Ecuador Wanted To Make Julian Assange a Diplomat and Send Him To Moscow (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last year, Ecuador attempted to deputize WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as one of its own diplomats and send him to Russia, according to a Friday report by Reuters. Citing an "Ecuadorian government document," which the news agency did not publish, Assange apparently was briefly granted a "special designation" to act as one of its diplomats, a privilege normally granted to the president for political allies. However, that status was then withdrawn when the United Kingdom objected. The Associated Press reported earlier in the week that newly-leaked documents showed that Assange sought a Russian visa back in 2010. WikiLeaks has vehemently denied that Assange did so.

Comments

Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Rapists seem to not make the best diplomats since they refuse to accept no as an answer

Re:Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but that's also why they are perfect for the Supreme Court.

Re:Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of brevity, just going back 1-2 days in the news: Cory Booker (D). Keith Ellison (D).

Re:Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Or presidents named Clinton

Re:Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton

Which means we haven't learned anything, since the current POTUS is just as bad...

Re: Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Trump âoegrabbing by the ...â

Re: Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK too.

Re:Hmmmmm, I see a flaw in this plan

[AutodidactLabrat]

So...woman who lied about date and time...twice, had to be re-immunized...twice, spent 10 years following Clinton everywhere to be photographed with him at least 30 times....was paid by the Sciafe Foundation for her time....get it?

Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

What have they got against Russia? Why don't they make him a diplomat and send him to the USA?

He'll have diplomatic immunity after all.

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Immunity only applies if the other nation grants it, and usually when a diplomat is involved in a crime (especially Espionage) they will have their status revoked, their Visa cancelled, and at the very least get kicked out of the country.

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

That begs the question then, how can they kick ambassadors out of the country (which regularly happens) when the embassy lands is considered foreign and not part of the host country?

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally they don't physically remove the diplomat as long as he stays inside the embassy, and will usually allow "safe passage" to exit the country.
There's usually a lot of backroom politics involved, so it's hard to make blanket statements. But in Assange's case the US would most likely deny him status to start with, and arrest him the minute his feet hit US soil.

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expelled diplomats are no longer welcome on the soil of the nation that hosts their embassy. While they can stay in the embassy, they can't leave the embassy without the threat of deportation. In those circumstances, especially since expelling diplomats is usually a public show of national annoyance, the diplomats simply leave of their own accord. Often quite rapidly. The time granted to leave varies, but it can be very short. During that time the expelled diplomats can leave unabaited and unhindered. I imagine that if there's some reason why they didn't meet their deadline but are leaving pretty soon after then they'd face little consequence, but this is not something that can be generalized. There have been times when diplomats have refused to leave, then things get a lot more complicated. It's not unheard of for an embassy to be surrounded by police / military and bar the entry of all staff until the expelled diplomat has been removed. This is not something that happens all too often since this kind of behaviour between national representitives is basically war. After all: it's hard to do you job as a diplomat when your host nation won't send anyone to talk to you, even harder when you're boxed in under threat of violence. That's just bad for the payroll. If the situation is so bad between your embassy and the host nation then it's not going to be too long before that embassy is no longer recognized as legitimate by the host and you'll just get dragged out by force. Again: not good for the payroll. Diplomats overstaying their welcome is very unusual.

The diplomats themselves are often assigned on near permanent basis and spend years in their host nations. It's never good when diplomats get expelled. It's much more than a sign of tension between two nations, those people are actually performing important work in smoothing relations between nations. The expulsion of diplomats is typically responded to with other diplomats being expelled, making political relationships even harder to repair on both sides. Diplomatic expulsion is more than just a sign of tension, it's a whole step forward in the escalation of tension on the national level, and the diplomats themselves are usually caught in the middle... as long as it's not them themselves that have caused whatever incident is being escalated of course.

When all is said and done the diplomats careers often end when they're expelled. If tensions are short lived then it's a waste of resources to expel them in the first place since the inevitable quid pro quo will also rob you, the expelling nation, of your own resources in the other nation. This is why it's not something that happens lightly. As long as they're not bona fide spies (which they're mostly not) then those are the people who you really want to have back in the embassy when the incident has passed... but the fact that they've been expelled means that they're basically guaranteed to never be welcome again.

Re:Why Russia?

[PopeRatzo]

It sounds like Ecuador wants to be rid of this guy pretty bad.

"I know, let's make him the ambassador to Russia and see how long it takes for him to get a polonium cocktail."

"Or, we could take him to Dave & Busters and slip out while he's playing ski-ball."

"How about if we move our embassy and just not tell him?"

"No, the Russia thing sounds good. Let's go with that one."

Re:Why Russia?

[MichaelSmith]

They could just invite the UK police in to arrest him.

Re:Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK police have no authority within the embassy and can't arrest him till he leaves.

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK police have no authority within the embassy and can't arrest him till he leaves.

If Ecuador invite the UK police in then they have all the rights Ecuador give then, including arrest.

It is fairly common for diplomats who commit serious crimes to have their country abandon them for the good will of the relationship between the two countries. And in this case Assange was never a diplomat and never had diplomatic immunity.

Re:Why Russia?

[terrycarlino]

True, but Ecuador can expel Assange at any time for no reason at all. He is not an Ecuador citizen and they have no moral, civic or legal obligation to give him refuge.

I see thins as a ploy to get Assange back to his true masters, but the UK didn't play along.

Re: Why Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for this reasoned and informative response. You must be Jame Retief in real life.

Re:Why Russia?

[arglebargle_xiv]

Or they could persuade McAssange to stick his head down a loaded cannon. Worked for Blackadder.

Re:Why Russia?

[DaveV1.0]

Because the Russian asset wants to go collect his reward from his masters and live in a country that has no extradition to the U.S.

Humbug

[elrous0]

There is such an active, concerted disinformation campaign surrounding Assange and other government leakers, it's impossible to tell where the lies end and the truth begins. Could be true. Could be yet another smear. Anyone who thinks they know for sure hasn't been paying much attention.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

In war, truth is the first casualty.

Re:Humbug

[beheaderaswp]

Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker. In retrospect there's no higher morality to it's actions or the "materials" released.

The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers. Those were acts of conscience which led to at least some change.

Even in the McCarthy era the real nuance in his actions was not apparent until years later. If you don't get it now- give it ten years.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I found the insight into how the Hillary Campaign took over the DNC and rigged the primaries, but that's just me. If you find it chaotic to have a fair and balanced voting system that actually allows US Citizens to have a say in the affairs of their country over that of globalist corporations, then maybe you are the problem. Maybe it is your morals that need a check.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

The value is in creating chaos.

I thought their goal was to provide transparency. Transparency was a pretty big thing back when they got started and it was even a big part of Obama's first term presidential campaign promises. That's why I (regretfully) voted for him...but I digress.

Besides, if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of? ....or is that only a policy for us little people?

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

He came from an anti-war father. I think his collateral murder and general attitude point in the same direction. Not saying I agree with an anti-war stance, but he does have arguably a higher morality.

Re:Humbug

[quantaman]

Personally, I found the insight into how the Hillary Campaign took over the DNC and rigged the primaries, but that's just me. If you find it chaotic to have a fair and balanced voting system that actually allows US Citizens to have a say in the affairs of their country over that of globalist corporations, then maybe you are the problem. Maybe it is your morals that need a check.

Which just goes to show that leaks don't equal insight.

What the leaks showed was that:
a) Lots of people in the DNC were huge fans of Clinton and skeptical of Sanders. There was certainly a lot of networking on her part, but the DNC was still independent.
b) The overwhelming majority of people in the DNC tried to run the primary in a fair manner (despite their personal preference).
c) In a handful of instances some people did tip the scales to Clinton.
d) There was a lot of pressure for other prospective candidates to clear the deck for Clinton, some from the DNC, some from the candidates not wanting to run a losing campaign, some because Clinton did have a history of shutting out people who didn't back her.

There was a lot of problematic stuff in the emails but nothing particularly specific to Clinton. There's also a worthwhile debate over how inappropriate some of it really was. Insiders do have a lot of knowledge about candidates and issues unavailable to the general public. Ideally you want a system that takes advantage of that. Managing endorsements and encouraging the right people to run is one of the less objectionable ways to do that.

Re:Humbug

[hcs_$reboot]

Could be true since we read a very similar story 9 months ago.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

He is and always was a Russian shill and worked as part of their propaganda machine. He has zero moral high ground.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.
 
The first sentence is only true if you believe in the dichotomy of American's partisan politics. The second sentence is likely true regardless.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker.

Prove it? They're NOT a hacking group, they only print leaks they can verify. The people who are complaining about this already have their own channels to leak stuff anyhow and are just griping that someone else gets the chance to leak on them. This is just a way to deflect from the fact that they've told us a lot of truth that you're not comfortable with and rather than address that--which you cannot because it was all true--you have to paint them as biased.

> The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

So you don't think Holder, Obama and co. were on her side? We have a lot of texts from Strzok & co. indicating a media leak strategy meant to support Clinton. They worked with British spies to launder dirt gathered from a Russian oligarch, among other sources, through Fusion GPS. There is plenty of documentation of this and sources from their own communications, which you can find referenced here and here among other articles.

> It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers. Those were acts of conscience which led to at least some change.

This only shows that you care more about whether the leaks support your side than whether they're true or reveal corruption. Also, is the NSA not still spying on us all? I'm not sure what change we've seen, as the entire prior paragraph shows exactly how they can spy on you and launder the intelligence through the media.

> Even in the McCarthy era the real nuance in his actions was not apparent until years later. If you don't get it now- give it ten years.

Well yeah, it's true that we didn't really catch the Marxist influence in our education system or they way the Communist agitators promoted chaos like the Vietnam war, but you can't use the past to prove anything like that because it's not even the same Russia--all the people are different. It'd be like me using someone you disagree with from your own country to paint you as being someone you're not. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations are all quite different, so how you can claim that Russia of 60 years ago is the same is beyond me. I think there are clear differences between Stalin and Gorbachev for example, so you have to make your case in the here and now, not by appealing to the ghost of McCarthy to point out how Russia of the past used liberals to undermine America.

This goes double when the entire dossier that is central to the modern McCarthyism is nothing but rumors laundered via Fusion GPS through Oleg, a Russian oligarch.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clinton related leaks were with regard to Clinton rigging the primary against Sanders. It had nothing to do with the FBI. What was the FBI pre-investigated the leak of itself? Don't be retarded. Also, do you actually think we all forgot when Wikileaks leaked the videos of war crimes in Iraq during the Bush administration? Liberals loved Assange then, but now that he leaked something that makes their side look bad, suddenly he's bad. Maybe if the Clintons weren't corrupt pieces of shit, they wouldn't have to worry about leaks.

Re: Humbug

[Cmdln Daco]

There was enough foul play uncovered that the chairiman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to resign from the position and be replaced, during the height of the campaign when such a move was extremele disruptive. You can try to smooth that over with words, but there was big-time rotten activity and we should be grateful it was exposed.

Re: Humbug

[Cmdln Daco]

Russia isn't even a primary foreign policy opponent any longer. We should be looking at China and their imperialistic belt-and-road initiative, not fretting over musty cold war memes.

Re:Humbug

[Vintermann]

It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers.

Snowden and Ellsberg disagree. Funny how that doesn't count for anything.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

> The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

No, it's more than that, there's still too many people looking at the whole Russia-Trump-Clinton thing through the eyes of US politics, let's be clear here, the morning Wikileaks leaked the damaging material on Clinton, Nigel Farage attempted to sneak into the Ecuadorian embassy to meet with Julian Assange - the US House Intelligence Committee has since received intelligence that this was to provide Assange with a thumb drive and that Farage was a Russian conduit:

https://www.theguardian.com/po...

https://www.france24.com/en/20...

If you're looking purely through the lens of "My candidate won, you're just bitter" then you're missing the point here. Let's be absolutely clear - Nigel Farage is incredibly friendly with a guy in British politics called Arron Banks. Arron Banks is a guy who no one had ever heard of until he dramatically appeared on the British political scene around 2015 with a story about how he was going to defect from being a major Conservative party donor to being a UKIP donor, despite the fact no one in the Conservative party had any idea who he was, he suddenly had £1million pounds to dramatically donate to UKIP. Since then he has come under investigation, because no one can explain the source of all his wealth as it's hidden incredibly well behind a cascade of fake businesses in places like the Cayman Islands which are well known conduits of Russian money. Of course, you could fairly trivially dismiss this as paranoia if it weren't for the fact that Arron Banks is married to Ekaterina Paderina. Who you ask? Someone a Russian defector described as one of their greatest intelligence assets, someone who had an affair with a much older MP who just happened to be in charge of one of the constituencies where Britain's nuclear submarines are housed:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

On top of that, Farage has consistently refused to condemn Russia even when it annexed Crimea, he has attended Russia's far right convention in St. Petersburg where a number of far right anti-EU parties in Europe were granted support and funding from Russian state entities:

https://themoscowtimes.com/art...

So at this point, if anyone things it's about Clinton or Trump, they really are failing to see the bigger picture. There's a massive web here with ample evidence trailing all the way back to Putin's doorstep, and what's more, it stems from before Trump was even a US political candidate at all, which in itself highlights the fact it's got nothing to do with "bitter Hillary" supporters or whatever justification people like to use for refusing to acknowledge it.

At this point, if you really don't think Russia is involved in interfering in Western politics in an incredibly serious manner, and if you don't think Putin had anything to do with Brexit, Trump, Hungary's Jobbik, France's NF, Greece's Golden Dawn and so on and so forth then you're in denial over such an overwhelmingly large body of evidence that you genuinely only can be either pro-Russian and anti-Western, or the kind of useful idiot that these kind of intelligence operations rely on in the first place.

Assange and Wikileaks are just one part of a massive web

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

#WalkAway is yet another Russian effort to dupe the more gullible members of the American electorate.

However even the terminally stupid have realized that Trump is Putin's patsy, turning to obsequious jelly in his presence. Some patriots still care about that.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that truth isn't truth?

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, the cold war's back hadn't you heard? Unless you're in Ukraine where it's a hot war. Countries bordering Russia are very nervous about Putin's appetite for other people's territory and those who are in NATO thank God for its protection.

Re:Humbug

[gtall]

Ah, Grasshopper-San, you have not been listening to the truth Voice of Truth, Fox. The FBI and the intelligence community are in an unholy cabal to support liberal Democrats and the destruction of the U.S. by replacing it with...with...people from BENGHAZI!!! Now suck on the flavorful Popsicle and follow Dear Leader in Prayer:

    The Lord is my Shepherd,
          I shall not think.
    Jesus was a conservative,
          Off to Hell our souls will sink.

Re: Humbug

[cyber-vandal]

He was Mr Wonderful when he was making Dubya look bad but how dare he interfere with the coronation of Queen Hillary!

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the shit Britain has cause over the last 200 yrs I'm surprised they didn't let you drown in your own shit and vomit 70 yrs ago

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is a fascinating conspiracy theory here wherein you apparently don't care about the consent of the governed in a democracy any longer, only whether you can create a Russian boogeyman to scare other voters. Fact remains that the UK voted for Brexit and the USA voted for Trump. You can claim that Russians sent memes to stupid, vulnerable people, but that just shows that you hate any speech that counters your own propaganda. This can be seen in all the attempts to ban or otherwise deplatform speech critical of your positions. P.S., yes, that whole "private companies can do as they like" argument is going to totally bite us all in the ass if the ISPs fall on the other side of things thanks to Net Neutrality, so screw every single person promoting that. This may surprise you, but I don't even want you idiots censored and I hate seeing you hand a rhetorical weapon like that to the elected morons.

Frankly, everyone in the world has a right to speak out about elections in every country, otherwise you need to condemn the Independent and Guardian for "foreign influence on US elections" when they're your own sources. To say nothing of the start of the Russian conspiracy dossier, which came from a British spy Steele, who works for a Russian oligarch named Oleg...

So sure, go ahead and help stop the Russian plan to divide us by trying to divide us more. It makes the bankruptcy of your position all the more evident to thinking people.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

>Managing endorsements and encouraging the right people to run

Except these DC autocrats DIDN'T encourage the right people to run! They "encouraged" the only bum on the damn planet who could actually lose to Trump! Trump was supposed to be a fucking heel for Hillary, but she was so incompetent at running a campaign she actually fucking lost!

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

So one resignation from the DNC means they're bad guys... How do you feel about the dozens of resignations/firings of Trump appointees? Rob Porter, Rex Tillerson, Don Megan, Pruitt etc.

I'm sure your detailed and specific reply will show no signs of hypocrisy.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

People are easily manipulated. That's why advertising works, and politicians usually need large campaign budgets to win.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Libtard shill pretends that people leaving his corrupt, morally bankrupt party isn't happening.

Meanwhile back in reality, a Republican just won a seat this week that was held by Democrats for 150 years. If you get your news from the MSM, you didn't hear about it.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

You just downplayed the Clinton leaks AND tried to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy! Bravo, well done sir!

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that being forced to resign is an indication of some significant amount of foul play, you must be horrified at the amount of foul play evident in the Trump campaign/transition/administration! I can't imagine an American institution more rife with crime and corruption. Hell, he had three campaign managers over the course of just a few months.

dom

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

If you shill that enough, Lars, you think the American taxpayers will keep footing the bill for your organization?

Re:Humbug

[nateman1352]

Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker. In retrospect there's no higher morality to it's actions or the "materials" released.

At this point it is extremely clear that Assange is nothing more than one of Putin's puppets. Wikileaks is nothing more than an attempt to weaken the soft power that western democracies project. All part of a grand plan to rebuild the Russian empire with a Putin dynasty.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Libtard shill pretends that people leaving his corrupt, morally bankrupt party isn't happening.

Yeah, you guys have a lot of moral authority these days, I hear.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

load of bollocks.

Re:Humbug

[terrycarlino]

In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

That is simply not necessary. If the past years revelations of FBI political activity have shone anything it is that rank and file FBI workers are pretty much willing to allow their political leaders and upper level management to do anything they want without interfering.

Or another words, regular agents concentrate on chasing real spies and criminals and ignore their managers actions in leveraging FBI assets to spy on and attack opposition party members. They do not actively support those actions, but they also do not whistleblow, resign in protest, or legally obstruct them either. They are complaisant by inaction. Silence is consent.

The same thing goes for the intelligence community. It's like they say: We're doing real work here, and the political appointees and managers aren't hindering our investigations so we're not going to look too close to determine if what they're doing is legal or ethical.

Re: Humbug

[terrycarlino]

Great argument using whataboutism.

I'm not a Democrat myself, but I know plenty of them, and most of the ones I know aren't happy about how Sanders was treated, and in no way shape of form believe that he was treated fairly or that the primary wasn't in the bag for Clinton, irregardless of how the primary vote came out.

Pointing at Trump doesn't improve your defense of the DNC. It just shows you still don't get why Clinton lost. Let me give you a clue. A lot of those Sanders supporters stayed home on election day. If you want them to sit out the next election just keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

It's working so far. Serious people understand the threat from Putin's Russia. They reached an agreement before the last summit so even Trump couldn't fuck it up.

Re:Humbug

[rtb61]

Everyone knows wikileaks is not an equal opportunity leaker but only are liar would make it seem bad. Yes, they check all the information coming in for veracity, validity of course and some of the information is left out if it puts individuals at risk and yes, this does take time and the most interesting and least risky stuff goes first. Very scummy bit of propaganda, ohh yeah not true leaks, not one leak of course but thousands of them, all needing to be checked before being published.

Yeah the deep scum slimey propagandists with the little shit team of modders busy at work. Lame as fuck.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Tillerson was not a bad guy.

The rest of them, crooked assgoles, f em

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post. I'm not so happy about the idea of putting Russia as a whole down but damaging Putin and his goons should certainly be an aim of anyone who cars about democracy.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

>Assange and Wikileaks are just one part of a massive web in Putin's attempt to cripple Western power by pushing political outcomes that either destroy economic power (i.e. Brexit)

This is a joke. You fundamentally mis understand the point of Brexit and the mind of the average british voter. Go back to the USA.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it matters what _you_ think the point of Brexit is, the point is that the practical outcome of Brexit is a Britain that is crippled economically, that has less power on the world stage because it's so irrelevant that no one has to listen to it anymore, and where it's idea of leaving the EU to regain sovereignty is nothing more than a joke because anti-Democratic autocrats that push hard Brexit even though there's never been a democratic mandate for hard Brexit are running the show.

So what do _you_ think the point of Brexit is? What do _you_ think it's going to achieve? Because it's certainly not going to be any of the things we were sold, Britain has already become less wealthy, less powerful on the world stage, and a poorer democracy with a £1bn bribe being used to prop a government that didn't win a majority and that is pushing an agenda that there has never ever once been a majority for (i.e. hard Brexit).

I know the mind of the average British voter all too well I'm afraid - ignorance, stupidity, and xenophobia for the most part, because we're a pale shadow of what we once were. Idiocy is idolised, democracy is shunned apart from when it suits (which isn't democracy), and we're all suffering for it.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your meds. Saying things like "Cayman island bank accounts = Russia" and "refusing to condemn Russia for occupying territory it has citizens in as well as historic territorial claims to makes you a Russian spy" show you have a conclusion in mind before you even begin analysing. Further, even if the Russians have done worse than your fantasy, they're still not anywhere near the level of international political subversion of the United States.

If you're crying Russia Russia Russia you are a mindless mouthpiece with an agenda. The only us versus them is the ruling elite versus the ruled.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

You bitter, stupid patisan LIBTARD HACK. Go away loser!

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

> there's never been a democratic mandate for hard Brexit are running the show.

Please. Jacob Rees-Mogg shoots this down quite rightly.

>So what do _you_ think the point of Brexit is? What do _you_ think it's going to achieve?
Independence and exactly that.

All the traditional western cultural symbols are being round up and executed by the SJWs and trans team. Enlightenment is over, UK is fighting to recapitulate a set of ideas that unify the west again. The UK + US team over the EU is not going anywhere despite the US's flirtation with the French.

>because we're a pale shadow of what we once were. Idiocy is idolised, democracy is shunned apart from when it suits (which isn't democracy), and we're all suffering for it.

You suffer boths ways. Man up and rebuild the empire. Fundamentally speaking it has gone through a death (is dying finally with the end of enlightenment and the old british colonial values being cleaned out). You need to die completely and rebirth anew. The stiff upper lip is admirable as all fuck and has helped the culture limp along, but you need to stand tall in the face of death, like your WW1 tank commanders and let the cowards be shot in the face.

The empire will be birthed anew, the fundamental structures and history that keep the west together will remain, and the UK identity will be rebirthed. This is the aim.

It doesn't matter if Jeremy Corbyn gets in power, whatever he wants to do with the UK will be decided by the EU. It's pointless to vote anything in your own parliament other than a Boris hard brexit. Rule britannia, not the seas, but your own goddamn house.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuance of who's actions? To this day, this fucking hoax continues to believed and I will set the history straight on this. McCarthy was a representative and not a senator. McCarthy conducted one hearing on communists in the military and this hearing only. He quickly faded from history.

Meanwhile in the Senate, Roy Brewer (liberal democrat) is the man who held all the hearings on Hollywood and for some fucking reason, his hearings and his accusations seem to continue to get tied to McCarthy when McCarthy had nothing to do with it. In fact, Ronald Reagan had more to do with McCarthyism than McCarthy himself.

I admit, Brewerism isn't as catchy as McCarthyism, but media created hoaxes and buzz phrases are a far fetch account of history and a racket.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see here.

- Clinton did campaign fundraisers with Congressional DNC members, and of the money raised she took 98.5% of it. This is where we learned about purpose written loopholes in FEC fundraising that allows candidates to take much more than the individual contribution from donors. Legal, but completely against the spirit of the law and screwing over all DNC Congressional candidates.
- We had CNN moderators giving her debate questions before the debates with Sanders. You probably think that is fine too.
- We have the DNC collaborating with newspapers like the Boston Globe, where they would run stories given to them by the DNC on the days the DNC wanted that smeared Sanders at the best time possible to hurt him in primaries.
- We have the WaPo sending entire stories to the DNC and Clinton asking them to make any edits they want before the story runs so it has a better chance of helping her.
- According to Donna Brazile, Clinton campaign decided how the DNC spent all their money and on which races. Brazile had no authority to run the DNC in any way at all because of Clinton.
- Brazile admitted they cheated so much that the primary was basically rigged against Sanders, and she called him up to tell him, and later wrote a book.

But when your a Clinton supporter, breaking laws, raping women, killing witnesses, is all fine. We all know you are a dirtball scumbag.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is rubbish, because you don't know anything about what Wikileaks does not leak, if there is anything at all they don't leak. There is already enough opinion and conjecture about Wikileaks without evidence.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the most informative and insightful AC post I've read in a long time. The problem is how to counter Russian efforts without drawing the Russian people closer to Putin and - even more dangerous - extreme nationalism.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows intelligence and facts have a liberal bias!

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

This entire post reads like something spewed by a Brexit-jihadist who managed to get a hand on the keyboard during a session of autoerotic asphyxiation.

All the traditional western cultural symbols are being round up and executed by the SJWs and trans team.

This is utter codswallop and you'd have to be immensely fragile to believe this.

The empire will be birthed anew

It really won't.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please. Jacob Rees-Mogg shoots this down quite rightly.

Wow, you're basing your world view on those of a real actual paedophile?

Sorry, kiddy fuckers like you and their friends don't get a say in life.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

That our political system is broken due to both parties not fulfilling their responsibilities disenfranchising voters of all stripes and undermining the credibility of US leadership both domestically and internationally? We need serious, credible and trustworthy candidates, our political system isn't producing them and that is why Bernie and the DNC are both working very hard to get good candidates on ballots.

What is the GOP doing to show that it understands its own mistakes and is earnestly working to correct them? The DNC made mistakes but they have acknowledged them and are doing something about them. The GOP still can't acknowledge that mistakes were even made. They can't even acknowledge that the NRA was funding GOP candidates with huge piles of Russian money. They won't do anything to stop the NRA from continuing to take Russian money. That right there is straight up not in America's best interests and will lead to the down fall of the nation unless the GOP is ready to truly be patriotic.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you'll be part of the "useful idiot" category he was talking about.

The GP's point was it doesn't matter whether you believe Brexit or Trump were the right thing or not, the point is that Russia is an opponent, a dangerous one that must be dealt with.

If you're still focusing on Trump or Brexit then you're definitely in the useful idiot category. "Thinking people"? don't make us laugh, you're as thick as they come, that's why you completely missed the point of the post.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

People forget that the previous DNC leader stepped down for Debbie to pull her shenanigans, and was later rewarded with Vice President candidacy. Debbie had to step down after falling on her sword for Clinton and was rewarded with a high level position in her campaign.

Re: Humbug

[Agripa]

The DNC made mistakes but they have acknowledged them and are doing something about them.

The only mistake the DNC is working to fix is getting caught. There have been no changes and no sincere calls for changes which would improve the situation; those in charge want it to be the way it is.

The Republicans made their own mistake. I expect them to work harder in the future to make sure someone like Trump does not win their primary election. Maybe they can copy what the DNC did successfully.

Re:Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I've clearly been shadowbanned from this IP. The two replies to this post are not showing up from this PC, but are from others. Glad to know /. is a honeypot.

Silencing people on message boards is a pretty trashy way of conducting politics. It's almost like your empire is built on sand.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

How much proof do you want? I have plenty. If jordan peterson has proved anything, it's that a better story beats empty character attacks any day of the week.

So keep digging a hole towatds the centre of nihilism with your lack of content.

Re: Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe assange requested a russian visa? A convicted paedophile posted that.

besides, I am not a paedophile and your guilt by association is worthy dying to stop. Women died for their vote and I'm keeping mine too.

Re:US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, he isn't a rapist.

Nope, it is a she said, he said case. Who are you going to believe?

Substantive = Weasel Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Substantive = Weasel Word.

Of course there was criminal activity. Unquestionably. Deletion of emails to avoid accountability and hide information from her superiors: The American People.

If you or I did what HC did and admitted to, we would be in federal prison.

She is an unindicted criminal conspirator, plain and simple.

Re: Substantive = Weasel Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither you nor I could reliability turn the debate in the Jury room to politics and so cause hung Jury with probablity approaching 1.

Re: US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a sexy Liberal poster boy you're innocent no matter how much evidence exists.
If you're a disgusting Conservative nominated for a Supreme Court position then you're guilty if even a single gold digging whore says you looked at her funny at a party 35 years ago.

Ecuador was

[oldgraybeard]

probably just trying to figure out how to get something out of all the money he was costing them. Sometimes you just follow the money.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Ecuador was

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post lacks the part where you explain what it is that you believe they might have gotten out of it, and how.

Re: Ecuador was

[Anonymous Coward]

what money was that?

Re: Ecuador was

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia paying Ecuador lots of money ($3.50) for Assange of course.

Re: Ecuador was

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Obviously an entire country struggles with food for one person.

Re: US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[chaboud]

Wasnâ(TM)t he accused of having sex without a condom after having sex with a condom?

That may legally be rape in some countries, but I wouldnâ(TM)t put it in the same boat as forcible non-consensual sex or sex with a party who cannot consent.

I still think heâ(TM)s a narcissistic asshole, but I donâ(TM)t want to lose sight of facts/reality.

Re: Assassinate Vladimir Putin today!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I like the dark. That way they don't see me coming for their jugulars.

Re: US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the rape-think was just an excuse to get rid of Assange.
The reason to get rid of him was probably because he was conspiring with Russia to cause trouble in the US election.

Re: US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't he accused of having sex without a condom after having sex with a condom?

That may legally be rape in some countries, but I wouldn't put it in the same boat as forcible non-consensual sex or sex with a party who cannot consent.

I still think he's a narcissistic asshole, but I don't want to lose sight of facts/reality.

Pretty sure rolling over in the morning and having unprotected sex with a sleeping person that did not want to have unprotected sex with you earlier can be rape, unless you're married, basically in any country with marriage laws... Otherwise, what's the logic, you sinned once, so you deserve it?

Re: Assassinate Vladimir Putin today!

[PopeRatzo]

That way they don't see me coming for their jugulars.

What's your problem with Insane Clown Posse fans?

No surprise

[horza]

Of course the embassy it trying to find a loophole to get rid of him without him being murdered by the USA. They'd dress him up as a DHL delivery guy if they thought that would work. Hardly news.

Phillip.

Re:No surprise

[gtall]

You are confusing the USA with Russia, they're the ones with the poisonous assassins. The USA would just turn him over to Fox for a bit of light-hearted torture. A few days watching that would turn him into silly-putty.

Why isn't Wikileaks publishing these documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that Wikileaks is all about government transparency, why aren't they publishing the Ecuadorian documents?

Oh Lord

[ViXiVTech]

OH LoRd What Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda happened...

Someone I used to admire...

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

Seems to me I recall Julian Assange publicly trying to use the threat of the disclosure of something Wikileaks had allegedly been given, as a tool to try to escape his current legal predicament(s) when it/they started, years ago. The fact that he'd use information as a tool like that, while pretending that Wikileaks never sits on anything, and publishes whatever they have and believe to be credible, made me think he was just a tool, to put it bluntly. Nothing I've seen or heard from him since has in any way changed my opinion of him, or the organization he 'leads'. The very fact that he had, allegedly, again, information he COULD publish, (presumably it means they vetted it and determined it was credible,) damaging to those trying to extradite and/or prosecute him, and he held it back as a shield, flies in the face of claims made of being journalists.

Journalists, REAL journalists, protect sources, and publish information for the good of the readers, etc., not timed or calibrated for their own maximum personal benefit. Even if the charges against him are totally fake and politically motivated, there's no moral difference between that and a doctor taking a patient hostage. Journalists should have to swear the Hippocratic Oath too, specifically, first to do no harm to their readers/listeners/viewers, and then never deliberately, knowingly, or intentionally to deceive them, nor to be used by anyone else negligently to do so. (Obviously, if a journo is reporting on a pol who IS ALSO a reader, the good of the many SHOULD win out, and as long as the truth is being told, the reader who is the malefactor is exempt from the reporter's proscription against doing harm to that specific person or group.) Obviously the highest call is to the truth, even when it's a hard truth, but just in terms of ethics... yeah.

Perhaps I was misinformed on this point, or I'm confusing Assange with some OTHER news guy being accused of rape or whatever... but I believe my recollection is intact in this case, and if it is, that's a real douchebag kinda move to pull, and NOT what any person describing himself (or herself) as a journalist should be doing.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your topic to "someone i liked when they were on my side but hate now because Trump and fuck the truth I only want points" and at least I would respect you for being honest

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that you are recalling incorrectly.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Anonymous Coward]

You partisan piece of LIBTARD shit! Go away!

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[houghi]

Perhaps I was misinformed on this point, or I'm confusing Assange with some OTHER news guy being accused of rape or whatever... but I believe my recollection is intact in this case

People have false memories (for whatever reasons) all the time. I still believe I had a teacher of a certain name at school, even if I have spoken to the daughter of said teacher and it is NOT him. So I know that it was not hime, yet my memory STILL tells me otherwise.

So for your own sake and for the sake of others, please provide some proof of what you are saying. Hearsay is not a good way to go about it.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The fact that he'd use information as a tool like that, while pretending that Wikileaks never sits on anything, and publishes whatever they have and believe to be credible, made me think he was just a tool, to put it bluntly.

It's standard operating procedure in the spy game.

>Journalists, REAL journalists, protect sources, and publish information for the good of the readers, etc., not timed or calibrated for their own maximum personal benefit.

No true scotsman.

>Perhaps I was misinformed on this point, or I'm confusing Assange with some OTHER news guy being accused of rape or whatever... but I believe my recollection is intact in this case,

So you don't know what you're talking about? How you got modded insightful is beyond me.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Anonymous Coward]

I distinctly recall going down a spiral staircase to the basement of a train when I was 4.

I am pretty sure this didn't happen.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

Perhaps I was misinformed on this point, or I'm confusing Assange with some OTHER news guy being accused of rape or whatever... but I believe my recollection is intact in this case

People have false memories (for whatever reasons) all the time. I still believe I had a teacher of a certain name at school, even if I have spoken to the daughter of said teacher and it is NOT him. So I know that it was not hime, yet my memory STILL tells me otherwise.

So for your own sake and for the sake of others, please provide some proof of what you are saying. Hearsay is not a good way to go about it.

-Sigh- It was an offhand aside you're nitpicking at. The fact that you've had your memory fail in no way speaks to the question of whether I'm remembering correctly or not. Also, I'm not going to look it up because the aside is not central to the comment I was making.

Whether it's hearsay or not is irrelevant because this is a slashdot comment, not an argument in a court of law. If it were, yeah... I would have looked it up and sourced it. Thanks though.

Re:Someone I used to admire...

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

Change your topic to "someone i liked when they were on my side but hate now because Trump and fuck the truth I only want points" and at least I would respect you for being honest

I'm confused how anyone could think that I think Trump is (or ever was, or will be,) anything but a bag of flaming dog shit left on America's porch. Have you perhaps ASSumed what I think based upon a misinterpretation of what I wrote?

Oh, PS, BTW... Trump has, to the best of my knowledge, had no meaningful interaction with nor anything to say about Assange besides farting his stupid uneducated opinions out of his face-anus for years.

The guy with an at least quasi-legitimate beef with Assange was the last, (as of now,) President of the United States, Barrack Obama, a man whom I neither voted for nor supported nor liked, though I wouldn't dispute the legitimacy of his presidency, despite not being a fan, unlike the current illegitimate occupant of the White House.

Sounds like you decided what I meant without really thing about what I wrote, and decided to try to write a witty-sounding response attacking me as someone who says "fuck the truth," (which is very fucking funny,) and failed miserably.

I can see why you posted as an anonymous coward though. Makes sense. But why not log in, (I'm sure you've got a login,) and have a real discussion, instead of flinging feces, huh?

So he's gonna laugh at Murtaugh

[Chas]

Then hold up his papers and yell "DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!" before getting a bullet in the brainpan?

https://youtu.be/kwC_IaY3BmY

Re:US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[Joce640k]

Who are you going to believe?

The people who released him initially - before the USA went on a fishing expedition to find a way to get him to the USA no matter what.

PS: An Interpol arrest warrant issued for a crime committed in a single country? That's corruption at the highest level.

Russia Narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

When Russia is the last place truth can go.. says a lot doesn't it...

Re:US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[ayesnymous]

I will believe the books that Mark Judge wrote about his buddy "Bart O'Kavanaugh".

Re:I got a big boner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, we've been over this before. It's derived from the medieval French "âne du singe".

I would have thought that being a diplomat would require the capacity to behave in a diplomatic fashion. It would have been funny to see the Ecuadorians palm him off on Russia and see how long they could tolerate him before having him transferred somewhere else, like a latter-day Barclay.

Give my enemy the dagger...

[Anonymous Coward]

During the weekend I was contemplating the Snowden issue again (strange how topics keep aligning themselves, huh?) and that basically these people, regardless of their actual intents, are being used by Russia in their efforts to destabilize the West.
The West is NOT doing themselves a favor in actively making it easier for Russia to do this. The enemy of the people trying to lock me up for telling the truth is a welcome ally, even though I (perhaps) realize I am just a puppet for them.

If we take Snowden as an example. The guy wanted to show the US was doing illegal stuff. Yay, someone with a spine!
Could he turn to the US gov? Nope, they would have thrown him into jail and covered up the whole thing. If you see how the right wing reacted to the leaks, you would agree.
So the only possible way to enlighten the populace to the doings of their own 'shining light of freedom' government up was to leak the stuff and go somewhere where he will not be extradited. Naturally Russia welcomed any possibility to destabilize the US with open arms.

People need to realize that there are differences between whistle-blowers and traitors. Former wants to inform on possible illegal activities for the benefit of the country, yet doubt (with good reason) that these would be dealt with appropriately. Latter is someone actively helping the enemy against their own country/gov.
With the way whistle-blowers are getting treated, you are forcing them to become traitors. It is your fault, not theirs!
Thus you are giving your enemy the dagger which they can then use against you.

The same goes for Assange and Brexit and Trump. Useful puppets.

Week Weedy Child Molester

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is what he is.

No, you didn't.

[Uberbah]

Someone I used to admire...

As much as I "admire" your transparent attempt at concern trolling.

The fact that he'd use information as a tool like that, while pretending that Wikileaks never sits on anything, and publishes whatever they have and believe to be credible, made me think he was just a tool, to put it bluntly.

Bluntly, you're projecting. If you knew you were on the shit list of every Western intelligence agency for exposing their dirty laundry - and on the snatch-and-grab list of every other intelligence agency to find out what you might know - are there any steps you would not take or bluffs you would not make to protect your ass?

Didn't think so.

Journalists, REAL journalists, protect sources, and publish information for the good of the readers, etc., not timed or calibrated for their own maximum personal benefit.

If Assange was interested in his "personal benefit", there's no shortage of intelligence agencies he could have sold Manning's leaks to, among others. He didn't.

Perhaps I was misinformed on this point, or I'm confusing Assange with some OTHER news guy being accused of rape or whatever

Some other guy who's had an Interpol warrant issued for a requested STD test? Some other guy who's offered to return to Sweden for questioning if they aren't using the allegations as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, only to have those offers ignored?

Do you lick the boots of the deep state black, or do you take them with a bit of sugar?

Re:No, you didn't.

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

blah blah blah

WTF are you talking about? Deep state? Did I say a single fucking word defending the NSA, the CIA, or any other of the alphabet of agencies and their tactics? The ends don't justify any means whatsoever, while still clinging to the pretense of being a journalist. He could bluff and posture and threaten, and try to save his skin... but he can't continue to pretend to be upholding the highest standards of journalism, AND claim that he's (that his 'news' organization's) never held back anything they've verified as true from publishing, AND threaten to release something he has, that has been vetted as true, which he could ONLY have in his possession if he HAD held something back, all at the same time, without at least ONE of those things being false.

Anyway, yeah, I consider all the people who have leaked evidence of governmental wrongdoing and lawbreaking as heroic. The way people like Manning and Snowden have been treated is downright criminal. I admire Edward Snowden and consider him a hero. But Assange is not Snowden, not even close, and just because I'm not fawning in admiration of Assange doesn't make me a toady or whatever nonsense you claimed. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Nice ad-hominem abusive attack though. Shame it wasn't any species of valid counterargument to a single thing I said.

Re:No, you didn't.

[Uberbah]

Did I say a single fucking word defending the NSA, the CIA, or any other of the alphabet of agencies and their tactics?

Of course not, that would wreck the concern trolling. You know, where you claim to support someone or something but have all these Concerns about how they are doing it.

but he can't continue to pretend to be upholding the highest standards of journalism

Still fucking that chicken? When did Assange claim to be the ultimate journalist, carved in marble by the gods themselves on Mt Olympus? What is this talking point supposed to accomplish, what does it change? Not the fact that Assange is better than any hundred journalists you could name from rags like NPR/BBC/FOX/MSDNC/CNN/WaPo/NYTimes.

But Assange is not Snowden, not even close

Because he's released far more secrets than Snowden ever did.

Dipshit talking points

[Uberbah]

Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker. In retrospect there's no higher morality to it's actions or the "materials" released.

You do realize "equal opportunity leaker" is a contradiction in terms, yes? Wikileaks is dependent on the information that is leaked to them. If you want them to publish something, stop chugging hatorade supplied by the deep state long enough to leak something to them, or hack somebody so you have said something.

In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

Which they were, indisputably. If Hillary Clinton were anyone else - say Kristian Saucier - she'd be serving a decade for obstruction of justice (destroying evidence while under subpoena) on top of decades in prison for mishandling classified information.

It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers. Those were acts of conscience which led to at least some change.

Not only did Hillary collude to win her own primary, she was outright running the DNC after she bought them out. That's just as factual as the Snowden leaks or the Pentagon Papers - bootlicker.

Re: US should nominate him for SCOTUS

[chaboud]

Sleeping? Protected or not, that's just plain rape.