Slashdot Mirror
US Prepares Charges To Seek Arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: U.S. authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell CNN. The Justice Department investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks dates to at least 2010, when the site first gained wide attention for posting thousands of files stolen by the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst now known as Chelsea Manning. Prosecutors have struggled with whether the First Amendment precluded the prosecution of Assange, but now believe they have found a way to move forward. During President Barack Obama's administration, Attorney General Eric Holder and officials at the Justice Department determined it would be difficult to bring charges against Assange because WikiLeaks wasn't alone in publishing documents stolen by Manning. Several newspapers, including The New York Times, did as well. The investigation continued, but any possible charges were put on hold, according to U.S. officials involved in the process then.
The U.S. view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority." "We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail." Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said they have "had no communication with the Department of Justice."
The U.S. view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority." "We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail." Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said they have "had no communication with the Department of Justice."
but rather to stop the world from hearing inconvenient truths and all the wrongs the U.S. is doing. Making an example out of Assange won't help anything though, there will just be someone else stepping up. Assange is not the problem, you are.
Betrayal? Really?
You pay any attention whatsoever to the campaign? Trump isn't an Assange fan. Nobody in power is an Assange fan.
Arrest is still probably better than being droned by Clinton, at least.
Not being the NY Times, or rather, not being a part of the elite propaganda cartel. Damn the Constitution....full prosecution speed ahead.
Seriously, and this is why I don't give a fuck about any laws anymore. Laws are there for you, not the elites. And the worst crime you can do in America, is to reveal the crimes of the elites to the masses.
The problem is not Trump. It is out of control spy agencies that do whatever, whenever, and however. They don't like competition. If this happens then we get his poison pill.
As he's not going to leave that embassy that he's been living in for the last few years willingly unless he's forced out. And that doesn't seem like that's going to happen anytime soon. So unless President Von Clownstick cuts some sort of "amazing" deal with Ecuador that makes it worth their while to kick him out, this is nothing but a stunt by the Justice Department that doesn't mean anything.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
You realize that that "droned by clinton" story was fake, don't you?
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided. Those others (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) are legally liable for leaking information they were legally obligated to protect. Not Assange.
The US would have to prove that Assange directed the leakers to collect and transfer the leaked information to him. Other than this article I haven't seen any indication of such a level of control or oversight by Assange on his sources. They have chosen to commit espionage and have voluntarily chosen WikiLeaks. This article brings forth a claim of Bradly being directed by WikiLeaks but I have not seen that before not even during Bradley's trial and considering CNN's current reputation for creating "news" I doubt this unsubstantiated claim. So I'm having a hard time seeing how they charge him with anything that could stick.
As to the Clinton campaign emails, last I heard WikiLeaks still insists they were provided by a disgruntled DNC staffer, not the Russians. But even if from the Russians, WikiLeaks did nothing illegal. They simply published information they had been provided, regardless of the source. They did not steal the data.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
"We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail"
Hello Secret US various services, you actually broke the law(s), performed illegal operations and basically fucked up your internal security.
Do you have members you would like to nominate for internment or...?
Guess the trumped up rape charges didn't pan out
This was never a first amendment issue. It was an espionage vs whistle blower issue.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm wondering how Snowden got into the mix here. I thought Greenwald and company were the conduit for snowden
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You're forgetting many other "gifts" he's been given. And leveraging taxpayer money for personal gain is a fair shady way of making money, I personally feel it should be completely illegal but with the current swamp being filled with more and more monsters it seems like loopholes like that will become much more common for Trumps buddies.
Anybody have the exact quote from Sessions?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority."
"We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail."
I'm very suspicious when the news media writes their own sentence and then quotes a single word from someone. Was Sessions talking specifically about Assange, or about leakers? Assange is not a leaker, he's a publisher of the things leakers leak. It's perfectly reasonable for the Justice Department to go after people who are entrusted with US government secrets who then leak them.
Without the full question and answer, then it looks like Sessions could have just as easily said "we're going after leakers" and then CNN says "Assange is a leaker, therefore Sessions is going to arrest Assange," despite Sessions not saying or meaning that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
He's doing things he was always going to do. You elected a guy whose sole reason for winning was to enrich himself and his family. And you fell for it all over a bunch of stupid dog whistles.
But! But! Duh emails! Benghaziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
Trump and his family are laughing at you and the rest of the alt-right all the way to the bank.
Wikileak published documents showing massive corruption in the democratic party. The big news organizations did not publish those leaks, they told their listeners it was illegal to even view them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You just go in and arrest him at the embassy. I mean - he's in London, we just go in and take him.
Wait, did you say that the Ecuadorian Embassy is actually sovereign land and to send a police or military force in to arrest and remove him would be an act of war? Well, you don't need to worry about that. We've just proven, by way of 59 cruise missiles, that even sovereign nations who do bad things are no barrier to the will (or should I say whim) of the United States. And they don't even have to go in by hand - I think a targeted drone strike would have a limited number of civilian casualties. And London doesn't have any room to complain, since they were perfectly fine with all the drone strikes in middle eastern countries where there were known criminals and we (usually) limited the civilian casualties.
I don't see how this is going to be difficult - the US just needs to apply traditional tactics used on physical terrorists to the new crop of information terrorists.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"The Trump Organization" is actually his father's apartment rental company, Elizabeth Trump & Son Co; he later renamed it after running it for years, as he wanted to diversify. His self-reported wealth in 1982 was $200M, when his company was still tied with his father. According to this calculator, that would be worth $4B today if invested in the market. Of course, that's not all that he got from his father - his father gave him (undisclosed) amounts of loans and gifts during his lifetime, and after his father's death in 1999, Donald and his siblings received most of Fred's assets; a portion of the real estate holdings alone were sold in 2003 for half a billion dollars. Much of Trump's other assets have come from his name - simple licensing rights (Trump pegs the value at $3,3B, Forbes says $253M); $241M from celebrity apprentice; etc. He also ditched a huge amount of debt through bankruptcy; before the proceedings, the Trump Organization owed $9B and Trump personally nearly $1B. When he settled with the banks after selling off assets, those figures were around $5B and $1B, respectively.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
Seems pretty straightforward to me. After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections" (as opposed to "Hillary was a shit candidate with morons for advisors")...and for some reason the Russian story lived into Q2 2017. To counter the news, Trump's already done two things: cut ties with people on or near his staff with Russian connections, and attacked Russia's ally Syria. Last week we saw the release of a book confirming that Hillary was a shit candidate with morons for advisors, and the pursuit of Assange seems like a fourth and final move to finally kill off the Russian hack story: e.g., "if Trump's trying to arrest Mr. Wikileaks, then how could you say they were allies?"
Snicker.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
What am I missing here? I thought Assange isn't a US citizen. He also wasn't on US soil when he received, nor when he published the material. How is the US juridical system involved, then?
While you are wrong about the part with Trump being not very bright. He has clearly shown that he is very intelligent, just a amateur when it comes to his new position.
I am kind of surprised at this development. I thought leaks being posted to wikileaks where a key component in his election. He was practically beating Hillary over the head with print outs from wikileaks during the campaign. It seems to me instead of trying to hang his buddy Assange, he would be better off trying to plug the leaks to start with.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Well Trump is consistent in not doing any of the things he had campaigned to do.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...the rest of the alt-right
Sheep repeating meaningless buzzwords they heard in the propaganda echo chamber... imagine that. For some reason, the rest of us who don't feel the need to identify as "alt-right" or "entitled SJW snowflake" just shake our heads in disgust at the groupthink.
Think for yourself, schmuck.
-- Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson in The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
Not to mention Trump has stepped up the bombing in that region, something his supporters said Clinton would do but Trump wouldn't. You can go back to articles from just a month ago and find them all over defending Assange and WL, yet now they're totally fine with this. As usual, his supporters change their position just as often as he does.
And turn off that mother-fucking television!
It almost worked with Ronnie Reagan
If you think John Hinckley, Jr. was acting out of a sense of patriotism, then you're the fucking idiot. Hinckley was a batshit-crazy "Taxi Driver" wannabe who was trying to impress the object of his obsession, Jodie Foster. He considered killing Jimmy Carter, then switched to Edward Kennedy, before finally settling on Reagan.
It's interesting, because Trump had come out in favor of Asange during the election last year, and the only source of this information so far is CNN. Sessions did not say arresting Asange is a priority, he actually said:
“We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks. This is a matter that’s gone beyond anything I’m aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious.” He added: “So yes, it is a priority. We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”
You realize that that "droned by clinton" story was fake, don't you?
"Droned by Obama" isn't fake, though.
You're absolutely right: this is about covering up past, present, and future abuses of power. But I think there's a bigger lesson here, and most of slashdot isn't going to like it:
The government doesn't work for you, no matter how loud they shout it.
OK, so he's smart but a liar who isn't concerned with even appearing to be consistent so long as the current lie appears to be beneficial.
You're trading 'stupid reactionary bully' for 'sleazy, brassy con man'.
I'm not sure it's a binary choice, I think there's a spectrum there.
I don't understand what authority the US has to arrest a foreign national, in a foreign embassy, on foreign soil.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The real story was her comment during an all important meeting: Cant we just drone this guy?
And she said this while assange was inside the embassy of another country IN another country. Yeah, those are some nice people ruling you there.
It's just standard behavior of authoritarian followers.
I wish more people had understood what Altemeyer was saying.
It is something clinton would have done.
Unsurprising, the two are friends.
Trumps criticism of Hillary reminds me about his very real actual performances in the WWE
Indeed. A Post-ABC poll conducted in 2013 found 22% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported punitive strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons. In 2017, under Trump? The number from the Democrats only dropped one point, to 37%, but the number for Republicans totally reversed, to 86% support.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen. He does not run WikiLeaks from the U.S. It takes an incredible, overweening arrogance for U.S. officials to assume that every goddamned person in the world, wherever they may be, is subject to Washington's dictates. Imagine if the tables were turned -- say, the Russian government seeking to extradite and arrest an American citizen for acts that violated some Russian law but which occurred thousands of miles outside of Russian borders.
Yet he turned a few millions from his father into Billions. His father was never worth as much as he is. If that's a failure or someone else's success, I'll take that any day.
If Trump took the few millions and put them into an S&P500 index fund on Day 1 and never worked another day in his life, he would've ended up with a networth more than TWICE larger than what he has now. Not exactly a good example of "success".
I would have liked to see Assange pardoned and this matter cleared up. Obama had eight years to do this but dragged his feet, leaving Assange in legal limbo, because it was politically the most expedient thing to do.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
This is factually incorrect. These allegations were mainstream news many months before the elections. However, the more accurate phrasing is influencing rather than hacking because the latter suggests that the influencing was mainly done by hacking voting computers or something similar, which is not an accurate description of the allegations.
..and for some reason the Russian story lived into Q2 2017.
The reason that this story lives on is that evidence is still being uncovered that it is true. There is also strong evidence that the US secret services know more about this than has been revealed to the public, and the efforts to keep this information from being uncovered have sometimes been a bit clumsy.
And any current activities of the Trump administration cannot undo the activities of the Trump election campaign.
Actually you do hear how Hillary blew the campaign with stupidity from the left. Just read an article on cnn yesterday about it.
However assange released information on Hillary weeks before the election putting him as a firm supporter of trump (who has never paid a contractor in full) and Putin.
Hillary should shut up. She lost to Trump that should be a big enough clue that enough people don't like her that she shouldn't do anything but watch her grandkids.
Hillary of course isn't that smart.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Aww how cute. Tell yourself what you need to justify voting for Trump.
It's a shame WikiLeaks can't get Trump's taxes for the last 20 years. That would be a very telling story indeed.
Since it isn't (since he's bee cooped up at the Embassy) the party actually taking the files, but publishing files brought to him, and in a foreign country embassy no less (which is foreign territory) unless he is guilty of violating the laws of Ecuador, there isn't actually a LEGAL justification but a PR justification.
Assange did indicate he was in the process of releasing a series of leaks that actually demonstrate illegal activities by the CIA and this may be a pre-emptive strike to supress that data before it is released. Even if it could be demonstrated that Assange requested the information he has, he is not on US soil right now. In fact the USA has been trying to basically kidnap him in partnership with the Swedish government for years.
The pubic needs to demand curtailing of the CIA's activities as they act outside of any real regulation, outside our own laws, and outside of the world accepted definition of human rights, forget due process. That FISA court is basically a rubber stamp. They have NO ONE governing them really, and that is very, very dangerous. They use the shield of "national security" but to quote Benjamin Franklin, those who sacrifice their civil liberties for a little extra security deserve neither.Trump was actually praising them in his campaign when they gave him ammunition. Interesting how he doesn't say anything on the subject now.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Well, either way you want to term it....he's STILL better than Hillary.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
He's proving himself to be a real Republican, after all of America (me included) thinking of him as a "RINO" for the last two years.
Republicans, when out of power, are pretty cool in some ways. They believe the constitution is a good idea. They think the powers of government should be limited, and whatever powers it has, should be in the most-local government possible. (Mostly. There are exceptions, but this really is a dominant aspect of their politics.) From a libertarian point of view, out-of-power Republicans aren't all that bad; they basically just carry a lot of paranormal baggage that makes them .. off. But despite all the supernatural mystical nonsense which corrupts them, their hearts are in the right place.
Republicans, when in power, are far, far radically left of Democrats. They think the government is far too small, and that individual people have far too many rights and powers. The constitution is a bunch of stupid ideas and is very inconvenient. The government doesn't spent enough money. They government doesn't stomp on people enough. The government is too chummy with the people. The Democrats are too conservative, those fucking reactionary Randites. Oh, and they still have all the mysticism going on too, on top of that, further corrupting them. From the libertarian point of view, in-power Republicans are public enemy #1 and I would sooner vote for the former arch-enemy (communists) than support those evil nutcases, since at least the communists are more American, more in favor of free markets, have a more reasonable perspective on how much power the government should have at the expense of the people, etc.
(Republicans and power don't mix; they cannot stick to their ideals if you elect them. They should be on the sidelines, out of power and criticising everyone (especially those fucking Democrats; good grief, how much longer is America going to put up with those people?!?). When they're doing that, they are one of America's best friends. But if you vote for them, they turn on themselves, and us. Never, ever vote for a Republican. You shouldn't vote for Democrats either, but it's not nearly as stupid or self-destructive or anti-American as voting for Republicans.)
A free press is good. Unless you're president. Then it's bad, very bad.
Yup. Everyone you disagree with is an idiot. Got it.
By the way, in case it matters, I didn't vote for Trump.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope they DO arrest him.
Why, you ask?
So the dead man switch is activated and all of the horrible, nasty stuff that has been laying there, waiting to be exposed comes to light.
That'll shake up the establishment.
Which inbred fools? The ones that voted for Hillary?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Please don't bring any of your TDS issues into the tread. If you wish to talk about Trump's relationship with Assange we can. But I will not indulge you any more in what Trump is or isn't, in you option.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
"to me counts as extremely good evidence he's not a fool"
It's definitely extremely good evidence that 10s of millions of American voters are utterly stupid
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
and by that I mean the ones that voted for him
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You know what they say, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Republicans are like priests - can be quite uplifting to hear them speak but don't put them in charge of your kids
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If you think the right wing doesn't name-call the people who disagree with them, you're both inbred & retarded.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I don't doubt Trump will "drain the swamp" but the only one he cares about is in Florida
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
>Well, either way you want to term it....he's STILL better than Hillary.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/B...
TBH, I didn't vote for Trump either, but I would like to point out that a large part of the people who did vote for him, were sick and tired of being called "troglodyte haters". Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment was just another symptom of the stupid elitism of the useful idiots of the left. And they are idiots, because they continue the same tired name calling, and repeating debunked claims. It is as if they are completely devoid of any other means of communication.
"Racist"
"Nazi"
"Russians"
"Misogyny"
"Cheeto"
Luckily for them, most of the Republicans are inept stooges who are more concerned with "tightening their grip, while systems slip through their fingers"
Many Americans are tired of the two existing parties and have completely given up politics as a solution to any real problem.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
since before it was even named slashdot and was called chips & dips
Trump didn't receive a pile of cash. He received a stake in his father's business that was worth 40 million dollars.
In 8 years, his net worth ballooned to 200 million dollars.
If he had liquidated all of those assets and invested that money in the correct mutual fund at the end of 1982, it would be worth about 9 billion dollars today.
If he liquidated the 40 million dollars in assets he received from his father in 1974 and invested that in a fund that followed the S&P, he'd have about 4 billion dollars today, which is in line with what Bloomberg and Forbes estimate his net worth to be.
Most importantly, Politifact rates your claim as false.
What do you call those who voted for Clinton? Enlightened?
And by that, I mean "useful idiots" of the left, who voted for Clinton ... well because she stole the election from Bernie.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
US secret services know more about this than has been revealed
You trust the same secret services that lied to us about spying on Americans ... repeatedly? If you believe anything they say, you're the idiot. Until someone OTHER than Secret Services (and gets their info from them) says so, I won't believe anything they say. Because they have already lied, under oath, about spying on Americans. And this appears to be another case of that, except that nobody really cares about our Government spying on us, Soviet KGB style ... on steroids.
The political statists (both D and R) are flat out ignoring the repeated claims that our government is who hacked the election, literally, and figuratively, and everything in between.
And as for the Russians, their "hacking" of the DNC, Hillary Campaign and various other people related to HRC, if anything, is proof that the Email server scandal is probably worse than what we believe. You think that Hillary could secure her top level secrets, when she couldn't secure her own campaign? AND people wanted her in office in spite of being completely idiotic with security? Not to mention Uranium One Deal, quid pro quo Bill Speaking fees to Russia, and deposits into the Clinton Foundation?
Politics makes people stupid. The truth is, it is more likely it was Seth Rich that leaked most of what WikiLeaks release. But he is dead, from mugging where nothing was taken. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The government can choose to seek a "sealed indictment" so that the accused is completely unaware of it until they are arrested. I think Assange surmised that this was the situation and assumed he would be extradited if he traveled to Sweden or any other country with whom the U.S. has an extradition treaty.
FTS, it seems like they are now claiming he actively assisted Snowden. They probably have a sealed indictment claiming that he actively assisted Manning.
Sure, what Snowden did was treason, and perhaps even a federal capital case could be prosecuted. But Snowden acted first to commit the crime. Where Assange was however, it was not a crime to publish documents given to him by a third party. And while Assange drove wikileaks, can the US categorically state Assange actually was the person who received the documents? No they can't; because wikileaks doesn't work that way. Wikileaks did not seek the documents out nor did they coerce Snowden to steal them in the first place. Assange, a foreign citizen, acted on material given to wikileaks, in a foreign country. There is no jurisdiction to enforce any US laws in connection with these acts. Snowden, yes, he committed treason and likely ITAR violations. But Assange acted outside the jurisdiction of the US.
It is the hubris of the American Department of Justice to think that American law extends globally. The U.S. State Department warns US travelers that US law does not apply overseas and that US law does not protect them overseas. They recognize the sovereignty of the foreign countries. Why does the U.S. Department of Justice think they have the reach to pluck Assange out and prosecute him. Additionally every publisher that published excerpts from those documents is equally guilty, and many of those are on U.S. soil. Why aren't they being prosecuted? Because the US wants Assange on the general principle that Wikileaks is the actual enemy. But there will be serious unintended consequences on attempting to kidnap and prosecute Assange. The torrent (figuratively and literally) of data that will be released will be shocking. And Wikileaks has under Assange (before he holed up in the embassy) been a reasonable steward for the leaked data; at times wikileaks redacted data that identified people directly that would have resulted in loss of individuals lives. A mass data dump will not be so thoughtful.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Hillary couldn't beat a junior senator with almost no voting record, and she couldn't beat Trump. But that is all the Russians fault. The Left needs to keep telling themselves that it was the Russians to make themselves feel better about their loss to Trump.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You guys, I get it... Wikileaks promised to be a whilstleblower safe haven, and an enabler for justice, but that's not what''s happened.
Assange has repeatedly editorialized his disclosures. Compare how Assange approaches leaks vs The Gardian and Ed Snowden for example. The latter is responsible, the former anarchistic. Assange is out to get people killed. He is dangerous.
Don't rally behind him... he has an agenda that is no safe haven for whistle blowing... he just wants weapons against nations and policies he doesn't support.
That would be true of most companies. Lets liquidate all businesses that aren't more profitable than Apple and see how well your stock market, unemployment etc does.
Also, it highly depends on what funds you invest in; there have been crashes for pretty much every stock market where people's net worth evaporated in minutes.
Having a good business typically is a more stable and much more fulfilling way of making a living.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And continued the failed Obama policies and economy. In a few years we'd pay even more taxes without any healthcare.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
How is that different from the Clinton/Bush family?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
With the republicans in charge of both sessions of Congress now, a Hillary transition would have been more of train wreak than the current cluster fuck is.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Which was a fake story. That never happened. That story came from "True Pundit", which is a website famous for fake news stories.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
Well, not quite fake. Snopes has it as "unproven".
When asked about it, Clinton said "I don't recall that" which is not the same thing as a denial. Remember, she is a lawyer and plausible deniability comes with the territory.
She replied (watch the video) that if it she had said it, it would have been a joke. People can choose to believe her or not believe her but it's not 100% certainty it's fake.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Well Trump is consistent in not doing any of the things he had campaigned to do.
Scott Adams notes out that people watch the same scenes and think they're viewing a different movie.
Looking at the anti-Trump rhetoric on this thread, I'm starting to wonder if that's literally true. It's gotten so blatantly obvious that I'm starting to wonder about the basic sanity of some people.
1) Bomb the shit out of ISIS
2) Build the wall (ongoing)
3) Withdraw from TPP
4) Suspend immigration from terror-prone areas (ongoing)
5) Rework health care (ongoing, 2nd round coming up)
6) Rework the tax code (ongoing)
7) Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
I don't agree with everything he's done, but you have to allow that he's done or in the process of doing at least *some* of his campaign promises.
And he's been in office for just under 100 days and there's lots to be done, and he's getting some of it actually done while running the country.
How do people come up with these alternate scenarios?
Is cognitive dissonance so powerful and so real that people literally make scenes up out of whole cloth?
I am astonished.
Prior to the election, there was information and allegations about potential tampering of the election. That was nothing new, that always comes up before an election.
Then during his campaign, Trump repeatedly said the election was rigged.
Then after the election, there were allegations that Russia was involved, and Trump back-pedaled and said there was no tampering with the election, Hilary lost fair and square.
All of these things cannot be true at the same time.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The word "extrajudicial" in the title of your link is a lie. If you knew the facts of the only such case, you'd know that. It was litigated by the guys family while he was alive, and also a fugitive for justice in an active war zone.
This idea that morons developed the past few years that you need some sort of warrant to shoot a known militant in a war zone is... really weird. Really really really weird. Like, wars have happened in the past, and there are even various Geneva Conventions on warfare that lay out the agreed rules for how it is done; no war anywhere in the world has ever been conducted using a system where lawyers and judges accompany the military onto the battlefield and complete paperwork before anybody fires a weapon. Never. And no war will ever be conducted that way.
In the US Civil War, did the Union soldiers need a trial, conviction, and death sentence before firing at the Confederate soldiers attacking them? No? No. A brief analysis of any war in history, or even just doing a mental exercise about "how would that work," should answer this one for you.
If you know that you're a fugitive, you know that you're in what is considered by the US Government to be a war zone, and instead of turning yourself in you have your family inside the United States sue the US Government trying to stop the order to kill you if you're found in a war zone, and they lost that case, and then you still don't turn yourself in, or leave the war zone, then there is not only no legal complaint, there is not even an unlitigated issue. The funny part is that no litigation is required, but in the one modern case of a US Citizen being the direct bomb target, it actually had already been litigated. And morons on the internet still blather on about it being "extrajudicial." Yeah, because it is war, dummy. And the judge already verified the fact. War is extrajudicial. For real reasons. But that individual's case was litigated anyway.
Right, people who call others stupid elitists and useful idiots are "sick and tired" being called "troglodyte haters." Well, guess what? If they want to stop being called troglodytes and haters, they should stop calling people names, stop hating on others, and learn what the fuck the words they're saying mean.
You've got some santorum on your chin.
If you ever embarass the United States Government, there is no limit to the amount of time, resources and, if necessary, dirty or downright illegal tricks to ruin your life.
Their reaction, however, pretty much legitimizes the Wikileaks documents as no one puts this much effort into removing a source vs disproving false information.
It's hilarious the USG would rather go after the messenger vs leading by example and just following the rules.
Quit doing illegal shit and there won't be much to report on will there ? :|
An index fund is just an average of many different companies. So what you're really saying is that compared to 500 of the most successful companies in the world, Trump is slightly below average. That's not phenomenal, but its actually pretty impressive.
You realize that that "droned by clinton" story was fake, don't you?
Certainly. It was on the internet so it is most likely fake. For that matter, I'm pretty dubious of the "it was fake stories too".
the Piece of Shit party that wants to call everybody they dont agree with names
I think it would be ironic if we were all made of iron.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
It isn't really useful to think of those idiots as idiots. It's a lot more useful to try to understand why they voted Trump. Partly it's because they fell for the most successful con game in history, the con man appealing to their prejudices and greed, but the real issue is that they hate the way things are going. Rural America is suffering heavily from the loss of their traditional jobs to automation and offshoring, and they're suffering.
Clinton was actually the candidate offering more real help for them, but she was too honest to offer the good old days.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Assange did say he'd turn himself over in exchange for Mannings release. Then Obama pardon'ed Manning with a claim of it having nothing to do with Assange's offer. But now that Manning is about to be released (which BTW was his sentencing was very excessive) the gov story is writing it up.... to no surprise, as though the gov is totally in charge, makes no deal with Assange... etc...
So with all this in mind, there are still insurance files and with a public court case, which unlike Manning, will be public and with jury nullification.... This event Assange has proven, validated his reason for jumping bail and seeking asylum at the Ecuador Embassy, where he has in essence been in custody/constrained.
Good thing he is not the only one @ wikileaks.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
Unless of course you were in the FBI, in which case you've been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government since July 2016.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
In what way did Clinton steal the election? The votes were fairly counted. I saw no corruption in the caucus and convention process I was involved in.
You may not approve of her tactics, but she got more delegates than Sanders did, even if you don't count the superdelegates.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones"
Yeah, links plz. Or are you another sock for cold fnord?
So, what is the failure about the Obama economy? Do you object to the massive deficit reduction? The decrease in unemployment? The millions of people who could finally afford health care? The growth of the economy as a whole?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
US secret services know more about this than has been revealed
You trust the same secret services that lied to us about spying on Americans ... repeatedly? If you believe anything they say, you're the idiot.
The fact remains that there has been a lot of rather clumsy manoeuvring lately to avoid having to investigate what the secret services know about the subject. I must therefore assume that the secret services have more than just unsubstantiated allegations, or it could be shouted away as you are trying here, rather than causing the political turbulence that it is at the moment.
Because they have already lied, under oath, about spying on Americans. And this appears to be another case of that, except that nobody really cares about our Government spying on us, Soviet KGB style ... on steroids.
Yes, they have lied under oath, and it is troubling that this had no consequences. Nevertheless, as far as I have seen all the reported investigations on Americans in this particular case have been within the bounds of the law. For example, FISA court requests were granted that made eminent sense to me.
The political statists (both D and R) are flat out ignoring the repeated claims that our government is who hacked the election, literally, and figuratively, and everything in between.
The gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts in some states are indeed troublesome, and should be far greater scandals than they are. Using weakly secured electronic voting systems is also worrying.
The remainder of your post makes rather extraordinary and implausible claims for which I have never seen any evidence, so I'll leave them unaddressed.
has access to the button)
I walked by my TV the other day and heard some news correspondent talking about the danger of a "mad buffoon of a leader with ready access to nuclear weapons" (paraphrasing and can't recall the network). I had to stop and listen to a bit more so I could ascertain if they were talking about the U.S. or North Korea. (It was North Korea, btw.)
The way I read this is you are saying, "Democrats Bad, Republicans Bad." Sounds like to me you are saying we need a third party. If that is what you are saying then I couldn't agree more.
I honestly can't remember the last time I voted for a republican or a democrat, willingly. I've always voted for a third party. Although a lot people seem to think I'm a die hard Trump supporter because I don't want to see him fail or impeached. I don't want to see him fail because if he does we are really fucked. I don't want to see him impeached because I see what is waiting in the wings if he is, and its far worse than Trump is.
What I am is disappointed in the third parties. What we have is a relatively unpopular president with a unpopular agenda. A republican president. Then we have the chaos that the democratic party is in. With more unpopular leadership and no set path in 2020. Plus the fact that you have loons like Maxine Waters speaking for them.
So many young voters are democrats because they don't know any better. They are so opposed to the Trump agenda that they resist at any cost, TDS. So many older republicans see the young democrats losing their minds and think the whole democratic party is crazy, so they don't see that pulling away from the GOP is an option.
There has never been a more perfect time for third parties out there to be campaigning their asses off. More people voted against Hillary than they did for Trump. Third parties should be out there courting these voters.
Go on to college's and start showing these young voters that there is other options. Hand out fliers at anti trump rallies. Get the word out to the next generation that the status quo doesn't have to be maintained.
If the third parties started now they could possible get enough voters registered that they might actually make a dent in 2020.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
There is no such thing as "the problem" in most cases. Trump causes a large number of problems. Spy agencies cause problems also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How did he stop chemical weapon attacks? Were they happening on a daily or weekly basis before? Otherwise, we can't tell from Syrian actions. We know he didn't do all that much damage, since the airfield was launching strikes again within hours.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not a fan of the Cold War, and I'm really not a fan of heating it up.
Reagan heated it up to the point where the Soviets had two choices: attack or fold. I see no reason why anyone could be sure beforehand that they'd fold. Reagan risked Western Civilization to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union. Except in retrospect, I'm not sure that was a good idea.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And he would have learned zero about running large organizations, created no jobs, and added no value except to himself and his brokers.
I don't like the guy, but I can see the desire to take some capital and through sweat and tears create something of your own. I can see how it has shaped him, his own desire and his journey through different companies, bankruptcies, the spotlight, etc. His efforts earned him a spot in the White House. Mere investment would not have resulted in the same man. It would certainly not have resulted in the presidency.
I am not defending Trump here. I am calling out your criticism of him as short sighted and misguided.
There are plenty of other reasons to bang on the guy. The one you picked is just kind of stupid. You just said he should have never worked a day in his life. Some people find hard work virtuous. Many look at trust fund babies and inheritance based investors as a plague, not something to be respected.
I see his choice to work his ass off as a feather in his cap, not the other way around.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Assange WAS in a country the US has an extradition treaty with, and the UK has shown what I consider to be an excess of willingness to extradite people to the US. If he was concerned with being extradited, his actions were those of an idiot.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Surprised but not surprised you got modded down. You pointed out a moderate position, in that some of the people who voted in the last election were neither crazy liberals nor crazy conservatives. This does not jibe with the liberal ideals of "everyone who thinks different than us enjoys hurting women, children, the downtrodden, and minorities." The people who think this way are incredibly vitriolic and vituperative, and do not recognize when their diatribes are alienating the very people they need to accomplish their goals. Apparently they would rather attack people than try to convert or engage them, thus the vote down for a moderate position.
I long for the days when being a liberals opposed rather than espoused oppression, stood up for freedom instead of trampling on the freedom of others, and had at the center of their being a bleeding heart that oozed a decidedly squishy kind of love for everyone. As sappy as it was, it was light years better than the feces slinging rage monkeys that have taken over the party today.
+1 Fnord for the Illuminatus! reference.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
After all his efforts to help Trump get elected! He's been claiming for years the U.S. was out to get him, and he couldn't return to Sweden to face his rape charges because if he did they'd extradite him. But through all that time, the Obama administration never made any move to charge him with anything.
Then Trump comes into office with help from Assange. And hardly three months later, they're preparing to charge him. I don't think you got what you were hoping for!
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Actually, the UK would refuse to extradite Assange to the USA unless there was a guarantee that he would not face the death penalty.
Assange was arrested in the UK due to Sweden's request that he be extradited to face sexual assault charges. He has repeatedly said that his concern with going to Sweden is that he might be extradited from there to the USA.
the fake true story
is that an "alternative fact"?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It's actually the best scenario that could have come out of the last election. The executive held by one party, the legislative by the other. Now we have morons squared. More parties could only help us at this point.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So, what is the failure about the Obama economy?
I was wondering that myself. The current economy was brought back from the last Republican disaster not by a Republican president nor even Republican legislators (GOP is known as the party of "No" after all). Just think about that, and the fact that the economy appears to have peaked right as Trump started making "America Great Again"
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Pragmatic. Clinton was a competent but largely uninspired choice, except to younger females.
Bernie would have been my preference but let's not forget he's not a Democrat but an Independent so it was going to be difficult to get the party machine behind him
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
There are hundreds of positions that can & have to be filled without needing Congressional approval. The Trump team wasn't ready and some of the Obama holdovers have started resigning or are being fired as they refuse to be lickspittles for President Pumpkinhead
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Well pretty much the whole thing. The deficit was actually doubled under obama, more than all other presidents before him combined. So there was no massive deficit reduction but an actual increase.
The number of unemployment did go down but the number not in the labor force actually went up by 13.5%. As for the number of actual jobs created, obama numbers are actually lower than Reagan.
I think the health care has been covered but lets by all means drag it out again. The number on health care did go up. But since you had no choice any more it had to go up. While the numbers on health care insurance did go up, the high delectable made the insurance useless.
As for the economy as a whole obama saw the greatest increase of 2.9%. Which is lower than Jimmy Carters 5.6% and Bush Primes of 3.8%
So yeah, I believe we can say that under obama the economy was a disaster and his policies where a failure. Jimmy Carter even beat him for gods sake. I fact the way the numbers are looking now that all of obama's pigeons are coming home to roost, he might just go down as the worse president in the last 100 years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-report-labor-market-participation-rate-2017-1/#since-obama-took-office-in-january-2009-the-us-economy-has-added-11250000-people-to-total-nonfarm-payrolls-1/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/29/americas-economy-before-obama-versus-after-obama//
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update//
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
So, what is the failure about the Obama economy? Do you object to the massive deficit reduction? The decrease in unemployment? The millions of people who could finally afford health care? The growth of the economy as a whole?
Maybe the stagnant wages?
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Or maybe that more people have heath care, but fewer people can afford it, and it's way more expensive?
http://time.com/money/4503325/...
There's many ways to gauge the success of the economy, and you can't pin it all on just a few metrics. It's also easy to show growth when you start at the bottom (granted is also hard to keep from from digging yourself deeper).
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I am no supporter of Obama, although I did vote for him over McCain for his promise of less war, and am glad we didn't have McCain, but he didn't fulfill many of his promises, so I didn't vote for him over Romney. But he did OK better than you show..
spending didn't double under Obama, Bush hid $2.7 Trillion of his spending, that Obama didn't.
> The number on health care did go up. But since you had no choice any more it had to go up.
Went up at a slowed rate. People payed their bills, thus taking many of the costs from the States/Hospitals and shifting them to the people (and to the federal government.) while decreasing bankruptcy due to healthcare expenses. ACA was a improvement, but is not enough. The extreme rate increases in AZ last yeare are exaggerated as they only went up in the marketplace by that amount, most people with insurance didn't have much of a rate increase here. Congress ended much of the enforcement and budgeting for the ACA, this allowed the insurance companies to fold the plans with high risk people, and keep the plans with low risk, putting more high risk people into the marketplace.
>As for the economy as a whole obama saw the greatest increase of 2.9%. Which is lower than Jimmy Carters 5.6% and Bush Primes of 3.8%
He also took over during the start of a huge depression started before him. It is hard to predict what if's, but even as a fiscal conservative, racking up a deficit during bad times is OK. Regan/Bush,etc racking them up during good times was much worse. I didn't agree with Obamas methods, but for the limitations put on him when a bunch of do nothing republicans entered the picture, he did OK considering.
>The number of unemployment did go down but the number not in the labor force actually went up by 13.5%.
Actually 3.1% according to your sources, and that was due to boomers reaching retirement age, and retiring.
Except for we haven't actually declared war in any of these places, right? I mean, these are just 'skirmishes' or whatever?
wrong
Another meme for idiots. I'll give you a hint: When Congress passes a law that authorizes use of force, and specifically writes out in it that "this satisfies the requirements of [such and such section] of the War Powers Act" and you look up that section and it is the section that talks about Congress having to declare war, then you can understand that war has been declared.
There is no special Declaration of War Form that Congress fills out. There is no requirement for them to write "Declaration of War" at the top of the bill that authorizes ongoing military action. In fact, all that they have to do to declare war is authorize it using any language that they choose. And in modern times, they use a different wording than "declaration of war."
But you don't get your information from actual sources, you get it from the rumor mill, so you repeat nonsense about Congress not having declared war.
Not everybody likes the details of the war declaration that Congress made; it is rather open-ended and nonspecific. But it does exist.
When, exactly, was this halcyon period where critical thinking was the norm, the populace was uniformly educated and agreed 100% on what is Reality?
I'll wait.
If you bothered to suck that stuff down, you can see it for yourself. You can see what criminal scum she was from that dump.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
BTW, they used to do things like that. They'd used to send a guy out to whack such people. They probably still do. No doubt, Russia certainly still does.
Hillary couldn't beat a junior senator with almost no voting record, and she couldn't beat Trump. But that is all the Russians fault
It's not "all the Russians' fault," but they have a lot of culpability here. The election was extremely close, so close that any of these factors, including Russian hacking, swayed the election. That is, if any of those factors (Hillary being nearly as shitty a candidate as Trump, Russian hacking, Hillary's dumb email server move, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation) were absent, it's likely that she would have won. Put ALL of them together and Trump just barely squeaks through. So yes, you can (and should) blame all those other factors AS WELL. But the Russian interference absolutely had an effect, most notably in turnout.
Can we all agree people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mitch McConnell should have no place representing the American people?
Yes. Yes please. What happened to the moderates of this country? Why is everything hyper-partisan?
This is only going to widen the rift between the oppressed constituent and the oppressing Corporate Oligarchy pulling all the USA strings!
Face it. This will only lead to a global civil war.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
I hope they have some actual charges for him if they plan to go after him. Because the thing with classified documents is that it is not illegal to share them if you did not sign an NDA or non disclosure agreement. He never signed it so he can do whatever he wants with them as someone else gave them to him willingly. If they wanted to go after the leaker I could understand, but really there is no legal recourse for going after wikileaks as no NDA means no law broken in regard to sharing or having these documents.
That's because the 2017 Syrian babies were 400% more beautiful than the 2013 Syrian babies.
Thanks.
In case it matters I didn't vote for Trump. But thanks for making the assumption.
Keep doubling down on stupid. Keep thinking that everyone that disagrees with you is evil and stupid. Keep saying that speech that you disagree with is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
All European countries would demand some guarantees about possible penalties before extraditing anyone to the US.
He has repeatedly said that he fears being extradited from Sweden to the US, sure. It looks to me like he's lying, since he didn't seem to worry about extradition to the US back when he was politically significant. I believe he doesn't want to go to Sweden to face charges, and ISTM that the most likely scenario is that he is guilty of what he's accused of, and doesn't want to be punished for it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The question is not whether Obama failed to stop chemical attacks. We know that. The question is whether Trump has, and as yet we have no indication that he did. The lack of chemical attacks in the short period since the Tomahawk attack is insignificant. If Assad launches another chemical attack, we'll know Trump's strike did nothing to deter them. If he doesn't for a long time, that's some evidence the strike might have been influential.
I can see arguments for making a strike that has a serious effect on Assad's capabilities, and for not making a strike. Using lots of expensive missiles for a mostly ineffective strike is stupid, no matter how you look at it. I don't know enough to know whether making a strike at all was a good idea (I tend to think not, but I could be convinced otherwise), but I know that that particular strike was a big mistake.
"Hundreds of civilians"? Compared to the number of civilians that died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, that's trivial. There is no way we can possibly enforce peace in the Middle East, short of genocide.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Obama was given a horrible mess to start with, and improved things dramatically. The recovery had some serious issues, but not anywhere near a failure. Possibly Obama would have done better without a Republican Congress more interested in making him look bad than helping the country.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The first cite mentioned nothing that I find problematic. The second cite talked about the DNC strongly favoring Clinton, and doing some dirty but not excessively dirty campaigning against Sanders. The DNC has no legal or moral duty to be impartial. Its main duty here is to help the best candidate win the Presidency. If, as I do, you think Sanders had a considerably worse chance against the Republicans than Clinton did, then there was much to be said for favoring Clinton.
Come back when you've got a cite that supports your position.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
First, the DNC is not a government organization and has no legal requirement to be impartial. There are still people involved with the party [raises hand] who remember McGovern in 1972, and feared that a Sanders candidacy would be similar. That's a big reason why the Democrats have superdelegates.
Second, I've seen no sign of vote fraud or fraud in the caucus-convention process. As far as I can tell, Clinton won because she had more support than Sanders.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes