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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
It's just standard behavior of authoritarian followers.
I wish more people had understood what Altemeyer was saying.
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".
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.
It's a shame WikiLeaks can't get Trump's taxes for the last 20 years. That would be a very telling story indeed.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
How is that different from the Clinton/Bush family?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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.
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 ? :|
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
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.
IANAL, but as I understand it:
Assange is accused of rape in Sweden, and Sweden has asked the UK to extradite him. The UK found the request valid, and sought to get Assange to send him to Sweden, when he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy. He has clearly violated UK criminal law.
If the Brits get him, they have to send him to Sweden. Sweden will deal with him and ship him back to the UK. It's illegal for Sweden to do anything else. At that time, he faces UK justice for the UK laws he violated, and possibly an extradition request from the US. The only legal path for Assange to be extradited to the US, assuming there is an extradition request found valid by UK courts, is to go to Sweden, go through their process, which may include imprisonment for some time, go back to the UK, and go from there. The UK can't send him anywhere but to Sweden, and Sweden has to send him back to the UK. At that point, the UK would doubtless require some guarantees on possible punishment before sending him to the US.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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."
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.
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.