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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:20AM from the internet-down dept.

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.

52 of 475 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does anybody ... by Martin+S. · 2016-10-17 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Still believe his line of bullshit?
1. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 03:34 · 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.
2. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · 2016-10-17 03:38 · 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".
3. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · 2016-10-17 03:44 · 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.
4. Re:Does anybody ... by guruevi · 2016-10-17 03:46 · 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
5. Re:Does anybody ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-17 03:47 · 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.
6. Re:Does anybody ... by MrLint · 2016-10-17 03:48 · 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.
7. Re:Does anybody ... by XXongo · 2016-10-17 03:52 · 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.
8. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · 2016-10-17 03:55 · 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.
9. Re:Does anybody ... by XXongo · 2016-10-17 03:55 · 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.
10. Re:Does anybody ... by Richard_at_work · 2016-10-17 04:01 · 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...
11. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 04:01 · 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.
12. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · 2016-10-17 04:09 · 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
13. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 04:12 · 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.
14. Re:Does anybody ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-10-17 04:15 · 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!
15. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · 2016-10-17 04:22 · 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.
16. Re:Does anybody ... by rholtzjr · 2016-10-17 04:33 · 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.
17. Re:Does anybody ... by Marful · 2016-10-17 04:39 · 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?
18. Re:Does anybody ... by KiloByte · 2016-10-17 04:48 · 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.
19. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · 2016-10-17 04:51 · 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?
20. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · 2016-10-17 05:19 · 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.
21. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · 2016-10-17 05:25 · 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.
22. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 06:09 · 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.
23. Re:Does anybody ... by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-17 06:15 · 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
24. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 06:26 · 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.
25. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-10-17 07:01 · 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.
26. Re: Does anybody ... by 2ms · 2016-10-17 07:58 · 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.
27. Re:Does anybody ... by judoguy · 2016-10-17 09:14 · 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.
28. Re: Does anybody ... by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-17 09:36 · 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
29. Re: Does anybody ... by maeltor · 2016-10-17 15:08 · 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...
Good to see some patriotism. by CajunArson · 2016-10-17 03:25 · 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 · 2016-10-17 03:30 · 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.
Good and bad exposures by mi · 2016-10-17 03:53 · 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 PopeRatzo · 2016-10-17 04:38 · 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.
2. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · 2016-10-17 05:15 · 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:
  
  Is that your defense — that the published texts aren't actually verbatim copies of the e-mails?
  
  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.
  
  What would you accept as proof in this case even theoretically?
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
3. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · 2016-10-17 05:54 · 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.
4. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · 2016-10-17 06:27 · 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.
5. Re:Good and bad exposures by mi · 2016-10-17 11:20 · 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.
6. Re:Good and bad exposures by Orgasmatron · 2016-10-17 17:51 · 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?
I know which state actor it was by Sloppy · 2016-10-17 03:53 · 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.
How does uncovering blatant corruption constitute by melted · 2016-10-17 04:03 · Score: 2

How does uncovering blatant corruption constitute the "undermining" of our democracy? That's what I'd like to see liberals explain.
Re:TFA is from RT by Bigbutt · 2016-10-17 04:06 · 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!
How does he know by XXongo · 2016-10-17 04:09 · 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 · 2016-10-17 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Has anyone suggested that Assange should try rebooting his router? Sometimes that works for me.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:TFA is from RT by meta-monkey · 2016-10-17 04:17 · 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.
Feel The Bern by hsthompson69 · 2016-10-17 04:22 · 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 · 2016-10-17 05:08 · 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 hsthompson69 · 2016-10-17 08:07 · 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.
And Predictably by Martin+S. · 2016-10-17 04:36 · Score: 2

His fan boys try to stifle his critics
Fucking Comcast by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-17 04:40 · 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.
Re:Really? by Frank+Burly · 2016-10-17 04:52 · 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/...
Re:How does uncovering blatant corruption constitu by MightyMartian · 2016-10-17 04:56 · 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.