Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks: Ecuador Cut Off Assange's Internet Access (bbc.com)

Following a report from WikiLeaks claiming that its co-founder's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the anti-secrecy organization released a statement confirming the state actor was Ecuador. WikiLeaks tweeted: "We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs." BBC reports: There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if so, what was Ecuador's motivation. The anti-secrecy organization did not return calls and emails on Monday, though it said in a tweet: "We have activated the appropriate contingency plans." A woman who picked up the phone at the Ecuadorean embassy said: "I cannot disclose any information." The Wikileaks claim follows the latest emails it disclosed from a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails. It released three transcripts on Saturday of Mrs Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, which her campaign had long refused to release. The scrips reveal her bantering relationship with the investment bank's executives, which is unlikely to allay fears among liberal Democrats that she is too cosy with Wall Street.

315 comments

  1. Maybe they've got Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And their unlimited plan isn't actually unlimited. And now some Ecuadoran IT official is stuck on the phone with "tech support." Raise a glass for that poor soul.

    1. Re:Maybe they've got Comcast by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      What does comcast consider unlimited now? Last I heard they had raised their caps to 1TB/mo for all capped customers.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Maybe they've got Comcast by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Maybe they gave him Vodafone Broadband & Mobile so now he's officially off grid :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  2. So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by phayes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Color me astonished...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First sign was when he didn't drop the October surprise on Wik-leaks anniversary. The Kremlin doesn't see him of much use anymore. He's been outed and his now done.

    2. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Amazing that it didn't happen earlier...

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    3. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Of course, when he finally does end up surrendered to Sweden, thiswill be my reaction.

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    4. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK

    5. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like the u.s. is really putting the screws to Ecuador to shut the guy up so long as he's holed-up there... as if he has no one 'on the outside' managing the site and all the embarrassing things (about our election process, dnc, hillary, etc) being leaked will magically stop and disappear.

    6. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK

      They changed the WIFI password and didn't tell him the new one?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Changing the wifi password?

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    8. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      They changed the Wi-Fi password and never gave him the new one.

    9. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Ecuador is not going to allow its relations with the US to be further degraded by the actual "state actor" here, namely Julian Assange.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

      more likely the ecuadorian government got a call they couldn't refuse..

    11. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That may be, but whatever you think of what's happening, if the US is behind this (and not just Ecuador tiring of Assange's presence and the strain it has put on relations with the UK, not to mention the likelihood that they're being used by Russia as a conduit for cyberattacks on the US), then the message being sent to those tasked with enacting Assange's contingency plans is pretty clear.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      They'll be turning off the sandwiches next.

    13. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Ecuador could do it. It might look something like this:

      Assange: Hello Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to see you again.
      Amb Ortiz: Hello Julian, let me come straight to the point - you can no longer use the internet connection in the embassy. The Foreign Minister has made this decision under difficult circumstances. We are doing this so that we can continue to provide you asylum from Sweden and Britain.
      Assange: But Mr. Ambassador!
      Amb Ortiz: No buts, Julian. No more use of the embassy internet or we will show you the door, and put you outside.
      Assange: I understand Mr. Ambassador. What if I can make other arrangements?
      Amb Ortiz: That is your affair, as long as it does not make use of the embassy facilities.
      Assange: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your continued hospitality.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Maybe he farts too much and they are tired of the smell.

    15. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assange is the figurehead, but wikileaks is much more robust. Batch #10 of the Podesta emails was released on schedule, hours after his internet was cut.

      Plus there are his "insurance" files, huge encrypted files containing absolutely everything wikileaks has that have been released publicly at points in the past. Apparently he's got some kind of dead-man's switch set up that will cause the encryption keys to be released if things go south.

    16. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.

      Fat chance the timing is coincidental.

    17. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a valuable bargaining chip to gain favor with a new president. Quid pro quo.

    18. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      If they cut it off within the embassy building. I don't think the Vienna Convention would allow the UK to cut off access to the embassy, though the supplier might if for example there was a billing dispute.

    19. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by tempo36 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The very idea that he has a "dead-man's switch" to me blows any and all credibility he has as some kind of freedom fighter for the people's right to information. If he has information he isn't releasing, he's just as bad as the government he rails against...he's just replacing a government that thinks you shouldn't know X, Y, and Z with an A** holed up in an embassy who thinks you shouldn't know it. Every time he delays releasing something until a given date, it just makes him appear like another guy with a political agenda hiding behind a banner of righteousness. If the issue was ever really about getting all information out there, he would have put it all out there already. And don't give me the "he hasn't released things that he realizes will cause real harm or damage to innocent people because he really cares about those people." He already has released things that had no political or informative value but which nevertheless exposed private and personal information about plenty of folks.

    20. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I thought there was a joke here, but I read to the end and was disappointed.

    21. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely the ecuadorian government got a call they couldn't refuse..

      "Hi, Ecuadorian Embassy? Yeah, Hi, I was just dialing random numbers I found in the phone book to see if people wanted to get rid annoying guests."

    22. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you would think there is a joke, Assange's position is no laughing matter. It is quite serious.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, just shows he isn't insane. Without a dead man switch he never would have managed to release what he has thus far without disappearing.

    24. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australian doggy style is pretty hilarious the first time you see it.

    25. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by slashdice · · Score: 2

      Having met him at a conference in '07, I agree 110%

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    26. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just takes a little common sense. It's obvious at this point that Trump's odds are somewhere between slim and none. If you were the Ecuadorian government, would you really need a phone call to know that it's a dumb idea to continue to assist someone in acting on a vendetta against the future POTUS? They aren't starving him, they're just keeping him from doing more damage.

    27. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. It's hard enough for people to sort through stuff as huge as the files of one specific player, let alone if he dumprd it all at once.

    28. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious for Assange, yes. But he's an adult, he compromised himself, its time to pay the piper. Adults don't hide.

    29. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I doubt they are keeping him from doing more damage and I doubt they really want to be on the good side of Obama / Clinton. Ecuador goes out of it's way to stick it's thumb in the US's eye every chance it gets--there will be no return for this. Again, reference how it is unlikely to work. Add in how it adds to the mystique of Assange.

    30. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess so, he pledged to release something on Ecuador two days ago: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316

    31. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably because the embassy is on an MPLS network and they have disabled the Internet to his room. probably not even the whole embassy

    32. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (looks at both this, and parent post's authorship information)...

      Yeah, adults don't hide.

    33. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doggy Australian style is pretty heinous the first time you eat it.

      FTFY

      Man are you one sick puppy.

    34. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Troed · · Score: 2

      2) He is providing records only of one side.

      This is a very common criticism against Wikileaks. And a very strange one.

      Wikileaks can only release material that someone leaks to them. Feel free to send insider stuff on Trump to them and see what happens.

    35. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because it's impossible for the IT guy in the embassy to go into the wiring closet and unplug the patch cable from his room?

      Or maybe they use an authentication scheme like 802.1x on their network, and they revoked credentials? Ever heard of an authenticated proxy combined with an outbound firewall?

      There are lots of ways to do this without disrupting embassy operations.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    36. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a laughing matter to me. That little shit deserves whatever misfortune comes his way.

    37. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      The "State Actor" here, if you will, would have been the US leaning on Ecuador to take these actions, but I agree that a conversation like the above almost certainly happened. The conspiracy theories around this are just amazing.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    38. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible for anyone else to cut off his Internet?

      Presumably Assange is working on the embassy's network, which has a single business-grade connection to the outside world. If that's the case, the UK can't really cut off Assange without cutting off the whole embassy, which would be a diplomatic faux pas.

      But for Ecuador it ought to be a simple matter of reconfiguring their network to disable his ethernet jack.

    39. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by dmt0 · · Score: 2

      And Ecuador is not going to allow its relations with the US to be further degraded by the actual "state actor" here, namely Julian Assange.

      You mean their relationships with Goldman Sacks?

    40. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks at CIA, NSA, FBI and all of the secrets they keep.

      Yep, adults don't hide. Neither do people who haven't done anything wrong.

    41. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Is there any actual evidence for this, or are you just assuming the US is behind every anti-Assange action in the world?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re: So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. The US is behind every anti- action in the world. Fact.

    43. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      2) He is providing records only of one side.

      This is a very common criticism against Wikileaks. And a very strange one.

      Wikileaks can only release material that someone leaks to them. Feel free to send insider stuff on Trump to them and see what happens.

      I would agree with that if Assange hadn't publicly crowed about having damaging leaks against Russia, leaks that he simply... stopped talking about after Sweden filed its charges and Putin started making supporting statements about him. Once this bizarre assault/conspiracy stuff crept into the conversation, it seemed like Assange became far more interested in taking down Clinton than.. well, anything else.

  3. I'm just surprised.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

    ...that the Clinton machine hasn't had him taken out with a drone yet....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's one little act of war between friends?

    2. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that happens in November.

    3. Re:I'm just surprised.... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, wouldn't it be an act of war against either the UK or Ecuador if they bombed him that way?

    4. Re:I'm just surprised.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, which is why it was never a serious proposition. But the Trumpites need any ammunition they can get, and no wonder, with the early voting and the strong indications that Trump is going to lose badly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Clinton Machine will have to get in line behind all of the OTHER people who would be happy to see him dead in a ditch somewhere with an ice-pick in the back of his head.

    6. Re:I'm just surprised.... by msauve · · Score: 1

      ITYM January 20th.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      ...that the Clinton machine hasn't had him taken out with a drone yet....

      Why do that when you have the Obama machine to take care of it through other channels.

    8. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be classified as a suicide, so that no one's careers will be impacted.

    9. Re:I'm just surprised.... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Uh, wouldn't it be an act of war against either the UK or Ecuador if they bombed him that way?

      It isn't going to be a hellfire missile through the window of his little room. I'm sure you have the technical imagination to understand.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  4. The Goldman talks... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

    --
    The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    1. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a highly placed American politician is chummy with major caplitalists? Whoop-dee-doo.

      I am far more liberal than Hillary. The notion that her ties to Wall St. are "feared" is pure concern trolling.

    2. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep.

      Not a fan of Hillary, but very little in these talks seems damaging to her. Should be obvious that any good leader and speaker needs to cater speech to the audience. If anything, her intelligent and informed replies to pointed questions at these events is further evidence that she would be a much better president than Trump.

      If this is some of the worst dirt they can come up with on Clinton after her long career in Washington, either she actually is pretty clean by DC standards, or she is a master coverup artist.

    3. Re:The Goldman talks... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:The Goldman talks... by PRMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe that she and Bill are master cover-up artists, but that's a skill that a President sometimes needs, too. Trump can't even cover up his bald head effectively.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You goddamn shill.

      Who the hell pays anyone hundreds of thousands for a few minute talk unless it's either a) pay to play or b) payment for services already rendered?

    6. Re:The Goldman talks... by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The announcement of internet access being cut by a "state actor"--insinuating that this is somehow Clinton's doing--fails to pass basic scrutiny:

      1. If it was cut, why not cut it before the transcript leaks, rather than after?
      2. What would be accomplished by having parties sympathetic to Clinton cut Assange's internet access when everyone knows that such actions would be ineffective?

      The whole thing strikes me as an attempt by Assange to exaggerate his claims. If he had real dirt on Clinton, he would not need to be so coy: it would be plastered all over the headlines. The Russians have been working nonstop to discredit Hillary and the Democrats, and this is the best they could come up with? If anything the result of their attempts would seem to suggest that there's nothing meaningful to be uncovered.

    7. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

      Which is why she was so willing to release them. Or not.

    8. Re:The Goldman talks... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      To be a master coverup artists, you first have to know how to shut your mouth.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

      And what of those who only read about her Wall Street antics vs. those who learn about all of her criminal history?

      As a whole, she comes across as a lying, corrupt bitch who is untouchable.

      And that's only what Congress thinks of her.

    10. Re:The Goldman talks... by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think it's just the Hilary stuff. Stuff like the statement from John Podesta wishing that Syed Farook was the informant, rather than the shooter in San Bernardino, and that the shooter was Christopher Hayes, as well as the discussions about a 'Catholic Spring' - those things are more damaging, since they say a lot not just about Clinton's aides, but the very mindset of her campaign.

    11. Re:The Goldman talks... by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's only what Congress thinks of her.

      Congress is likely held in even less esteem than Hillary.

    13. Re:The Goldman talks... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3

      That is a stretch. What would you say of Condoleezza Rice giving a speech to Goldman, or of any other form of fundraising? People pay the money in the hopes of creating an influence. Politicians do not live in a vacuum, and as much as I would hate to be a Senator or President, someone needs to do those jobs who is passionate about the position.

    14. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember, words can hide actions... an effective smokescreen of percieved false-idiocy/ignorance. Given where both her and Trump are I find it hard to believe they are that stupid. But I suppose she and trump could really be that dumb, which is almost worse if you really think about it.

    15. Re:The Goldman talks... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What criminal history? Every time some crime is laid at her feet, it always ends up being the fantasies of the far right of the Republican Party. You'd think she was a gangster who'd made her bones in the early 90s and now drank blood for breakfast the way people like you talk.,

      Your buying into the nonsense being repeated in your echo chamber. No one else is buying it. You're just another hyperbolic crazy on the Internet foaming at the mouth with yet another tired conspiracy theory. These attacks against the Clintons have been going on for a quarter century, and they were absurd then, now they just seem to represent some pathological psychological condition on the part of those who keep repeating it.

      What are you going to be like on November 9th? Is this your way of coping?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says you value sjw issues more than others.

    17. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you mean if we ignore the leaks where they literally framed Trump for sexism (why frame someone? weren't his own comments enough!?), accept bribes from the middle east, etc. you can find emails where she's not completely horrible?

    18. Re:The Goldman talks... by meglon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Trump can't even cover up his bald head effectively.

      Not his fault: he stiffed the rat on his head its paycheck like he's done to so many small businesses, so the rat couldn't eat, and it died. Trumps just too lazy to actually remove the corpse. Which makes it all the rats fault in batshit stupid Trumpland.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    19. Re:The Goldman talks... by meglon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/...

      They're speeches, just like everyone elses speeches. The real problem is you've been lied to for so long by the fascist power hungry GOP politicians that you've developed a Pavlovian response to say everything Hillary does is bad. It must suck having your head so far up your ass all the time.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    20. Re:The Goldman talks... by meglon · · Score: 1

      If you could make a couple hundred thousand giving a speech, would you want those transcripts to be freely available? I mean, why is it that people who talk about business, capitalism and the free market being so wonderful always end up being complete fucking idiots when it comes to basic business sense?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    21. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every previous candidate that's been paid a couple hundred thousand a speech has released their transcripts. What does she have to hide?

    22. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/...

      They're speeches, just like everyone elses speeches. The real problem is you've been lied to for so long by the fascist power hungry GOP politicians that you've developed a Pavlovian response to say everything Hillary does is bad. It must suck having your head so far up your ass all the time.

      Maybe you should diagnose yourself sometime, Dr. Freud. Take two self-reflections and call me in the morning.

    23. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Means he and his campaign suck too. It is entirely possible to have TWO crap candidates. Acknowledging one as such does not rule out that the other is also crap.

    24. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Russia - Hillary would tell you herself!

    25. Re:The Goldman talks... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      So what did Goldman Sachs pay the Bush administration to give the Secretary of Treasury position to Paulson, the recently former GS CEO? I recall a massive banker bailout that seemed to favor GS immensely occurring during his tenure as well.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid fucking douche. You have to have poked your own eyes out to not see it.

    27. Re:The Goldman talks... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Well that sure did convince me! Boy, who needs evidence when some Trumpeteer AC calls him a "stupid fucking douche" was all it took.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:The Goldman talks... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      And which candidates would those be?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    29. Re:The Goldman talks... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What sexual assault? Are you suggesting women don't let billionaire TV stars grab their pussies?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    30. Re:The Goldman talks... by Rei · · Score: 2

      Be nice to Trump's headweasel, it does the best that it can.

      (I personally like to mentally picture that Trump's hair is a live animal with a perfectly calm, rational temperment that's frankly very disturbed by all of the things that Trump says, but is very dedicated to its job and doesn't want to ruin a TV appearance by standing up and walking off. Maybe the sniffing was it repeatedly trying to restrain a sigh...)

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    31. Re:The Goldman talks... by tempo36 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. Who the hell? Her speaking fees are so unreasonably high compared to everyone else in the world, surely the only answer is corruption and bribery. Pull your head out. http://qz.com/441327/yes-hilla... http://www.inquisitr.com/22032...

    32. Re:The Goldman talks... by slashdice · · Score: 2

      If women let the hill billy governor of a shit hole state grab their pussy, I'm sure they'd let a rich guy grab it too.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    33. Re:The Goldman talks... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm quite convinced that Hillary violated the law in setting up her private e-mail. I'm a lot less convinced that doing it the officially approved way would have been any more secure.

      And if I chose between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Hillary. There's a lot I don't like about her, but it doesn't come close to what I don't like about Trump.

      OTOH, I don't live in a swing state, so I'll probably pick Stein. Not because I think she'd be a good president, or because I think her ideas would work, but because they're CLOSER to the ideals I have than those of Hillary. Sanders would have been even better, and his ideas could be made to work if Congress would cooperate.

      Additionally, despite my dislike of Hillary, I think of her VP the way I think of Spiro Agnew...President Nixon's life insurance policy.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re: The Goldman talks... by russotto · · Score: 1

      We've got at least FOUR crap candidates. Evil, Stupid, Chaotic, and Looney.

    35. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered the fact that he has real dirt, and is purposely delaying it?

      Hillary's campaign clearly has contingencies in place for Wikileaks leaking potentially damaging material. When the Podesta emails leaked, they fought back with "Pussygate," which successfully drowned out the emails for a week.

      But we're leaving the news cycle for that. Assange is clearly waiting until the last week of October to release the most damaging material he has, and for good reason: to ensure that it is still in the news and still in people's minds by Election Day on November 8th. Hillary's campaign only has so many things they can hit Trump back with, and it looks like they already blew their load, which Assange may have been counting on.

      The fact that they're cutting off his Internet now suggests that Hillary's campaign knows he has real dirt and are trying to prevent him from releasing it. No one buys that Ecuador is cutting off his Internet of their own accord. They're doing it as the request of the US - or, more accurately, the Obama administration. I find it quite likely it's because they know what's coming and they want to prevent it at any cost.

    36. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go poop on your moma

    37. Re:The Goldman talks... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.

      -jcr

      You ever attend a professional sports game? Part of it is to watch the performance, part of it is see your heroes in person.

      Now imagine you're a rich bank having a company event, spending a few hundred thousand dollars for an A-list politician to give a speech and even answer a few questions makes a lot of sense. Your employees are happier (better recruitment and retention) and it makes your company look that much more successful and prestigious (more business in the future).

      Oh, and if you think the Clinton speeches were bribes, then why people bribing Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007? Because Trump made a hell of a lot more than Clinton.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    38. Re:The Goldman talks... by wickerprints · · Score: 2

      This makes no logical sense. If Clinton or Obama or the Democrats couldn't get Ecuador to give up Assange in the first place, what influence or leverage would they have to push Ecuador to cut Assange's internet? Like I pointed out already, it isn't as if doing such a thing would even be effective, and the US government knows this. Cut Assange's internet? It would only look bad and accomplish nothing to curb any leaks because any such data would be held in multiple locations.

      As for deliberately waiting to release the most damning material, that also doesn't make sense. We have already seen real evidence that demonstrates significant and long-term impact of actual scandals surrounding a candidate--e.g., Hillary's email server, and Donald Trump's profane sexism. What doesn't make sense is to do what you describe, which is to wait, because these things take time to percolate through the mainstream media, get discussed and disseminated among the voting public, and sink in and shape opinion. In the case of various allegations Trump supporters have made against Clinton, the rationale for waiting is even more patently absurd, because she isn't being accused of things that are of a salacious nature: their accusations are more deeply political in nature, and if true, would benefit more from an extended period of time to investigate their credibility. Unlike a video where it takes 30 seconds for an average person to understand what was said in a sound bite, Trump supporters' accusations would have their best impact with more time, not less, and this again is supported by the email server controversy, which they have used to maximal advantage.

      So, no, I don't buy your argument. Assange is not credible; his vendetta is personal, and he lacks the standing to make good on his claims. That is not to say that Hillary is free of corruption. But there is proof that Trump is a vile and lecherous individual, by whose own admission has not paid his fair share of taxes. Put another way, I don't believe any major players in this election at this point are clean, but there is one individual who everyone can see is not only dirty to his core, he openly brags about it as if it's a selling point.

    39. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your an naive child. This is pay to play. $1million dollar birthday gift for 5 min of time.

    40. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Every time some crime is laid at her feet, it always ends up being the fantasies of the far right of the Republican Party.

      That's your bias in play. Bill, as you may remember, was disbarred over lying in the sexual harassment lawsuits against him. He failed his duty of candor to the court by misleading them in that he didn't do sexual things to his subordinates, which was a relevant part of the hostile workplace he created for other female interns.

      But of course, we're just going to ignore all that stuff because of political team nonsense, right?

    41. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      Not a fan of Hillary, but very little in these talks seems damaging to her. Should be obvious that any good leader and speaker needs to cater speech to the audience.

      Exactly. Heck, the project I was working on earlier this year had like four different target audiences. Time permitting their should have been a targeted presentation for each audience. That doesn't make any of the possible presentations wrong. That just means your focusing on the areas your target audience cares about.

    42. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of stuff has been taken out of context, but in context it's still not great to have a candidate that's so far in bed with an industry so badly in need of reform. The current financial sector is so far up it's own arse, it would have entirely disappeared a few years ago if we hadn't spent trillions to pull them some of the way back out.

      Of course, if the choice is between someone with questionable judgement and in bed with big business, and someone who is as mad as cat in a sack, I'll take the corporate stooge and hope for better options in four years...

    43. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get it, different lies to different people.
      But how do we find out what Queen Hillary thinks if she's always just telling people the lies they want to hear?
      The media will hold her to account? Hahaha
      If we dig down deep enough shouldn't there be at least some principles to find in her dark soul?

    44. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get it, different lies to different people.

      Trump is lying way more than Hillary. Comparison

      But how do we find out what Queen Hillary thinks if she's always just telling people the lies they want to hear?

      If your going solely on what a politician tells you, well that would be unwise. I suggest reviewing her record as First Lady, as Senator, as Secretary of State, and then finally look at what she said in the primary and the general election. Of course, with Trump we know we can discount everything he says, since he has been shown to be a liar based on the previous link.

      Most likely few things will change if she becomes president, though she might be a little more hawkish, but less so that say Donald Trump or what other republicans would be.

      The media will hold her to account? Hahaha

      There are reputable sources out there. I suggest selecting a non alt right source. Heck, just reading the fact checking sites is a start. Watching cspan probably wouldn't hurt either.

      If we dig down deep enough shouldn't there be at least some principles to find in her dark soul?

      Your comparing Hillary with the guy that deliberately brought those women to a debate for the pure and simple purpose of trying to rattle her, and to hell with anything approaching common f*ing decency?

      Your comparing Hillary with the guy who began his career in politics by trying to de-legitimize the first black president. Step two was calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists. Step three was asking for a ban on an entire religion, and now we have the step where he is doing his best to de-legitimize the first woman president with flat out lies about rigging, before it even happens, and to hell with the consequences. Riots are possible.

      And you have the nerve to talk about Hillary's soul. Ridiculous.

    45. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know, but if Hillary only collected $200,000 from a player with pockets lined with cash, what's up with Trump's $1,500,000 fees to talk? Obviously Trump was pay to play 7.5 times more than Hillary!

      Or, they both can find markets that are willing to pay them. We laid out a few dollars (it's called an Honorarium) to hear Linux Pauling speak before he passed. Was it cheap to book the only person who singly won two Nobel Prizes? Was it worth it? I mean, he didn't talk about anything beyond what he had done, or was doing (all information that probably could have been compiled at a cheaper rate), but there is a legitimacy to hearing it from the man himself.

      I personally think that many would say we overpaid to hear Pauling talk; but, now that he's dead, I'd wager that some organization would claim to pay as much as we did or more if only they had the chance to hear him speak.

      By the way, I read the first bits of the Clinton talks. What Assange is highlighting is just dumb. He's fishing for sentences that could be taken out of context in a bad light. It doesn't matter if you support Trump, Clinton, or Donald Duck, if you read the entire transcript, you'll see that Clinton didn't say anything deeply untoward or disrespectful of the USA, the USA's allies, or even the USA's enemies. The speech, like so many of the things supposedly putting Clinton at a disadvantage, actually boosts here appeal when read personally.

    46. Re:The Goldman talks... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?

      Good question. I've got a better one: What does actually raping women, silencing them through intimidation, plotting with campaign staff to attack them in the media, and coordinating with members of the media to silence, harass, and discredit those rape victims say about the Clintons and their campaign? (And that was going on for decades.) And what about Bill's many trips to pedophile island?

      As bad as Trump is, the Clintons are worse. Of course the Clintons are "Progressives" so it's all good, right?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    47. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump caught a lot of flak for doing just that with his white supremacist and neo-nazi audiences. Not fair. Sad.

    48. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Show me even an indictment for a Clinton sexual assault or coverup and silencing of the victim
      2. Many flights to the island were not for sex parties. Why don't you look at who all went to the island and when they did, you might be a little surprised.

      Now let's compare the accusations to actual behavior of trump. Start with Playboy 1990 and work your way forward. Even if you discount the sexism and borderline sexual assault (which is in his own words), you still have the issue of his support for stability in communist China and the Soviet Union.

      Look it up, he didn't have a problem with them for violating the rights f the people or being a flawed system.

      He said they lost control of Tienimen square and the soviets lost control of the protests.

      That is all that matters to him, power and control. He does not understand what America Liberty is and doubtfully has even read the Constitution.

      Hilary may be corrupt but at least at one time she ha principles. Trump never has except for being a Statist authoritarian fuck. One can at least hope there is still a glimmer of virtue left in Clinton. It never existed in Trump.

      Again; don't take my word for it. Just read and listen to what he has said.

      But realizing that would require you to remove your head from your own ass.

    49. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because interviews going back to Churchill were never compensated.

      He avoided US interviews because they didn't pay for his time. Go read Shiers attempt to get an interview and being quoted a price.

      This may come as a shock to you, but being a former senator, First Lady and Secretary of State brings a lot of people interested in learning things they might have missed and getting to know those people better

      Maybe you are projecting just a little. Hell authors get paid on the lecture circuit, next your going to say those are bribes to get included in the next book.

    50. Re: The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you didn't notice but Bill is not running for President. He is limited via the Constitution to his two terms.

      Of course, Trumps ex-wife was an over spender so that somehow means Trump is not responsible with his feduciary obligations, said no one with any common fucking sense ever.

      For the last goddamn time, Hillary is not Bill and Hillary has never been indicted for so much as being late paying a parking ticket.

    51. Re:The Goldman talks... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      1. If it was cut, why not cut it before the transcript leaks, rather than after?

      Because foresight is blind but hindsight is 20:20

    52. Re:The Goldman talks... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton complained of standard speech and payoff post-government hiring under Bush I and Reagan, and swore nobody in his administration would do it.

      "Everybody does it" fails as a defense in that scenario. Not that it ever really works. It just makes it extra scummy and you feel like a little bit more of a fool than normal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    53. Re:The Goldman talks... by jcr · · Score: 0

      The real problem is you've been lied to

      Of course I've been lied to. The tragedy is that you think the lies are only coming from one brand of the Ruling Party. Trump is a lying scumbag: that's why Hillary never took any money from him, right? Oh, wait...

      your head so far up your ass

      Project much?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    54. Re:The Goldman talks... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Is Condi having trouble making rent? There is no need for it. And while the Republicans are open about representing business, Democrats pretend they stand for "helping people".

    55. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, no, we don't REALLY want someone passionate in the role of POTUS. We don't want a fanatic, we want a competent administrator, an open-minded negotiator and a positive figurehead. Well, anyone with a brain wants that, but most of us are brainless party hacks so we ignore what would actually be in our best interests and vote for "Lizard Evil-less-1". We barely deserve having a vote, the way most of us behave. With the current squad of wannabee candidates, and the deliberately corrupt election laws, things ain't looking too good for the immediate future ...

    56. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if you look in the DNC leaks, you'll see that all of those banks that took TARP money all gave back a percentage to the Clinton Foundation

    57. Re: The Goldman talks... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Oh, well then, show me Trump's indictment. The only things the Clintons cleverly got away from was indictment due to technicalities, like the definition of the word 'is', statute of limitations and so on. That is supposed to be a ringing endorsement of their innocence, but we are supposed to believe the worst stuff about Trump from 35 years ago

    58. Re:The Goldman talks... by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Your point is that Hillary Clinton charges as much as others, so she's no different. The problem is that "others" are actually a bunch of crooks, such as her husband, Trump, assorted politicians who all can be accused of corruption just as she is.

      No one in their right mind pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech—any speech. I am a researcher and I have been invited to give lectures in universities abroad occasionally, and the rule is that at most they cover your travel costs. Nobel laureates may get command some extra treats, like conference fee exemption, presentation placement in plenary and a nice hotel, but not big payouts; besides, in that case the speaker actually has to prepare something, not just spout some truisms and rehash some old presentation.

      If someone is being paid hundreds of thousands for a 5-minute speech, the speech is only a fig leaf to cover for the transfer of money; now if you are paying that money to Malala Yousafzai, it's obvious you really want to support her work for girls' education; if you pay that money to a politician that may help your company, that's corruption, be it for a specific service or as "environmental corruption", where it is normal to regularly pay politicians to be on their good side. It is obvious that even in the absence of either written or oral agreements, both parties realise that the speaker will be in debt to the organiser. That's corruption, be it Clinton I or II, Trump or whoever else.

      I suggest you Americans to eject New York from the Union so you can get rid of both candidates and start over...

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    59. Re:The Goldman talks... by GNious · · Score: 1

      is further evidence that she would be a much better president than Trump.

      Well, when you set the bar THAT low ...

    60. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just curious, but does the koolaid come in grape?

    61. Re:The Goldman talks... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Let us also not forget that Trump thought it better for the state to execute innocent men who had been railroaded rather than for the state to admit it fucked up. That is also out there, from multiple sources. He's a wannabe Stalin.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    62. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Trump has ties to Jeff as well.

    63. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe she can repurpose that email server in the bathroom with some AI to generate campaign promises to each individual citizen

    64. Re:The Goldman talks... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      and if you look in the DNC leaks, you'll see that all of those banks that took TARP money all gave back a percentage to the Clinton Foundation

      So they took Republican generated and pushed TARP money and gave it to Democrats? Interesting.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    65. Re:The Goldman talks... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I merely pointed out that GP's ire should not be reserved for a single incident, and that the incident he chose to be upset about wasn't even the most egregious example by far that he could have chosen.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    66. Re: The Goldman talks... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      The sexual misconduct of either Trump or Bill is insignificant. You may glean something from thier respective methods of clean up, but I'll simplify and excuse everything. Much more serious, and more relevant, regarding the treatment of women is Hillary's mutual support of the Saudi Arabian ruling clan. This is a well-monied group that openly knocks women down (figuratively and actually). Hillary's right-hand (official title on the campaign is vice chairman) is Huma Abedin. She has ties to the publication Muslim Minority Affairs,The Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, and The Muslim Sisterhood, all of which are pro-Sharia Law organizations who believe women have a subordinate role in the world.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    67. Re:The Goldman talks... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The other theory I've heard is that it's an alien lifeform controlling him.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    68. Re: The Goldman talks... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't notice but Bill is not running for President. He is limited via the Constitution to his two terms.

      Of course, Trumps ex-wife was an over spender so that somehow means Trump is not responsible with his feduciary obligations, said no one with any common fucking sense ever.

      For the last goddamn time, Hillary is not Bill and Hillary has never been indicted for so much as being late paying a parking ticket.

      Hillary said she was going to put Bill in charge of the economy.

      Clinton said, “My husband who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy because, you know, he knows how to do it. And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”

      This is exactly the situation the founders were trying to avoid when they included presidential term limits in the Constitution. The Clintons are just loopholing the clause. At the time the Constitution was drafted, it was impossible for women to attain the office, so the framers failed to include a provision excluding the wife.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    69. Re:The Goldman talks... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your post reads like you're butthurt that scientists and scholars don't get paid big bucks for speeches. I can sympathize with that, but in fact there's a lot of prestige associated with getting an ex-President or ex-Cabinet member to speak at an event, and it flatters the participants, and scientists just don't have the same social impressiveness. I don't think you really understand what's going on at the events.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Quoth Assange by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    Et tu, Equador?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Quoth Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better put down his Spanish books and pick up Swedish ones. He'll be spending 2+ years there.

    2. Re:Quoth Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or 2 days before turned around on a plane to the US.

    3. Re:Quoth Assange by messymerry · · Score: 1

      No he won't, he will be extradited to the U.S. and disappeared post haste. Thus passes Assange...

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    4. Re:Quoth Assange by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We don't want him.

      We have no particular evidence that he committed any US crimes. He's ticked off some US politicians, but that's easy and meaningless. He's been annoying, but he's pretty much harmless now. If we'd wanted to extradite him, we'd have submitted requests to the UK and Sweden, when it would have been easier. Extraditing him would be harder now, and there's less reason to.

      However, the US makes a great heavy to explain why Assange doesn't want to face rape charges in Sweden.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ecuador moved at the behest of Hillary, Kerry and pals in the US government. I have no doubt that the pressure on Ecuador is immense.
    The elites are desperate to stop Assange and his leaks. Even at this late hour, the thought that the truth might get out terrifies them enough that all agree on increasingly desperate measures.

    As the web of lies and tattered economy they have left in their wake comes undone, I have no doubt that we will see more and more extreme actions like this from our ruling elite. Today also, RT's bank accounts in the UK were unilaterally closed, again at the behest of the US government. War with Russia is being drummed up at all costs, because only a major war can save the Elites from the banquest of consequences their enraged populations have in store for them.

    Don't be naive enough to swallow the pathetic excuses the shills will render up. The US and western elites have finally moved on Assange, because he committed the most unforgivable sin of all; he made them afraid.

    1. Re: War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They maybe elites but their elites I voted for. Assange was not elected. He does not represent me.

    2. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US cared so much about Assange that these omniscient, omnipotent US intelligence services who supposedly had Assange as their number one target did nothing to stop him from fleeing from Sweden to the UK, or even alerting the Swedish authorities; and the same when fleeing his house arrest to the Ecuadorian embassy - nothing to stop him, not even bothering to alert the UK.

      Because... reasons.

    3. Re:War is coming by unixisc · · Score: 2

      I would imagine that the US would have wanted him all these years. So why would Ecuador have held out to date, and why would they turn him in now?

    4. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, okay buddy. Better get ready for the class war. I suppose you'll be headed into the woods with your rifle, MREs, and a sack full of Krugerrands?

    5. Re:War is coming by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If they were going to pressure Ecuador to do something, why not pressure them to kick him out? I bet they'd be quite happy to see the back of him if they had a decent excuse.

    6. Re:War is coming by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      An alternative explanation is that the US showed Ecuador that Assange, and thus their British Embassy, were being used by Russia as a means to tamper with the US election and in general as a conduit to release information gained through cyber-espionage. Whatever Ecuador's feelings on Assange, the Clintons, Trump, or the price of tea in China, the fact remains that they cannot simply sit by and let someone who is a guest at their embassy, and who is on the lamb from British courts, undermine the embassy by using it in this way.

      It demonstrates the extent of Assange's arrogance, and his complete detachment from reality that he would abuse his hosts in this fashion. Did he imagine that his defacto asylum granted him unlimited rights to use Embassy resources in any way he pleased?

      I suspect British police are just waiting for the invite so they can grab him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because it's October ?

      her belief that it is beneficial to hold both public and private beliefs

      Wait, isn't that literally a Illuminati modus operandi? Dat whole "outer party"/"inner party" thang?

    8. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Assange has anything truly damaging to Clinton, why hasn't he revealed it? So far, there hasn't been anything in any of the released documents that is even eyebrow-raising, much less disqualifying. Given all the noise he's made about it, I would have expected something a lot more significant than the practically nothing that he's produced.

    9. Re:War is coming by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Assange is grasping at straws at this point. Petty gossip is about all that it really is. Wikileaks became less about exposing corruption and more about exposing Assange to more press.

    10. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be naive enough to swallow the pathetic excuses the shills will render up

      Translation: "Please, I am literally begging you, don't think about the fact that I have no hard evidence whatsoever to back up my retarded speculation! I NEED to feel important and smart!"

    11. Re:War is coming by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Right.. the plug was finally pulled after he released the Goldman Sachs speeches. Not after the multiple previous, actually damaging e-mail leaks that they put out there. No.. it was after her soft, paid speeches at GS. Go monger your fear somewhere else, ye troll.

    12. Re:War is coming by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that the pressure on Ecuador is immense.

      Giving him refuge was one thing. Becoming his new base of questionably legal operations is quite another.

      He is certainly pushing his luck.

    13. Re:War is coming by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      Look who is making the first moves, the US and UK.
      Trying to stop real coverage by taking the tools of the trade away from journalists and whistleblowers.
      What could no be done in US courts to whistleblowers is now been done to the messengers globally.
      https://cryptome.org/2013-info...
      The tyrannical and chilling side is now out in the open.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:War is coming by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      If Assange were the freedom fighter and the champion of information freedom that he claims to be, he would have already released any and all information he had rather than parceling it out to serve his own agenda.

    15. Re:War is coming by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      p.s. Seriously. If he gets silenced now before he releases the "important information" he has only himself to blame for sitting on it for all this time "waiting for the right time" to release it. Suck it up buddy. Dump your political agenda and publish whatever you've got. Every day he doesn't he exposes himself for the pathetic political wanna-be he really is.

    16. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider: he was scheduled to be interviewed on behalf of Sweden by an Ecuadorean prosecutor today, and that interview was postponed last Wednesday (Oct 12) to ensure that Assange's legal team could be present. It's now been postponed until Mid-November. (source: http://www.reuters.com/article...)

      It was rescheduled at Assange's request:

      "He made the request in a document, via the Ecuadorian ambassador in the United Kingdom, in which he sets out his reasons pertaining to protection guarantees and self-defense," the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

      Perhaps, Ecuador feels that Assange is abusing their hospitality by playing legal games to further delay his interview. Perhaps, Ecuador doesn't appreciate this very much, and is putting pressure on Assange to get him to comply with the legal process that he's agreed to.

      Even more simply, perhaps they had scheduled a block on his access for today to prevent him from getting on the internet and causing problems if the interview went poorly for him, and simply forgot to revoke the block when they rescheduled his interview to November.

      Any of these are at least as likely as Hillary Clinton somehow using the vast machinery of state that she no longer has direct control of to somehow force Ecuador to muzzle Assange *after* he's released most of the stuff he has about her.

    17. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecuador using their diplomatic immunity to manipulate an ongoing election in another country. That wouldn't require "calls from Hillary" to stop, they'd run risk of raising the ire of the UN. Their diplomats could become "persona non grata" in the UK, reducing their embassy in the UK to a private residence, losing Assange and a lot more in the exchange.

      Ecuador might be willing to provide asylum to Assange, but they're not willing to violate UN laws to do so. Half of what is keeping Assange safe is the respect being given to the UN laws. If that is gone by Ecuador's hand, then Ecuador can't claim the UN and other countries need to respect the laws of the UN when Ecuador doesn't.

      Yes, the pressure on Ecuador must be intense, but it's probably coming from internally. If Hillary could have had Assange's Internet connection cut, she would have done so years ago, as Secretary of State.

      One thing I can say about the Trump campaign, it's overblown the power of the Clintons to legendary proportions. I mean, Trump has the public so cow-towed that they believe Hillary can actually do things that no person on the planet has managed. If Trump's right, she should be President, nay Empress of the USA. In reality, Hillary couldn't even keep her family matter of Bill's blow job under wraps. She's a powerful person, but even God doesn't have as much pull as Hillary, according to Trump.

    18. Re:War is coming by radish · · Score: 1

      So their big move is to cut off his internet access - despite the fact that will have precisely zero effect on anything? Do you think the "elites" (weren't they the bad guys in Halo?) are really dumb enough to think that he's sitting there in the embassy doing all the hacking himself? Or that even if we wasn't able to send email for a while that wikileaks would grind to a halt?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    19. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Ecuador makes no bones about hating the US. It is much more likely that they are playing along with Assange ("aagh! I have nothing to release! can you put it out that you cut off my internet access?") or playing their own game ("Let's try to embarrass the USA by making it look as if they pressured us").

    20. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Democrats thought any action was needed, all they really needed to do was associate Trump with Assange. You can easily paint a picture of two men, both on the edge of outright rape, easily provoked, loud mouth, and not acting in America's interest. Assange is a negative, and there is no political gain for the Democrats to be had from extraditing him now to the US.

      Also the Republicans don't have any influence over Ecuador. To be honest, at this point neither party is a guaranteed win, so Ecuador likely won't listen to Democrats either. The idea that either could get Assange extradited today is ludicruous. On the other hand, they might to curry favor with the new President, whoever that will be.

    21. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecuador is pretty pissed at what chevron has done in their country. As yet, they've not been able to collect billions that they believe they're owed after a 'banking' tribunal shot that down. Sounds like good enough reason to let him poke the US.

      google ecuador chevron

      As for why now, either threats or incentives. We'll see if wikileaks ever decides to stop sitting on this stuff and actually..leak.

    22. Re:War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative explanation is that the US showed Ecuador that Assange, and thus their British Embassy, were being used by Russia as a means to tamper with the US election and in general as a conduit to release information gained through cyber-espionage.

      I don't think that the Russian connection is a factor there. It's enough that Assange is trying to influence the election results.

      It's one thing to give asylum to a guy so that you can annoy the USA. It's another thing to let him try to mess with the elections. That's playing with fire and may well have been enough reason to say: "That's it, your internet privileges are revoked until the election is over". Not to mention that Equador doesn't have that many reasons to prefer Trump over Clinton.

  7. Re:Kinda transparent, HRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who?

  8. I suspect....sadly by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect, since we're saber rattling and threatening Russia over Hillary's DNC email cover up. That they have pretty much threatened Ecuador to hand over Assange or the U.S. will pretty much make hell for Ecuador.

    I strongly suspect Assange will be in U.S. custody within the next two months.

    1. Re:I suspect....sadly by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      How do you know it's not the Ecuadorian government and the embassy themselves who are growing tired of Assange? Haven't you thought of that? Maybe they didn't need any outside influence to finally say that they're tired of harboring him? How long has he been hiding out in their Building? 4 years now, right? That's plenty of time for them to change their minds. Maybe the recent one-sided attacks in the US election season has soured their stance on sustaining his asylum?

      We can postulate all we want, but they're only guesses until the truth comes out, whichever way it ends up being.

    2. Re:I suspect....sadly by phayes · · Score: 1

      Impossible. Once he emerges from his mother's basement He'll be spending a few years in UK prisons for jumping bail and reneging on his promises to follow U.K justice After that, the U.K. has already committed to handing him over to Sweden where he will also be spending a few years -- Also without Internet privileges.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re: I suspect....sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no, they'll let him use the internet in Sweden, the only condition is that he has to use the Opera browser.

      Scandinavian solidarity.

    4. Re:I suspect....sadly by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      He won't be in US custody anytime soon the UK (Who do have an extradition treaty with the US) wants him for breaching bail and there is still an outstanding extradition request from Sweden (Who don't have an extradition treaty with the US). After they've both finished with him if he lands up in a country that does have an extradition treaty with the US you might get him.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  9. "hacked"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Has wikileaks ever confirmed they got the emails from a hacker? couldn't they be, lets say, leaked?

    1. Re:"hacked"? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has wikileaks ever confirmed they got the emails from a hacker? couldn't they be, lets say, leaked?

      Doesn't matter. The source only is an issue because the people screaming about it don't want to discuss the content of the leaks.

      The DNC is as corrupt as the GOP. That's the takeaway that the people who believe themselves to be the "good" guys are cognitive dissonancing themselves into a tizzy over.

      Remember, Wikileaks were heroes when they were releasing Bush era war documents. Now that they're revealing that Hillary's campaign and the DNC have been illegally taking money from foreigners and using shell companies to circumvent laws about collusion with Super PACs they're the devil working with $szCurrentRival to undermine democracy itself.

    2. Re:"hacked"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are equating war crimes on one side with the use of what may now be legal fundraising loopholes *pushed by the conservatives* on the other? Wow talk about cognitive dissonance.

    3. Re:"hacked"? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      So you are equating war crimes on one side with the use of what may now be legal fundraising loopholes *pushed by the conservatives* on the other? Wow talk about cognitive dissonance.

      She bragged about framing an Iranian citizen to try to trick one of our allies into war with Iran on false pretenses.

      Yes, she is as evil as Bush.

  10. "Mom, I was doing something important" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Ecuadorian ambassador was quoted as saying, "Julian never cleans his room or puts his dishes in the dishwasher, and he keeps trying to feel up the housekeepers. He better shape up, mister, or next time it's going to be the Playstation. He'll have to start contributing around here. It's not like we work for the broadband company."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. quick some give him a LTE router + per payed sim by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    quick some give him a LTE router + per payed sim

  12. Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised....] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down. How would that fly (no pun int.) in our courts, based on past cases?

  13. Ecuador, How could you!? by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

    Ecuador, I thought we were friends. You constantly gave me free math and cs ebooks during my thesis, what happened? I thought we were friends?

  14. Here comes Drumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here comes the Trump conspiracies

    1. Re:Here comes Drumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here come all the paid (and unpaid) Hillary shills and trolls, they've flooded this discussion already.

      http://www.latimes.com/politic...

      Claiming Trump is working with the Russians is quite a silly conspiracy in itself.

  15. No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ecuador has been walking a line for some time providing refuge. Assange has made clear at this point both in statements and in actions, that when it comes to this election he has a very strong bias. Ecuador does not want to be seen taking steps to interfere in a US election. By providing the platform and venue for Assange to do what he's doing, as it becomes increasingly clear that he's not providing unbiased data release but rather acting as a proxy for Russian propaganda product, that's exactly the position they're in. By cutting off his access, they're preventing him using their protection to interfere in the US election.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  16. Fascinating .... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    I wonder who had enough "juice" to make this happen?

    Ecuador has been very willing to poke Sweden, Europe, and the US in the eye over Assange for years. So, why now?

    Did Wallstreet firms make some threats about investment?
    Did the Clinton campaign threaten vengeance when Hillary is selected as president?
    Did the US State Department make some threats to cover for Hillary?
    Did the CIA threaten tit for tat against Ecuador as part of rumored actions against Russia?
    Are foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation leaning on Ecuador to stop Assange from exposing them?
    Is the Obama administration threatening military action over the claimed interference in the US election?
    Is the media threatening reports on Ecuador? Or is someone threatening to leak to the media about them?
    Are there some lucrative deals Ecuador's elites have going that are in danger?

    The possibilities seem almost endless. Whoever it was must have the ability to make a substantial threat, big enough for Ecuador to fold like a cheap deck chair.

    But who was it?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Fascinating .... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By all accounts, the political situation in Ecuador itself is changing, so it is very likely that the government has decided that it is no longer going to offer Assange blanket protection. That's their right, it is their embassy. In fact, Ecuador is within the rights to evict Assange if they want to. He's there at their sufferance, and if they decide he's becoming an irritant and damaging their international relations, then they have a duty to the Ecuadorian people to limit his ability to create such disturbances.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Fascinating .... by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, Ecuador simply decided that Assange's political beliefs and ambitions no longer align with their own. Whatever you may think about Trump, he is not exactly preaching love and peace towards that particular part of the world.

      If a regime offers you sanctuary because you are politically convenient for them, you really should ask yourself what happens the moment you become politically inconvenient.

    3. Re:Fascinating .... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Ecuador has been heavily reliant on selling it's oil to maintain it's economy. A few years ago (a year or two after they took in Assange) they lost the $300M/y in US foreign aid, earlier this year they had a huge earthquake an asked the IMF for $3B.

      With the US now almost completely self-reliant when it comes to oil and gas production, they probably thinking about losing a big customer when Clinton comes to power.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Fascinating .... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually, Ecuador's willingness to make a point has only ever gone so far. Effectively all they've ever wanted to do is say "Look, you criticise us for playing fast and loose with the law when we tackle our political dissidents, but you do it too and we want that known".

      There have been a number of occasions where Ecuador has sought to defuse the situation by using him as leverage as there have been extended talks on multiple occasions between Ecuador and the UK and Ecuador and Sweden, to try and end the situation - it's not like Ecuador has simply said "No point talking, we're making a point" - that's not a discussion that goes on for days, multiple times, they've just never actually ended it because presumably they've never got the deal they wanted.

      Now that there's a view (real, or perceived) that Assange is involved in trying to sway the US election on behalf of the Russians, the calculus has presumably changed - either the UK or US is willing to offer a better deal to Ecuador as a result of this, or Ecuador is concerned that this is a step too far that's taking it far deeper into this quagmire than it ever intended to get.

      I don't think Ecuador's stance has ever been "We must protect Assange at all costs", but more "We'll cover him whilst he's useful". The problem, ironically, is that it looks like it may have been Assange himself that's made himself stop being useful.

    5. Re:Fascinating .... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think it goes without saying that Ecuador controls their own embassy. The question is, why such a major change in direction RIGHT NOW, essentially "turning on a dime."

      I head speculation that someone was threatening to either call in some big loans to Ecuador, or call their bonds unless they unplugged Assange. That sort of raw political pressure might explain the sudden turn by Ecuador. Hillary has some very rich friends and backers.

      Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Fascinating .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Cannot understand why this isn't +5.

    7. Re:Fascinating .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why would you think this is turning on a dime? They cut off his Internet access, which is one action. They're not going to spread the cutoff out over a year to make it look gradual. For all either of us knows, he's been making himself hated in the embassy and is wearing out his welcome. This may be a reaction to his recent attempts to influence the US election, which is not the sort of thing he was doing when Ecuador let him into the embassy.

      But it is amusing to see you coming out somewhat for Assange.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Mess with the bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you're likely to get the horns.

    I get that he's trying to be all high and mighty and above the law, but he's picked a very personal fight with someone who has a better than even chance of becoming the leader of one of the most influential countries in the world. He has to figure that, at some point, he going to get the shit kicked out of him - either directly, or as a result of the precarious position into which he's put his hosts.

  18. Re:Kinda transparent, HRC by Rei · · Score: 1

    Human Rights Campaign. It's the largest LGBT lobbying association in the US.

    --
    The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
  19. Re:No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by nickberry · · Score: 2

    I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.

  20. Re:Kinda transparent, HRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dancing lemur from Madagascar.

  21. Easily gotten around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So someone brings the guy a cellular modem and he's back online, Ecuador can't do a thing about that.
    Do they REALLY want him out (in which case they'll have to take other steps)?
    Or can they now say to the US or whoever was pressuring him, "Well, we did what we could.?

    (captcha: betrayal)

    1. Re:Easily gotten around by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Of course Ecuador could do something about it. They could escort him out of the embassy, or ask British police to come in and take him away. They may not do that yet, but the writing is on the wall. Cutting off his Internet is the first step towards Assange being handed over to British authorities.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Easily gotten around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what I wrote. Cutting off his internet is actually no obstacle at all to him.
      When he's back online tomorrow via cellular, we'll see whether Ecuador actually wants him out (in which case it will do what you said) or was only buckling under slightly (in which case nothing else will happen).

  22. Re:quick some give him a LTE router + per payed si by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Prepaid", not "per payed", you half wit.

  23. I used to think Assange was smart by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But no matter what he thinks Hillary did to him, his recent actions have him in active support of Donald Trump for president of the world's largest superpower, and that's just beyond fathoming level of dumb.

    Sad to say it but I guess being cooped up must really make you neurotic after a while.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, did he actually publish fake information? Where?

      I think you're inferring that because you don't agree that the information published is damning enough, it's "fake".
      That's a pretty poor fallacy and exactly the kind of shit we don't need.

    2. Re: I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's entirely possible that the person you're responding to has simply read an article one of the sites that misconstrued Eichenwald's article about not being Blumenthal as proof that the emails were 'faked'.

      Or something otherwise along those lines.

    3. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People with years in political parties don't have to quit over "fake information".
      If it was "fake information" they would get to stay on.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps corruption is good to point out regardless of who it is about.

      We should not play teams with lawbreaking and corruption. The king (or queen) should not be above scrutiny just because the runner up is an orangutan with none of the charm.

    5. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Corruption is, indeed, good to point out. But timing can cause one to suspect partisan motivations.

      If I liked Hillary, I'd be upset. As it is I just don't think she's as bad as Trump, which is a really low bar. And she may mean some of the good things she says. (Her honesty rating is higher than that of most politicians holding office...but I sure wouldn't claim she never lies.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What king or queen? The US Constitution specifically outlaws titles of nobility.

      Neither should we try to hold a candidate for Chief Executive to an impossibly high standard, which seems to be what the Trump crowd want to do--although, oddly enough, they don't seem to want to apply it to their own candidate.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you don't have the title, no one will treat you like a king or queen. And you won't be able to treat others as peasants. How naive.

    8. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If you don't actually understand what "title of nobility" means or what goes along with it, perhaps you should refrain from commenting about it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This "if you are not for me you are with the terrorists" shit again? It's possible to point out flaws in Hillary without actually supporting Donald Trump.
      Also look up "extreme rendition" to get an idea why Assange doesn't think much of Hillart and feared for his life if he set foot in Sweden again.

    10. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I haven't followed everything that Assange has done and said, but speaking personally, when I disparage Hillary Clinton, it should in no way be construed as an endorsement of Donald Trump, and vice versa.

    11. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > world's largest superpower

      Donald Trump is running for president of China?

    12. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      So strange that this is marked as "insightful." The emails reveal Hillary to be two-faced, corrupt, and willing to leverage her power and influence in a fascistic manner to support her rise to the presidency. These revelations are that, and only that. The actual dumb conclusion is the notion that these email revelations are "actively supporting" Donald Trump.

      Wake up! And, welcome to democracy. Some people like the candidate you don't like. The "dumb" that you speak of is from that sniveling tower of arrogance that you and other Hillary apologists love to speak from. The real story is that-- like/believe it or not-- Hillary's *real* story is one of corruption, and conduct possibly punishable under law.

      Both Hillary and Trump are completely repulsive candidates in completely different ways. Luckily, there are other choices we can vote for. I will vote for Johnson. (And, here come the regurgitated big-media rebuttals of this. My favorite is the "wasted vote" rebuttal, which is simply a lie that-- when unwittingly perpetuated-- enhance the erosion of democracy that we're currently witnessing in the US.)

    13. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it isn't it fascinating that he can only seem to only get spoonfed evidence about one person in one country lately?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    14. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Actually in the bi-partisan US election cycle, it's effectively NOT possible to point out flaws in the Democrat candidate without actually supporting the Republican candidate.

      And Assange should remember that Trump supports more extreme forms of torture.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    15. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But no matter what he thinks Hillary did to him, his recent actions have him in active support of Donald Trump for president of the world's largest superpower, and that's just beyond fathoming level of dumb.

      There are more analyses than just the most obvious superficial narrative. Assange had a choice quote with Judy Woodroof on PBSNewshour about a month ago. He said that while not liking Clinton, he felt that "Trump is not the right woman for the job".

      Of course the most superficial obvious narrative is that Assange is nothing more than a misogynist and rapist.

      This is just about if not the most machiavellian power struggle on the planet. Please, try to consider more possibilities than the most obvious superficial narratives.

    16. Re:I used to think Assange was smart by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Actually in the bi-partisan US election cycle, it's effectively NOT possible to point out flaws in the Democrat candidate without actually supporting the Republican candidate.

      It's a big world out there and a lot of it is either laughing at or appalled at such blind tribalism.

      And Assange should remember that Trump supports more extreme forms of torture

      This "if you are not for me you are with the terrorists" shit again? (since you didn't get it the first time).
      Wikileaks distributes what it gets. If you guys want them to post something about Trump then send them something about Trump.

  24. "what was Ecuador's motivation" = Liability, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange is using Ecuador's STATE facilities with their permission and his IP traffic is essentially their responsibility if he commits acts later found to be illegal and litigate. So it's not really as surprising or fantastic as a poison vegan sandwich, right?

  25. Citation or link or source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a citation or link or source to your quote by the Ecuadorian ambassador?

    1. Re:Citation or link or source? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Do you have a citation or link or source to your quote by the Ecuadorian ambassador?

      Yes.

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Citation or link or source? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a source for that quote right here.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  26. Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you'll by AnnonymousCoward_16 · · Score: 2, Informative
  27. Good to see the DNC finally fighting back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully by cutting his access there won't be any more leaks.

  28. Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    I think Assange has over-stayed on that moniker as well.

    While I used to support what he did, at this point he has lost all credibility.

    1. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      How dare he expose your team's corruption.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The thing is he didn't expose any corruption. If he had, I would have considered it at least.

      What he exposed is the fact that Hillary is a politician and as such politicks, and that some of her staff members put things in email that they should not, expressing non-professional attitudes towards others, including donors and other politicians.

      I am perfectly at peace with not shooting the messenger, but this crap is just petty gossip. I would have felt the same way if the words came from Cheney.

    3. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      How about Hildawg getting the debate questions ahead of time? Is that just "politics?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't the debaters get the questions ahead of time?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Did the other debaters get the questions ahead of time too?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether anyone else got the questions ahead of time, and if Clinton did and Trump didn't it wouldn't be fair. However, Clinton getting them ahead of time is perfectly reasonable and implies no unfairness by itself.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Is the audience informed that any of the participants receive the questions in advance? And is not the de facto standard in a debate competition that no one gets the questions in advance?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This isn't a debate competition, and I don't see that the audience really needs to know the mechanics.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      See, people get upset when their expectations don't match their reality. I understand you're autistic, so I'm trying to explain to you how normal people behave. The general public is under the impression that the debates are fair and impartial, and no one has heard the questions before, because part of what they're judging is the candidate's ability to think on their feet, not their ability to memorize a short speech. If people find out the debate is not fair and impartial, and is in fact just a show, and even rigged in favor of one side or the other, they'll get very, very, angry. If the public gets angry enough about the political process, they start pulling out guillotines and such. This is why it's a good idea to not make the people too angry with all the lies and the deceit.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You've provided no evidence that the debate wasn't fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time and Trump didn't, that's unfair and not impartial. If Clinton and Trump both got the questions ahead of time and examined them, that was fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time, while Trump was busy and didn't pay any attention, that's still fair and impartial.

      How many people in the TV audience believe that things on TV are what they appear to be? Three? Four? I didn't watch these debates, but I've seen plenty of little prepared speeches in previous debates, and don't remember being told the questions were spontaneous. If there was an announcement to that effect, please let me know. There's requirements to think on one's feet in responding to the other candidate.

      I agree that you don't want the voting public too angry, but the debates aren't nearly as great a problem as Trump. He has said that the election is rigged if he doesn't win it, and that he's not necessarily going to accept the outcome if he loses. That's the biggest threat to democracy in this campaign. (Fortunately, Pence is doing what he can to defuse that.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I would think that the rigging would be the threat to democracy, not the being wary of the rigging.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If there were rigging, yes. Nobody's shown me evidence that the debate was rigged.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.

      I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Um, where is your evidence that the questions were given to Clinton and not Trump? You said it was unfair that Clinton got the questions, I pointed out that it was unfair only if Trump didn't, and now you just state Trump didn't? If questions were provided and the audience was deceived, how is that in any way Clinton's fault?

      Your characterization of me is ludicrous. I've been asking for evidence for the things people have said. I've pointed out where arguments are fallacious or evidence unreliable or simply wrong. You seem unbalanced enough to assume this is a result of being biased (I am) to the point of delusion (nope). You have made up your mind that Clinton is in the wrong about pretty much everything, and have no problems making baseless claims about her.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. Doesn't really matter how she comes off by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real thing is so far, I haven't seen anything I didn't already know. I mean maybe some of the "bombshell" revelations are news to some people, but not to anybody who has followed Clinton for any amount of time. She's cozy with Wall St.? Oh so fucking shit, tell us something we didn't already know :P.

    Perhaps I've just missed it (I haven't gone and read everything, I've been relying on synopses provided by others) but I've seen nothing that would change my opinion, nor would I think anyone else's. Everything "revealed" was already known: She's cozy with big business, favours free trade, had the Democratic establishment behind her, etc. All the reasons why I would much prefer that Sanders was the Democratic candidate.

    However, none of it makes me think any better of Trump. Like Senator Sanders himself, I can be pragmatic about what happened.

    1. Re:Doesn't really matter how she comes off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like the NSA spying programs. "Of course they were breaking the law. It is no big deal."

      When you no longer care about wrongdoing, when you scoff at people that still do...that is the real path to fascism.

  30. Wikileaks infrastructure by unixisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is Assange the only person at WikiLeaks? Are the only computers in WikiLeaks the ones in the Ecuadorian embassy? Aren't there WikiLeak employees in other countries in Europe? Do they have servers? Do they have operatives in Russia or its allies who break into these emails?

    1. Re:Wikileaks infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they have a fair amount of redundancy in other places. It only takes a handful of people and some cheap rented servers.
      I don't think Assange's arrest would stop the leaks, if anything it might cause them to be dumped all at once.
      He may have a "dead man switch" set up, so that if he doesn't log in to a particular server once every few days, the contents are automatically uploaded.

    2. Re:Wikileaks infrastructure by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 1

      Exactly - what's the big deal? You'd think the Russians were emailing them to Assange's laptop then he FTP'ed them to the WikiLeaks site at Wix.com.

    3. Re:Wikileaks infrastructure by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Assange drove away almost all the volunteers with his dickish behavior and treating the wikileaks donations like a personal piggy bank. There are still a few volunteers, but the vast majority quit a long time ago.

    4. Re:Wikileaks infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Questions are a burden to others. Answers a prison for One's Self.

  31. Re:Kinda transparent, HRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary Rodham Clinton you goof.

  32. Seems like an LTE connection would be a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My kids are smart enough to flip over to LTE if our cable goes down. I am sure someone there has already come to the same conclusion. Seems like they just added excitement and news worthiness by cutting the cord.

  33. Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

    1. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

      Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

      You know who else said that? Hitler.

    2. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler"

      Does this have anything to do with the story? I don't see any mention of Hitler.

      And hey, Hitler was the guy who killed Hitler. So he wasn't all bad.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine that point of view you'd be defending with your life today if Hilter had won the war.

    4. Re: Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, and if you challenge the conservative sacred cows, you become what exactly? Literally 'Stalin' perhaps? Or some other communists or anarchists? Well, regardless, if you don't stand with the right wing, you are a traitor and a member of the Rebel Alliance.

      And that is why SNL must die.

    5. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

      Yes, they're not measured and rational like Trump's long time friend and advisor Roger Stone who thinks Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are literal demons.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Funny how everyone who worships Assange have been completely oblivious to how he and his organisation have pretty much morphed into a parody of themselves.

      ProTip: It stopped being about the info and started being all about Julian instead, quite some time ago.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Looking on the bright side, Hitler did kill Hitler.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    8. Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record this happened right after it became clear that Assange would be a victim of injustice if ever he walked in the United States. Death threats and so on. Until Obama and Hillary fix that problem, I don't care that Wikileaks flails in whatever fashion a victim of a powerful foe might. Generally families of victims of stampedes concern themselves less with the feet that killed their family member, and more with who in a position of authority could have prevented the situation.

  34. I doubt he'd dump on Trump by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.

    At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.

    1. Re:I doubt he'd dump on Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember when we had a reset button with Russia and Romney's saber-rattling was the result of an outdated, 1980s view of the world.

      My, how times change.

    2. Re:I doubt he'd dump on Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could they leak about Trump that would devastate his reputation even more?
      It's not like he's lived the life of a reclusive monk for the last decades.
      Most everything he said is on record, because he simply can't keep his mouth shut for five minutes when a camera or a mic is near.

  35. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    So what, is your little Trump Squad going to go around hunting anyone who supports Clinton? Is this what the Brown Shirts would have done if Hitler hadn't become Chancellor?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  36. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knock knock, Shillbo Faggins; Brownshirts calling. We'd like to talk to you about Her Royal Corruptness. Your FEMA camp awaits.

  37. Re:Kinda transparent, HRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does Bill's wife have to do with anything? They were talking about human rights campaign.

  38. Satelite internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason he couldn't be given external satelite internet funded by external sources?

    1. Re:Satelite internet by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Sure. The Embassy could refuse to accept delivery. He is at the embassy as Ecuador's guest, and if they're going to cut off his Internet access, they sure the hell aren't going to allow him to put a bloody dish up.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  39. Re: Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will never see a court. Because, President Hillary Clinton.

  40. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . . .

    Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  41. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of brown shirt and hunting the opposition.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/16...

  42. Re:No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

    This was my thoughts exactly. It's not a pretty popular one around here, me thinks. But I have a good feeling that it's dead-on accurate.

    My guess is next they'll consider either kicking him out of the embassy, or assist him in trying to get asylum somewhere else so that they can clean their hands of this mess. I don't think they realized what was going to happen when they made the original decision to take him in four years ago.

  43. Re:quick some give him a LTE router + per payed si by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Can't. The UK has had the entire Ecuidorian embassy signal jammed for over a year now.

  44. The choice is by pjv936 · · Score: 0

    a Democrat that has enough money to get elected or a Democrat who has no link to Wall Street and so does not have enough money to get elected.

  45. Re:quick some give him a LTE router + per payed si by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me two Pringles cans and line of sight and I can cut through the jamming.

  46. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a security threat? maybe to the corrupt fools in washington.. not to america though.

  47. Well it was either that or get droned by Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise that a poor Latin American country could be cowed by the next global tyrant of the world.

    Don't try to stand between a pig and the feeding trough.

  48. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We kinda always suspected this was true, but it's really nice hearing it come out of their own foul mouths. That's corruption on a level rarely ever seen outside of dictatorships.

    If anybody votes for Hillary, they are giving their stamp of approval to corruption. I encourage everybody to watch the video and then honestly think about who you're voting for this November. Trump is no saint, but he's a far cry away from that shit.

  49. Did Obama send a planeload of cash? by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    That would explain it.

  50. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  51. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by slashrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're an idiot. Or a shill.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  52. Appeasing the Clintons, not Obama by drnb · · Score: 2

    It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.

    Obama? I'm sure he'll be glad to be rid of the Clintons and get out of DC. I don't see why he'd lift a finger to protect her reputation. Please he's a lame duck and of no consequence at this point. The only ones to fear at this point are the Clintons. It Ecuador is trying to appease anyone its the Clintons.

    1. Re:Appeasing the Clintons, not Obama by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obama? I'm sure he'll be glad to be rid of the Clintons and get out of DC. I don't see why he'd lift a finger to protect her reputation.

      It puts the lotion in the basket, or it gets the hose again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  53. Must see Democratic machine undercover footage. by dbreeze · · Score: 2

    https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY The Democratic Party has gone slam off the farm. I only wonder where the Republican machine corruption is relatively..., and are they really scared of Trump. So far, I've only given the Rep's inner circles credit for better operational security.

    Is Trump our Underdog to get the Simon Bar Sinister's of the world, or is he a devious plant by the establishment? I don't see how they could plan to work this where Trump just shifts the NWO agenda to the next gear without the rest of us down here going ballistic on their asses.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    1. Re:Must see Democratic machine undercover footage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a certain kind of influential person who's somewhat charismatic and somewhat abrasive and very persuasive. I haven't met Trump, but I knew of such an individual who joined in on a 401c in Houston. By the time he was done, he was still (after 10 years) trying to "build a supportive following" to take over the organization. His problem wasn't that he couldn't get people to support him, it was that by the time he got enough supporters, the early catches were dropping out of the race, realizing they were dancing with a semi-crazy partner.

      Oh, and the organization? After 30 years of continuous existence, it closed it's doors.

      And the man who did a lot to keep it disorganized enough to fail? He's now dead, and his followers over the years were so attuned to keeping more than an arm's distance (for their sanity's sake) that we heard about the funeral about three weeks after it happened. Crazy can be attractive, but not for long. People like their sanity, and that unfortunately means that crazy tends to die alone.

    2. Re:Must see Democratic machine undercover footage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you surprised at? Trying to provoke the other side into violence is a long American electoral tradition. The Republicans do it, too, and with some success.

  54. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by drnb · · Score: 1

    Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . . .

    Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.

    Actually he provided material support by releasing classified US military information in support of terrorists. So a weak affiliated argument could be made. Seriously, other people have been droned for doing nothing more than making videos and speeches supporting terrorists.

  55. Re:quick some give him a LTE router + per payed si by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a source for that? that is very interesting information.

    Just 2.4/5 Ghz jammed? or cellular as well?

    what about "line of sight" YaGi Antennas?

    Is jamming the Embassy's electronic/radio transmissions Legal?

  56. Re: Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised.. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    black helicopters and foil hats.

  57. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hyperbolic much? Dictatorships have people killed. You are not even in the right ballpark here.

    On topic, I don't see anything surprising here either, but I draw a different conclusion: Politics is dirty- news at 11. We have some folks trash talking here, and some underhanded approaches. Nothing new at all. The so called "journalists" here have a big axe to grind. I see nothing to suggest that the violent events at Trumps rally were staged by the Clinton campaign / DNC. They might have sent in some protesters. None of this excuses the actual real violence by Trump supporters.

    Trump is indeed a far cry from anything we have ever seen before. And not in a good way.

  58. Re:No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why shouldn't everyone be interfering with the US elections. Isn't that how democracies are supposed to work. Free speech and all that too.
    Let everyone have their say and let the voters decide.

  59. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    They would be much more discrete than that.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  60. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    That "material support" argument was made at Bradly Manning's trial and was not allowed, so legally that isn't going to cut it. I'm not sure that is or should be the final word, but there it is.

    As to that "making videos and speeches" line .... I assume you're referring to Anwar al-Awlaki? If so you considerably understate his role. Were the propagandists of the Soviet Communists, Italian Fascists, and German National Socialists unconnected to their crimes and aggression? al-Awlaki was more than just a propagandist, he was a recruiter, operational planner, and more.

    Anwar al-Awlaki: Drone kills US-born preacher who inspired lone wolf terrorists

    One official said Awlaki was involved in the printer bomb packages found at East Midlands airport last year.

    The Yemeni outfit had developed bombs that contained no metal and were so hard to detect that police missed the material on first inspection.

    To distract police, Awlaki put a copy of Great Expectations in the packages. His finger prints were found on the book.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  61. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No that was "Scooter" Libby.

  62. It does feel that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Particularly with the "state actor" thing. I mean there is no reason to use that language I can think of other than to insinuate it was the US (or maybe UK) that did it. Yes, it is correct, that Ecuador is a "state actor" but if you knew it was them, well the just say so up front. If my ISP cut off my Internet access I would say "Cox cut off my Internet," not "A corporate actor cut off my Internet," even though both are true.

    Now if they didn't know who cut it off, fair enough, but then saying a state actor did it would be again misleading, implying knowledge they didn't have. Then it would have been accurate to say "Assanage's Internet was cut off by an unknown party."

    To me it seems like just another way to try and drum up more attention, which is all these leaks have been so far.

    As I said in my other post, the leaks have been exceedingly "meh" for anyone who's looked at Clinton with anything even approaching a critical eye in the past. I can't see them changing anyone's mind. Die hard Clinton supporters will ignore them, claim they are made up, or claim they don't matter. Die hard Trump supporters will scream and shout about how evil Clinton is... just like they have been since day one, they have convinced themselves she's done much worse. All the rest like the Bernie supporters will just say "Ya, we knew all that shit, that's why we wanted Sanders. What a crap election. Oh well, better her than Trump."

    Plus if they had anything major they'd really better reveal it now-ish. Early voting is already happening in many states.

  63. Ahh yes, the most accurate source of infomration by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The AC who posts doomsday scenarios with absolutely no sources :P.

    Seriously man, if you think this crap you are peddling is real, then some sources please. If not then fuck off.

    I'd imagine the reason you don't is because, of course, the real story is far less dramatic than you make it out to be. NatWest is closing RT's account why is not known, as they haven't said. There is no "at the behest of the US" reported anywhere. They also aren't doing anything dodgy like seizing funds, they've notified RT "We don't want to do business with you anymore," and they will close the account down next month.

    Here's a source, since you can't be bothered: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

  64. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by radish · · Score: 2

    I am voting for someone who isn't Trump. That's all I need to know. I'd vote for Big Bird over that mouth-breathing hippo.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  65. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    Do you know these guys who are talking in the video ? Are they stupid enough to tell people about things that no one is supposed to know? Don't you suspect they are working for the opposite cause than they admit to - or just spewing FUD ?

    Like, hey man - you cannot trust anyone, you just might as well trust me than actually smart people!

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  66. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by Nethead · · Score: 1

    Hey, how can I get one of those shill jobs? I've got some free time at work, how much does it pay?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  67. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If anybody votes for Hillary, they are giving their stamp of approval to corruption.

    Nice try shitlord, but that corruption is on the Right Side of History and it's time to Correct The Record!

    Quick! Look over there!

    • Misogyny!
    • Racism!
    • Ableism!
    • Transphobia!
    • Islamophobia!
  68. Exposed as a lie by cryptome.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incoming Video and Still evidence of Child Grooming

    https://cryptome.org/2016/10/U...

    This is why Ecuador and not the US or UK cut him off.

  69. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 0

    He's not a fugitive on the run.
    He is wanted for questioning. In Sweden.
    To the US he is a national hero. Unfortunately most of US citizens lack the mental capacity to understand that, and the US government just plays foul (without any accusation brought onto the table) because he helped bring out US government abuse.

  70. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 0

    "... releasing classified US military information in support of terrorists."
    No he did not. He helped bring US government abuse in the open, which makes him a whistleblower, formally entitled to protection.
    The US government however has never lived up to their formal obligations in such cases, instead choosing to completely and utterly wreck any such person. Part of that are misinformation campaign falsely accusing those people from "aiding the enemy" and such nonsense, to which the weaker minded among us (you) show themselves to be quite susceptible.

  71. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members
    Not sure about that, but for sure, for journalists, they use manned helicopters.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  72. Re: Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised.. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Well, he can't leave the Ecuadorian embassy or he would be arrested by the U.K. Police; a drone attack therefore would be firing a missile into the side of the embassy which would be a very public act of war against the sovereign state of Ecuador.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  73. Good deal...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fucker up......I can't wait for the day they drag him kicking and screaming out of that embassy........so tired of his shit...

  74. the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by unixisc · · Score: 2

    It's not merely that. During the Lewinsky saga, anybody who was appalled at the behavior of President Bill Clinton was haranged and lectured that it was his personal life, and none of our business, and so on. If one brought up Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick or Paula Jones, we were given the 'so many years ago' excuse - even though Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey were contemporaneous at the time. Now, all of a sudden, the Dems have had their Road to Damascus moment when Trump is caught on Access Hollywood tapes from 11 years ago, and allegations women make about stuff he supposedly did 35 years ago is supposed to disqualify him from president.

    Only problem - Trump was a Democrat when he supposedly did those things, and when he said the things on Access Hollywood. If Dems want to disqualify him for that, then the more Leftist among them - the Bernie/Stein/Pocahontas supporters ought to also endorse him for his past support of Single Payer Healthcare, no matter that he doesn't support it now. After all, if he groped women years ago, but has reformed since, and we're not supposed to recognize it, then if he had a different Leftist position years ago that he no longer has, we shouldn't recognize that either. Right? RIGHT?

    1. Re:the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with Broderick or Flowers, but Clinton never forced himself on Jones (or, for that matter, Lewinski). He did act like an asshole towards her when she turned him down, but stayed legal. The revelations showed that Bill Clinton is a big jerk, but that is legal.

      Why does it matter what party Trump favored? The Democratic Party is not pro-sexual assault, and so Trump wasn't just parroting the party line. He spoke for himself, and is judged on that basis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Broderick was the case where Clinton did force himself on her. But it was what happened after that - like Hilary approaching her and telling her to keep things silent. When it comes to the sexual predatory stuff, there are 2 issues here that are important to note before just bluntly stating that Trump is unfit to be president on the basis of his hot mike statements or the statements of the 9 women (so far) who've come forward:

      - Bill Clinton is the topic when the assertion is made that if Trump did any of the things he's accused of, he should not be president. The Dems successfully fought tooth and nail to prevent Clinton from being removed from office on the same basis, so it's blatant hypocrisy now to pretend that they have higher standards for this office. So don't give me that line

      - Hilary Clinton - the Bill Clinton stuff above is relevant to Hilary b'cos she was the one who actively and aggressively worked to cover up his misdeeds, knowing that it would sabotage his political future, and thereby, hers w/ it. It is also one more aspect of her hypocrisy - she lectures everyone about how she's all about women's rights being human rights blah blah blah, but then, in her private life, she abuses women. In the above case w/ the Clinton women, and also, her office pays women far less than they pay men, even while she argues for equal wages. Trump in the meantime gets no credit for actively maintaining pay parity b/w the genders

      The revelations may have shown that Clinton was a big jerk who did things that were legal, but that's not what his party has been saying the last 50 years. The Democrats did everything they could to sink judge Clarence Thomas w/ the fake stories from Anita Hill, which were just not true. And they are the ones who come out w/ hyped up concepts of what people should allege as sexual harassment. But when the #1 guy in their party does things far worse than what they would hang lesser mortals for, they give him a pass. And after they do, they want people to dump Trump based on something said 11 years ago or done 35 years ago. And Trump being a Democrat is relevant - nobody thought of dinging him at the time that he made those remarks b'cos of that. Suddenly, it's news 4 weeks before the election.

    3. Re:the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Broderick claimed to have been raped, but that's an allegation with (as far as I can tell at a quick look) no outside corroboration. I haven't been following the misadventures of Bill, but what else do we have in the way of allegations of illegal behavior? What, in your opinion, makes Juanita Broderick believable and not Anita Hill? How about Broderick and the woman who claims she was raped by Trump when she was 13? How about nine woman coming forward against Trump? I find nine women more credible than one, particularly when Trump talked about committing sexual assault?

      There was no attempt made to remove Clinton from office based on sexual misconduct. The impeachment was about perjury, and the Republican-controlled Senate seemed to think it was an embarrassment, from the way they quickly ditched the trial. The Democrats really didn't have much to say about it: the impeachment went through anyway, and the Republicans sidestepped the actual trial.

      Lots of people treat individuals differently from how they treat groups those individuals are part of, and that isn't hypocrisy. Clinton may be hypocritical, but she's going to affect a lot more people by what she does as President to establish policy than what she does to individuals.

      Also, there's plenty of reasons to think that Trump is unfit for the Presidency, and to dump him. The Democrats are going to use what they've got to convince people to vote for Clinton and not Trump, and the campaign is ugly already. The relevant difference between the two times is not Trump's party affiliation, but that he's running for President now and not then.

      Fortunately, there's less than three weeks until I can stop paying any attention to the campaign.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In Broderick's case, the outside corroboration was there. After the incident, one of her colleagues went to find her, since she was supposed to be in another place that she wasn't, and found her w/ torn pantyhose and bleeding lips and other evidence - the same stuff that usually accompanies any legitimate claim of rape. Of course, this was in 1978, which AFAIK, was way before DNA had been proven to be proof-positive determination of ID. Also before rape shield laws were the norm. So obviously, there was no evidence w/ which to charge or convict Clinton. Not to mention that Hilary had approached her and warned her to keep it quiet. That great champion of women, for whom all women are supposed to vote based on their plumbing

      Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was about perjury, and the Republicans went to great pains to stress that that was what it was about. Reason? The Democrats were already hitting them hard about it being about Clinton's personal life, so the latter didn't wanna go there. But now, all of a sudden, what Trump thought about women at least a decade ago is considered germane to whether he should be elected or not.

      Now, there are people who prefer Clinton to Trump b'cos they don't want an outsider, or somebody w/ no political experience, to take over: that includes several RINOs who think that a corrupt Democrat w/ experience is better than a Republican w/ no record. I disagree w/ them, but at least that's a relevant criteria w/ which to choose a president. But suddenly opposing Trump based on something he said 11 years ago, or supposedly did 35 years ago - I'd buy that, but IF AND ONLY IF the same set of standards were applied to Clinton in the 90s as well. But they weren't, and instead, every attempt to hold him to ANY standards of behavior was sabotaged by the Democrats on the grounds that it was his personal life, blah blah blah. So excuse me for totally writing off anything about Trump's 'fitness' to be president: Bill Clinton has already set the bar underground, so there is no reason to hold Trump to any of the Democrat standards.

    5. Re:the sexual adventures of Clinton vs Trump by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My apologies for not checking thoroughly enough. Torn pantyhose, bleeding lips, and being in shock are evidence of attempted rape, and the account is consistent with attempted rape. Reporting sexual assault is not an easy decision today, and things were considerably worse then. I still consider it alleged, since I'm not going to presume to judge guilt at a distance without considerably stronger evidence. I haven't described Trump as a criminal either.

      It is possible to support certain people in general while being n asshole to certain of those people. Nor have I recommended that anyone vote for Clinton because she's a woman (although I'd like to see a woman become President, just to break the white man stereotype further). I support her because she's reasonably honest, extremely competent, and generally agrees with me on the issues. I don't support her for her genitals, or for that matter her ability to hire good IT people.

      Also, I'm against Trump for a whole range of reasons. The big problem I have with that particular quote is primarily that he doesn't seem to realize that what he's saying is wrong. If he'd acknowledged that he was wrong, apologized, and claimed to have learned I'd pretty much forget about it, but all I've heard of his reaction is calling it locker room talk (in which case Trump hasn't been in any of the locker rooms I've been in).

      I'm not convinced that that quote turned lots of people against him, either. It was a convenient excuse for a lot of Republicans who didn't want to be associated with him to ditch him, and it's a nice easy sound bite to beat him about the head and shoulders with for people who were already against him.

      As far as judgment goes, we're talking about a 1976 incident versus a 2005 incident, and standards and expectations can change over about thirty years.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  75. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

    No, he is no hero, as his actions over the past few months have plainly shown. Just a tool, willing or otherwise. I just hope he realizes that Putin doesn't have a great track record of protecting tools that have outlived their usefulness and not to drink tea he hasn't prepared himself.

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  76. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess everything is fine as long as you pay for some repair, nevermind the loss of time and energy in doing so.
    Next it would be OK to beat up the elderly as long as you pay for the hospital or the funerals, killing some pets as long as you pay for some replacement, raping people as long as you pay for a breakfast next morning.

    capcha: perplex

  77. Re:Now watch Hillary shills circlejerk in approval by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

    Well, that would be fair turnabout for all the Clinton/Bernie supporters who attack Trump supporters, steal their signs, and vandalize GOP campaign offices, but I don't think they've sunk as low as that in that regard. If anyone has lived up to the Brown shirts ideal this election, it's been the Leftists, because actions speak louder than words.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  78. Re:No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    Assange has made very clear that he's chosen a side in this election campaign. He really has given up any possible moral high ground he ever claimed.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  79. Where's BarbaraHudson?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expected good ol' Barb Hudson to be here contritely admitting she was wrong. After tens of posts in the other thread asserting that, of COURSE it was the US government somehow targeting Assange and trying to silence him, it's surprising that she hasn't taken the opportunity to come here and admit she was wrong.

  80. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by tempo36 · · Score: 1

    So do tell. How is it that you are OK with Assange deciding to not release information he has but you're not OK with the government withholding that same information? Either the public has a right to know or they don't, right?

  81. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by tempo36 · · Score: 1

    Seriously! With all the folks being called shills on this thread, it's amazing anyone needs a real job anymore. Apparently we're all on the payroll of Big Corporation Inc.

  82. Re:Droning justification [Re:I'm just surprised... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    He is a fugitive on the run, but not currently from Sweden. He's a fugitive from English justice, having fled when they wanted to arrest him to return him to Sweden on a rape charge.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  83. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? You don't see it?
    Assange has put his life on the line to inform us about all kinds of government mischief.
    He even went as far as putting Ecuador against him by releasing data on Hillary from within the embassy and still YOU are blaming him for being 'not open'?
    You're not just an idiot, you're a *fucking stupid* idiot. Or a shill/troll/whatever.
    (Bye karma. I don't need you, here.)

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  84. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by slashrio · · Score: 1

    You forgot the word 'or'. It's not certain at all yet whether he's a shill or not.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  85. burqha clad feminists by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I fully agree w/ you - I support Trump, regardless of whether or not what he said or did. The Clinton Foundation taking money from the Saudis and other Gulf emirates is more serious, and what's more - in the WikiLeaks dump, Clinton is shown being aware that the Saudis and the Qataris are secretly backing ISIS. If it is true that they are backing ISIS, then what Clinton is doing is downright treason. She's actively opposing Russia and the Baath regime in Syria for goodness knows why, while looking the other way while her friends back somebody w/ which the US is actively at war

    1. Re:burqha clad feminists by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      I fully agree w/ you - I support Trump, regardless of whether or not what he said or did. The Clinton Foundation taking money from the Saudis and other Gulf emirates is more serious, and what's more - in the WikiLeaks dump, Clinton is shown being aware that the Saudis and the Qataris are secretly backing ISIS. If it is true that they are backing ISIS, then what Clinton is doing is downright treason. She's actively opposing Russia and the Baath regime in Syria for goodness knows why, while looking the other way while her friends back somebody w/ which the US is actively at war

      Trump had an opportunity to expose this in the (final) debate, but he missed it. He's probably not even aware of it. http://www.salon.com/2016/10/1... " 2014 email from Hillary Clinton acknowledges, citing Western intelligence sources, that the U.S.-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported ISIS."

      Of course, anybody who is up on the subject didn't need the email evidence.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  86. Re:No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by quenda · · Score: 1

    Ecuador does not want to be seen taking steps to interfere in a US election.

    You sure? Given the history of CIA meddling in Ecuador (and the rest of South & Central America), Correa might relish the chance.

  87. Mobile wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't he just get a mobile hotspot and keep going? That way Ecuador can say it was out of their hands.