No, it means we all need to give a damn and take action on a personal level
Sounds like campaigns to save water in California focusing on personal use....except the people of the state use less than 15% of the state's water, the rest is industry. Meaning half the population could move out tomorrow, and the other half could stop bathing entirely, and you'd barely notice the difference.
vote Democratic, and the people in office will work to improve things
What, like Ken Salazar (as eager to rape the land as James Watt did under Reagan), Hillary Clinton (exported fracking to the world) or Barack Obama (opened up seaboards to drilling, bragged about the US producing oil faster than it could be processed)?
The entire agricultural output of California is only 2% of the state's GDP. Meaning that entire sector could disappear and the state wouldn't even notice, economically speaking. But I'm not speaking of banning agriculture, only the most wasteful aspects of it.
And you noted the part that residential water use is less than 15% of the state's water supply, yes? That means these gluttons of industry are first and foremost hurting other industry. A greedy rancher or almond farmer means there's less water for crops that you have a hard time growing outside of California, especially during certain times of the year. You can grow tomatoes just fine in Wisconsin, but not in January.
Build some water reservoirs, desalination plants
You mean spend fantastic sums of money just so said cattle ranchers and almond farmers can go on living beyond the water supply's means. How about....no.
Residential water use is under 15% of California's water supply - the rest is industry. If you want to do something about limited water, ban fracking, cattle ranching, almond & rice farming.
The alleged hacking of the DNC servers is the entire foundation of Russiagate, but Mueller has never bothered to have the FBI examine them. Instead he's spent all his time farting around with people and events with no connection to Trump, Russia or the 2016 election.
Which either means his investigation was always a farce, or he's too incompetent to run the office Keurig machine by himself.
Despite what the talking heads on TV keep saying Trump is actually doing a good job as president.
Thanks for the the laugh. That said, Trump is going to be tough to beat in 2020, but not because of the job he's doing - but because Mueller will still have jack and shit on his probe. Allowing Trump to run against hacks in the media and hacks in the Democratic party - and he'll be right.
They could start by distancing themselves from the more radical congressional members and those running like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
If a policy is supported by a supermajority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans - then by definition it's not radical.
Mueller hasn't found anything so much as probable suspicion that a crime was committed
People keep saying that like they know exactly what he has.
Again, we do know exactly what he has: nothing. Otherwise he wouldn't have to keep propping up his "investigation" with manufactured perjury charges, indictments that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia, or indictments of people who will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because if he had something, it would have been presented by now to show cause. The only other possibly is actually worse for Russiagaters: Mueller actually has real evidence that Russia engaged in hacking and colluded with Trump to steal the election, evidence that Mueller is sitting on, which means he's protecting a traitor in the Oval Office.
Heads Russiagaters lose, tails Russiagaters lose.
You can pretend whatever you'd like, but it's simply a fact that one or more of his indictments are in fact relating to Russian interference and communication by Russian government officials and/or agents with the Trump campaign. That's just a simple fact.
It's a fact that treating a federal indictment as proof of anything is a joke, as federal grand juries are under the complete control and direction of federal prosecutors. Mueller could get a grand jury to indict Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or Jimmy Hoffa Sr. Notice how Mueller was caught completely by surprise, and completely unprepared for the lawyers that showed up to defend the Twitter troll company in court. Putin also called the FBI's bluff by offering to allow agents to question the named Russian officials in Russia if the FBI would show its evidence.
If you want to act like it's perfectly fine that Trump is there to support Russia and Putin against the interests of the US, great.
Trump has been vastly more confrontation with Russia than Obama ever was - and Obama had the highest number of troops sent to Eastern Europe since WWII and overthrew a country on Russia's doorstep. Trump has signed onto new sanctions, expelled a record number of Russian diplomats, is arming literal neo-Nazis in Ukraine, has artillery in range of St. Petersburg, and a Navy fleet deployed to the Black Sea. I swear you guys would still be calling Trump a "Putin puppet" if Trump had ICBM's in the air on their way to Moscow.
Not when the probe has no justification for being, and is a grotesque perversion of our entire justice system.
That's an interesting justification, I don't hear that from the party apparatus much.
Probable suspicion > probable cause > investigation > warrants > court hearings. That's how this shit is supposed to work. Not take the hairbrained theory from some butthurt Hillbots looking to swiftboat Hillary's Russia problems (Uranium One, Steele Dossier) onto her opponent and pretend that is probable cause that a crime occurred with Trump and Russia.
It sounds like they're trying to discredit the investigation completely on purely partisan grounds
It's all partisan. But Republicans have perfectly good points to make: if collusion with Russia is bad, why isn't Hillary under indictment for collusion with foreign intelligence agents to swing a general election (paying for Steele Dossier). Why is the FBI refusing to cooperate with congressional oversight. Why was Trump being spied on before the government's stated reasons for doing so.
as if the United States has not and is not currently being attacked by Russia, which it is.
But it's not. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the same Democrats and media endlessly braying today about Trump and Russia endlessly mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was a threat. 2012, w
You're right. I declined to participate in your wild goose chase.
You mean you're going to play the stubborn jackass card when confronted with the massive plot holes in your storyline. As the AC said, you. simply. can. not. at the same time say that the Russian's waged a potent cyberattack on an election yet at the same time say having the FBI examine the target of said cyberattack is of no importance. It simply can't be done.
Not only does this stand out for people who have remedial bullshit detectors after Iraq, it should upset partisan who are true believers in Russiagate. Why, there could have been the old KGB telnet handle from Pootie Poot himself buried in some encrypted memory, if only the FBI had access to the hardware to analyze it....
Also Mueller has no connection to the DNC server -- dude left the FBI 3 years before that. Try to keep up.
And now you're just babbling incoherently. That Comey should have immediately subpoenaed the servers as soon as the DNC made the allegation does not change the fact that Mueller should have immediately subpoenaed them as soon as he was appointed.
It met the measure of your attacks against the indictment.
Continued delusions are noted.
Shouldn't Trump be calling Mueller's bluff? Oh wait, he can't -- Michael McFaul had diplomatic immunity and is no longer a government employee so Trump can't do jack to accept the deal (nevermind his own party crucifying him for even considering it).
McFaul is a non sequitur. As for calling Mueller's bluff, Trump could have told him to put up or STFU with evidence of collusion or be fired. But given how the media and Democrats started throwing around not just obstruction of justice charges but the "I" word for just discussing Mueller's termination, that would just be playing into their hands.
Viewed your link, didn't see any evidence that Mueller lied me into the Iraq war.
Is your partisan blindness fusion powered? Mueller is right there, on video, lying about WMD's. Doesn't get clearer than that.
1) If Sweden has a Deep State or oligarchs like the US does, parties don't really care who trades positions of power in public as long as hegemony is maintained.
2) Not backwards...soon as Svartholm was in Sweden, he was interrogated for the alleged crimes in Denmark, which means it was their plan to do so all along. Just swapping Svartholm for Assange and the Americans for the Danes, as soon as Assange lands in Swedish custody, the only people he'll see for weeks are his interrogators. Interrogators who will probably consist of a Swedish official for proprieties sake, and some agents from the CIA and/or the FBI. Only after that will Sweden step back in for what he was arrested for, the alleged sexual assaults. After Assange is cleared of charges or serves a prison sentence, he'll be deported again and end up in US custody. Either because Sweden hands him directly over to the US, or goes through the motions of deporting him to his native Australia, who then hands him over to the United States.
3) Didn't you say that officials in Sweden don't have to worry about criminal consequences for their actions? They haven't cared much for domestic or international law in the past, nor have the other two countries involved. Besides, as it's been the UK that has been pressuring Sweden to keep this farce going, they're not likely to protest too much if some rules get broken. If Sweden really wants to make a show of it, they can skirt this issue by the aforementioned deportation to Australia. Then Australia arrests and deports him at the request of the United States.
4) Because the US has done many heinous things, from torture to deliberately bombing MSF hospitals, openly kidnapping a journalist from a first world country is still a bit far. Thus the psyop of the assault allegations and INTERPOL arrest warrant. If Assange had instead been taking refuge in, say Lebanon, they probably would have bagged him and blamed it on Hezbollah, or something. Little harder to do that in London or Stockholm.
In any case, if these reports are to believed, this stage of Assange's life is about to come to a close, and we'll see what the three countries do.
And that practice will be something for the ACLU to combat. But always assuming the worst possible use of new techniques and technologies is not helpful.
No assumptions necessary - any facial recognition is going to produce false positives, which will land innocent people in jail and some in prison. Then there's the Orwellian nature of using this technology to track everyone, everywhere.
So what would be helpful, is to burn this to the proverbial ground before it takes off, before Brandon Mayfield's become commonplace, but via facial recognition.
Muslim-convert Brandon Mayfield spent 17 days in detention after an FBI Lab wrongly linked him to prints recovered by Spanish police investigating the 11 March terrorist outrage. US authorities matched digital images of partial latent fingerprints obtained from plastic bags that contained detonator caps to Mayfield, leading to his arrest.
Your fifth sentence contradicts the first two. As does Apple's adoption of or compatibility with Intel/PCI/SATA/SDRAM/USB/Samba/FAT/NTFS(ro)/OpenGL....you know, most of the things.
You're operating on anecdotes and confirmation bias, which together can be used to prove just about anything. But Apple has been at or near the top of hardware reliability survey's since the Precambrian age of computing.
"Wages have not risen as much as expected" is not at all the same as "the standard of living has not risen".
It is when wages have completely stagnated (at the same time productivity has soared) at the same time housing, medical and education costs have exploded. So the standard of living has actually dropped. It's not like more money isn't being made - it's just not going to workers that do the work of producing goods and services.
1) Any one go to jail for it? And stay there for a while? If not, the "inferno" was more of a tempest in a teapot. Same as when the torture story broke here in the United States, and rather than the torturers going to jail, they got get-out-of-jail-free cards instead. And now we have a torturer at the head of the CIA - thanks Obama!
2) WYP? Svartholm was wanted in Denmark, Assange is wanted in the United States. Sweden pursed Svartholm and as soon as they had him they interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for the alleged crimes in Denmark, which means it was their plan to do so all along, and then deported him to Denmark. Now, just repeat all that, only substituting the two men and "Denmark" for "the United States".
3) See #2. Also Sweden doesn't have to hand Assange over to the US directly - they could deport him to his native Australia or to Ecuador, where he was granted citizenship but is now government by a right wing toady of the United States. Allowing Sweden to play the "who, me???" card a second time if Assange ends up in US custody from either of those two countries. What's further problematic is that while Sweden is known for hippie health care and free education, you are outright medieval in how police are allowed to treat suspects. Specifically, that you can hold them for long periods of time for interrogation without outside contact of any kind, even a lawyer. See again #2 where this was done to Svartholm. Suspects have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time than Svartholm was held incognito, so I would be surprised if Assange doesn't confess that Russia hacked the DNC, Podesta and that he colluded with Russia to spoil the election for Hillary.
4) They wouldn't sweep Assange into the back of a van as he was a well known public figure by this point, as opposed to those poor bastards seeking asylum in Sweden, the threat of the dead man's package being released if something happened to him (before they knew what it was) and because Assange can claim protections as a journalist. As far as being too outlandish, we could have said the same thing about a head of state having his plane forced down because Edward Snowden might have been onboard, but of course that actually happened.
Former head of the FBI for 12 years, appointed by the Trump DOJ, endorsed by Republicans [usatoday.com] back when this whole process started.
You say that like its supposed to mean something. It means nothing when the FBI has been a ratfucking outfit since its inception, and establishment Republicans (who tended to endorse Hillary if they weren't running themselves) hate Trump. And just as Flint still doesn't have clean water, Mueller still hasn't bothered to examine the DNC server, the alleged hacking of which he's now issuing indictments for. You simply cannot fit that square peg in a round hole.
Preach brother! You've disproven the indictment by timing and irrelevant hyperbole alone! All who disagree with you have less than a couple of functioning neurons!
Your attempt to substitute lazy hand waving and sarcasm for an actual response is noted.
Because the tale is that Putin offered to allow Mueller to observe interviews conducted by Russian officials in Russia
If the Special Counsel really wants to get to the bottom of this, Putin went on, he should team up with Russian law enforcement to catch these hypothetical meddlers.
Roh roh.
if the Russians could question "U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and 10 other 'U.S. officials and intelligence agents
That's how quid pro quos work - all the while calling out Mueller's bluff and pointing out how hypocritical the US is in "meddling" with other countries. Now, if you want to go on kicking the football for the same people that lied you into the Iraq war, now with even less evidence (and by less I mean zero), go ahead - but try not to drag the rest of the world into nuclear war while you're at it, mmmkay?
Pleas, not convictions. Pleas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Russian hacking or collusion with Trump. This has been pointed out to you before, so by continuing to use this talking point you're like a 90's dittohead who just. can't. stop. blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge, right after it's been pointed out to him that happened before the '92 election, when Bush was still president and Clinton was still governor of Arkansas - far away from Idaho.
A guilty plea is the same as a conviction.
Laughable. Before a conviction, defense attorney's can challenge jury selection, call their own witnesses, present their own evidence or challenge the prosectuion's, before making their case to a jury - none of which applies to a plea deal. Which the government obtains in most federal cases because if you don't take the plea deal, you are threatened with a draconian sentence. Which is why people who are later found to be completely innocent plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
The Mueller investigation started in the last week of May, 2017. Are you rounding 14 months up to "2 years"?
FBI witch hunt/psyop didn't start with Mueller.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be granted to you.
Only after you've gone into bankruptcy, as you could have "afforded" one beforehand. Unless the government seizes your assets under the claim that they were gained as the result of crime - they've done that before, too. And no public defender is going to have the same resources as the DOJ.
Even if you're a treasonous piece of shit.
Common man, you can stop hating on Hillary, she lost the election almost two years ago, move on. Because that's what this is - a gigantic case of Swiftboating, to project Hillary's Russia problems onto her campaign opponent, on an infinity greater scale than the original Swiftboaters who projected Bush's cowardice onto John Kerry.
Critical thinking problems? Mueller is a professional liar and propagandist. And as a federal prosecutor, could obtain indictments against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, as federal grand juries are selected by and under the complete control of said prosecutor.
The fact that the came out with the latest faux indictments immediately before the summit tells anyone with a couple of functioning neurons that this was done to maintain the Russiagate narrative. Nothing more, nothing less. And note that Putin immediately called Mueller's bluff by offering to hand over the indicted Russian officials if the FBI provides evidence to back up their claims, which everyone knows Mueller isn't going to do.
What do you mean, what do I mean. The UK just blocked extradition of a suspect based on how the US treats suspects and prisoners - whereas Sweden directly handed asylum seekers over to the CIA to be tortured in 2001. In 2013 Sweden went to great lengths to arrest a founder of the Pirate Bay in a non extradition country, and upon his arrival in Sweden, immediately interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for an unrelated crime in an unrelated country - and then later deported him to said country.
If you're really hung up on citizenship, just refer to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which forbids transporting prisoners to where they may be tortured. Sweden and the UK are both signatories, as is the United States to this treaty - one it has been in flagrant violation of ever since Bush's first year in office. Bush of course had a worldwide kidnapping and torture program. Obama also violated the treaty when he refused to prosecute those who committed torture, and tortured Chelsea Manning with eighteen months of solitary confinement and then pronounced guilty in a textbook case of unlawful command influence. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the head of the CIA is a torturer.
So both the immediate parties involved would have to break a law they agreed to if Assange ends up in US custody. But it wouldn't be the first time they have done so - Sweden had been a signatory to the convention for over 15 years when it handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza to the CIA at an airport. Also note that the CYA move Sweden tried by getting "assurances" from Egypt that they wouldn't torture the men, but that was found insufficient by the UN Human Rights Committee.
For a plethora of reasons that you apparently don't understand a digital snapshot is *way better than working on the machine.
There's a plethora of reasons why you shouldn't lecture people about not understanding something when you don't bother to read, as the false dichotomy of "use CrowdStrike image" or "FBI moves servers to their office" was addressed the first time. Of course the FBI would use images of the server for analysis - but images they they created, by using agents with functioning legs to go to the server while it's powered on.
The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
The FBI has never examined the DNC's computer servers - an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC's employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.
So you're relying on a hack firm that is massively biased, both for being rabidly anti-Russian and for being hired by the DNC, which at the same time was one and the same Hillary's campaign. A campaign that knew the Uranium One deal was a liability for her, one that also ensnared John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager. So it was time for some good old fashioned Swiftboating, and to project Hillary's Russian problems onto her opponent. As further proven by the Hillary campaign paying for the Steele Dossier - colluding with foreign intelligence agents. Something Mueller is equally uninterested in looking at as he is in analyzing the DNC servers.
See the part on sophisticated malware and high level foreign intelligence operatives you passed by. And not when CrowdStrike has a record of half-assing their reports. Apologists keep going on and on about memory dumps when an exploit could live in another location than system memory, like encrypted swap space, firmware, backup server, firewall....
The FBI uses contractors all the time.
Not for something this important, they don't. This would be like ISIS kidnapping Malia Obama in the Mall of America and the FBI just "deciding" to leave the search and rescue operation to Paul Blart. It just wouldn't happen in a serious investigation.
But Mueller's probe was never about being a serious investigation. It's a psyop, just like the one he helped run against Iraq fifteen years ago - but this time without any evidence.
So far the more diverse Star Wars have done well at the box office, it's the one where they took a character that's been around for almost four decades and made him pansexual because reasons
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like campaigns to save water in California focusing on personal use....except the people of the state use less than 15% of the state's water, the rest is industry. Meaning half the population could move out tomorrow, and the other half could stop bathing entirely, and you'd barely notice the difference.
What, like Ken Salazar (as eager to rape the land as James Watt did under Reagan), Hillary Clinton (exported fracking to the world) or Barack Obama (opened up seaboards to drilling, bragged about the US producing oil faster than it could be processed)?
Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
The entire agricultural output of California is only 2% of the state's GDP. Meaning that entire sector could disappear and the state wouldn't even notice, economically speaking. But I'm not speaking of banning agriculture, only the most wasteful aspects of it.
And you noted the part that residential water use is less than 15% of the state's water supply, yes? That means these gluttons of industry are first and foremost hurting other industry. A greedy rancher or almond farmer means there's less water for crops that you have a hard time growing outside of California, especially during certain times of the year. You can grow tomatoes just fine in Wisconsin, but not in January.
You mean spend fantastic sums of money just so said cattle ranchers and almond farmers can go on living beyond the water supply's means. How about....no.
Residential water use is under 15% of California's water supply - the rest is industry. If you want to do something about limited water, ban fracking, cattle ranching, almond & rice farming.
Neither is opposing government regulation simply because it is regulation.
The alleged hacking of the DNC servers is the entire foundation of Russiagate, but Mueller has never bothered to have the FBI examine them. Instead he's spent all his time farting around with people and events with no connection to Trump, Russia or the 2016 election.
Which either means his investigation was always a farce, or he's too incompetent to run the office Keurig machine by himself.
Pick one.
Thanks for the the laugh. That said, Trump is going to be tough to beat in 2020, but not because of the job he's doing - but because Mueller will still have jack and shit on his probe. Allowing Trump to run against hacks in the media and hacks in the Democratic party - and he'll be right.
If a policy is supported by a supermajority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans - then by definition it's not radical.
Again, we do know exactly what he has: nothing. Otherwise he wouldn't have to keep propping up his "investigation" with manufactured perjury charges, indictments that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia, or indictments of people who will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because if he had something, it would have been presented by now to show cause. The only other possibly is actually worse for Russiagaters: Mueller actually has real evidence that Russia engaged in hacking and colluded with Trump to steal the election, evidence that Mueller is sitting on, which means he's protecting a traitor in the Oval Office.
Heads Russiagaters lose, tails Russiagaters lose.
It's a fact that treating a federal indictment as proof of anything is a joke, as federal grand juries are under the complete control and direction of federal prosecutors. Mueller could get a grand jury to indict Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or Jimmy Hoffa Sr. Notice how Mueller was caught completely by surprise, and completely unprepared for the lawyers that showed up to defend the Twitter troll company in court. Putin also called the FBI's bluff by offering to allow agents to question the named Russian officials in Russia if the FBI would show its evidence.
Trump has been vastly more confrontation with Russia than Obama ever was - and Obama had the highest number of troops sent to Eastern Europe since WWII and overthrew a country on Russia's doorstep. Trump has signed onto new sanctions, expelled a record number of Russian diplomats, is arming literal neo-Nazis in Ukraine, has artillery in range of St. Petersburg, and a Navy fleet deployed to the Black Sea. I swear you guys would still be calling Trump a "Putin puppet" if Trump had ICBM's in the air on their way to Moscow.
Probable suspicion > probable cause > investigation > warrants > court hearings. That's how this shit is supposed to work. Not take the hairbrained theory from some butthurt Hillbots looking to swiftboat Hillary's Russia problems (Uranium One, Steele Dossier) onto her opponent and pretend that is probable cause that a crime occurred with Trump and Russia.
It's all partisan. But Republicans have perfectly good points to make: if collusion with Russia is bad, why isn't Hillary under indictment for collusion with foreign intelligence agents to swing a general election (paying for Steele Dossier). Why is the FBI refusing to cooperate with congressional oversight. Why was Trump being spied on before the government's stated reasons for doing so.
But it's not. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the same Democrats and media endlessly braying today about Trump and Russia endlessly mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was a threat. 2012, w
You mean you're going to play the stubborn jackass card when confronted with the massive plot holes in your storyline. As the AC said, you. simply. can. not. at the same time say that the Russian's waged a potent cyberattack on an election yet at the same time say having the FBI examine the target of said cyberattack is of no importance. It simply can't be done.
Not only does this stand out for people who have remedial bullshit detectors after Iraq, it should upset partisan who are true believers in Russiagate. Why, there could have been the old KGB telnet handle from Pootie Poot himself buried in some encrypted memory, if only the FBI had access to the hardware to analyze it....
And now you're just babbling incoherently. That Comey should have immediately subpoenaed the servers as soon as the DNC made the allegation does not change the fact that Mueller should have immediately subpoenaed them as soon as he was appointed.
Continued delusions are noted.
McFaul is a non sequitur. As for calling Mueller's bluff, Trump could have told him to put up or STFU with evidence of collusion or be fired. But given how the media and Democrats started throwing around not just obstruction of justice charges but the "I" word for just discussing Mueller's termination, that would just be playing into their hands.
Is your partisan blindness fusion powered? Mueller is right there, on video, lying about WMD's. Doesn't get clearer than that.
1) If Sweden has a Deep State or oligarchs like the US does, parties don't really care who trades positions of power in public as long as hegemony is maintained.
2) Not backwards...soon as Svartholm was in Sweden, he was interrogated for the alleged crimes in Denmark, which means it was their plan to do so all along. Just swapping Svartholm for Assange and the Americans for the Danes, as soon as Assange lands in Swedish custody, the only people he'll see for weeks are his interrogators. Interrogators who will probably consist of a Swedish official for proprieties sake, and some agents from the CIA and/or the FBI. Only after that will Sweden step back in for what he was arrested for, the alleged sexual assaults. After Assange is cleared of charges or serves a prison sentence, he'll be deported again and end up in US custody. Either because Sweden hands him directly over to the US, or goes through the motions of deporting him to his native Australia, who then hands him over to the United States.
3) Didn't you say that officials in Sweden don't have to worry about criminal consequences for their actions? They haven't cared much for domestic or international law in the past, nor have the other two countries involved. Besides, as it's been the UK that has been pressuring Sweden to keep this farce going, they're not likely to protest too much if some rules get broken. If Sweden really wants to make a show of it, they can skirt this issue by the aforementioned deportation to Australia. Then Australia arrests and deports him at the request of the United States.
4) Because the US has done many heinous things, from torture to deliberately bombing MSF hospitals, openly kidnapping a journalist from a first world country is still a bit far. Thus the psyop of the assault allegations and INTERPOL arrest warrant. If Assange had instead been taking refuge in, say Lebanon, they probably would have bagged him and blamed it on Hezbollah, or something. Little harder to do that in London or Stockholm.
In any case, if these reports are to believed, this stage of Assange's life is about to come to a close, and we'll see what the three countries do.
No assumptions necessary - any facial recognition is going to produce false positives, which will land innocent people in jail and some in prison. Then there's the Orwellian nature of using this technology to track everyone, everywhere.
So what would be helpful, is to burn this to the proverbial ground before it takes off, before Brandon Mayfield's become commonplace, but via facial recognition.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Both. But thank's for helping prove my point on confirmation bias and anecdotes. ;)
Your fifth sentence contradicts the first two. As does Apple's adoption of or compatibility with Intel/PCI/SATA/SDRAM/USB/Samba/FAT/NTFS(ro)/OpenGL....you know, most of the things.
You're operating on anecdotes and confirmation bias, which together can be used to prove just about anything. But Apple has been at or near the top of hardware reliability survey's since the Precambrian age of computing.
Then don't whine when the workers put the management in gulags and the executives to the guillotine.
It is when wages have completely stagnated (at the same time productivity has soared) at the same time housing, medical and education costs have exploded. So the standard of living has actually dropped. It's not like more money isn't being made - it's just not going to workers that do the work of producing goods and services.
1) Any one go to jail for it? And stay there for a while? If not, the "inferno" was more of a tempest in a teapot. Same as when the torture story broke here in the United States, and rather than the torturers going to jail, they got get-out-of-jail-free cards instead. And now we have a torturer at the head of the CIA - thanks Obama!
2) WYP? Svartholm was wanted in Denmark, Assange is wanted in the United States. Sweden pursed Svartholm and as soon as they had him they interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for the alleged crimes in Denmark, which means it was their plan to do so all along, and then deported him to Denmark. Now, just repeat all that, only substituting the two men and "Denmark" for "the United States".
3) See #2. Also Sweden doesn't have to hand Assange over to the US directly - they could deport him to his native Australia or to Ecuador, where he was granted citizenship but is now government by a right wing toady of the United States. Allowing Sweden to play the "who, me???" card a second time if Assange ends up in US custody from either of those two countries. What's further problematic is that while Sweden is known for hippie health care and free education, you are outright medieval in how police are allowed to treat suspects. Specifically, that you can hold them for long periods of time for interrogation without outside contact of any kind, even a lawyer. See again #2 where this was done to Svartholm. Suspects have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time than Svartholm was held incognito, so I would be surprised if Assange doesn't confess that Russia hacked the DNC, Podesta and that he colluded with Russia to spoil the election for Hillary.
4) They wouldn't sweep Assange into the back of a van as he was a well known public figure by this point, as opposed to those poor bastards seeking asylum in Sweden, the threat of the dead man's package being released if something happened to him (before they knew what it was) and because Assange can claim protections as a journalist. As far as being too outlandish, we could have said the same thing about a head of state having his plane forced down because Edward Snowden might have been onboard, but of course that actually happened.
You say that like its supposed to mean something. It means nothing when the FBI has been a ratfucking outfit since its inception, and establishment Republicans (who tended to endorse Hillary if they weren't running themselves) hate Trump. And just as Flint still doesn't have clean water, Mueller still hasn't bothered to examine the DNC server, the alleged hacking of which he's now issuing indictments for. You simply cannot fit that square peg in a round hole.
Your attempt to substitute lazy hand waving and sarcasm for an actual response is noted.
Yes, interrogate the accused Russians with other Russians present.
Roh roh.
That's how quid pro quos work - all the while calling out Mueller's bluff and pointing out how hypocritical the US is in "meddling" with other countries. Now, if you want to go on kicking the football for the same people that lied you into the Iraq war, now with even less evidence (and by less I mean zero), go ahead - but try not to drag the rest of the world into nuclear war while you're at it, mmmkay?
Pleas, not convictions. Pleas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Russian hacking or collusion with Trump. This has been pointed out to you before, so by continuing to use this talking point you're like a 90's dittohead who just. can't. stop. blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge, right after it's been pointed out to him that happened before the '92 election, when Bush was still president and Clinton was still governor of Arkansas - far away from Idaho.
Laughable. Before a conviction, defense attorney's can challenge jury selection, call their own witnesses, present their own evidence or challenge the prosectuion's, before making their case to a jury - none of which applies to a plea deal. Which the government obtains in most federal cases because if you don't take the plea deal, you are threatened with a draconian sentence. Which is why people who are later found to be completely innocent plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
FBI witch hunt/psyop didn't start with Mueller.
Only after you've gone into bankruptcy, as you could have "afforded" one beforehand. Unless the government seizes your assets under the claim that they were gained as the result of crime - they've done that before, too. And no public defender is going to have the same resources as the DOJ.
Common man, you can stop hating on Hillary, she lost the election almost two years ago, move on. Because that's what this is - a gigantic case of Swiftboating, to project Hillary's Russia problems onto her campaign opponent, on an infinity greater scale than the original Swiftboaters who projected Bush's cowardice onto John Kerry.
Critical thinking problems? Mueller is a professional liar and propagandist. And as a federal prosecutor, could obtain indictments against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, as federal grand juries are selected by and under the complete control of said prosecutor.
The fact that the came out with the latest faux indictments immediately before the summit tells anyone with a couple of functioning neurons that this was done to maintain the Russiagate narrative. Nothing more, nothing less. And note that Putin immediately called Mueller's bluff by offering to hand over the indicted Russian officials if the FBI provides evidence to back up their claims, which everyone knows Mueller isn't going to do.
What do you mean, what do I mean. The UK just blocked extradition of a suspect based on how the US treats suspects and prisoners - whereas Sweden directly handed asylum seekers over to the CIA to be tortured in 2001. In 2013 Sweden went to great lengths to arrest a founder of the Pirate Bay in a non extradition country, and upon his arrival in Sweden, immediately interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for an unrelated crime in an unrelated country - and then later deported him to said country.
If you're really hung up on citizenship, just refer to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which forbids transporting prisoners to where they may be tortured. Sweden and the UK are both signatories, as is the United States to this treaty - one it has been in flagrant violation of ever since Bush's first year in office. Bush of course had a worldwide kidnapping and torture program. Obama also violated the treaty when he refused to prosecute those who committed torture, and tortured Chelsea Manning with eighteen months of solitary confinement and then pronounced guilty in a textbook case of unlawful command influence. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the head of the CIA is a torturer.
So both the immediate parties involved would have to break a law they agreed to if Assange ends up in US custody. But it wouldn't be the first time they have done so - Sweden had been a signatory to the convention for over 15 years when it handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza to the CIA at an airport. Also note that the CYA move Sweden tried by getting "assurances" from Egypt that they wouldn't torture the men, but that was found insufficient by the UN Human Rights Committee.
See also, politicians who are virulent homophobes in public but are themselves gay in private.
There's a plethora of reasons why you shouldn't lecture people about not understanding something when you don't bother to read, as the false dichotomy of "use CrowdStrike image" or "FBI moves servers to their office" was addressed the first time. Of course the FBI would use images of the server for analysis - but images they they created, by using agents with functioning legs to go to the server while it's powered on.
Yeah.
They are.
So you're relying on a hack firm that is massively biased, both for being rabidly anti-Russian and for being hired by the DNC, which at the same time was one and the same Hillary's campaign. A campaign that knew the Uranium One deal was a liability for her, one that also ensnared John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager. So it was time for some good old fashioned Swiftboating, and to project Hillary's Russian problems onto her opponent. As further proven by the Hillary campaign paying for the Steele Dossier - colluding with foreign intelligence agents. Something Mueller is equally uninterested in looking at as he is in analyzing the DNC servers.
See the part on sophisticated malware and high level foreign intelligence operatives you passed by. And not when CrowdStrike has a record of half-assing their reports. Apologists keep going on and on about memory dumps when an exploit could live in another location than system memory, like encrypted swap space, firmware, backup server, firewall....
Not for something this important, they don't. This would be like ISIS kidnapping Malia Obama in the Mall of America and the FBI just "deciding" to leave the search and rescue operation to Paul Blart. It just wouldn't happen in a serious investigation.
But Mueller's probe was never about being a serious investigation. It's a psyop, just like the one he helped run against Iraq fifteen years ago - but this time without any evidence.
Or that.