Hotspot Vigilantes Are Trying to Beam the Internet To Julian Assange (vice.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hotspot Vigilantes Are Trying to Beam the Internet To Julian Assange (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday October 20, 2016 @10:50AM from the great-lengths dept.

Ecuadorian government said earlier this week that it did cut off Julian Assange's internet connection. They noted that Assange's continued interference in the U.S. election campaign was the reason why they decided to disconnect Assange from the internet. But it appears some people are going to great lengths to beam internet connectivity to Mr. Assange. This week 4chan urged people to head to the embassy to set up mobile Wi-Fi hotspots, and many are doing just that. From a Motherboard report:"We are now calling all BRITS to get their ass down to the embassy and stand around in mass, taking shifts with wifi-hotspots on hand!" reads the post. "Give Assange constant network and morale support all while streaming it live for the world to see." Are people actually going to try this? Motherboard UK visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has claimed political asylum since August 2012, today to find out. Admittedly, on a late October afternoon, things were rather quiet on the street outside the embassy. Nevertheless, I found my guy. "Marco" was loitering outside the embassy, turning on and off his mobile hotspot. I approached him, and while tentative at first, Marco finally started explaining how he was hoping to aid Assange.

246 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Phone by wonkey_monkey · 2016-10-20 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does the guy not have a mobile phone? I hear London has mobile internets and everything nowadays. It's quite the happening little village.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Can't someone smuggle a phone to him?
2. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  How would he go pay the bill?
3. Re:Phone by iggymanz · 2016-10-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  maybe not allowed. I heard theoretical talk of these things called "high gain directional antenna" but maybe that's a myth
4. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  He's not in prison... oh, no. Wait.
5. Re:Phone by peragrin · 2016-10-20 11:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No that is monitored by the London police.
  What makes this better is most embassy's are designed as faraday cages to help prevent spying both with outside signals and inside signals.
  Maybe if massage decided to shack up with a peaceful country instead of a dictatorship he would be better off. Or maybe not support the candidate that wants to stop all trade with Latin countries and calls all Latinos bad hombres.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
6. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Le "if you dont support Clinton you support Trump" meme xDxDxDxDxDxDxD
7. Re:Phone by MightyMartian · 2016-10-20 11:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If Ecuador has decided to shut off his Internet access to stop him from trying to fuck around with the US election, I have a feeling that they wouldn't be any more tolerant of him using alternative means to continue the campaign. I honestly think that his days hanging out in the Ecuadorian Embassy are numbered, and too much pursuing of his October Surprise strategy is likely to mean he's shown the door.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  No that is monitored by the London police.
  What makes this better is most embassy's are designed as faraday cages to help prevent spying both with outside signals and inside signals.
  Maybe if massage decided to shack up with a peaceful country instead of a dictatorship he would be better off. Or maybe not support the candidate that wants to stop all trade with Latin countries and calls all Latinos bad hombres.
  I don't care about your beef with the cucarachas. But please do not call Brazilians 'Latinos' in English. You are allowed to do so if you're willing to speak Portuguese. In English we Brazilians are LATINS. And we are Homens not Hombres. Don't put us in the same sack as the American house cleaners. Thank you.
9. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  All you Hispanic people are the same!
10. Re:Phone by Spy+Handler · 2016-10-20 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or maybe not support the candidate that wants to stop all trade with Latin countries and calls all Latinos bad hombres.
  Actual quote is "some bad hombres". Not "all". I know you believe your cause is just and the other side is evil and therefore it's okay to lie or fudge things here and there, but to neutral observers it makes whatever you say less credible.
11. Re:Phone by dosius · 2016-10-20 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Let's hope.
  I had mixed feelings about him before (figured he was a blowhard with honest intentions) but now that it seems he's in Putin's pocket, I remain convinced that Ecuador did the right thing.
  -uso.
  
  --
  What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
12. Re:Phone by Dunbal · 2016-10-20 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How is he in Putin's pocket? Oh wait, Hillary told you this.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
13. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  We are the true heirs of the Roman Empire, hillbilly. Now go fuck yourself in the ass.
14. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Portuguese is just broken Spanish anyway.
15. Re:Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Quite true. Actually, what I found most interesting was the part right before that:
  "One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones - we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out...." SNIIIIIIFFFFF! "... we're gonna get them out..."
  Deep snorting while talking about drug lords is a bit less than opportune timing ;)
  (Also: apparently the drug lords are in the US?)
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
16. Re:Phone by peragrin · 2016-10-20 11:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Right after listening to trump you can except your IQ to drop. I hate Hillary. Kasich would have beat Hillary in the biggest landslide in decades. Cruz would be close but still winning in many key states.
  Trump is so arogant, that he makes Hitler look good. When he said he would jail Hillary shows a blast disregard for law, order, and civil society. The president doesn't make arrests, or punish law breakers that is the judicial branches job. The FBI works for the department of Justice not the executive branch.
  Trump and his followers are to stupid to know or care that is difference between tin pot doctors of fascists countries and democracy.
  Trump has been married three times and his known to have cheated on at least two of those wives multiple times with multiple people. That is a fact. Yet he some how thinks Hillary is to blame for bill cheating. Does he think his ex wives are to blame for his cheating?
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
17. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  They could hide it in a poisoned vegan torture sandwich.
18. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense. I went by the embassy today, and looked for wifi hotspots, and found plenty of unsecured, wide-open hotspots. They were named:
  "Really Not MI6"
  "NOT The Police"
  "Trust Me I AM TOTALLY NOT A STATE ACTOR"
  "LE INTERNET FOR LE FREE FOR LE JULIAN"
  "Marco's iPhone"
  "Black Van Express"
  "Diplomatic Immunity"
  The guy's got TONS of options for free wifi. /sarcasm
  Are the dumbasses on 4chan really this stupid, that they think he's going to connect to an unsecured public wifi hotspot whose source is "somewhere" outside his building? I don't have a very high opinion of Mr. Assange as a person, but surely he's not THAT stupid that he'd just blindly trust some rando hotspot.
19. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  If Trump were on drugs, I highly doubt he would be calling for a drug test like he did.
20. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  Trump hates "brown people". Hillary bombs them.
21. Re:Phone by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-20 11:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And we are Homens not Hombres.
  I don't see what your sexual preference has to do with this discussion, but I do believe you deserve the same right to marriage as anyone else.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
22. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  You do have to wonder. It might be the UK government is restricting his communications already via personal assets whereas he was utilizing the embassy’s assets (internet connection) to communicate.
23. Re:Phone by ahabswhale · 2016-10-20 12:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, every intelligence agency in the US told him that.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
24. Re:Phone by AHuxley · 2016-10-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Any device in the hands of any trusted, known friend would have had security service code pushed down when turned on/tested/activated.
  Any "new" friend could be used by the security services to deliver an altered device.
  Consumer device globally ship with access to police and security services designed in.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
25. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Right after listening to trump you can except your IQ to drop.
  May we presume from your post that you've been listening to a LOT of the ol' Donald? Because it's hard to believe your IQ is naturally this low, yet you retain autonomic nervous function.
  
  The president doesn't make arrests, or punish law breakers that is the judicial branches job.
  No, he's not out serving warrants personally. But the many law enforcement agencies that *do* make arrests are overseen by the Dept of Justice, which is part of the executive branch. In addition, prisons are also run by the executive branch, again, by the DoJ. And as the president, he runs the executive branch, and appoints the various cabinet members (for instance, the motherfucking ATTORNEY GENERAL) who will run these federal departments.
  
  The FBI works for the department of Justice not the executive branch.
  /facepalm Dumbass, the "Department of Justice" is *part* of the executive branch. It is NOT part of the judicial branch.
  
  to stupid to know
  TOO stupid to know.
  
  married three times and his known to have cheated
  IS known to have cheated.
  
  arogant,
  ARROGANT
  
  When he said he would jail Hillary shows a blast disregard
  What is this I don't even?
  
  between tin pot doctors of fascists countries
  Mind explaining what the fuck a tin pot doctor is?
  Look, I'm with your supposed point: Trump is awful, nobody should vote for him. But your screed against him is so laughably full of inaccuracies and complete idiocy that I have to wonder if you're not somehow going meta and trolling us by presenting what you think a liberal would have to say.
  8/10, would read again.
26. Re:Phone by AHuxley · 2016-10-20 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Re "prevent spying both with outside signals"
  Most nations are aware of efforts like the 'Vienna Spy Stations Summer Series"
  https://cryptome.org/2015/08/S...
  https://cryptome.org/2015/08/S...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
27. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  You win the credulous rube award! We knew you would win it and hid the prize in your food yesterday. Please pick through your shit until you find it. Hint: it is very small and incredibly valuable!
28. Re: Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Trump, the guy who wants more countries to have nuclear weapons, and asks why we're going to make nuclear weapons?
  Trump, the guy who wants the US to bomb the children of suspected terrorists?
  Trump, the guy who endorses the strategy of Assad, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran in Syria?
  This is your anti-war candidate?
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
29. Re:Phone by negRo_slim · 2016-10-20 12:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Putin's pocket eh? Want to share some proof or is it something that, just like the DNC hacks merely ascribed to Russia with zero evidence offered?
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
30. Re: Phone by slasher999 · 2016-10-20 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely. His leaking what he's leaked has served the purposes for many of us Americans by providing evidence of a lot of the criminal,activity we knew was going on, especially in the Hillary camp. However this man is not a hero, he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
31. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  All 17 of them, huh?
32. Re:Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Have you not noticed that Trump immediately applies everything he's criticized for onto his opponents? Bad temperment? No, I have a great temperment, YOU have a bad temperment! Angry? I'm calm, YOU'RE angry! Abuse women? Nobody has more respect for women than me, you abuse women! Puppet? No puppet, no puppet - you're the puppet! Every single time, he's like a mirror. I swear, if Hillary said "Your beauty pageants were poorly produced", he'd respond with, "No, YOUR beauty pageants were poorly produced!"
  It makes him all too easy to bait during debates.
  (And no, I don't think Trump actually uses drugs - it was just funny timing ;) )
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
33. Re:Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Have you not heard this guy speak? Just to pick one example of the hundreds of him acting as Putin's personal apologist.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
34. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:38 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  He's so in Putin's pocket, that the DNC had to try to frame him for taking $1M from Russia.
  Yep, the Putin angle is just oooooh so believable.... /rollseyes
35. Re:Phone by murdocj · 2016-10-20 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, he's feeding stuff hacked by the FSB to wikileaks... was that too hard to figure out? Funny how there aren't any hacks of Trump... just Clinton.
36. Re:Phone by murdocj · 2016-10-20 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Good job Boris... keep it up.
37. Re: Phone by BlueStrat · 2016-10-20 12:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  However this man is not a hero, he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
  "Trading in stolen goods" eh?
  Since when has theft of public ignorance been a crime?
  Oh yeah, ever since we've had criminal politicians who've relied on public ignorance to avoid prosecution, that's when.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
38. Re:Phone by murdocj · 2016-10-20 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's what makes me think he is on drugs. It's exactly what he would consider to be great reverse psych... And he certainly acts like he's on drugs.
39. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  The judicial branch prosecutes crime. It is in fact under the purview of the executive branch to make arrests. Witness US marshals started under executive branch directly under presidential order, now operates for both judicial and executive. Same for FBI.
  At any rate, a good, honest investigation of Hillary and her supposed crimes is warranted. It's obvious she did stuff that would see other people locked away forever. We either need to change the law or uphold it equally.
40. Re:Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're mixing up your conspiracy theories.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
41. Re:Phone by reboot246 · 2016-10-20 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you're basing it on language, then the Italians, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Romanians could all be considered Latins or Latinos. And they're much closer to the original source - Latin - than anybody in the Americas.
42. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  The next step will be to paint the embassy with this:
  https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/10/wi-fi_blocking.html
  Right now we don't set any trespass laws for electromagnetic emanations - note how many hotspots you can pick up from your own house. You can't trespass into the embassy with a wifi router signal. The embassy doesn't have any right to stop you producing a signal, but they also don't have any requirement to permit that signal into the building. For sensitive government buildings I'm surprised they don't already shield themselves - it also prevents people making cellphone calls and beaming information outside, or random RF captured from electronics inside the building.
43. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  I hope they pay you a lot for what you post. Oh yeah, let's be all PC about an election. Forget that there was actual fraud to take Sanders out. Forget that they coordinate with super PACs. Forget that they break campaign finance law. Forget that they incite violence against their opponents. Forget about it! https://imgur.com/a/lc2B0
  Shill.
44. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm basing on race. White, blue eyed and rich [in my case] Brazilian, descendant of Roman conquerors and pioneer in the Americas. Now, again, go fuck yourself in the ass.
  Cap: unfair
45. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  His point is right, not correct. Trump trash think he will personally 'make great deals'. Hundreds a day. And all the other obviously impossible claims he has made. Trump trash doesn't even run his own companies. He's tried, they go bankrupt. He isn't negotiating anything, his lawyers are. He isn't writing contracts. He doesn't have the legal vocabulary or understanding do do so/his lawyers do. Same with managing day to day operations. He simply seeks attention. His branded Trump toilet paper indicates that. Well, it's not toilet paper exactly , it's the certificates from his scam schools. This guy is the worst scumbag and petty scammer that has voluntarily come out public.
  It is unbelievable the republicans have this guy representing them. Why? He is the worst candidate. Everything bad possible he has done. He is the manifestation of a piece of shit.
  They knew they would loose to Hillary so they didn't try? Regan, bush senior. They were great. Clinton and Obama as well. Trumpbag? There is nothing redeeming about him. What is one good thing?
  And his rant about 'telling the enemy we are coming'. Maybe we want them to move. Maybe that's how we see them. He is nothing.
46. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  Portuguese speakers are actually not classified as Hispanic at all.
47. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  Wellll Clinton did abuse women to defend her husband from "bimbo eruptions".
48. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Trump email server is open to everyone. Just heard the other day here on Slashdot.
49. Re:Phone by fustakrakich · 2016-10-20 14:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are these the same intelligence agencies that told us about Iraq?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
50. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  descendant of Roman conquerors
  Those conquerors sure did get around. Know what I mean? *Wink*
51. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  That was the joke. Thanks for responding.
52. Re:Phone by Gussington · 2016-10-20 14:23 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  or is it something that, just like the DNC hacks merely ascribed to Russia with zero evidence offered?
  Er, there is evidence, even if you choose to ignore that fact:
  https://www.wired.com/2016/07/...
  http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
53. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't feel like he stole anything from me, actually... I feel more like he stole something for me
  It's not like I ever would have known anything that he stole if my government / politicians had their say...
54. Re:Phone by MightyMartian · 2016-10-20 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Bad mouthing isn't fraud.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
55. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Surprisingly, bad breath isn't either
56. Re:Phone by ArchieBunker · 2016-10-20 15:07 · Score: 2
  
  If he was in Putin's pocket then why didn't he seek refuge in Russia?
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
57. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  maybe not allowed. I heard theoretical talk of these things called "high gain directional antenna" but maybe that's a myth
  Even if you had such a thing, they would need to be paired. Internet is both ways. Basically once his keepers said no internet, he probably better obey, or they might next say no asylum.
58. Re:Phone by tempo36 · 2016-10-20 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  If he was a freedom fighter that was only interested in getting information out to the people, he would have released all this information weeks ago before they cut off his internet. By parceling it out over the course of October as we get closer and closer to the election, makes him appear more and more like a political player and dissident with an axe to grind...and probably isn't winning him friends at the Embassy. There is a big difference between "the government is keeping information from the people and they need to know it right now" and "I have information that I think the people need to know about specific things that I support. But I'm going to wait until the right time and place, as determined by me, to release it."
59. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  +1
60. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Serious question - if his PC is secure and he uses a VPN, what's the risk in connecting to an unknown wifi?
61. Re:Phone by ArmoredDragon · 2016-10-20 16:03 · Score: 2
  
  Probably for the same reason that he didn't fly to Ecuador. Though honestly, I think his story about avoiding extradition to Sweden to avoid extradition to the US is a total load of crap. The UK is historically by far more likely to do that than Sweden is. Hell, the UK even extradites its own nationals to the US without much fanfare even if they had never set foot on US soil. Meanwhile Sweden harbors people who run torrent sites, which it seems the US prosecutes far more aggressively than spying.
  It's also telling that Assange refused to even be interviewed by Swedish investigators while remaining safely in the embassy.
62. Re:Phone by Rei · 2016-10-20 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  No, she didn't. But don't let facts stand in your way.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
63. Re: Phone by Xenographic · 2016-10-20 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  > he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
  Just curious, but do you hold the same opinion of the people behind the Pentagon Papers?
  "It's okay when I do it," is generally how people recognize those who can't be trusted.
64. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares who stole the information... It's the content that matters. JACKASS!
65. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  must encript to secure the script
66. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  Are these the same intelligence agencies that told us about Iraq?
  Nah, these are the ones that didn't tell you about Iraq.
67. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe not support the candidate that wants to stop all trade with Latin countries and calls all Latinos bad hombres.
  Actual quote is "some bad hombres". Not "all". I know you believe your cause is just and the other side is evil and therefore it's okay to lie or fudge things here and there, but to neutral observers it makes whatever you say less credible.
  No he said "we have some bad hombres here", which is not the same thing.
68. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  The world is a very different place today than it was when the Pentagon Papers were released. And Assange didn't steal anything. The worst thing he could have been charged with is receipt of stolen goods and even that charge would be iffy. The last thing the US government really wants is a show trial where they could be forced to justify why the information released poses a national security threat. If the US wanted him they would have had England take him into custody and initiate the extradition process. He was walking around England in total freedom for a significant amount of time. He is just enjoying his martyrdom.
69. Re:Phone by hcs_$reboot · 2016-10-20 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  he's shown the door.
  People are waiting at the door.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
70. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 19:57 · Score: 0
  
  wat
  Executive prosecutes. Judicial judges.
71. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  Quiet, beaner.
72. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  Except if the UK runs into the Ecuadorian embassy there will be an international incident.
  How about I and the US government sit outside where you live and hint that I'll drag you off and make you disappear.
  Now on an unrelated note you suddenly get a call that you're facing rape charges in Sweden, better start putting your affairs in order.
73. Re: Phone by nukenerd · 2016-10-20 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Except if the UK runs into the Ecuadorian embassy there will be an international incident.
  Who has suggested that?
  
  How about I and the US government sit outside where you live and hint that I'll drag you off and make you disappear.
  Now on an unrelated note you suddenly get a call that you're facing rape charges in Sweden, better start putting your affairs in order.
  Why is Assange any different from anyone else facing criminal charges in the USA, Sweden or anywhere else? If it is OK for anyone facing criminal charges to shelter in the nearest Ecuadorian embassy then Ecuador had better start building some massive accomodation blocks by its embassies around the world.
74. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  No, Spanish are broken Spanish!
75. Re: Phone by GrumpySteen · 2016-10-21 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The public is ignorant of the content of your emails. If you feel so strongly that the public should know everything, why don't you go ahead and post your username and password here so everyone can take a look. You don't want the public to be ignorant, after all.
76. Re: Phone by NotAPK · 2016-10-21 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Against script kiddies and malicious service providers, absolutely nothing.
  Against malicious state-level actors, well...you want to be really really really really really sure your VPN is rock solid with sufficient encryption, and the implementation you are using (at both end points) is rock solid, and the OS you are using to create and utilise the VPN is rock solid with no remote exploits of any kind, and your OS doesn't expose too much on the network between connecting and establishing the VPN (much easier to ensure under Linux than Windows)...under these conditions it's probably unwise to connect to an unknown network operated by malicious state-level actors.
77. Re:Phone by c · 2016-10-21 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Does he think his ex wives are to blame for his cheating?
  From what I've seen of him, I'd have to assume he would.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
78. Re:Phone by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  he would have released all this information weeks ago before they cut off his internet. By parceling it out over the course of October as we get closer and closer to the election, makes him appear more and more like a political player and dissident with an axe to grind...and probably isn't winning him friends at the Embassy.
  Kind of like how all the harassment accusations waited until October? Or how that tape from 2005 of Trump saying nasty things was sat on until October?
  
  There is a big difference between "the government is keeping information from the people and they need to know it right now" and "I have information that I think the people need to know about specific things that I support. But I'm going to wait until the right time and place, as determined by me, to release it."
  I agree. I feel exactly the same way about how Obama's FBI is releasing the documents they have from Hilary's investigation in pieces making people tired of the story before we even have the complete picture.
  That said, I have a feeling that Assange releasing all the documents have more to do with him knowing that she was ok with us killing him via drones than any love of Trump.
79. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  The myth of the copper coiled Pringles can?
80. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  I know you are, but what am I!
81. Re:Phone by coofercat · 2016-10-21 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  However eager the British Government are to extradite him to the US, he hasn't committed any crime in the UK, and so can't be arrested for anything, let alone extradited. However, he's alleged to have committed (serious) crimes in Sweden. The Swedes have asked he be sent there for show-trial, and thus he's hidden in the embassy until it can be resolved. Even if he'd been picked up ready for sending to Sweden, the Brits would still have had no grounds to send him to the US without major international fallout (with the Swedes, especially).
  IMHO, Assange is a bit of a twat. However, whatever's going on with him is far too fishy to be as clear cut as a lot of people seem to think. Additionally, wherever there's a fishy smell in the proceedings of the UK, the US is frequently involved somewhere in the background. We're something of a puppet, but for some reason we think the puppeteer is in Europe.
82. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Except if the UK runs into the Ecuadorian embassy there will be an international incident.
  Who has suggested that?
  Uh, common sense? A foreign embassy is, for all intents and purposes, sovereign land of the foreign country residing there. The British police entering the Ecuadorian embassy, armed and without permission, is exactly the same as if they had invaded Ecuador itself.
83. Re: Phone by edtice1559 · 2016-10-21 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  If the charges are related to politics, yes. Asylum is regularly requested and granted around the world when somebody's government seeks to persecute them for unjust political reasons. Assange should have to go back to Sweden to face charges for the sexual allegations. The problem is that the US also wants to try him for not agreeing with the prevailing politics. What he is seeking is assurance that he won't be extradited to the US to face charges for operating Wikileaks
84. Re:Phone by edtice1559 · 2016-10-21 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  He's not worried about the Brits sending him to the US at least not that I've heard of. He's worried that he returns to Sweden, gets cleared of the sexual allegations, and then immediately extradited to to US.
85. Re:Phone by slashrio · 2016-10-21 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  We are the true heirs of the Roman Empire...
  Huh? How did you do that?
  Ateh mais
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
86. Re:Phone by slashrio · 2016-10-21 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The Spanish King Filip had a speaking disability and couldn't differentiate between a 'V' and a 'B', neither between 'F' and 'P' and he had a funny way of pronouncing the s.
  But because he was the king, people had to imitate his contorted speach in order to survive, and that's how the Spanish language has developed into the speaking disability that it is today.
  Italian, Portugese, French and Spanish are all Latin languages and therefore related, but not sub-class of each other. They are a sub-class of Latin.
  Now go puck yourrsssellf you vastarrd!
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
87. Re:Phone by slashrio · 2016-10-21 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, ok.
  Now, why was it especially the descendants of Roman conquerors that went to South America with the Portuguese?
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
88. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  None of that shit happened and you know it.
89. Re: Phone by BlueStrat · 2016-10-21 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  The public is ignorant of the content of your emails. If you feel so strongly that the public should know everything, why don't you go ahead and post your username and password here so everyone can take a look. You don't want the public to be ignorant, after all.
  I'm not someone seeking to become the leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth and who is also heavily embroiled in corruption investigations. If I were the one running for POTUS I would offer up my email archives, particularly when there has been so much government/political corruption revealed.
  Would you be equally outraged if it were Trump's emails revealed instead of Clinton's?
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
90. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Trump supporters have now started claiming that fact checkers are all bias like FoxNews. You can't win against crazy.
91. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ecuador is in Obama's pocket. Just look into its recent dealings with Goldman Sachs plus John Kerry's visit to Ecuador right before all of this went down.
  I do not think Ecuador actually wants to take sides in this, but there is definitely a lot of pressure on them.
92. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Trump words, do you believe him? I don't. Like Hillary, he's a liar. Hillary's actions and voting record are out there in plain sight. She's a nasty person. The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua would have you killed if you annoyed her.
  Ok, that last bit was speculation, but moored in my feelings - an emotional process that very popular with you Progressives.
93. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Trump and his followers are to stupid
  Oh the irony.
  
  Trump is so arogant, he makes Hitler look good.
  Ignoring your spelling, I find it It's hilarious how the left have been reduced to nothing but name calling. Rather than debate his policies, all I ever read is that Trump supports are stupid and Trump is Hitler.
94. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  Problem is, they were right. There WERE WMDs in Iraq. Not counting the ones US soldiers required medical care from, because of finding them on their own.
95. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Serious question - if his PC is secure and he uses a VPN, what's the risk in connecting to an unknown wifi?
  He has contended that the entire first world is conspiring to jail him by any means necessary - legal or illegal. By his own assertion, he is the subject of ongoing surveillance by the entire might of the intelligence agencies of the US and the UK, two of the most powerful and technologically advanced countries on the planet.
  But sure, "IF his PC is secure," and "IF he uses a VPN," there couldn't possibly be any risk to connecting to an unsecured wifi access point that could be owned and operated by one of those intelligence agencies, could there? If you were him, would you trust that there are no unknown exploits of your "secure PC" and "secure VPN", or trust that there aren't entire datacenters being dedicated to brute-force attacks on the weak points in your security? Assange is famously paranoid -- the idea that he'd willingly connect to random wifi access points strains belief, given the magnitude of his persecution complex.
96. Re: Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Heirs to the Roman Empire, eh? That's something you're proud of?
97. Re: Phone by GrumpySteen · 2016-10-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my response would be the same if it where Trump's email. Hacking anyone's email is illegal. Illegal actions do not become acceptable just because you don't like the person they're directed towards.
98. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  White, blue eyed and rich [in my case] Brazilian, descendant of Roman conquerors
  Sounds more like a descendant of Nazi war criminals who escaped prosecution by fleeing to south america. Did your grandpappy arrive in Brazil around 1945, mein fuhrer?
  Cap: boys-from-brazil
99. Re:Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  There were WMDs left from when we cooperated with Saddam. There were no functioning WMD programs or new or safe to use WMDs.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
100. Re: Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  What do you think we want to try him for? He's never been charged in the US. There's no particular evidence that he violated US law (publishing classified information is legal here). The person who leaked the information is put away for a LONG time. If we wanted him, we'd have filed an extradition request and figured the UK would hand him over like they usually do. Moreover, he's been getting less and less relevant over time, so if we had wanted him when he arrived in the UK (which we apparently didn't) we would probably have dropped the idea.
  If he went to Sweden to face the music, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to extradite him to the US, and Sweden isn't a US lapdog. He'd have been safer from extradition than when he voluntarily went to Sweden (stupid if he thinks he's going to get extradited to the US) and the UK (incredibly stupid if he thinks there's a possibility of a US extradition request).
  Assange doesn't want to face the rape charge, and has made a bunch of crap up to make him look like something other than a criminal fleeing justice. The unfortunate thing is people who actually believe him.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
101. Re:Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden can't get him extradited from the UK and then let the US extradite him without permission from the UK. If the US had wanted him, back when he was relevant, we'd have filed the request when only one country would have to agree.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
102. Re: Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Assange published information somebody else leaked (and Manning is convicted of the big leaks). That's legal in the US.
  There's public evidence pointing to Russia for the Clinton leaks, and the Obama administration, which knows more than we do, seems pretty certain it was the Russians. So, you're relying for your prosecution on information likely provided by an unfriendly government with no reputation for honesty and passed through a middleman also not known for honesty, and as far as I can tell not pointing to any significant Clinton illegality.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
103. Re: Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, would I want an unfriendly government hacking into US organizations to pass information through someone with an axe to grind in order to interfere with US elections if it favored my side? You Putin/Assange followers have to be out of your mind to think I'd approve of that no matter what.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
104. Re: Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding? Ecuador has an agenda, and that's to look like they're standing up to the US. Harboring Assange gets them political points. Helping interfere in another country's elections is probably not part of their agenda, so Ecuador has an interest in shutting Assange up for another two and a half weeks.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
105. Re:Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Was the 2005 Trump tape leaked by a foreign national? There's plenty of domestic dirty politics going on, and that's our business We don't want Assange (and likely Putin) doing things to influence our election process.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
106. Re: Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  The risk is a man-in-the-middle attack. If he knows that he's using the certificate of his VPN provider and that nobody else has that certificate, he's fine. If he connects to "Really Not MI6" and winds up using their certificate, either because they faked one that looks like his VPN's or because they got hold of that certificate (and most net software I use doesn't have good tools to tell if a certificate is good), that access point will communicate securely with both Assange and Assange's VPN provider, reading everything both ways.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
107. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  In this election everbody has an agenda...
108. Re:Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Typically, the executive branch arrests people and prosecutes crimes. The judicial branch determines things like probable cause and whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
  The problem I have with Trump's saying he'd put Clinton in prison, aside from lack of evidence, is that he's threatening a political opponent during a campaign in a way that seems intended to intimidate her from opposing him, and we can't have that in a democracy.
  I'm even less happy about Trump saying he might not accept the result of the election if he loses. We REALLY can't have that in a democracy. Props to Pence for saying very definitely that he will accept the election results.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
109. Re:Phone by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  So if it was an American releasing these documents, it would be worth looking at? While that is very nationalist of you, discounting information just because it came from another country supports a pretty isolationist view.
  It's interesting watching a lot of the hypocrisy of this election. The most recent when Trump said he might contest the results depending on what information we have at the time. For the party that contest the Gore/Bush vote and then loudly used it to discredit Bush's presidency for much of his first four years, it crazy watching them act like Trumps answer is a threat to the very foundation of our democracy,
110. Re: Phone by nukenerd · 2016-10-21 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except if the UK runs into the Ecuadorian embassy there will be an international incident.
  Who has suggested that?
  Uh, common sense? A foreign embassy is, for all intents and purposes, sovereign land of the foreign country....
  I was not asking "who has suggested there will be an nternational incident?". I was asking "who has suggested the UK 'runs' into the embassy?". As you say, that would be totally unacceptable in this over-blown case.
  Even when, some years ago, an official at the Libyan embassy shot a London policewoman (she was defending the embassy from rioters) dead from a window, the UK did not storm the embassy. Most people thought they should have though.
111. Re:Phone by colinwb · 2016-10-21 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  "he hasn't committed any crime in the UK, and so can't be arrested for anything, let alone extradited"
  Are you sure about that? Suppose Joe Criminal is a UK citizen who (allegedly) physically robs a bank in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and "flees" to London, which is where he now resides. Are you really saying that if the US authorities have substantial evidence that Joe did commit the robbery he can't be extradited?
112. Re:Phone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  "Right after listening to trump you can except your IQ to drop"
  After reading your EXCEPTional post I think my IQ dropped too.
113. Re:Phone by sudon't · 2016-10-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...surely he's not THAT stupid that he'd just blindly trust some rando hotspot.
  I'm sure Mr. Assange is sophisticated enough to use an encrypted tunnel. Otherwise, the embassy's connection would be no more (or less) secure than any "rando hotspot". Regardless, I doubt he's going to find these dopes standing around with cell phones very helpful for any real work.
  
  --
  -- sudon't
  Air-ride Equipped
114. Re:Phone by david_thornley · 2016-10-23 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the information. It's the interference. Assange and likely Russia released information alleging corruption on the part of the DNC, said corruption apparently including having political preference. That's foreign interference in a US election. Being biased, I find that more annoying than US interference in foreign elections.
  The 2000 election was extremely close, and had numerous minor irregularities that could have made Gore President had they gone the other way. The 2016 election looks like it's not going to be close. Trump's been saying that the polls are rigged and the election will be, and that he may not accept the election results if he loses (and he will). If he and his followers just say a lot of things, that's OK, but it is worth noting that Gore accepted Bush as President. If he encourages violence, and I can't rule that out, it's a lot worse.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
115. Re:Phone by Agripa · 2016-10-23 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  The president doesn't make arrests, or punish law breakers that is the judicial branches job. The FBI works for the department of Justice not the executive branch.
  I agree. What the FBI and executive branch does is more like a punitive action meaning that there is even less due process than that available through the judicial branch. And the DoJ *is* part of the executive branch.
116. Re:Phone by iggymanz · 2016-10-25 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  false, not true they would need to be paired. Reception would have higher gain in area targeted by wifi hotspot using such antenna, and gain while transmitting to that area
117. Re:Phone by iggymanz · 2016-10-25 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  no need for something so crude, this is something that hotspot only need have, the system targeted need do nothing
118. Re:Phone by RockDoctor · 2016-10-27 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  No that is monitored by the London police.
  s/London/UK/ It's not just a London problem. Revolting shithole of a city that it is.
  
  most embassy's are designed as faraday cages
  
  Buildings designed, in many cases, decades before Faraday's birth? I think not. "Retro-fitted", maybe. But even that is quite likely to run seriously foul of listed buildings laws and planning consent regulations. This is a minefield. Here is your pogo-stick. I have a telescope and will enjoy watching your progress through the minefield.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
119. Re:Phone by Coren22 · 2016-10-28 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that was a typo and was meant to say crime in the US. Assange has committed no crime in the US. Greenwald would be more likely to be arrested for publishing all of Snowden's stuff as he is a US citizen, and no one has bothered, as it is not a crime to publish classified information, only to leak it.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
120. Re:Phone by Coren22 · 2016-10-28 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  I would expect that if anyone sent Wikileaks a leak of Trump's email, they would also publish that, but until that time, it is silly to say that Wikileaks, and Assange is working for Russia because they only publish one side's emails.
  If you have access to Trump's emails, feel free to try and publish them at Wikileaks to see what happens. As no one has claimed that Wikileaks has refused to publish their hacking dump of all of Trump's dirty laundry, what is the more logical reason?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I hope trump wins by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 10:58 · Score: 0, Troll

and puts the SJWs into camps, deports the muslims back to muslimistan, and makes America America again.
1. Re:I hope trump wins by Scarletdown · 2016-10-20 11:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Or to steal and alter a joke from Steve Martin...
  "I believe that President Trump (or Clinton) can make this country what it once was... an Arctic region, covered in ice."
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
FREE HARRODS WiFi, JULIAN! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:09 · Score: 0

ITS THE NETWORK NAMED 'HARRODS', JULIAN!
ITS FREE!, JULIAN!.
Given the unlikliehood of him obtaining a 40 quid burner + PAYG card anywhere in the small country village of Knightsbridge, or indeed, a binbag full of them, dleivered by an ex-Baywatch star if required - hes either dead, or playing such for more attention whoring/awareness for fighting worldwide repression [delete as applicable]
Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by caseih · 2016-10-20 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

If Wikileaks' work is so important, I'm sure it can continue on without Assange in the loop, surely. In fact it would regain a lot of credibility were this to happen. Lately I think Assange's narcissism is more of a liability than an asset to Wikileaks and its cause.
1. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes...
  But I wonder if other Wikileaks operatives just don't want to become drone targets while Assange is already too far down that rabbit hole.
  Wikileaks and Anonymous are lots of fun until the CIA starts killing them. Previously a fantasy but with HRC it's not entirely impossible.
2. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by zerocommazero · 2016-10-20 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  If Wikileaks dropped him, I wouldn't complain.
3. Re: Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  Those wifi vigilantes are trying to influence the election, I tell you!
4. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by belthize · 2016-10-20 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  100% agreed. I'm actually a fairly big fan of what Wikileaks wants to accomplish and I find it rather fascinating/humorous/depressing that the various parties seem to be anti/pro Wikileaks as a function of whose info is being leaked.
  Assange I'm not a a fan of. As soon as Wikileaks becomes a tool for personal vendettas it loses all credibility. Even if he is credible (and I don't believe he is anymore) he does more harm than good because perception is everything and he's created a credibility issue.
5. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Citizen+of+Earth · 2016-10-20 13:20 · Score: 2
  
  WikiLeaks has kept releasing more Podesta e-mails without missing a beat. It would seem that wikileaks.org isn't run from a Assange's laptop in the embassy.
6. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  Implying that small ego humble peoples would run a international agency that distribute document from whistle-blower and piss off the most corrupt and powerful peoples that have shown to commit murder to keep their opposition silent.
  All the attack on Assange's character are a plot to distract the public from the truth. You are a useful idiot. He could be a total ass-hole and it would not matter. Nobody else could accomplish what he did.
7. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Gussington · 2016-10-20 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'd go so far as to say that Wikileaks has lost all credibility with him still around.
  He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.
8. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by trawg · 2016-10-20 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  If Wikileaks' work is so important, I'm sure it can continue on without Assange in the loop, surely. In fact it would regain a lot of credibility were this to happen. Lately I think Assange's narcissism is more of a liability than an asset to Wikileaks and its cause.
  I find it hard to distinguish between things Assange says and things-whoever-is-in-charge-of-Wikileaks-Twitter-today says.
9. Re: Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are probably all Russians! lol
10. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'd go so far as to say that Wikileaks has lost all credibility with him still around.
  He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.
  I don't understand this feeling. Does the motive even matter other than to fact check the information he is releasing? That should should be done regardless of motivation. His motive is just as likely fear knowing as Secretary of State, she was ok killing him via drone and is afraid what she will do to him as president.
  To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity. The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
  He is outing government corruption and massive press confusion.
  I do not understand how the media can spend hundreds of hours more time on an unverified harassment claim regarding an incident never brought up before that supposedly took place 20 years ago than on actual alleged current corrupt government activities.
  If this is any indicator, do you honestly believe that the press will stop their collusion with Hilary when she becomes president and start becoming journalists again? She will have close to unchecked power - especially knowing that the media will destroy anyone that opposes her.
11. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2016-10-21 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity. The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
  The reason the information is ignored is it is, at best, very weak circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing, where "wrongdoing" does not even bear any semblance to a crime, but merely some slightly embarrassing kind of cozying up. That is just not a compelling story in the news cycle -- it is just a soundbite that withers under even the disappointing modern standards of journalism.
  The situation is only made "worse" (from your POV) by myriad self-deluded individuals who make fantastic claims against Clinton that fail to survive rational scrutiny when matched up against the existing evidence. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most specific claims made against Clinton are trivially proven to be lies, by even a modest amount of investigation. When you travel in a herd of sheep who are constantly crying wolf, well, do not be surprised if no one listens anymore.
12. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  The reason the information is ignored is it is, at best, very weak circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing, where "wrongdoing" does not even bear any semblance to a crime, but merely some slightly embarrassing kind of cozying up.
  
  But an 11 year old tape of a man talking crude is worth days of non-stop coverage? (I am talking about before the accusations came out.)
13. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not about to defend what the media runs with, but I'm going to suggest that that footage would have been much less significant if Trump had repudiated what he said, or even showed understanding what was wrong with it, or if a lot of people who didn't like Trump anyway hadn't used it as a convenient excuse to distance themselves from him. How Republicans react to stuff about Trump is not Clinton's responsibility, and is not really the media's responsibility.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
14. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by JackieBrown · 2016-10-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  if a lot of people who didn't like Trump anyway hadn't used it as a convenient excuse to distance themselves from him. How Republicans react to stuff about Trump is not Clinton's responsibility, and is not really the media's responsibility.
  I do agree with you on this.
  The Republicans as a party are a corrupt and spineless group. I admire how the democrats back and defend their own no matter what terrible thing they did or allegedly did.
  I cannot respect a party that has no loyalty or backbone. I wanted Cruz to win because his values and polices where more in line with mine. But he didn't win and I moved forward.
  Watching Trump go on the offense against the Republican and Democratic establishments as well as the press has been a real pleasure to watch. It is great watching someone finally trying to lift the curtain of corruption.
15. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2016-10-21 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yours is a fair question, one which reasonable people might disagree. My answer...
  Trump's words appear to be strong evidence indicating an actual crime (even if the precise incident(s) might be outside criminal liability by the statute of limitations). In the present context, where prominent public figures have been fantasizing about locking Clinton up on weak evidence of a crime, well, yes, it is worth days and days of coverage.
  Trump was hung by his own words on multiple levels -- that is why the story sticks. Besides the words at their face value, he has a public persona of being a bully, especially against women; we were just not quite sure how that played out in private. Furthermore, he advertised he was going to hammer Clinton on a personal level to shake up the campaign, thus Trump implicitly invited digging into his own personal behavior. This kind of stuff is very relevant because Trump endorsed its relevance already.
16. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Gussington · 2016-10-21 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity.
  
  I'm not across it all, but I heard a summary the other day that if this is the worst it gets for Hillary it isn't really that bad. So maybe they don;t care that much.
  
  The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
  Which is fair. Most people are for more transparency, why does Trump get a free pass to hide in the shadows?
  
  He is outing government corruption and massive press confusion.
  His initial goal was greater transparency which won a lot of support. Now he says he'll do whatever he can against only one side of politics. This goes against the transparency/accountability goals we all want. This partisan politics is root cause of the problem to start with.
  
  I do not understand how the media can spend hundreds of hours more time on an unverified harassment claim regarding an incident never brought up before that supposedly took place 20 years ago than on actual alleged current corrupt government activities.
  And herein lies the root of the issue. I think a lot of Trump supporters share you view, however just because you don't understand, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason behind it.
  Politics is more complicated than can be explained here, but the gist of it is that politics is a dirty business. It has to be that way because that is how things get done (on all sides). But Trump isn't different kind of fool, and that foolishness has far greater risks than a blow job in the oval office, starting illegal wars, socialising medicine, or another 4 years of typical political bullshit.
  So Hillary's activities are bad, but still in the bounds of political badness so not as interesting. Trump's demagoguery is Kim Jong Un ridiculous, and a real risk to democracy as we know it, so of course this gets more attention.
  
  If this is any indicator, do you honestly believe that the press will stop their collusion with Hilary when she becomes president and start becoming journalists again? She will have close to unchecked power - especially knowing that the media will destroy anyone that opposes her.
  Rubbish. This is the biggest myth, since the President can't do much without the support of Congress which is currently led by Republicans. And "the media" aren't colluding with anyone (apart from maybe Breitbart which is run by Trump's campaign manager) . Some networks are left leaning, just as some are right. It's your job as a voter to find balanced information from multiple sources. I'm pretty sure Fox News won't let Hillary get away anything. And in this day and age, you can always get you news from overseas, free of American bias. The BBC, Al Jazeera etc tend to run quite balanced programs .
17. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Gussington · 2016-10-21 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes because he's a grown man and refuses to admit he is at fault.
  The idea is when you are busted being a dick, you own up, apologise and it goes away. He refuses to, so the dogs remain at the door. This is how society ensures certain standards are maintained.
18. Re:Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange by Gussington · 2016-10-21 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  It would be more entertaining if he wasn't equally corrupt. Imagine a candidate who wanted to clean up the corruption, but was smart and not big mouth dickhead. Oh wait, that was Bernie Sanders...
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:19 · Score: 1

Better to keep quiet and let the power rule, ain't that a fact?
Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:29 · Score: 0

Assange should reveal something of real value soon, otherwise there will not be any impact whatsoever.
Only Fox News out of desperation keeps on doing 24/7 on Wikileaks, and the material is so thin that is starts to look very boring compared to what Mr. Orange is spewing out daily.
I wonder how clever it is to piss off a lady who will be the most powerful person on Earth soon?
If tables were turned and Wikileaks had been dripfeeding stuff from Trump, and Trump would win, there would be a huge hole at the address of the embassy on the day he took office.
Hillary won't probably be as direct, but most likely will make sure that payback eventually arrives in some form.
There is probably tons of very sensitive material of Trump around, but apparently the former freedom fighters have decided to go 100% Breitbart neo-nazi in this case.
1. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Assange should reveal something of real value soon
  November 1st, I hear.
2. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  > There is probably tons of very sensitive material of Trump around, but apparently the former freedom fighters have decided to go 100% Breitbart neo-nazi in this case.
  Or he was a private citizen (and a democrat) openly acting like a corporate asshole and abuser, i.e. the norm, while she has been a politician in high offices with a long history of corruption and sneakily failing up through various illegal or anti-democratic machinations.
3. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  They've dump all kinds of info of real value. Here's one that links the violence incitement at Trump rallies back to the DNC
  They've also just released some of Obama's emails where they're discussing picking positions with race and sex as the criteria. Pretty blatant racism and sexism there.
  But the DNC-supporters don't listen to facts, they act on emotion, years of poor eduction, and DNC programming. There could be a release of a video of Hillary feeding infants into a wood-chipper while cackling, and Hillary confirming it, and they'd still try to defend her somehow. They're like some sort of cult. The Democratic National Cult. Except, they're not big on democracy either, so it's one of those ironic names.
4. Re:Assange running out of time by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Because the one email linked in your article is this. Oh, that's oh so damning. The rest of your article is built around O'Keefe garbage. The guy who built his career on selective editing and deception.
  
  They've also just released some of Obama's emails where they're discussing picking positions with race and sex as the criteria
  Link to the email. Not a right wing blog, not O'Keefe garbage, the actual email.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
5. Re:Assange running out of time by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Assange should reveal something of real value soon, otherwise there will not be any impact whatsoever.
  Clearly you missed #risottogate.
  Call your senator and demand an investigation!
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
6. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, I see, YOU get to select the source. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.
  The link isn't for you, it's for anyone out there that can still objectively parse information. You're obviously too far gone to gain any understanding from it. Like most who are unable to refute the truth, you will simply attack the source rather than change your point of view.
  Straight from wikileaks.
  "Diversity"...
7. Re:Assange running out of time by Citizen+of+Earth · 2016-10-20 13:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Perhaps you could explain why the high-ranking Democrat operatives have been fired/"resigned" rather than saying they've been misquoted. Or why Hillary answered the Moderator asking "and we learned this from the Wikileaks..." with "Well if you read the rest of the sentence..." rather than "Those e-mails are all fabricated!" But certainly, if you have no factual counter-arguments, then you're forced to go into ad-hominem attacks against O'Keefe.
8. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Wikileaks had been dripfeeding stuff from Trump, and Trump would win, there would be a huge hole at the address of the embassy on the day he took office.
  Unlikely as it sounds, I think even Trump may think twice about launching rocket attacks upon the Ecuadorian UK Embassy to take out an (admittedly, troublesome) Australian national, one who has never been found guilty of anything. Atacking an Embassy? = Declaration of War. Attacking third-party embasssies in foreign countries? = The Brtis would protest most vigorously over Tea. Not saying any of that would stop Trump either, exactly - but the consequences would all be wearisome enough to give even him pause.
9. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  And we can be pretty sure that as a developer (and someone who's been fined by and sues municipalities), he never interacted in any ways with government officials? Riiiight.
10. Re:Assange running out of time by ZipK · 2016-10-20 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Investigation? Risotto!
11. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Remember, remember!
  The fifth of November,
  The Gunpowder treason and plot;
  I know of no reason
  Why the Gunpowder treason
  Should ever be forgot!
  Guy Fawkes and his companions
  Did the scheme contrive,
  To blow the King and Parliament
  All up alive.
  Threescore barrels, laid below,
  To prove old England's overthrow.
  But, by God's providence, him they catch,
  With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
  A stick and a stake
  For King James's sake!
  If you won't give me one,
  I'll take two,
  The better for me,
  And the worse for you.
  A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
  A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
  A pint of beer to wash it down,
  And a jolly good fire to burn him.
  Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
  Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
  Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!
12. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Donald J Trump made quite a mess of his businesses, losing nearly one billion dollars in 1995.
  
  through the magic of "selective editing" and "deception" becomes:
  
  Donald J Trump made ... nearly one billion dollars in 1995.
  
  You're welcome.
  
  (P.S. Did you read the rest of the sentence, or at least listen as Ms Clinton told it to you?)
13. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer my rice chewy, you insensitive clod! Podesta should be thrown in jail for that recipe!
14. Re:Assange running out of time by Rei · 2016-10-20 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's a response to something. What is it responding to?
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
15. Re:Assange running out of time by Xenographic · 2016-10-20 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  I already covered that: https://slashdot.org/submissio...
  It's actually built off of corroboration with independent videos and the FEC data showing the woman on the Democratic payroll, getting money to be at those specific protests. You can, in fact, see an independent video of the woman lying to the cops.
  You can say whatever nonsense you like, but there are independent sources that allow us to verify who paid her and what she did, so it would appear that you have failed to look at all the evidence if you think it's all based on O'Keefe's video.
  So you might want to check your own facts next time.
16. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  They've dump all kinds of info of real value. Here's one that links the violence incitement at Trump rallies back to the DNC
  They've also just released some of Obama's emails where they're discussing picking positions with race and sex as the criteria. Pretty blatant racism and sexism there.
  But the DNC-supporters don't listen to facts, they act on emotion, years of poor eduction, and DNC programming. There could be a release of a video of Hillary feeding infants into a wood-chipper while cackling, and Hillary confirming it, and they'd still try to defend her somehow. They're like some sort of cult. The Democratic National Cult. Except, they're not big on democracy either, so it's one of those ironic names.
  What he hell do the email contents matter in regards to WL's value?
  They don't MAKE this stuff, they don't FIND it.
  They're a front for people that hack into mail accounts or lift files from work. Anybody with some AWS instances could do their job.
17. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Of course he can't - or won't - because he's a progressive stooge. The firings in response to O'Keefe's material makes it obvious that the videos are genuine.
18. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  Face it champ, you got rekt.
19. Re:Assange running out of time by Rei · 2016-10-20 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  So you're perfectly happy to make up whatever context suits you. Why am I not surprised? Here, how does this sound for you?
  
  Dear Mike,
  As you know, I hate white people. Could you please make me some lists of candidates that don't involve any of them racist crackers? Thank you.
  Allahu akhbar,
  Barack
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
20. Re:Assange running out of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps you could explain why the high-ranking Democrat operatives have been fired/"resigned" rather than saying they've been misquoted.
  Bad optics. We're talking about the world of politics, where facts matter less than appearances. We're also talking about the attention span of the American public, which doesn't last long enough to take in anything more than a few talking points. The system has been optimized to take full advantage of the weaknesses of the average person, which is how elections turn into outrageous spectacles of hyperbole and outright lies. In that context, explaining the facts doesn't get you very far.
21. Re:Assange running out of time by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I assume that you take whatever Michael Moore produces at face value, also.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In all honesty... by YukariHirai · 2016-10-20 11:29 · Score: 0

If his interference in the US election campaign is the reason his internet's been cut off, then I'm in favour of it being cut off. I've really not been impressed by all of the Hillary-bashing Wikileaks has been doing lately. If they were exposing the wrongdoing of both candidates, it'd be fine, but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
This isn't to say I'm the biggest fan of Hillary, but she is the lesser of the two presented evils by a very large margin.
1. Re:In all honesty... by Dunbal · 2016-10-20 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:In all honesty... by Spy+Handler · 2016-10-20 11:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've really not been impressed by all of the Hillary-bashing Wikileaks has been doing lately
  So you only like the truth leaked when it's about people you don't like? If there's damning evidence that's being hidden about people you agree with, you would want it hidden?
  
  they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
  Trump was not a gov't official so there isn't gonna be any classified material to reveal about him. He had a real estate business and a TV show. There's plenty of dirt on Trump, like the recording of him talking about groping pussies and such, but revealing those do not require whistleblower protection or the assistance of Wikileaks. You can just take that straight to Extra or CNN.
  Dirt about Hillary's doings while a high ranking gov't official is not so safe to reveal. If you get caught leaking it you go to jail. That's where wikileaks comes in.
3. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  So the medias bashing of Trump across the ENTIRE world is just some happy fun fun then?
  You cant have it both ways dickface.
4. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Providing facts and truth is now "interfering"? In what dystopian novel did I read something like that in... Oh, right, 1984.
  Look, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, CNBC, and 95% of the MSM already acts as an arm of the DNC. They do nothing but attack trump, praise Hillary, and work to spread stories designed to cover up her misdeeds and overall influence the election her way. The ENTIRE system is working to influence the election in her favor, and using lies and deceit to do it.
  And you complain when a small handful of outlets attempt to counter the propaganda with TRUTH?
  Take some time off. You need to reflect on your decisions.
5. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, Trump and his Server 2003 setups.
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/windows-server-2003-in-2016-trumps-mail-servers-are-old-and-insecure/
6. Re:In all honesty... by Black+Parrot · 2016-10-20 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  They should have let him continue. It's not like he was contributing anything except masses of data for the cool-aid drinkers to misrepresent. And discrediting himself in the process. Now those cool-aid drinkers will have something unfair to point to.
  On a side note, I'll point out that he's been dumping on Hillary with impunity, but as soon as he got into what the banks consider their private business someone gave Ecuador a call.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
7. Re:In all honesty... by Pax681 · 2016-10-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
  erm.. apparently not... and the white hat that reported on it.. Trump is trying to have arrested!..LOL http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
8. Re:In all honesty... by Cazakatari · 2016-10-20 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  I think the US media is already exposing everything about Trump. Wikileaks is only leveling the playing field
9. Re: In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not buying it, Spy Hunter, Wiki leaks has published information from banks, religions, universities, and political parties.
  Let's see the RNC files published. That'll establish bipartisan credibility.
  Or you can fumble through some more excuses like Trump dealt with the abortion question. Leave it to othes. Then cap it with a meaningless declaration that babies are being ripped from wombs. Because you want to distract us with fear.
10. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  Translation: Wikileaks is making my team look bad, therefor I support them being silenced.
  
  And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
  It's pretty unlikely that someone would need Wikileaks to disseminate RNC/Trump leaks. If you think Wikileaks has this material, why did the leaker resort to WL first, then give up when nothing happened? Do you think not one of all the major media networks in the US and abroad would be interested in posting the leaks?
11. Re: In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  How is it interference? Its just information that wasn't available yesterday.
12. Re:In all honesty... by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2016-10-20 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do you remember george w bush?
  Face it, america the world is watching you. Don't fuck it up. Clinton isn't that great, but trump is both stupider and more violent than george w bush ever was. It was extremely hard to get rid of that asshole. Trump may just end it all.
  So your damn right people should ignore some stupid BS about some stupid clasified documents and someone stupid fucking insecure MAILSERVER! Do you know how many hosts on the internet are insecure? like fuck who cares!
  TRUMP is going to nuke the fucking world man. You americans are like the densest fucks ever. This is exactly the bullshit that got george bush elected. People were apathetic about gore, i remember it, and then bush snuck right in. No one thought he actually had a shot either.
  
  "So you only like the truth leaked when it's about people you don't like? If there's damning evidence that's being hidden about people you agree with, you would want it hidden?"
  If it involves prevention of the literal end times, then yes. At least until the damn american election is over! I'd rather she was impeached after getting into office than trump gets anywhere near that kind of power!
  
  --
  -
13. Re:In all honesty... by Gussington · 2016-10-20 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
  Yeah that unpatched Exchange 2007 server must've been too hard for even the Pro's to get into...
14. Re:In all honesty... by iMadeGhostzilla · 2016-10-20 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Washington Post, which is the left Breitbart only boring, is doing its work to expose Trump. It's only fair that Wikileaks is exposing Hillary. Besides I don't think there's anything to bash Trump with except sexual stuff and I'm sure he didn't write emails about it.
  Strange, when you speak of evil I think of Hillary laughing at Gaddhafi's being impaled on the stake by the mob to which she delivered him.
15. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
  It's pretty unlikely they would have anything that matters. Clinton's evils were done as a government official, a representative of the most powerful government in the world. There is literally nothing Trump could have done that could compare to her crimes because he has never had that kind of power.
16. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  I've really not been impressed by all of the Hillary-bashing Wikileaks has been doing lately
  So you only like the truth leaked when it's about people you don't like? If there's damning evidence that's being hidden about people you agree with, you would want it hidden?
  
  they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
  Trump was not a gov't official so there isn't gonna be any classified material to reveal about him. He had a real estate business and a TV show. There's plenty of dirt on Trump, like the recording of him talking about groping pussies and such, but revealing those do not require whistleblower protection or the assistance of Wikileaks. You can just take that straight to Extra or CNN.
  Dirt about Hillary's doings while a high ranking gov't official is not so safe to reveal. If you get caught leaking it you go to jail. That's where wikileaks comes in.
  You seem to be living somewhere between a Tom Clancy novel and real life, have you checked the expiration date on your meds?
17. Re:In all honesty... by PrimaryConsult · 2016-10-20 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Wikileaks doesn't actually hack, they provide a platform for those who did to get the information out. If someone *had* hacked the Trump servers, tried to get it to Wikileaks, and nothing was coming out, they would have gone to the media and it would be all over the news.
  But they haven't, because no one bothered to hack Trump.
18. Re:In all honesty... by thegarbz · 2016-10-20 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
  You're kidding right? This is Trump we're talking about.aboutleaks doesn't have anything on Trump because Trump himself is as leaky as a sieve. Scandals are coming up daily and he's self destructive as anything. There would be no point in going after him, it's like making fun of the intellectual ability of the mentally handicapped.
  Also worth noting is Trump is just a dumb lucky business man. His major scandals are not interesting compared to those of the secretary of state.
19. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Proof positive that crazy retards aren't an American phenomenon. Thank you for the demonstration.
20. Re:In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Lol. Stupidity doesn't begin to explain today's American. Brother's we are not.
21. Re:In all honesty... by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  And Assange is SO believable and truthful, and would never tell a lie, let alone a ridiculous one about the US being after him (now that he's much less relevant and it would be significantly harder to get an extradition through) without providing any evidence.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
22. Re:In all honesty... by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  When America is great again, we'll have the craziest and most retarded people around! Number one!
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
23. Re:In all honesty... by Gussington · 2016-10-21 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  But they haven't, because no one bothered to hack Trump.
  Probably because is doing a better job of self destruction all on his own...
24. Re:In all honesty... by PrimaryConsult · 2016-10-21 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Completely agree. He could well have just as many skeletons - but in a world where an 11 year old hot mic conversation gets tons of media airplay, if anyone was aware of anything interesting in Trump emails, we would know it by now, Wikileaks or not. So the most reasonable explanation is that no one has attempted to leak the info, not bias by Wikileaks.
25. Re:In all honesty... by Gussington · 2016-10-21 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  So the most reasonable explanation is that no one has attempted to leak the info, not bias by Wikileaks.
  The bias is that Assange has admitted he is targeting Hillary. He should shut his mouth and remain an impartial voice.
Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:32 · Score: 0

Even if people are doing it today, what makes you think they're still going to go down there in a week, a month, or year from now? People generally aren't that dedicated. It makes the news and becomes a trendy thing to do, then is promptly forgotten. Maybe a few holdouts who keep at it for a long time.
If the embassy's reasons are honest and taking away the internet is to try to keep him from interfering with US elections, he'll have it back in less than three weeks. Take a break, read a book, watch some TV, or whatever else he can do in the embassy. The world will keep turning and Wikileaks can probably take care of itself for a bit.
1. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by Dunbal · 2016-10-20 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  he'll have it back in less than three weeks
  Unless Hillary wins, in which case Ecuador will get a little freedom and democracy brought to it. After all, at this point, what difference does it make?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by Rei · 2016-10-20 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Correa believes precisely the opposite. He believes that a Trump presidency would be better for Latin america, but in the context that it would rally people in opposition to him to support leftist causes. He says that Clinton would be better for America and the world.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
3. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by Gussington · 2016-10-20 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Trump will be better for all the wall builders in Mexico. Think of the job creation!
4. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by phantomfive · 2016-10-20 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's an interesting question. After Obama won, there were campaigns in Latin America running (and winning) under the slogan "Si Se Puede", yes we can. So it is definitely true that an American president can influence the region without even trying (or knowing it).
  
  My feeling is the opposite, though. Latin America has the kind of "strong man" government. For centuries, the leader has been a strong person, who can enforce his will. Chavez and Castro fit perfectly this role: the primary difference they hope to portray is that they are exercising their strength to help the people (rather than the rich and themselves). And actually, all the very popular presidents in Latin America that I can think of portrayed themselves as using their strength to help the common people.
  
  So, will Trump be push people to the left, or to the right? I think we can agree that Trump will be perceived as a strong man (whether he actually is or not, that's irrelevant). So part of it will be how he pushes his wall deal, and immigration, and trade deals. Will people in latin america realize he is just trying to help Americans? Will they feel like he gave them a fair deal? Will they feel he respects them? Those are the kinds of questions to answer.
  
  The other side of the coin is in Latin America itself. The wave seems to be going against leftism (that's such a stupid fuzzy term), with Argentina swinging right, and with Brazil swinging right, and Venezuela falling to pieces. A lot of the wave that rose during the Bush administration was pushed by Venezuela, supported with their oil money.
  
  So in the end, while Trump would have some influence on the region if he became president, everything will be viewed from the lens of local politics, and the trends already happening in the region will be the primary determiners.
  
  btw Ecuador has kind of an unusual relationship with the US because it uses US dollars. I was in El Salvador when they switched to dollars, and it completely drove the leftists insane.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by Rei · 2016-10-20 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Correa despises being on the dollar ;) It'll be interesting to see what happens there. I'm still actually rather shocked that he seems willing to step down from power.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
6. Re:Trending Now... Forgotten Tomorrow by phantomfive · 2016-10-27 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's hard to move away from the dollar because it provides real benefits: in El Salvador when they switched to the dollar, interest rates cut in ~half over night (on new loans).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-20 11:35 · Score: 1

This guy should be considered (actually really is) an international criminal, wanted by multiple countries.
Yeah, he's so dangerous that he's never been charged with a crime.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:In all Stupidity... by Marful · 2016-10-20 11:42 · Score: 0, Troll

...but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump.

Are you really that stupid or are you just reading what your party has spoon fed to you?

The reason why there are no wikileaks on Trump, IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T A POLITICIAN, HOLDING POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THUS HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION OR SPYING.

It's kind of fucking hard to have wikileaks documents when you're not a government employee. You do know what Wikileaks is right? Oh wait, you had to read that line from your party's catch phrases so you probably have no clue what they are.

From wikileaks.org: (https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html)

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 11:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, he's so dangerous that he's never been charged with a crime.
Right, because he can't be charged until he's interviewed. And he can't be interviewed because he's evading prosecution by hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.
If you flee before you can be brought before a court and charged, you can claim you've "never been charged." Funny how that works!
Hmm. by Rei · 2016-10-20 11:49 · Score: 1

Marco finally started explaining how he was hoping to aid Assange.
Did he also elaborate on how he planned to abet as well?

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Re:In all Stupidity... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:12 · Score: 0

This.
Re: In all Stupidity... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:27 · Score: 0

The reason why there are no wikileaks on Trump, IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T A POLITICIAN, HOLDING POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THUS HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION OR SPYING.
Because private corruption and spying is not questionable?
Let's see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks
Hmm, I see some private documents published. If you're telling me there's nothing on Trump worth posting, I'm going to refuse to buy your story.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:27 · Score: 1

Ugh, same old same old.
They can interview him remotely like they interview a lot of other. They don't want to do that in this case, though.
It's not "in mass" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:36 · Score: 0

It's "en masse"
Marco by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 12:41 · Score: 0

Polo!
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-20 12:50 · Score: 2

If they have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, they can charge him. He doesn't need to be there. They didn't need to bring in Al Capone for an interview before they charged him. Leaders of drug cartels do not need to appear in the US to be charged here. And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by BlueStrat · 2016-10-20 13:10 · Score: 2

And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.
The 2 things that stick out to me is how they can charge an Australian citizen living abroad with violating a domestic US law, and how is it that the US based NYT was not guilty of the same basic charges in the Pentagon Papers leak publication as the ones they level at Assange.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
UK Cell Phone with No Caps? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:17 · Score: 0

It was my understanding that the UK has cheap cell phone service with cheap or unlimited data (as compared to America). Couldn't he just use one of those?
1. Re:UK Cell Phone with No Caps? by ledow · 2016-10-20 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's smack-bang in the middle of fucking London.
  There's wifi all over that place.
  At absolute worst, just get a Pringles tin and make a cheap Yagi and you could pick up hundreds, if not thousands of networks. We're talking a couple of streets away from Soho and massive public museums.
  And, yes, ubiquitous 4G in that area. If anything, you'll have more trouble with 4G as the airwaves will be overcrowded during working hours.
  The whole thing's a farce to get him in the news again. This guy's in THE MOST CONNECTED PLACE IN BRITAIN.
  You don't need to stand outside and offer your 4G to Wifi which will reach about an inch. THE 4G IS ALREADY THERE. And the mobile hotspot will be being swamped by the million-and-one other Wifi networks on 2.4GHz in that area.
  Honestly, it's just pandering to media.
2. Re:UK Cell Phone with No Caps? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Because of course there is no possibility that some "state actor" could jam Assange's ability to get a WiFi connection. Couldn't happen.
3. Re:UK Cell Phone with No Caps? by ledow · 2016-10-21 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  What? Dozens of Wifi points in the middle of a residential and commerce centre in the middle of London? And the 4G? And nobody else notices and the next-door-neighbours go about their evening with no Wifi without saying a word?
  Don't think so, somehow.
  You know that point, where the bollocks you made up drifts from "plausible but stupid" into "yeah, right, sure"?
Exposing corruption is 'interference'??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:42 · Score: 1

Since when is exposing corruption interference? If someone was robbing a bank and you called the police you would be interfering with the robbery, not interfering with the operation of the bank. If WikiLeaks were making false allegations or doctoring the documents to make the Democrats look bad then I would agree that it would be interference. However, exposing the unsavory dealings of the DNC and Clinton campaign is not interference unless you believe they have a right to be corrupt with no possible repercussions.
I would love to see the current movers and shakers of the RNC power structure also taken out, but so far there is no public evidence that they are doing even 1/10th the shady stuff as the DNC and Hillary. Both sides are dishonest in that they are operating for the benefit of themselves and big business, as opposed to the regular people they claim to serve.
It is utterly ridiculous and stupid to say that you can't expose wrongdoing by Democrats unless you also expose wrongdoing by Republicans. It is even worse if you say it can't be done in election season.
1. Re:Exposing corruption is 'interference'??? by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  How are you so sure that both the Russians and Assange aren't doctoring the documents? The problem with getting political information at an interesting time in the campaign in an illegal way is that you know it passed through criminals who probably have a political agenda. Remember what Ambrose Bierce said: from murder, it's just a short step to robbery and assault, and if this goes unchecked it may result in telling lies and cheating at cards.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Better Wifi Nearby by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 13:50 · Score: 0

You know where Mr. Assange could get a good wifi signal? The Hard Rock Cafe. It's only a 15 minute walk. The ambassador should walk him over there.
1. Re:Better Wifi Nearby by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  And then the assbassador abandons him there, and Assrange seeks assylum from The Rock Hard Cafe?
This says it all.... by transami · 2016-10-20 14:11 · Score: 1

KILL THE MESSENGER!

--
:T:R:A:N:S:
Who didn't see this coming. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:11 · Score: 1

Wonder what did crooked Hilary promise Ecuador?
Wait, what am I saying - this is crooked Hilary! Obviously, Ecuador was threatened.
Re:In all Stupidity... by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2016-10-20 14:52 · Score: 1

Corruption? Like this? http://time.com/4465744/donald-trump-undocumented-workers/

But I suppose there was no need for WL to leak the info given that it is already well documented in the MSM.
Faraday cage by ArchieBunker · 2016-10-20 15:10 · Score: 1

You're full of shit on this front. The "embassy" in London is little more than an apartment inside a typical building. Can you point me towards a source of Faraday cage suppliers for buildings? Are you aware the effectiveness is dependent on the size of the mesh?

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:Faraday cage by thermowax · 2016-10-20 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  LMGTFY! Why, yes, I can point you to a supplier of Faraday cages for buildings. Several of them. Love that Google machine.
  You can also use conductive paint or Aluminum foil. Having worked inside Faraday cage buildings, I can tell you that the mesh shielding is only really used for windows so some daylight can get through and complex joints where it's easier than the other methods.
  J-.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by fred911 · 2016-10-20 17:09 · Score: 2

"Right, because he can't be charged until he's interviewed."
BS. Anyone can be charged without an interview. Anyone intelligent person who thinks they're at risk to being charged shouldn't allow an interview in the first place.
Or does the 5th amendment not apply anymore?

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re: Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 17:26 · Score: 0

He's an Australian citizen facing the Swedish justice system, why do you think the fifth amendment would apply?
Cognitive dissonance! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 19:09 · Score: 0

I'm torn. This:
> His leaking what he's leaked has served the purposes for many of us Americans by providing evidence of a lot of the criminal activity [...]
That sounds reasonable, although your focus...
> especially in the Hillary camp ...looks a bit narrow, but well. But this...
> However this man is not a hero, he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American
sounds straight from cold_fjord's mouth (although he was way more eloquent).
YOU'RE A CHIMERA! YOU'RE THE RESULT OF NSA GENETIC ENGINEERING! VADE RETRO! GAAAH!
Interfering by poity · 2016-10-20 19:23 · Score: 1

Revealing past thoughts and actions during an election. Is that interference or accountability?

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Pussy grabbing ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 20:09 · Score: 0

I think this is the funniest part of the campaign strategy so far.
There are THOUSANDS of american men who do just that as often as they can: nightclubs, bars, any opportunity.
Wives, girlfriends, mistresses - there are oddly enough plenty of women that enjoy being touched by their partners too.
Like plenty of men wouldn't complain if a lass rubs their arse up against them whilst dancing.
Or brushes their tits against your arm.
Or reaches down to stroke Willy from the outside.
Don't tell me you've never seen this. Or fantasized about it.
I am NOT excusing the deliberate breach of other peoples' private space. Don't get me wrong.
But his "changing room banter" is pretty common, in my 50 years of general life experience.
And Trump's getting all kinds of free publicity.
And even worse for the Hillary campaign, it raises the ugly specter of Hillary making a physical approach to a man.
Or makes men think of grabbing parts of Hillary - and I can tell you personally, that's not likely to excite anyone's imagination ... (very rude of me, I know).
So all this noise about "Donald and his Women" - I think it's backfiring big time ...
Keep it up, Hillary - the election is yours to lose ...
1. Re:Pussy grabbing ... by NotAPK · 2016-10-21 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  FTFY: "There are *MILLIONS* of american men who do just that as often as they can"
Vigilantes? by Gavagai80 · 2016-10-20 20:17 · Score: 2

A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands to persecute someone who hasn't been found guilty in court. That's the exact opposite of trying to help out someone who they feel is being persecuted without having been found guilty in court, which is what these wi-fi people are doing.

--
This space intentionally left blank
If they are smart by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 02:29 · Score: 0

The US will set up a wifi hotspot for him and perform a man-in-the-middle attack while they are at it.
Riddle me this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 03:55 · Score: 0

I know you believe your cause is just and the other side is evil and therefore it's okay to lie or fudge things here and there, but to neutral observers it makes whatever you say less credible.
Fox News does it all the time, so why the double standard?
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:37 · Score: 0

If they have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, they can charge him. He doesn't need to be there.
Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of Swedish due process. They CANNOT officially charge him until he has been interviewed - this is not US law in play here, so your suppositions about what was good enough for Al Capone or Trump's bad hombres are completely pointless. He is evading the SWEDISH justice system by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. The US hasn't charged him, or even filed an extradition request with anybody, so prattling on about the US law in this case just makes you sound retarded.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 04:53 · Score: 0

He's not in the US, and he's not accused of a crime in the US. The legal systems involved are not US systems, and he can't be charged by their laws yet.
probably useless by norweeg · 2016-10-21 05:46 · Score: 1

I always assumed that limited his access meant limited access to a physical computer or smartphone, not severing the connection.
Re: Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 06:08 · Score: 0

Then interview him over the phone or on Skype. He doesn't need to physically be there to be interviewed. It's all a farce.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 06:34 · Score: 0

And when they finally scheduled the interview in the Ecuadorian embassy for Oct 17, what happened? Suddenly Assange needed ANOTHER month to "make sure he had adequate legal representation," and now the interview has been rescheduled for November 14.
Think it'll happen in November? I don't. I think he's going to come up with yet another excuse to delay, and he's going to keep looking for those excuses. Next time it'll be because he has been cut off from the internet, so can't communicate with his legal team. After that, it'll be because Sweden still hasn't offered sufficient assurances about his treatment. After that, he'll come up with something else.
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-21 06:49 · Score: 1

They CANNOT officially charge him until he has been interviewed
And the Swedish prosecutors are legally prevented from traveling to the UK to interview him, or interviewing him remotely? That seems like an awful large hole in their system of due process.

Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of Swedish due process.
Shit, they must have covered Swedish due process in school that one day I was sick.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:03 · Score: 1

Bingo. That's why the US had not charged Assange with a crime. There's no evidence that he committed one. It is possible for a foreigner to commit a crime against the US without setting foot on US soil, but there's no particular evidence for that.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Leave the douchebag alone by david_thornley · 2016-10-21 07:08 · Score: 1

Are you a lawyer practicing Swedish law, or are you just saying what someone else who isn't told you? Personally, I'm trusting the Swedes to figure that out.
The Fifth Amendment applies in the US, but that doesn't mean police and other authorities can't interview people. It means the people don't have to say anything, generally a good idea in a police or judicial system interview. It also doesn't apply to Australians in Ecuadorian embassies in the UK being charged by Swedish authorities. There are probably similar provisions in Swedish law, although they may not be as strong (I've read that English law against self-incrimination is the US law).

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Your proof that the DNC leaks were from Russia? by Rujiel · 2016-10-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Bet you coundn't even tell me the utils used in the DNC hack... in which case, how would you know it could only be done by a state actor? Oh right, because your proven-liar of choice insists to you that it is so. Enjoy the ignorance that you have embraced.
1. Re:Your proof that the DNC leaks were from Russia? by david_thornley · 2016-10-23 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't examined things myself. I'm not a security guy. I understand there's some public evidence, and beyond that the CIA doubtless knows more. I don't trust them, but Obama is willing to create a diplomatic incident over the hacking, which suggests he has good reason to think it was a Russian action. I'm not saying it had to be a state actor (from what I've read, it wasn't that difficult), but that there is reason to believe that it was.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Julian, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 09:47 · Score: 0

Are we sure he's still alive? Has anyone actually seen him?
The CIA and FBI haven't blamed Russia by Rujiel · 2016-10-26 06:56 · Score: 1

The Obama administration and state department, along with their security firm pals, are the ones blaming Russia. It's pretty clear to me that they are merely paying lip service_orf Clinton rather than publicly accusing Russia. The leaking of NSA tools from 2013--which very likely did have Russian involvement--was, according to Snowden (on twitter), a response to these accusations.