed before it got on Slashdot but so far and I would guess that embassies have more than one method of linking to the Internet.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:State Actor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so odd considering that there is a warrant for Assange's arrest.

      Do you remember what we did to the embassy that held Noriega?

    3. Re:State Actor? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Have you any confirmation at all that the Embassy's Internet has indeed been cut? Others here are reporting that Assange doesn't use their Internet.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:State Actor? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Sooo... maybe he uses Comcast?

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:State Actor? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Either way, it's a physical data link going into an embassy. There is no saying who or what exactly uses it within the embassy.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:State Actor? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Why? the embassy is in the UK. Most of us are lucky here if we can get our connection fixed within 3 months, 24 hours is not a typical response time for BT - even if you have an SLA with them on a commercial line you'll be lucky if they actually bother to fulfil it half the time.

  8. Small by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Hillary is playing a violin so small that Trump accidentally sniffed it up his nose.

    1. Re:Small by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Playing a violin? She's almost certainly the person behind it.
      She clearly still knows nothing about the internet if she thinks stopping his connection will prevent him leaking shit on her. You'd think after her own private email server scandal she'd have bothered to at least get the first clue about how the internet works. I guess she thinks she's too important to have to actually listen to/learn anything from others.

    2. Re:Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you lose respect for an opponent and think them to be a fool... they are most likely to knock you on your ass

    3. Re:Small by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      She's almost certainly the person behind it.

      Certainly? Your personal bias seems to be manufacturing specific evidence.

    4. Re:Small by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Oh really?

      https://www.theguardian.com/me...

      It was actually Ecuador that cut him off but do you REALLY believe that Ecuador care that much about what he posts about the US? I'd bet big that Hillary found some way to lean on them.

      From the same article: "Many felt it was no coincidence that the internet was cut just after WikiLeaks had released another batch of emails from the campaign manager of the US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."

    5. Re:Small by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't consider Guardian reliable.

    6. Re:Small by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      How convenient. Any excuse to keep living in denial, sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA rather than ever have to make any effort, actually use your brain and double check any information that Hillary might actually be a fucking criminal. Keep drinking the Koolaid bro.

  9. Democrats and Truth by mi · · Score: 1

    Which "bullshit"? Please, be certain to clearly specify, whether you hate him for falsifying the released communications or for "stealing" the real ones.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. It is kind of strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the United States would back Assange up by giving him cover from his upcoming interview with the Swedish authorities.

  11. Do NOT comment on this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do NOT post anything! Do NOT show any support for Assange or Wikileaks! Do NOT pledge donations! Your well-being and your family's depend on this!

    1. Re:Do NOT comment on this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do NOT post anything! Do NOT show any support for Assange or Wikileaks! Do NOT pledge donations! Your well-being and your family's depend on this!

      I know a lot of people that were in positions to hurt the Clintons politically have "coincidentally" wound up dead, but I don't think even Hillary could have all Wikileaks supporters offed, could she?

    2. Re:Do NOT comment on this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lolwut? Yeahsure AC, we gotcha there

  12. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Just as likely that Hillary will have another "medical problem" and someone else will have to step in to the presidency. Neither the CIA nor the NSA want a hot war with Russia, and they have the ways and means to take care of it.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  13. internet.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He really should have used Zuckerbergs internet.org.

  14. I liked Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before it became popular. With Vladamir Putin.

    1. Re:I liked Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With Vladamir Putin" So, basically you liked wikileaks before they decided corrupt democratic elites from America weren't too big to bring down. So to watch your heroes get crushed like this pal, but it's only going to get worse (and much more physical) from here as more people wake up and realize how the left has manipulated the system deep into criminal waters in order to maintain power.

  15. TFA is from RT by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    Apparently the Russians do, and report it in the Russia Times. At least, there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.

    1. Re:TFA is from RT by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.

      Which I'm fine with. I know when I read RT to take it with a grain of salt. When I read Breitbart, I know what I'm getting. I like Mother Jones, too, and I know what I'm getting. But when I'm watching a CNN debate, presented to me as fair and impartial, but CNN has given one side a copy of the debate questions ahead of time...uh oh.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:TFA is from RT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, RT is reporting that their UK bank accounts are being shut down.

      https://www.rt.com/news/363013...

      I guess someone's anxious to make sure RT's message doesn't get out. Heaven forbid that some news outlet might question the Western media propaganda.
      Growing up in the Cold War years, I never imagined a day that I would have to consult Russian media sources to get full coverage of world events.

    3. Re:TFA is from RT by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      A quick read of the Times (first hit on this), the woman providing the question was a member of the DNC on leave from CNN and it's about a debate back in March against other Democratic candidates not the most recent one between Trump and Hillary. And since we only have the leaks from Hillary's guy, I don't know that the woman didn't present it or other questions to Bernie or the others in the debate.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:TFA is from RT by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      1) They gave it to Hillary and not Bernie because Hillary is the establishment choice. It's not so much a Republican/Democrat thing as it is an elites vs commoners thing.

      2) Even if they gave it to Bernie, too, it's still fucking bullshit. It's just kabuki theater. There is no democracy. There is no journalism. There are elites, their chosen puppets, and their propagandists.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:TFA is from RT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They gave it to Hillary and not Bernie because Hillary is the establishment choice

      Yeah, having been a politician since 1981, and part of Congress (house or senate) since 1991, it's clear that he's a real outsider, and not part of the Washington machine at all.

      Don't kid yourself, friend. He's just as much one of the "elites" and "establishment" as Hillary is - Hillary just has more powerful connections.

    6. Re:TFA is from RT by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I didn't say he wasn't establishment. I said he wasn't the establishment choice. Are you arguing Bernie was the choice of the establishment?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  16. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikileaks revealed that her Hillary! van is actually an ambulance. Maybe she should replace it with a hearse. Would anybody know she's dead? Good riddance. Charge people $5 to piss on her grave and you could retire the deficit.

  17. I should not have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    At the same time today, RT's branch in London had it's accounts frozen. It seems pretty likely that the Ecuador embassy has no internet since the ambassador isn't answering emails. That sounds an awful lot like the west taking the anti-Russia action it's been talking about.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Russia's probably been doing what it's accused of. But this is not the response of a western demicracy. We are supposed to have a free marketplace of ideas. In a free marketplace of ideas, you tollerate Russian BS because the better ideas will win... unless maybe, just matbe, the Russians have a point.

    Methinks that if our western governments are reacting like authoritarian assholes, the Russians might have a point.

  18. RT.com = Russian news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news source is RT and RT has had its bank accounts closed after the hacking of DNC, since its a Putin mouthpiece and state bad propaganda actor, NatWest bank decided it didn't want their business anymore.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020

    Are you one of Peter Thiels lot? You realize you're working with a foreign power to undermine your own democracy don't you? I see your astroturf all over Slashdot and its clear you're doing little prepared set pieces, but I wonder if you understand what you're actually doing. Trump can't win now, he can only undermine confidence in the vote and his own party, which seems to be his aim now. It's not surprising that Putin is taking advantage of Trump's tantrum, but you astroturf lot need to ask yourself why you're going along with it.

    1. Re:RT.com = Russian news by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Trump can't win now, he can only undermine confidence in the vote and his own party, which seems to be his aim now. It's not surprising that Putin is taking advantage of Trump's tantrum, but you astroturf lot need to ask yourself why you're going along with it.

      I am going to laugh my a$$ off if this ends up becoming another Dewey vs Truman statement. As most polls still are within the margin off error, this could be a possibility

    2. Re:RT.com = Russian news by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Trump can't win now

      If you repeat a lie often enough, or something along those lines...right?

    3. Re:RT.com = Russian news by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I am going to laugh my a$$ off if this ends up becoming another Dewey vs Truman statement

      According to 538 (who unlike you and me and most of the press are experts at analyzing polling), you have roughly a 15% chance (as of this writing) of getting that laugh. Not where I'd place a bet, but likely enough that you should probably lay in for some spare a$$es just in case.

  19. Not the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between free speech and Wikileaks being used as a pawn by another nation to influence the outcome of a country's national elections.

    Is the "fire in a crowded theater" argument.

    1. Re: Not the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, despite the supposed lefty liberal sheen, it is pretty obvious that Assange is trying his hardest to get the Donald elected using dubiously acquired emails. Especially puzzling when you consider the Donald would probably have Assange locked up in a SuperMax forever. Hmmm...

    2. Re:Not the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's different because Wikileaks is releasing dirt on Your Team, which threatens to hurt their chances of winning the Presidentbowl.

    3. Re:Not the same. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the theatre does appear to be on fire.

  20. Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

    Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.

    Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".

    But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.

    See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism".

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Good and bad exposures by HBI · · Score: 1

      Look up "Operation McCall" for "suitable for public release" details on Saddam's nuclear program.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gwb43.com

    3. Re:Good and bad exposures by maynard · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law by photocopying and smuggling out classified documents about Vietnam War progress (or lack thereof) from the RAND corporation, where he was an a Ph.D military analyst. He provided those documents to the reporters from New York Times and Washington Post. The Nixon Administration filed an emergency injunction with the Supreme Court to suppress immanent publication by the New York Times. But the Supreme Court refused on the grounds doing so would imperil the first amendment by imposing court mandated prior restraint. See: New York Times v United States.

      Now that does not mean Ellsberg could not have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1919. He absolutely broke the law and admitted as such. He was an employee with a high security clearance entrusted to prevent the release of those documents. Not steal and release them. The justice department ultimately refused to prosecute. But as we've seen with the Bush and Obama Administrations, Espionage Act investigations and prosecutions are popular these days.

      Just how the US Government plans to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act is unclear. He's a non-citizen who never signed a US security clearance nor took an oath to protect classified materials. Furthermore, Wikileaks is arguably a journalistic endeavor. The government makes no distinction between official journalists and citizen journalists for first amendment protections. If the New York Times can do it, so can Julian Assange. And if they argue he's not a citizen and therefore not protected under the first amendment, how then can they argue as a non citizen he's bound by the US Espionage Act?

      Perhaps a real lawyer can chime up here. I just took a grad media law class. But it sure seems like tortured logic to me.

    4. Re:Good and bad exposures by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

      Before those Pulitzers were given, before the journalists published those "illegally"-obtained documents, those journalists actually verified that the documents were fucking real, which is something no one has proven with the Guccifer 2.0 or #PodestaEmails19.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 1

      This is why he is not prosecuted for espionage, but rather for rape . Of course, "rape" had to be redefined to include "unprotected sex when the woman consented only to condom-protected penetration". But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Good and bad exposures by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What a delightful euphemism for forced sexual contact; "unappreciated kiss". My oh my, but it appears that in the world of Trump, all unwanted sexual contact is simply "unappreciated'.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Before those Pulitzers were given [...] those journalists actually verified that the documents were fucking real

      Bullshit. Assigned to work on the case in June of 1972, Woodward and Bernstein got their first Watergate-related Pulitzer in 1973, less than a year later? Evidence against president's staff, says Wikipedia, only started to mount by July 1973, but Pulitzers are given out in April...

      What sort of proof can be obtained in such cases, especially this quickly? Nixon only resigned in 1974, and the identity of the "Deep Throat" remained unknown until 2005! Some "proof"...

      Without realizing it, you've just demonstrated another Illiberal hypocrisy — if the suspect is a Republican, even a rumor or an unsubstantiated allegation is sufficient. For a Democrat — nothing other than "beyond reasonable doubt" would suffice. Thus any talk of Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women is slander, of his wife helping cover it up — only more so, but Trump is an asshole for preferring good-looking females to ugly ones.

      Likewise, we are supposed to ignore Hillary Clinton's negligence with State secrets (she was never convicted, right?), but instead concentrate on rumors, Trump is a Putin's man.

      which is something no one has proven with the Guccifer 2.0 or #PodestaEmails19.

      Questions:

      1. Is that your defense — that the published texts aren't actually verbatim copies of the e-mails?
      2. Could you link to any earlier doubts regarding the authenticity of Wikileaks publications harming Bush? Ideally, it would be your own comment, but anything on Huffington Post or DailyKos would be acceptable too.
      3. What would you accept as proof in this case even theoretically?
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Good and bad exposures by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      So "unwanted kiss" sounds better to you? To me they sound roughly the same.

    9. Re:Good and bad exposures by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If Donald Trump planted a kiss on your lips, how would you feel?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Good and bad exposures by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Calling Hillary (or any Clinton or Rodham or Obama) a democrat is akin to call Hitler a moderate Nazi --- Shillary is neocon through and through!

    11. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your hypothesis is that the evil Russians, in collaboration with Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, engaged in a conspiracy to forge more than ten thousand documents? They did this as a smokescreen so that they could release maybe 50-100 that are actually of some interest and political value?
      Note that the Democrats aren't questioning the authenticity of the documents. In fact, they're the ones complaining most loudly that the evil Russians breached their systems and stole the information. If the documents are forgeries, why are the Democrats and people in the U.S. government talking about hacks and blaming the Russians for breaking into systems? There would be no hacking involved in producing fake documents.

    12. Re:Good and bad exposures by maynard · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Good and bad exposures by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied".

      So I followed your link and rather than saying about "WMDs found" I would say "scraps and dreams of WMDs found". It's not news (and thus not surprising) that Saddam was trying to have chemical weapons, and that he had some low-grade crap. That's not news. What would have been news would have been if he had actually had active and functional sarin gas bombs. Instead, they "found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents[...] most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime." Rounds for which we had kept the receipts. That's how we knew Saddam had ever had them.

      But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed.

      Now there I'm with you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 1

      I see... Well, strictly speaking, that's just a Grand Jury deciding, whether or not to prosecute him. Convened in 2011, they were still at it in 2013. Probably, still are...

      Clearly, much easier to continue calling him "rapist"...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 2

      So I followed your link and rather than saying about "WMDs found" I would say "scraps and dreams of WMDs found".

      From the Wired's article:

      WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

      and:

      Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

      You were saying?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Journalists? Ha! You haven't been paying attention.

      Don't worry though. The internet verified the leaks.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    17. Re:Good and bad exposures by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed.

      Totally. If only I had mod points.

    18. Re:Good and bad exposures by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I don't think she's anything other than whatever she thinks at the time is the best opportunity to get herself more money/power.
      If something happened such that the only way she could get to be President was as a Republican, you'd see her do the world's biggest U turn overnight, with "clever" explanations for everything that the media and therefore most of the sheeple would totally go along with.

    19. Re:Good and bad exposures by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Those links show that the phone was hacked. That's not even close to being the same thing as saying that the documents Wikileaks released are real.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Good and bad exposures by fedos · · Score: 1

      You sound exactly like the sort of stupid right wing bigot that Clinton would most appeal to.

    21. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss."

      Try an actual legal dictionary.
      http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

      "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."

      That's ALL that's required for assault.

      An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery; since there was unwanted ('offensive') physical contact too.

    22. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think more people have just caught onto the fact that Assange hates America. I remember reading an interview with or about him years ago (around the time of the Manning leaks) and it was pretty clear that he harbored some real hatred for the country. At the time, I didn't care because the stuff getting exposed had a chance to actually change the negative actions taken by the US military.

      But when he started going after the people who are actually interesting in bringing about changes to the system he so hates, it really just shows he's not interested in seeing America improve. He just wants to see it fall. And that's a real problem, because no matter how fucked up America can be sometimes, the Powers that are next in line are much worse. And don't even pretend that the EU is somehow united enough to actually take command if the US were to crash and burn.

    23. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      But still, an unwanted "kiss" wasn't as much the problem as grabbing women "by the pussy". It takes some serious mental gymnastics to try and dodge that being part of the conversation.

    24. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 1

      If Donald Trump planted a kiss on your lips, how would you feel?

      Not as weird, as if Brezhnev were to...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why he is not prosecuted for espionage, but rather for rape . Of course, "rape" had to be redefined to include "unprotected sex when the woman consented only to condom-protected penetration".

      It wasn't "redefined", kiddo, it's a matter of established Swedish law.

      But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss.

      And here we have some more willful intellectual dishonesty. First off, yeah, kissing someone would be sexual assault. More importantly, though, is that the larger problem lies elsewhere in the conversation. You know, the whole "grab them by the pussy" part? I'm sure you didn't forget about that, right? So why leave it out?

    26. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 1

      "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."

      Interesting... Subtle changes in semantics can really alter the meaning, can't they? My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:

      1. a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped
      2. the crime of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will

      By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".

      An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery

      It is not even an assault. And nobody got beaten, which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".

      Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    27. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your logic is that you're comparing things that one party denies with things that another party readily admits.

    28. Re:Good and bad exposures by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Julian Assange was a hero too [huffingtonpost.com], as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq [wired.com] after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive" [cbsnews.com].

      But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.

      Maybe Assange tried to barter with or blackmail Hillary to get the US to back off and leave him alone. And maybe that failed, so he is forced to double down on Trump. Either way, god help Assange when Hillary is elected.

    29. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your definition, I was repeatedly assaulted by my grandmother.

    30. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with gender roles in society. 99% of the time, the man has to make the first move. It's up to him to read the mysterious signals correctly, and go for it. Of course, even if a woman is flirting with you, she can still say she wanted to flirt but not to kiss. The risk is entirely on the man. Best of all, women will also get mad at men for NOT receiving the subtle signals.

      Rule 1: Be attractive.
      Rule 2: Don't be unattractive.

    31. Re:Good and bad exposures by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      A kiss is considered assault and battery? What a bunch of pussies!

      j/k

    32. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps. However there has been many "unappreciated kisses". Does Sweden normally invest this much resources to extradite people abroad, simply for "unappreciated kisses?

    33. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God! I've been assaulted by my mother all my life!!!

      I feel so used :(

    34. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · · Score: 1

      It is not even an assault.

      It really is. Raising your fist and threatening to hit someone is "assault". Spitting at someone and missing is "assault".

      My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:

      Yours isn't a legal dictionary. Actually... yours isn't even a dictionary at all. (see below).

      And nobody got beaten

      Legally, where assault is merely the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, battery is harmful or offensive contact actually taking place.
      Taking your raised fist and striking someone is battery. Spitting at them and hitting them is battery. Pinching someone is battery. etc.

      which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".

      Even wordnet nails it:

      "S: (n) battery, assault and battery (an assault in which the assailant makes physical contact)"

      And wordnet isn't completely wrong about assault either, not really... it gets that it is threatened or attempted physical contact.

      "S: (n) assault (a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped)"

      Its just a shitty example. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair spitting at you is an attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm (landing spit on you) if not stopped. (Bodily harm is just any injury to your body -- including the injury of violating your right not to be spat upon.)

      In any case all dictionaries are imperfect, but wordnet isn't even really a dictionary. Its a hypertext of synonym groups. The definitions are more illustrative than robust; as that isn't the focus of the project.

      Plus its not exactly in good shape...

      "Due to funding and staffing issues, we are no longer able to accept comment and suggestions."
      "Due to limited staffing, there are currently no plans for future WordNet releases."
      http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

      Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".

      http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-li...

      Although the words âoeassault and batteryâ usually conjure up images of clearly hurtful and unwanted touches like being punched or kicked, a plaintiff does not have to prove she actually suffered injury to win an assault or battery case. Rather, she must merely prove that the touching was unwanted. Hugging, kissing, or providing seemingly helpful touches like first aid can count as assault and battery if the plaintiff does not want to be touched. In the torts of assault and battery, what matters is what the plaintiff does or does not want, not what the defendantâ(TM)s motives are in touching the plaintiff.

      Yeah, "an unwanted kiss" is assault and battery. That is calling it what it is. This isn't obscure. Its been well established forever legally; and they've been teaching it in corporate sexual harrassment training sessions for decades now. I'm pretty sure even McDonalds covers it in their new employee orientations.

      By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".

      Huh? There's no 'careful manipulation being done by 'professional word jugglers'.

    35. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 2

      Raising your fist and threatening to hit someone is "assault". Spitting at someone and missing is "assault".

      Yes! Moreover, simply telling someone, you'll kick his ass is an assault.

      But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that. The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it." So, no, it was not an assault.

      Moreover, this sudden — and synchronized — swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself. If Trump was such a sexual assaulter, as NBC knew for 11 years (they've had the tape for all this time), why did they bring him to run the "Apprentice" show? Why have the ladies involved been quiet until now — Clinton's accusers, for example, have tried to make their case for years even before, he became President.

      Sorry, it just does not add up — unless you are a cog in the Hillary's tank, of course, and wish her to win no matter what...

      Yeah, "an unwanted kiss" is assault and battery. That is calling it what it is.

      If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another, and waste cycles convincing the audience, the substitute is valid and the terms — equivlanet. What you are doing is spin — carefully choosing synonyms and almost-but-not-quite equivalent words to make something appear worse or better than it really is, depending on your goals.

      What it is is "unwanted kiss". End it right there and talk about that, if you can. But you can not — "unwanted kiss" just does not have the same ring to it, as "sexual assault" (the term Anderson Cooper used during the debate) does, does it? So, with a dishonest sleigh of hand, you substitute one for the other...

      There's no 'careful manipulation being done by 'professional word jugglers'.

      In denial much? It is right here, laughing in your face with perfectly white teeth crediting a highly paid dentist. Here is, how it works:

      • Some dictionaries would define, what Trump boasted of doing in 2005, as assault. Because it involved physical contact, it would also be considered battery in the court of law.
      • Therefore, Trump should disgust you, dear viewer, as if he were boasting of beating women.
      • Because it involved kissing, it must've been sexual assault too, which is, according to some other dictionaries, a synonym for rape.
      • Therefore, dear viewer, you should also reject Trump as rapist. That there was no actual penetration involved is of no consequence — the above sequence logical arguments clearly shows, unwanted kissing to be equivalent of rape — only an illogical redneck would disagreee. We will now go to commercials, while you try to imaging your daughter being kissed by Trump.
      • PROFIT!!

      You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together — a Slashdot junkie with some experience could do it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    36. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Reading a password out of a leaked email is not "hacked".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    37. Re:Good and bad exposures by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The "not to be believed" seems to be the new talking point. That information that got party political staff to quit is now all "fake"....

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    38. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another

      I'm not substituting terms. An unwanted kiss is sexual assault. This is a hard reality. You are the one trying to minimize the behavior. You are the one trying to say its 'just' a kiss or "maybe an unwanted kiss". I'm calling it what it is.

      But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that.

      Dude. Read my post. Unwanted first-aid can lead to charges of assault and battery. Unwanted kissing absolutely qualifies as "any of that". Pull your head out of the sand, and accept reality.

      The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it."

      And if your boss sexually harasses a woman and she doesn't want to get fired or bring attention to it, then she's consenting and its not sexual harassment right? The fact that people 'let' rich and powerful people get away with things is not consent. Many of these women spoke to laywers etc, and they were advised that it's ultimately he-said / she-said vs a vindictive guy will billions of dollars... the courts aren't always a winning move. What does she hope to acheive, other than to have her name dragged through the mud?

      Some dictionaries would define, what Trump boasted of doing in 2005, as assault. Because it involved physical contact, it would also be considered battery in the court of law.

      Not "some dictionaries". The law defines it that way. At best some pretty shitty dictionaries don't include the legal definition.

      Therefore, Trump should disgust you, dear viewer, as if he were boasting of beating women.

      Trump disgusts me because he boasts of doing exactly what people accuse him of doing, unwanted sexual advances - unwanted kissing, groping, touching. That's sexual assault. Everyone understands this. Nobody is equating it with beatings except you.

      Because it involved kissing, it must've been sexual assault too, which is, according to some other dictionaries, a synonym for rape.

      Nope. Rape requires penetration. All rape is sexual assault. Not all sexual assault is rape. They are not synonyms although they do overlap. I'm not calling it rape, nobody else seems to be either. First you minimize it calling it 'maybe an unwanted kiss' then you accuse others of inflating it to equate with rape, which nobody seems to be actually doing. Its not "just maybe an unwanted kiss. And its certainly not rape. Its sexual assault.

      You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together

      What are you hung up about with Anderson Cooper? He never accused Trump of being a rapist that I can find. Just of sexual assault. For someone so hung up on "word juggling" why are putting words into people's mouths?

      Moreover, this sudden â" and synchronized â" swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself.

      Really? Its suspicious how? That's how these things ALWAYS go down -- once a celebrity starts to come under pressure for conduct like this the victims come out of the woodwork ending their silence -- in solidarity with those who came before, emboldened by the knowledge that there were others, giving them confidence, and credibility, etc. This isn't suspicious. This is how the world works. These things hit a critical mass, and then other victims that hadn't gone public before because they were embarrassed or thought no one would believe; or thought they'd side with the celebrity against them just because he's rich, famous, they like his movies or tv shows or whatever... once the 'tide' starts to turn, more victims come forward.

      Its not a conspiracy theory. Its human beings 101.

      You are in denia

    39. Re:Good and bad exposures by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And having a password does not mean Wikileaks' documents haven't been tampered with before release. In fact, we know for sure that the metadata has been altered. In fact many of the most allegedly damaging emails have no metadata at all. Now why would Wikileaks take all that out, but leave passwords and social security numbers and addresses in?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:Good and bad exposures by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Chemical weapons aren't WMD. They are far less effective than bullets, pound for pound.

    41. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      You know that no one believes that right? You probably don't even believe it. The media spews Russia-FUD a lot, but so far Hillary hadn't claimed that there is anything false in them. Podesta hasn't claimed that they are false either.

      These emails are almost certainly "leaks" in the normal sense of the word: the product of insiders. The Hillary emails are probably coming from FBI agents. And if they are not coming from there, the FBI almost certainly has copies of most of them, which is why she doesn't dare say that they are false.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    42. Re:Good and bad exposures by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And if they are not coming from there, the FBI almost certainly has copies of most of them

      Wait, I thought she was hiding emails from the FBI. Now you're telling me they really have them?

      Lock her up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      No, she's been hiding emails from Congress by giving them to the FBI. The FBI isn't interested developing a case against her because Obama's involvement would then come out. And the DOJ sure as hell isn't going to prosecute him. Net result, FBI/DOJ grants immunity to everyone in the area and then destroy the evidence, even thought everyone involved is fully aware that Congress (remember them? co-equal branch of the federal governement?) has issued a subpoena for all such evidence.

      Please do try to keep up.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    44. Re:Good and bad exposures by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      remember them? co-equal branch of the federal governement?

      You mean the ones that have spent the past 6 years investigating Hillary Clinton and repealing Obamacare? That co-equal branch of government? Whose greatest achievement has been naming post offices?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    45. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single european and grandmother is a rapist, then.

    46. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I'm tempted to give you the benefit of doubt here and pretend that you are attempting to make a lame joke, but I suspect that you really just don't know anything about the structure of our federal government.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    47. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ALL that's required for assault.

      An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery; since there was unwanted ('offensive') physical contact too.

      That's a really good point. Here is another that doesn't seem to be in the forefront of your consideration- Assault is a spectrum. On one end is an unwanted tap on the shoulder, on the other end is murder. It really matters where on the spectrum a particular instance is.

    48. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Assault is a spectrum.

      Yes, of course.

      On one end is an unwanted tap on the shoulder,

      No, actually that's already battery. Leaning in with your finger raised to give someone an unwanted tap someone on the shoulder is assault.

      on the other end is murder.

      No, that's not assault either, that's murder.

      It really matters where on the spectrum a particular instance is.

      It really matters that you choose points ON the spectrum too.

      Offering unwanted first aid, or a helping hand is at one end, and apprehensions of serious bodily injury or death at the other.

      Unwanted kisses are on the shallower end of the pool for sure, but even here we have a spectrum... from a chivalrous dry kiss on the hand as probably the least or a barely perceptible 'European style greeting kiss' on the cheek to more wet versions of those to kisses on the mouth... etc... etc.

      By all accounts he was going for a kiss on the mouth with someone he just met. That's pretty far over the line.

    49. Re:Good and bad exposures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't seem to have been following the news. A pressure cooker is a WMD these days. Words don't mean what they did 20 years ago.

      And BTW, lead is a chemical.

  21. I know which state actor it was by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    Where is the bigger, more interesting, and more newsworthy story that the entire Ecuador embassy has been cut off? I still haven't seen it.

    Therefore, if the story is true, then everyone can easily infer which "stare actor" cut him off: Ecuador.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:I know which state actor it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecuador has an election coming up, current president is not re-running. He has no more political value to them.

      Word from some anon says they are negotiating to extradite him, he is threatening to commit suicide if they make him leave.

    2. Re:I know which state actor it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC says the embassy isn't answering email like it usually does. So even though they haven't announced it, it looks like they don't have internet.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37680411

    3. Re:I know which state actor it was by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      That really depends on how he's gaining access to the Internet. It's entirely possible that he's using a different link than the one used by the embassy staff for official business - guest WiFi perhaps, or maybe even dedicated fibre, DSL or 3G/LTE - he's been there long enough to have had one installed by now. Or maybe he's just using the free WiFi of a coffee shop across the street. Chances are pretty good he'll be using a VPN and/or TOR on top of whatever he was using, so perhaps the alleged state actor in question has gone after his VPN or somehow disrupted his TOR traffic instead of cutting the underlying circuit outright.

      Or maybe it's just that someone accidentally took a backhoe to a cable somewhere causing an outage and his paranoia has done the rest. Without details of what and how, it could be anything at all.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:I know which state actor it was by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Suicide. The last bastion of the desperate. I almost feel sorry for him.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:I know which state actor it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A DA notice was issued. You will NOT see this story from 'official' sources.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice

    6. Re:I know which state actor it was by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought a guy like him would have two or three PAYG SIM cards for contigencies.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:I know which state actor it was by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't exactly think they're going to let Assange know when they're pulling the plug on his asylum. He'll wake up one morning, start eating breakfast, and then British police will appear, take him into handcuffs, and put him on suicide watch.

      Besides, Assange is too much a egotist to ever actually commit suicide.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:I know which state actor it was by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I would presume he uses a VPN connection, as would everyone inside the embassy, on the assumption that the broadband lines are tapped. Probably Tor as well. Wouldn't be too hard for the state to screw with the connection to drop his VPN packets or make Tor unusable without affecting other users.

      Having said that, he may well have his own connection anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.

  23. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Eh, actually I believe the CIA/state department want war with Russia. Pentagon probably does not though.

    Remember, the deep state has different factions which are opposed to each other for both ideological and practical purposes. We mere mortals just get to watch the lightening bolts flash upon Olympus and deal with the occasional flood or stray meteor that results from their magicks.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  24. Re: WATCH IT, SUCCA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as likely that Hillary will have another "medical problem" and someone else will have to step in to the presidency. Neither the CIA nor the NSA want a hot war with Russia, and they have the ways and means to take care of it.

    Let's see, they're capable of such nefarious actions, but they put themselves at risk by letting Trump be her opponent to the point where they have to assault a sitting president?

    What is this, World's Dumbest Covert Agencies?

  25. Assange is a Drama Queen by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Crying for renewed attention because it drifted elsewhere for a few weeks, and because he has failed to actually accomplish anything worthwhile in his life.

  26. How does uncovering blatant corruption constitute by melted · · Score: 2

    How does uncovering blatant corruption constitute the "undermining" of our democracy? That's what I'd like to see liberals explain.

  27. Russian news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its Russias propaganda piece that's reporting it. The embassy refuses to comment, which suggests the embassy has cut Assange's internet privileges more than anything else.

    But that doesn't fit your pro-Russia, pro-Putin, pro-Trump agenda does it. So you spin it as Democrats silencing free speech.

    1. Re:Russian news by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I have this funny feeling that Assange may be wearing out his welcome. I doubt very much Ecuador wants to be used as a conduit for Russia to try to undermine the US elections.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Russian news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Russia undermining the US election? Come off it. Trump is doing his share, and the DNC already did their share. The majority of the population doesn't trust either candidate. That's not Russia's fault.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  28. How does he know by XXongo · · Score: 2

    Still believe his line of bullshit?

    How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?

    No, I don't believe him.

    1. Re:How does he know by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has anyone suggested that Assange should try rebooting his router? Sometimes that works for me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:How does he know by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?

      I don't know either whether it was the US acting directly or ordering their colony to do so.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:How does he know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Ecuador is a US "colony", WTF is Assange doing there?

    4. Re:How does he know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone suggested that Assange should try rebooting his router? Sometimes that works for me.

      Seriously! I think he might not have paid his bill. Seriously where is Assange's money coming from? Is he living rent free during his exile? If someone is not passing him money, why is it he does not look all unkempt like Howard Hughes? Think people! Someone is paying him to camp out in the Ecuadorian embassy! Where is the money coming from? Is this the reason Trump's tax returns are not being released? Until this is answered any speculation one way or the other is idiocy!

    5. Re:How does he know by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Seriously where is Assange's money coming from?

      He gets an allowance, but it takes time to convert it from rubles to sucre to pounds sterling.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:How does he know by nairnr · · Score: 1

      It was confirmed that Ecuador that cut off his Internet..

  29. Forgetting one point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe assanges data "dump" was so large and vile that it backed up all the toilets in the embassy, causing his overflow to "leak" into the server room where it shorted out the connection. Im surprised no one has raised this possibility.

    1. Re:Forgetting one point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Anonymous Coward shitposter makes a literal shitpost.

  30. Russian/Assange/Trump lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia hacks DNC, to help Trump get elected, leaks it to Assange.
    Assange claims state actor is stopping him publishing the leaks, "honest the next ones will be juicy... I know the previous ones have been dull, but honest I have some juicy ones, if erm, only I could release them" but Ecuadorian embassy still has internet and refuses to comment on Assanges claims of lack of Internet.
    News story comes from RT.com, the state propaganda unit of Russia.
    RT has just had its UK bank account closed due to unspecified dodgy transactions (my guess is its connected to the state sponsored hacking).

    But hey, pick your side, are you for America or for Putin's puppet control of America?

    1. Re:Russian/Assange/Trump lies by colin_faber · · Score: 1

      And your proof that it was Russian's is what again? TrustConnect's flawed and oft repeated wild guess they call analysis? Or maybe you're referring to the various articles, and apparently "anonymous government officials" quoting TrustConnect's guesses. Oh maybe you mean SecureWorks best guess as well (which was recently posted here). Blaming Russia is both dangerous and counter productive in all cases. It's simply a way to distract the stupids from the actual information which has been released (by both DCLeaks and Wikileaks).

  31. Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's amazing, that throughout all of this, we keep forgetting that the democrat primary was stolen from Bernie Sanders. Literal rigging of the election by the DNC. Literal vote fraud (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-second-example-of-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-whoa-video/).

    Forget the hypothetical stealing of the general election, this just happened with the democrat primary. The lack of outrage is palpable.

    1. Re:Feel The Bern by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that electing Trump in place of Clinton because of this would be a boneheaded move.

      Or, to simplify my statement above: The problem is that electing Trump would be a boneheaded move.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Feel The Bern by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Oh get over it. Bernie himself certainly doesn't claim to have gotten more votes than HRC. He complained that the DNC preferred HRC, and was biased. But he did not and does not represent that it directly resulted in him getting fewer votes, and absolutely didn't claim to get more votes. The lack of outrage is rational not "palpable". If there are two candidates, and one wants 9 debates and the other wants 3 debates, and they hold 3 debates not 9 debates, that is not "stealing the election" any more than a football team losing a coin toss has a "game stolen".

      --
      Gently reply
    3. Re:Feel The Bern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing, that throughout all of this, we keep forgetting that the democrat primary was stolen from Bernie Sanders. Literal rigging of the election by the DNC. Literal vote fraud (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-second-example-of-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-whoa-video/).

      Forget the hypothetical stealing of the general election, this just happened with the democrat primary. The lack of outrage is palpable.

      The most amazing thing about your post is that if you'd quit waving that shibboleth around for everyone to see for half a second, people might almost believe you weren't a Republican Party operative. Live and learn.

    4. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So, say you don't want Trump, and Clinton is a criminal - why isn't the MSM and the democrat party not lining up behind Jill Stein, who would wipe Trump in a landslide if she got the same support from the media as Clinton does?

      Electing Clinton is a boneheaded move, but worse, it's a move that you don't get a choice on - they cheat.

      At least if the country makes the boneheaded move of electing Trump, it was *their* boneheaded move, not just a thumb on the scale by the political elites.

    5. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Bernie got bought off after the election was stolen, no doubt. But to pretend that the democrat primary was fair and balanced, in any way shape or form, is ret-conning of the highest degree.

      Speaking of coin tosses: http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

    6. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's be crystal clear - the Republican Party fell to an outsider this year. One could make the argument that they tried to cheat the outsider, and failed, but it's more likely that they literally ran a fair and balanced primary election.

      The Democrat Party, on the other hand, excluded outsiders by cheating this year. One could make the argument that they would've won even without cheating, but that's highly unlikely.

    7. Re:Feel The Bern by kqs · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously using an example of one poorly-run caucus as proof that the whole primary was rigged? I mean, I can use Tylenol to prove that all medicines are deadly poison, which is exactly as accurate.

      I like Bernie, I really do. But it turns out that the easiest way to win a primary is to have more votes, which means you have to be more popular than your opponents. Polls for Bernie and voting results for Bernie were pretty close to each other, and both showed that he was never as popular as Hillary overall. He won a few small states, and lost more large states. With predictable results.

      It's always more comforting to think "the person I like was cheated" rather than "the person I like lost"; just listen to the equally wrong "rigged against Trump" rhetoric now. But at some point you should stop believing every conspiracy theory and start thinking about the facts.

    8. Re:Feel The Bern by shilly · · Score: 1

      You do know that "stolen" and "fair and balanced" are not synonyms, right?

    9. Re:Feel The Bern by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Lets be crystal clear about something. Political parties are like private clubs, they can and do run their club however they want. You might not like that, you might think that because there are only two viable parties in the US that they shouldn't run them like that but there is nothing wrong about it. It's their party and the members can run it however they want. The very fact that they let Bernie Sanders (who's not a democrat) run in their primary speaks to their inclusiveness even if they then worked to prevent his nomination. They were under no obligation to even let him run as a democrat, they could have easily told him to run as an Independent like he has for the last 20 years.

      If you want to fix this problem the most effective way would be to abolish the two party system. That would allow anyone to start a party with whatever rules they want but don't think for a second that the democrats or republicans for that matter need to run their party how the public says. In fact closed primaries where only party members can vote are extremely common, particularly with Republicans, it's the reason they typically nominate religious conservatives.

    10. Re:Feel The Bern by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Bernie got bought off after the election was stolen, no doubt. But to pretend that the democrat primary was fair and balanced, in any way shape or form, is ret-conning of the highest degree.

      Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, emphasis on the socialist part. He's a Democrat by convenience, just like Trump is a Republican In Name Only.

      The majority of Americans do not hold socialist leanings. It might lean left of whatever political center we have in this country, but Bernie didn't have a chance because, like Trump, he didn't have a lot of appeal outside of the "white guys" demographic, and the US does not lean as far to the left as the Western European countries.

      Did the DNC not support him like they should? Yes. Did it make a difference? Nope. Once Clinton reached the Southern primaries, states where Bernie's appeal is almost non-existent, it was over.

      But there are a lot of Bernie supporters who detest Clinton and love Bernie and refuse to believe that Bernie could have lost a fair election, so they do the 'the system was rigged' dance to try to explain it away. It's ok, I hate Clinton and Trump too. But you know, the voters really did pick Clinton.

    11. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The combination of superdelegate corruption, voter suppression (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html), and outright voter fraud, really is undeniable for the democrat primary. The party elites want you to believe that the voters picked Clinton, and that a socialist is unelectable (despite 8 years of Obama), but the truth is that the revolution was killed by hook and crook in the democrat primary.

    12. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      When the DNC is actively selling your campaign out (http://observer.com/2016/10/breaking-dnc-chief-donna-brazile-leaked-sanders-info-to-clinton-campaign/), or stealing debate questions (http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/media/donna-brazile-wikileaks-question/), can we really say that the democrat primary was a fair process?

      Really?

      Now sure, you can go counterfactual, and imagine a world, where the DNC didn't cheat, and didn't rig the system, where Clinton won on the merits. I'll admit, that's *possible*. But once you find out that a team juiced with steroids in the olympics, you disqualify them - even if they would have won without the drugs.

    13. Re:Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Olympic teams are like private clubs, and they can do whatever they want to run their clubs.

      But when people get caught doping, or using steroids, they get disqualified. Even if they would have won the medal without the juicing. It's about integrity.

      The DNC had rules, and they broke them to keep Bernie from winning. The colluded against his campaign, engaged in voter suppression and voter fraud, and even got debate questions in advance.

      Regardless of the "fix", the fact is that the DNC has lost all credibility. The insurgent who fought the Republicans won because the Rs played by the rules they set out. The insurgent who fought the Democrats lost because the Ds didn't play by the rules they set out.

    14. Re:Feel The Bern by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      The problem is that electing Trump in place of Clinton because of this would be a boneheaded move.

      Voting for Clinton out of fear is a boneheaded move. Sending a message is more important than the next four years. Trump is dangerous, but not half as dangerous as Bush Jr. was and we survived eight years of him. You shouldn't vote Trump, but it is vitally important that Project Fear be shut down. If the lesser evil side's candidate is still quite toxic, do not vote for that candidate.

      Vote Stein or Johnson. Get them into double digits. This Keynesian beauty contest bullshit needs to end. Accelerate the breakup, or at least the shakeup, of the two party duopoly and/or do away with first-past-the-post elections.

      It's irresponsible to vote for Hillary and even more irresponsible to lecture people that it's irresponsible to not vote for Hillary.

    15. Re:Feel The Bern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrat Party, on the other hand, excluded outsiders by cheating this year. One could make the argument that they would've won even without cheating, but that's highly unlikely.

      I like your style of leaving the obvious conclusion unstated- ... and extremely fucking terrifying.

  32. How dumb are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets say he has a facebook account. blocked now, so he can't see FB stuff. Twitter account blocked? Same thing. No email address because the provider of email presence he used has blocked it? Then nobody knows if his emails are REALLY from Julian or from a faked location.

    Just a few ways of blocking him from the internet I thought up in 15 seconds.

    Did you even try?

    1. Re: How dumb are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have named things to block, not ways to block them.

  33. Re:How does uncovering blatant corruption constitu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's frustrated and stupid have been kettled into exactly your frame of mind: that the liberals represent the deceitful intelligentsia and the right represent a good ol', sincere, and honest approach.

    You don't elect your leader based on who you'd like to drink beers with. You want leadership that can hoodwink other leadership and plot ahead in geopolitical terms. Trump, despite his best words and his ever-ambiguous people, doesn't have the first clue as to what those geopolitical terms are. Hillary is at the very least an experienced statesman.

    The needs of the globe differ from the needs of the state differ from the needs of the village from the needs of the one. But let's just contain ourselves to the U.S.: hunkering down for a period of isolated domestic self-interest would be a terrible longterm move. While the looming Asian colossus successfully integrates the Philippines and escalates their grandstanding in the South China Sea - closer still to removing Western presence, Russia is an immediate AND longterm threat in the M.E. theatre. And it's not like we don't have a hermit nation trying to refine nuclear weapons for the purpose of terrorizing S.K. and for the fantastic but still possible scenario that they manage to achieve a submarine-based warhead launch on mainland USA.

    I can't imagine that he would be even allowed to make such a stupid move as to withdraw from NATO, one of his bolder suggestions, but he would be inviting the decline of the West. Between these statements, and his clamouring for a hack on the DNC by Russians, I simply cannot conclude that this a man with Western interests in mind. He is, frankly, a threat to national security and must be treated as such.

    (insert witty retort about "how about the emails huh?" here by silly moralists who care more about "honesty" than preserving our state of relative peace - as if the world would be a better place would that we dump all our nasty secrets and lob nukes at one another - and if your edgy response is indeed to call for that, I'm sorry, but you've got the mindset of a child and ought to be cruising reddit)

  34. Assange has outlived his usefulness by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    He is now nothing but a peddler of disinformation. It seems to me that he might spend still a few more years at the Ecuador embassy - unless the Ecuadorians get fed up with him.

    1. Re:Assange has outlived his usefulness by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > He is now nothing but a peddler of disinformation.

      Wow. Any actual proof to back that up? Because there's a metric shit-ton of proof that his leaks are the real deal. If he was just leaking made up shit do you really think the US government would be so pissed off and so desperate to get their hands on him?

    2. Re:Assange has outlived his usefulness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he was just leaking made up shit do you really think the US government would be so pissed off and so desperate to get their hands on him?

      This is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

      Now, if you want an example of false information posted through Wikileaks, here's an example: http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

      But disinformation isn't limited to fake information. It's also about misrepresenting what information means, which is classic Wikileaks strategy. Make outrageous claims about how important your information is going to be, the release a "metric shit-ton" of overwhelmingly useless and irrelevant information. It leaves plenty of fuel for confirmation bias and "suggestive" claims, but desperately little direct, empirical evidence of any specific claims of wrongdoing. Which is a problem Wikileaks has had all the way back to the Manning leaks and State Department cables. Lots of claims about how revolutionary the information was going to be, and a massive pile of garbage that never ended up proving anything.

    3. Re:Assange has outlived his usefulness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dudes on reddit.com/r/the_donald are having a fucking field day with everything released.

      Dont think so? https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D... They have been digging through all of it. Wikileaks pops up once and awhile and says 'hey you missed this too'. It pretty much confirms Trumps narrative that the media is in the tank for her.

    4. Re:Assange has outlived his usefulness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... yeah... because reddit posters have _never_ made mountains out of mole hills before :/

      I hope y'all kiddos are quick to learn about being fed bullshit, I learned it decades ago from teh old John Birch Society

      You should read up on how they subverted a few generations of union advocates into anti-tax pawns for the wealthy

  35. Knowing Assange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing Assange, are we sure he didn't just lie about using surge protection?

  36. the wikileaks insurance file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/743824112376766465

    Get it now!
    Torrent 88GB Encrypted
    https://file.wikileaks.org/torrent/2016-06-03_insurance.aes256.torrent

    Also get the precommitment hashes for any future file releases about John Kerry, Ecuador, and the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office:
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781519951720449

    The Ecuador inclusion is interesting because it may mean that Ecuador has caved to Kerry and the UK FCO pressure to turn over Assange. If Assange isn't seen or heard from again in the next 24 hours, then its a safe bet that he's in British custody.

    1. Re:the wikileaks insurance file by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      Maybe Equador just decided to turn Assange over after seeing him tweet an implied blackmail threat.

    2. Re:the wikileaks insurance file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's entirely possible that an Ecuador leak isn't about what Ecuador has done, but rather what has been done to Ecuador by the US and other countries. Nobody but Wikileaks knows until its released.

  37. And Predictably by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    His fan boys try to stifle his critics

  38. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    NATO doesn't want it either. Russia would defeat NATO in 2-1/2 days.

    A Department of Defense official has backed the Rand Corporation think tank's claim that the Russian military could defeat NATO forces in the Baltics in 36 to 60 hours. The statement is the latest in a string of warnings that the Atlantic Alliance is too weak to mount a defense of the baltic states.

    RAND Corp explains their study results

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  39. Fucking Comcast by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    My internet goes down twice a week and nobody starts a hashtag and pushes out press releases for me.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Fucking Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you we're all very, very broken up about that. Really.

    2. Re:Fucking Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast gonna Comcast

    3. Re:Fucking Comcast by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      ...because Assange is a hero and you're a nobody

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    4. Re:Fucking Comcast by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      ...because Assange is a hero and you're a nobody

      A hero that lives in his Ecuadorian mom's basement.

      By the way, I heard from a Wikileaks source that the reason he lost his internet is because he wouldn't do his chores.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Fucking Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it doesn't usually work well and then suddenly cuts off when you are about to release major dirt on Saint Hillary. I don't personally think the "state actor" is particularly likely, but it's at least plausible given the rather vague circumstantial evidence.

  40. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    That coincides with what I said. Hubris on the part of State. Russia's economy is weak, but their weapons are no joke. Hillary (and the establishment Republicans during the primary debates) loved to talk about getting tough with Putin and establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. And when Putin parks S-4s in Syria? Whatcha gonna do then? Those things are beasts. "Stealth" is a meme.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  41. The End Is Coming Julian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Obama's money, opportunities, patience and time (MOPT) running desperately short he has already pined and signed the Secret Executive Kill order on Julian Assange.

    Likely, SEAL TEAM Rainbow 7 is already in place and just waiting for a good convergence of time-to-kill and time-to-flee as they are close by the Ecuadorian Embassy (e.g. beneath it) in London.

    As this will be a so-called "Extra-Judaical" killing, US C3I DoS and DoD has to get them out without them shooting-up Londoners, which would also add-on to there criminal acts and if captured, well there is always the Potassium Cyanide cap implanted on the "wisdom" tooth.

    Fun fun fun in the Old Town a coming.

  42. Re:How does uncovering blatant corruption constitu by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    There hasn't been much uncovering of anything. The whole Wikileaks dump reminds me of the Prince Charles Spider Letters, where the Guardian put so much effort into getting access to Prince Charles' letters and memorandums to the British cabinet, absolutely certain that he was influencing policy in some evil nefarious way, only to find out he talked a lot about his concerns about agriculture.

    Yes, there are some embarrassing things in the email dumps, as there would be if anyone's emails were leaked, but there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate this bizarre conspiracy theory that Clinton is the Lizard Queen of the Illuminati.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  43. Fund raiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PR stunt to raise funds?

  44. Wait, Assange losing his net access? by Rei · · Score: 1
    --
    The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
  45. Translation by ledow · · Score: 1

    Translation: "I haven't been in the news for at least a week and nobody cares about the shit that I have little to do with releasing any more".

    Honestly, given that he lives IN THE EMBASSY how has someone targeted HIS connection alone, how do you know it was intentional, how do you know it was a state actor? It's all bullshit until you pull prove, Julian.

    And you're in the middle of fucking London. Order a can of pringles, point it at the centre of town, presto!

    More likely, he's forgotten his fucking login but he had to "Assange" it to make it sound like he's important or anyone gives a shit.

  46. Pam Anderson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/pamela-anderson-says-julian-assange-was-a-bit-pale-after-visitin/

  47. She'd use a drone if she could. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    This has "Hillary" written all over it.
    https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-...

  48. Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Not many believe Trump is clean, and quite frankly very few care. They only care that Hillary is much dirtier, and the establishment is out of control with corruption. When the majority of media ignores wrong doing on Clinton's side and happy to share allegations on the other we have a huge imbalance. This imbalance is not new, and not imaginary. You have the current sitting President denouncing any and all opposing positions by name and station. "If I listened to Fox news I wouldn't like me either." is a direct quote from last week.

    Force MSM to talk about issues instead of identity politics, or not. But you should at least maintain the same standards for both candidates.

    Americans are fed up with corruption, and while Trump may not be "the" answer he is the only chance we have. Hillary was INSTALLED by the media and DNC despite popular opinion. Look at the Super Delegates, 100% win streak on coin tosses card flips and dice rolls to win in addition to the exposed collusion between the DNC, Hillary, and MSM (yes, that same media which has become a propaganda outlet). Now that same establishment wishes to INSTALL Clinton to the highest office in the land. THAT SHOULD SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Maintain your standard! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The majority of American voters appear to be fed up with Donald Trump. So while you may speak for a certain Republican demographic, you can hardly claim to speak for *Americans*.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Fox News is the MSM, and we have a whole channel dedicated to taking Hillary down. Literally anyone who wants to watch anti-Hillary propaganda has plenty of avenues to do that. They have Fox News, all of talk radio, the internet, etc. There is so much fucking anti-hillary shit out there, it's hard to even verify it all.

      The left wing media is left. And the right wing media is right. It's all MSM. It's all biased. It's all bullshit.

    3. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I don't hear from anyone who believes that, and I don't live in an echo chamber. Alternative media views and reads have ballooned over the last few months because people don't trust what they hear on most media outlets. Why do you think the US transferred ICANN and IANA? Why do you think they actively censor? I notice you don't bother mentioning or fighting those facts.

      It may not be enough people in time to save the country, but at least many of us try. You on the other hand are happy to be a puppet believing everything you are told. Ask the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Valenzuelan, how it turned out when they let their "betters" handle things. You will deserve everything coming to you, and you probably won't like it very much.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You mean a few shows are allowed to air which portray a different view? Compare to what, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The NY Times, the NY Post, the Washing Times, the Washington Post, the Globe, Huffpo, virtually every radio station allowed to air? That is "balance" for you? Really?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Maintain your standard! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      ICANN has always been an international body. NTIA managed IANA under contract. However, that contract was allowed to lapse. ICANN was not "transferred".

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Good grief, Check BASIC FACTS! I'll post two sources so that you can't complain about bias in the first. Seriously, do you know how to type two words into a fucking search engine?
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Maintain your standard! by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Not many believe Trump is clean, and quite frankly very few care. They only care that Hillary is much dirtier, and the establishment is out of control with corruption.

      Can you provide irrefutable evidence that Clinton is dirtier? Trump has a lot of skeletons in his closest and David Cay Johnston addresses some of this in his book "The Making of Donald Trump" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GYPLR1U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1).

      Well worth reading if you intend to vote for Trump...

    8. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is ample proof on steroids. If you care to disprove the emails that Wikileaks is dumping, Congressional Testimony from her, Comey, Gowdy, Lynch, et.al? I'd put them on par but Hillary has been a Politician and associated with Politics since she was a teenager. Wow, a book on Donald Trump which probably takes a bunch from his auto biography. Care to perform a basic book title search on the nasty crap about the Clinton's? Pick any book by Ann Coulter who is a journalist and lists hundreds to thousands of sources in every book. These are not the hype books like the Clinton Cash which may be fluffed narratives, there are literally hundreds of books written about or mentioning Clinton Corruption. "No One Left to Lie To", "Guilty as Sin", "Crisis of Character", "Partners in Crime", and again every single Ann Coulter books including "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Those are off the top of my head.

      Compared to a Businessman who has not used Political office to get rich I think the corrupt pick is obvious. Have doubts, get reading!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:Maintain your standard! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You think Coulter is a journalist?

      I think that says all we need to know about you. You just cherry pick sources that reinforce your preconceived notions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Maintain your standard! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      She keeps pushing the narrative that Trump is all cozy with the Russians even though her campaign adviser John Podesta owned a big chunk of a Putin-backed company. So yeah - she's a liar, and that's dirty.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Please give me a book and discount her sources. If you can't, then you have no clue what journalism is or interest in challenging your own position.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Maintain your standard! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How is it my job to disprove your claims?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So I claim that there is plenty of right wing media, and your counter is that there is plenty of left wing media? Of course there is. There is plenty of media for every point of view. There is enough media of every type for everyone is able to live in an echo chamber.

      Also, am talk radio is dominated by right wing people.

      Nobody is prevented from presenting their opinion, other than the willingness of their potential consumers to listen.

      I don't think the difference in ratios of left vs. right bias in various formats (TV, radio, print, internet, etc), is anythign but a reflection of the people that want to consume those things in those ways.

    14. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I said name more than one and weigh that against the stack.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I gave you a source and you claimed that the source was invalid. If you say the source is invalid you need to prove it. If not, you are just another troll. I'm guessing the latter.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I named 1 cable news station and you named 2. You then pulled in ABC and NBC, newspapers, and websites. I didn't bother going into newspapers and internet sites, because it really doesn't matter how many of each there are at this point.

      Furthermore, my point was that the number of different channels or newspapers or internet sites or radio shows doesn't matter of each political bias. There are plenty of both.

      There are *LOTS* of people that watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, etc.

      If there were 100 right wing cable news channels, it wouldn't make the MSM 100 times more biased to the right, because there would be the same number of right wing people watching the same amount of right wing propaganda, it would just be spread out among more channels.

      I reject your premise that the level of bias in the media can be measured by numbers of TV channels, newspapers, internet sites, radio shows, etc. If you are going to do this, you need to also consider viewership. Having less numbers of shows that are more popular just means that right wingers have a more monolithic point of view and can be served by the same sources.

    17. Re:Maintain your standard! by shilly · · Score: 1

      Ahem:
      http://www.conservapedia.com/C...

      There's quite a long list there.

      It may be time to stop feeling quite so put upon.

    18. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      One TV station out of all available channels, and TV is still where many get news. Now if you want to play the lopsided comparison game break down the categories and count Liberal vs. Conservative Radio, Promoted Web sites, Newspapers, and finally Magazines. It's not an even field no matter how much bullshit you attempt to throw on the scale. I can not list the amount of Radio shows promoting a Liberal agenda because the list would be too damn long.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      ABC and NBC are not Cable stations? WTF planet do you live on? Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias. Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Maintain your standard! by shilly · · Score: 1

      If you listen carefully, you can hear the world's tiniest violin playing a song of sympathy for you.

      You complained about TV, press and the radio. So I showed you a list of conservative media outlets which included many newspapers and radio stations. I didn't attempt to show there were even numbers; I pointed out that the typical American has many choices of outlet if they wish to listen to conservative news and opinion. And the bestiest news of all for you is that Fox News, that lone doughty fighter for the Right on TV, has many more viewers than its nearest cable news rival:
      http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

      So don't worry, neither you nor anyone else who wants right wing perspectives is going to have any trouble hearing them any time soon.

      Hey, I tell you what, I've just had a brilliant idea!! Instead of moaning about there not being enough right wing TV stations, why don't you go ahead and get together with all your very best friends, and set one up? You could pour all your energies into that, and we can all get behind you and give you a really big cheer for your services to the First Amendment. Your mom will be so proud. We all will.

    21. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      My complaint was there is no balance, and that discussions is extremely lopsided. Now you concede that point. Perhaps your account should be called "Troll" instead of "Shill"y. Perhaps "shit"y?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      ABC and NBC are not Cable stations?

      I said cable *news* station.

      ABC and NBC are broadcast network television networks, that happen to have *some* news programs. They are not 24 hour news channels. MSNBC is a cable news channel owned by NBC

      Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias.

      What you just said, does not contradict or even address anything I said. I never said people don't watch TV nor that they are not impacted by bias. In fact I said the opposite.

      The *crux* of what I said, is that the number of left vs. right biased channels doesn't matter. What matters is how many viewers those channels are reaching. If there are 2 left wing cable news channels and 1 right wing cable news channel, but the right wing news channel has double the viewership of the 2 left wing channels, then the amount of left vs. right propaganda is the same.

      The same goes for radio. If all the left wing people get their news from liberal TV channels, and all the right wingers get their news from conservative talk radio, that doesn't mean that there is a liberal or a conservative bias in media, just in the form that liberals and conservatives choose to consume their media.

      Liberals tried to get a bigger stake in radio, and pretty much failed. Air America was supposed to be the counter balance to conservative talk radio, and they dissolved in 2010.

      Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.

      Yeah, because in radio, it's the opposite, where right wing media dominates.

      Liberals have a larger portion of TV and conservatives have a larger portion of radio. There is plenty of bias, but it's basically even.

    23. Re:Maintain your standard! by shilly · · Score: 1

      I made no such concession. But then it's pretty clear that reading comprehension is just one of the many, many challenges you have to deal with, day to day. A really awful ability to make wisecracks would be another ("shit"y?? did you really think that was good enough to put out there in public? it's a lamentable effort, although I'm not sure you're that big on lamenting)

      Anyhoo, you enjoy your special snowflake world in which right wing voices are cruelly suppressed, and the Donald gets no favourable coverage like interviewers affably ruffling his hair and the MSM includes the NY Times but excludes the NY Post etc etc. Nursing grievances that don't exist is certainly a skill you like to practise, in common with the Trumpmeister and indeed your beloved Anne, and I can only hope it scratches some kind of psychological itch for you.

    24. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily? No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily?

      First of all, that wasn't my argument (as I have said 3 times at this point). It was my refutation of your argument. My argument is not even predicated on the facts of your argument being false (which they are anyway). My refutation of the facts of your argument is a bonus beyond my main argument which was disproving the logic of your argument.

      Fox *NEWS* *IS* a cable news channel, like how ms*NBC* is a cable news station

      Fox, and NBC are *NOT* cable news news stations, they are broadcast networks.

      No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!

      I'm actually a libertarian, though I am not surprised you would just assume you know something that you actually don't

      And I hope to God I never have to use any software written by such a dumb and illogical person.

    26. Re:Maintain your standard! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      No point in arguing with a moron. Buh bye, good luck with the meds.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    27. Re:Maintain your standard! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No point in arguing with a moron.

      Is that [arguing] what you were doing? It seemed more like you were struggling to understand what a cable news channel was, despite plenty of help from me.

  49. Let a truth-seeker guide you by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Facing extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, which he denies,

    Excooooose me, but no human being has filed any rape complaint nor criminal complaint in Sweden against WikiLeaks' Julian Assange --- please try to report the news accurately!

    1. Re:Let a truth-seeker guide you by ledow · · Score: 1

      And that's why it says ALLEGATION.

      Cock.

  50. Kiss vs. assault by mi · · Score: 1

    So "unwanted kiss" sounds better to you?

    Better or not, it is not an assault. And Anderson Cooper, the supposedly "neutral" moderator, pressed Trump to explain, whether he is Ok with sexual assaults against women — a line of attack subsequently continued elsewhere, including on Slashdot.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  51. Cutting internet in the UK is impossible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are so many open WiFi spots there, he should be able to lift on the Harrods WiFi network among others.
    They still sell prepaid hotspots in the UK so they cannot prevent someone dropping an O2 Pay & Go or prepaid 4G sim at the Embassy.

  52. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad watching what he has become. What a waste

  53. He is speculating by XXongo · · Score: 1

    How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?

    I don't know either whether it was the US acting directly or ordering their colony to do so.

    That was a rhetorical question. If he actually had known that it was cut by a state actor, he would have known which. The fact that he can't tell which hypothetical state actor means that he's just stating that the outage was done by a state actor with no particular evidence.

    No, I don't believe him.

  54. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    In the Baltics, and that's "according to some dude". Real, outright war? Fucking please. Not a chance, and you're an idiot if you even consider it reasonable. Thankfully unless the people in power are absolutely insane it will never come to that.

  55. The "state" actors name by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Is Hillary Rotten Clinton et al

  56. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Some dude? WTF. Learn what the RAND Corporation is. It was originally created by Douglas Aircraft to advise the US military. They've been doing so since 1948. They are far from "some dude." Also, the military is using their findings to argue for increased funding for more 4 battalions to offset this imbalance, so they believe it too.

    And no, deploying more troops isn't something they would want to do if it weren't required - it takes away funding from the "gee whiz new shiny" stuff.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  57. Mom wants her basement back by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    How do we know it wasn't Ecuador who cut him off? Maybe they are sick of being used as a tool for this guy, who, instead of acting like he wants asylum, is busy actively conducting various ongoing activities that are considered crimes in many countries?

    He's afraid of being extradited? Well duh. The rape charge is one thing. He needs to man up and deal with it. But all the OTHER shit he's pulled is not excused because of his fear of being held accountable.

    Why DOES he have all this freedom to break more laws? Why does he think he is above the law? And since he acts that way, dragging Ecuador along with him, why should they keep supporting him? He's a bully and a criminal hiding behind the generosity of his hosts. Even if they continue to allow him to live there, nobody ever said he had to have all the accoutrements of a normal life. He could be given a closet to live in and scraps of food and if he does not like it, he can leave. Hell, I would throw a mop at him and make him earn his keep. Janitor Julian. Piso Mojado, my friend.

    Just like mom says, if you want to stay at home, you are going to do chores and you are going to behave. If you don't like it, get a job and move out. Nobody is stopping you.

    --
    Sig for hire.
    1. Re:Mom wants her basement back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Ecuador. They said so themselves;

      https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

  58. Bad, Worse, Worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is an asshole

    You said it.

  59. Twitter's latest gossip by SweetDrake · · Score: 1

    So now Pamela Anderson is a state actress?

  60. Re:How does uncovering blatant corruption constitu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another Record Corrected! Good work, Comrade!

  61. The problem is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are still voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than voting for a candidate they support and letting the election fall where it may.

    Remember sometimes it is better to lose a battle in order to help you win a war.

    Election 2016 is that battle. Election 2020 could then be the first win and turning point in the War on the Oligarchy.

  62. Re:How does uncovering blatant corruption constitu by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    Her "dream of open borders" -- and dream is a strong word -- together with "private and public policy" is all you need in times where a lot of people believe that globalism hurts their livelihoods.

  63. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Just as likely that Hillary will have another "medical problem" and someone else will have to step in to the presidency.

    OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.
    Please let it be true! Don't bring down my day by telling me it's just a dream!

  64. Re:WATCH IT, SUCCA! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    You know that theory about how we're in a multiverse? Well, somewhere, it IS going to be true, since all possible outcomes have to happen. Maybe it will be our turn.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  65. Contingency plans... by GaryHayman · · Score: 1

    At least they were prepared for an outage. The cause of the outage is less important than the ability to overcome it.

  66. normalized political assassination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's little doubt Trump would kill him[Snowden].

    Your comments are nearly as half blind as the comments you replied to calling them half blind. Setting asside the entire possibility that during tomorrow's debate Trump may very well say precisely that, I think you overestimate Trump's concern with, or ability to assassinate Snowden. Hell, if Trump really cared about killing Snowden, do you believe for a second he would let the fact that he is only a billionaire (guessing), and not POTUS impede him? Of course not. You are clearly as off base as who you were replying to.