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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
Or maybe Assange has an agenda.
You seriously think Trump is clean?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Questions:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.