back to article Ecuador admits it cut Assange's internet to stop WikiLeaks' US election 'interference'

Ecuador's Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Movilidad Humana – its foreign ministry – has admitted the nation cut off Julian Assange's internet access. The WikiLeaks boss has been holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London for the past four years to avoid being questioned in Sweden with potential extradition to America. On …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't have Assange for a sleep-over

    Yet again it starts out all roses, then host wakes up to find they're getting fucked

    1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Don't have Assange for a sleep-over

      The US press is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry put pressure on Ecuador to pull Assange's plug.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

    But one pissed-off call from an embarrassed Goldman Sachs, and it was time for action!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC Re: The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

      Goldman? No, they are capitalist pigs.

      Try the Clinton Campaign, picking up the phone to George Soros. He's got a guy... now Assange gets shut down.

      Funny how the US couldn't do it, but the Clinton Mafia could.

      Think about it...

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: @AC The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

        "Funny how the US couldn't do it, but the Clinton Mafia could."

        The Clinton dynasty a thing worth reading about. I was disgusted to read that she knew a rapist she defended was guilty and that it 'put her off the polygraph' (not that any honest lawyer or forensic psychologist should entertain anything but a sceptical opinion), and there is for me some sort of an irony in the current situation.

        1. M.Zaccone

          Re: @AC The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

          " I was disgusted to read that she knew a rapist she defended was guilty and that it 'put her off the polygraph' (not that any honest lawyer or forensic psychologist should entertain anything but a sceptical opinion), and there is for me some sort of an irony in the current situation."

          Isn't that what defence lawyers are supposed to do - to defend their client regardless of what their own opinion is of them? On that basis that rules out anyone who has been a defence lawyer standing for public office, because I guess most will have got scumbags acquitted.

        2. rh587 Silver badge

          Re: @AC The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

          I was disgusted to read that she knew a rapist she defended was guilty

          You're obviously not aware of what the job of a defence counsel is.

          Their job is to nit pick over every bit of the prosecution case and ensure the client gets a fair trial. They ensure that there is no way a guilty person can get the conviction overturned or deemed unsafe because the prosecution was allowed to half-arse it first time around.

          Their job is not to "get people off", but to ensure any conviction is sound and prevent miscarriages of justice where the Police have got the wrong person.

          Snopes has an analysis of the case.

        3. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Scorchio Re: @AC The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

          That's actually a bad example...

          Clinton was assigned the case pro bono meaning she didn't have a choice but to defend the rapist to the best of her abilities.

          Had she done anything illegal, things would have been different.

          Don't get me wrong... she's a complete slime ball with no moral compass.

          But there isn't any evidence she did anything wrong.

          However... lets look at her intimidation of Broderick whom her hubby raped and all of the other women who she harassed to protect her hubby and her political future.

          In her recent scandals... she has yet to tell the truth. Seriously. Every statement she has made in public has been proven to be false. She even lied to Congress when she could remember the facts...

          1. Brangdon

            Re: her intimidation of Broderick

            She thanked Broaddrick for her help as volunteer. Specifically, she said, ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’ That's all. Broaddrick felt intimidated because she was (understandably) a bit paranoid, but there's no evidence Hillary knew what her husband had done.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

      Both the US and Soros have large checkbooks. Either one could have gotten Ecuador to do this. The only thing that is certain is that money changed hands.

      Claiming Wikileaks is interfering in the US election by exposing all this corruption in the DNC & Clintin campaigns is such a perfect example of double speak, I want to thank Ecuador for writing my class lesson plan for me.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

        But Ecuador doesn't like the US and took Assange in to allegedly tweak Obama's nose.

        They wouldn't stop just because the US wanted them to stop...

        No, what we're watching is the power of the Clinton Mafia at work.

        If Obama or the WH could have done this... then we would have seen a different foreign policy from Obama.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The United States doesn't have enough power to influence Ecuador...

        Simon, in your article you forgot to mention that, as reported by the Associated Press, the Obama administration, through Secretary of State John Kerry, pressured Ecuador to cut off AssangeTM internet access.

        Kerry pressured Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa (who openly supports Clinton) to cut off Assange's internet access, or else Kerry implied that Obama would not support Ecuador 's fight against the National Liberation Army rebels.

        It's blatant omissions like that that tarnishes El Reg's reputation for open and accurate reporting.

  3. Florida1920

    Why does President Correa support Clinton?

    President Rafael Correa has undercut freedom of the press in Ecuador by subjecting journalists and media figures to public denunciation and retaliatory litigation. Judicial independence continued to suffer in 2012 due to transitional mechanisms for judicial reform that have given the government and its supporters in Congress a powerful say in appointing and dismissing judges.

    Freedom of Expression

    In February 2012, President Correa won a US$2 million judgment against the co-authors of a book, The Big Brother, which dealt with questionable contracts between the president’s brother and state institutions. Correa subsequently desisted from the demand, and also pardoned Emilio Palacio, former head of the opinion section of the newspaper El Universo and three of its directors, who had been sentenced to three years each in prison in 2011 and ordered, together with the newspaper, to pay him damages totaling $40 million. In August, Palacio was granted asylum in the United States.

    https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/ecuador

    He sounds more like Trump.

    Trump Says Freedom of the Press Must Go Because He’s ‘Not Like Other People’

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Florida Re: Why does President Correa support Clinton?

      Trump is a blow hard who's strength is in negotiating a deal.

      Clinton is sucking up to the left wing Soros crowd. Thats the tie in....

      Note that if Clintons didn't own the Press, they would be shutting them down.

      Clinton has more in common w Correa than Trump.

      You can bet Bill and Hillary run in the same circle as Correa while they took money from questionable resources in to their Foundation...

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: AC Re: @Florida Why does President Correa support Clinton?

        "Trump is a blow hard......" As an amused observer (not a US citizen so can't vote either way), I consider Trumpet a terrible candidate for POTUS, and it's not just me. A liberal friend of mine was moaning the other night that he had thought "Gee-Dubya" the worst POTUS ever, but he admitted he would rather go another four years with Bush than Trumpet or Shrillary! He's also grumpy because he thinks that the choice of POTUS is pretty moot when it looks like the Republicans will have control of the Senate and Congress.

        "....Clinton is sucking up to the left wing....." Shrillary is simply sucking up to everyone with a vote. She is so desperate for power, she is saying what she thinks is required to win the right wing, the left wing, and all the feathered nuts in between. But it is a measure of just how unpopular Shrillary is that she is struggling to win against such a poor candidate as Trumpet. Can you imagine Bill or Obambi being anything less than twenty points ahead in the polls against Trumpet? Shrillary is struggling to get five points clear!

        In the meantime, the Ecudoreans cutting Assange's Internet access is just too funny as all it will do is feed his paranoia and megalomania. Will Assange be stupid enough to say or release something to damage Correa? Hopefully the resulting rift will see St Jules kicked off his sofa and into custody.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: AC Re: @Florida Why does President Correa support Clinton?

        ".....Note that if Clintons didn't own the Press, they would be shutting them down....." It will be interesting to see if the Project Veritas unearths on the media's connections to the DNC, just how much the press new about the dirty tricks campaign.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why does President Correa support Clinton?

      > "He sounds more like Trump"

      Sorry, revenge is a Clinton specialty. What Trump said is he will not just lie down and let the leftist press slander him. He intends to take them to court personally, as is his right.

      Nice try tho.

      1. MrDamage Silver badge

        Re: Why does President Correa support Clinton?

        Unfortunately, what he calls "slander", has ended up being his own words quoted back to him.

        Or has been factual, evidence-based reports into the shady practices of Trump and businesses.

        I look forward to seeing Trump try his luck, only for him to see his fortune dwindle down to something tinier than his hands.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
          Coat

          Re: Why does President Correa support Clinton?

          You are clearly only an apprentice. So let me give you a hand with that.

          You're saying you want to see Trump's fortune hair today, gone tomorrow.

          And him tumbling from the toupee the rich list, to the bottom - leaving just a lingering smell and us wondering, who trumped?

  4. imanidiot Silver badge

    Neutrality and all that

    If Ecuador knowingly allows Assange to do something illegal in another country through it's internet connection from the embassy they are basically condoning his actions. Depending on what Assange does this COULD be an act of war in international law. So this could have much nastier consequences compared to just harbouring the man himself (Which internationally is within the rules of asylum/political relations). So cutting off his internet access is just prudent. I'm surprised he still had internet access to begin with.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Neutrality and all that

      Exposing Hillary for the crime queen she is has not yet been criminalized. That won't happen until she is elected. As for the source being illegal, try proving that. Anyone who managed to hack her illegal email server was doing a public service.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Neutrality and all that

        Exposing Hillary for the crime queen

        You realize you are exposing yourself as a prima face drama queen? Life is not Apprentice or some talk show.

        Hillary is a professional politician in a developed country. This is an extremely dirty job which normal humans with a moral compass cannot stomach. Principles? Truth? We heard about them. She is also not any more crooked or less crooked than let's say David Cameron or Teflon Bertie Ahern. And do not even get me started about Blair.

        Her only distinction is that due to a combination of circumstances she has been under some of the most intense spotlight a politician has been subjected to. As a result we see some seriously unsightly stuff. However, if we subject to such scrutiny someone else at her level what we will see will not be any better (if not worse). Sarkozi judicial dealings, Liam Fox buddy advisors or, god forbid, Jack Ryan sex habits - you name it. Normal people do not do politics (except during wars and revolutions after which they are terminated as no longer needed).

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Big Brother

          Re: Neutrality and all that

          So basically "political operators are not responsible for what they are doing, it's in their genes"

          > This is an extremely dirty job which normal humans with a moral compass cannot stomach.

          An extremely dirty job is sewer maintenance. Being a crooked politician taking bad decisions with lots of dead people at the arrival point is a choice.

          More about the Queen of Chaos: Hillary Clinton and Syria: Stupidity or Something Worse?

          I raise this point because we now have new evidence which confirms that, in fact, Clinton is quite knowledgeable about one of today’s most prominent foreign policy issues, Syria. The evidence comes from a transcript of Clinton’s notorious Goldman Sachs speeches, which were recently leaked by WikiLeaks This particular speech occurred in June 2013, before President Obama’s more public push for strikes directly against the Syrian government.

          ...

          As crazy as this sounds, it’s important to notice what is not going on here. At least as expressed to Goldman, Clinton’s policies do not stem from ignorance or stupidity in the normal sense. Rather, she seems to understand the risks and the reality quite well – and she has just decided on a dangerous policy anyway.

          In most instances, being knowledgeable is a virtue in a political candidate. But in the case of Clinton’s foreign policy, it is a severe demerit. If her hawkishness was motivated merely by ignorance, new facts and new failures could cause her to change course. The antidote for her clear-eyed belligerence is going to prove far more elusive.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Big John - these emails are not from Hillary's server

            They are John Podesta's emails. Try and justify it as "public good" all you want, but if someone had hacked Trump's emails and Wikileaks was releasing contents that made him look bad pretty sure you'd be singing a different tune and Trump would be claiming that Wikileaks is part of the vast rigging and conspiracy against him that these days includes pretty much everyone except Putin and the people who attend his rallies.

            1. drewsup

              Re: @Big John - these emails are not from Hillary's server

              except trump never wiped an email server during an fbi investigation

            2. Ian Michael Gumby

              Re: @Big John - these emails are not from Hillary's server

              You really need to go back and read the SCOTUS decision in the 'Ellsberg' case.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                No bombshells, just confirmation

                I haven't seen any bombshells in the Clinton leaks to date. I doubt there's anything we don't already know in our hearts. But this - cutting off Assange's internet - is all over the news. The implication that Clinton's campaign leaned on Ecuador to stop him from leaking "the big one" could hurt her more than the leak itself.

                If he actually has some damning information, he will have made sure other Wikileaks people can release it should something happen to him or his internet access. He's not dumb.

                In any case, I made up my mind I long time ago. I'd consider voting for Sanders but never Clinton. I'd rather have a narcissistic weasel president than a narcissistic weasel president with allies in Congress.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Voland Re: Neutrality and all that

          You really need to get out more and actually learn the facts of the case.

          The Clintons have a long history of pay to play and enriching themselves at the taxpayers expense.

          There's more, but I doubt you could stomach the truth, not to mention, I have a day job and don't have the time to write the books which detail their criminal activity.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Neutrality and all that

        Exposing Hillary for the crime queen she is has not yet been criminalized. That won't happen until she is elected.

        .. and when the elections are over, Assange can do what he likes. The problem is that RIGHT NOW, anything that Assange & gang are doing to throw an election (because, let's face it, they're not exactly balanced in their approach) cannot be done with Ecuadorian resources because that would be deemed interfering with an election. So they pulled the plug. No doubt they'll jack it back in once the election is over, but for the moment, the Ecuadorians cannot risk being pulled into any of the idiocy associated with Assange.

        As for the source being illegal, try proving that. Anyone who managed to hack her illegal email server was doing a public service.

        That server had passwords, and it's Hillary's data. Unless they have obtained it with her permission (which is highly unlikely), they will have obtained that through an act which is criminal in any country in the world. Maybe a handy tip for you: whistleblowing ALSO starts with an illegal act, but you can be excused for it by a court if the act was sufficiently in the public interest. This is where the debate lies: if you don't do that *very* selectively you can still be in trouble, especially when it concerns State secrets or when your disclosure has caused harm. That's why it is important to involve "official" bona fide press, they know what you can and cannot publish and have the means to protect sources.

        I know you're all shiny eyed Robin Hoods when it comes to disclosure, but the raw fact is that it does start with a crime or betrayal, and usually not inconsiderable side effects. It's never quite as black and white as hackers try to make it.

        Don't get me wrong, I happen to think that people like Snowden were right (although here too more restraint could have been employed), but I do not consider Wikileaks as benevolent. They strike me as a bunch or irresponsible anarchists who just use the pretence of "democracy" to justify breaking the law, and were in my opinion only set up to lend some legitimacy to Assange's earlier hacking activities - legitimacy he has subsequently well and truly squandered.

        Last but not least, as for Hillary vs Trump, I see that more as fact versus fiction. Hillary may not be a saint (none of them are at that level), but has at least a track record of doing things for other people. There is nothing in 70 years of Trump that shows any attempt at helping anyone but himself, direct or indirect. If you want to see what happens when a serial liar is allowed to get his hands on a country's treasure, we've been there before, and the one managing that show had to eventually set up his own private bank to manage the loot.

        BTW, Trump is not as "independent" as he claims: for example, he has large outstanding debts, and an estimated $100M+ of that is with the same Deutsche Bank that just happens to be fighting a $14B fine for their efforts in the subprime mortgages scandal. If you really think that won't influence his decisions you're even more naïve than I thought.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Neutrality and all that

          It's an odd objection to whistleblowing that, by revealing the criminal acts of an election candidate, it may influence the voters against that candidate.

          Me, I'd much rather be allowed to vote for Candidate X in sublime ignorance that (s)he is a hardened criminal - to find out only after she has been confirmed in charge of my life for the next N years.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Neutrality and all that

        Talking of insecure email servers!

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/19/trump_insecure_email_servers/

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: AC Re: Neutrality and all that

          We really need a whatabout icon.

    2. macjules Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Neutrality and all that

      "Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans."

      Presumably his 'contingency plans' are along the lines of some poor bloody lawyer standing outside the embassy in the rain with a 4g WiFi dongle so that Julian can access his favourite youporn channel engage in making the world safer from the Clinton family

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Neutrality and all that

      "If Ecuador knowingly allows Assange to do something illegal in another country through it's internet connection from the embassy they are basically condoning his actions. Depending on what Assange does this COULD be an act of war in international law".

      Now that is an interesting argument. If accepted, it leads to all manner of fascinating consequences. For instance, for an American government Web site to allow women to publish their views - let alone pictures of their faces and/or bodies - is a clear infraction of Saudi law, and according to imanidiot (no comment) that could be an act of war by the USA against Saudi Arabia. (As if).

      When speculating about such matters, it is a good idea to think through some of the implications of what one proposes.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: Neutrality and all that

        I AM saying that it depends entirely on WHAT ASSANGE DOES! Most of what he could/would do would not fall under internationally agreed upon diplomatic no-go's. But (allowing someone) trying to influence a foreign election falls very much into the diplomatic nightmares categorie. Openly hacking a foreign nation is also rather frowned upon. Doing it the wrong way COULD theoratically under international diplomatic law in certain cirumstances be considered an act of war.

        (international diplomatics are a minefield, especially between large nations like the US or China and smaller nations. Especially when they are not already on the best of terms to begin with)

        I'm not saying Assange is anywhere near likely to start an armed military invasion of Ecuador, but it could lead to rather sticky situations. To keep the peace I am not surprised Ecuador decided to cut his internet and I AM surprised it took them this long.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      Re: Neutrality and all that

      Uhm no.

      What act has Assange done that is illegal?

      Yeah. That's right.

      He's actually protected by the US law when it comes to distributing Podesta's emails and the DNC emails... unless he took part in the actual hack or theft.

      The Trump recording was taken from NBC and given to the WaPo because NBC couldn't run the story without facing legal consequences, yet WaPo could since they were given the tape from an unidentified source and was not involved in the creation of the tape.

      Then there is Trump's IRS return that the NYT reported on. The NYT wasn't in trouble... just the source of the IRS filing who gave it to them...

      Assange and the other news organizations are protected by the Ellsberg decision.

      Note that the reason Assange fears the US isn't because he released Manning's stolen material, but that there may be evidence that he partook in the theft. If true... he's definitely on the hook. Especially if Clinton is elected.

      Sorry, Ecuador could have let it go.. but Clinton and Soros are part of the new world Order and of course the Clinton Foundation has ties to the region...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Neutrality and all that

        He's actually protected by the US law when it comes to distributing Podesta's emails and the DNC emails

        In what way? They are not his emails, so he is either perpetuating a theft or at a minimum committing a copyright violation, and he doesn't have the legal protection of being a member of the press because that went titsup when the Swedish newspaper he was planning to join told him to f*ck off.

        That has been Assange's driving motive all along: somehow create something that could pretend to be a member of the press so he could get protection for past and future hacking by abusing freedom of the press laws.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Neutrality and all that

      Somebody should get Assange a Relish homehub box. The Ecuador embassy is in their coverage footprint, and the only wire it needs is a power supply.

  5. Ole Juul

    Not such a big deal

    Equador is not making a political statement but does have a need to remain neutral, and so must distance themselves from any influence on the US election. Wikileaks will function just fine in the meanwhile.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not such a big deal

      Exactly. If they weren't to do this they would lose the moral high ground. It's quite possible that Assange was well aware of this. If Wikileaks were to publish articles which could be deemed to influence the US election, then fingers would point at Ecuador, for their state sponsorship of this.

      Ecuador would have nothing to gain from this, and quite a lot to gain from the actions they have taken. The articles will be published regardless.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: Not such a big deal

        "Exactly. If they weren't to do this they would lose the moral high ground."

        The moral high ground? YMLT read up about Ecuador and morals. Their human rights and freedom of press record is dire, and they have no moral high ground at all.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not such a big deal

          You're quoting something else entirely. Ecuador are claiming the moral high ground in this instance. By letting Assange influence the US election, or in other words, not stopping him would imply that, again in this instance, they are condoning his actions. Stopping him allows them, once again, in this instance, to claim the moral high ground.

          I do agree that Ecuador's record is appalling, and I'd argue the same for all countries, some obviously to a higher extent than others. None of this is relevant to the case in point. Even if what Ecuador is doing is not the moral high ground in your, mine or anyone else's opinion, it doesn't stop them from from claiming that what they are doing is justified, as is evident on everything they have said on the matter.

          You could have a convicted murderer state that murder is reprehensible. Despite his record, this statement would still be justified.

          Do you see the difference?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not such a big deal

        Truly an amazing argument. Wars that killed literally millions of people have been started or aggravated for no better reason than to influence US elections. Of course, that was by the American politicians themselves. For any of the "little people" - especially contemptible furriners - to do it would obviously be beyond the pale.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Admits'

    Were Ecuador ever hiding the fact?

    If not, it's the wrong word. It gives the impression that there's something grubby going on when it looks like a fairly simple statement to me.

    'The Register admits that it publishes tech industry news'.

    1. imanidiot Silver badge

      Re: 'Admits'

      Wait, what? The Register publishes news?? When dit that happen? Scandalous I tell you! That is not the sort of behaviour we have come to expect from a disreputable company as the Register!

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: 'Admits'

        @imanidiot

        Wait, what? The Register publishes news??

        No better place than El Reg for the latest on DevOps

        1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: 'Admits'

          @imanidiot

          Wait, what? The Register publishes news??

          Well, Reg hacks missed this one

          "As if that weren’t enough political headline-grabbing for one week, Anderson then visited Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been claiming political asylum for over four years. She swept in with her usual glamorous aplomb, sporting cat’s-eye sunglasses and erect nipples, carrying a copy of Vivienne Westwood’s diaries under one arm and Pret a Manger vegan sandwiches in the other."

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-curious-reinvention-of-pamela-anderson/

          Paris - in lieu of Pam in Baywatch costume

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 'Admits'

            I sincerely regret the days when The Daily Telegraph *never* wrote about erect nipples.

  7. Pliny the Whiner

    Was blonde, but now I see

    "Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans," said WikiLeaks to no one in particular.

    A bloated, self-important way to say:

    1. We sat down in a circle and wept like little girls; or

    2. We'll use the telephone from now on.

  8. JaitcH
    Meh

    Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

    Given that our white-haired friend is a guest of Ecuador, I personally think diddling with elections in any country is not helpful for democracy, especially in these circumstances. Democracy is an element in Wikileaks raison d'être.

    I have thought even Snowden has pushed his luck on occasion, but at least he is smart enough not to mess with elections from his new home in Moscow.

    In the meantime, GCHQ can save a little on the overtime, just like the London Plod did when their bills starting reaching double-digits in millions of Pounds/Dollars/Shekels.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

      So now exposing corruption in a candidate is "diddling with elections." Sure, anything to shut his mouth, right?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

        You've utterly missed the point Big John, and your outspoken loyalty to the Republicans/Trump/anyone other than the Democrats isn't helping your cause. The US government is one of the most corrupt political institutions world-wide and frankly the email server is nothing compared to what has gone on for decades/centuries on both sides. Voters in the US have traditionally been forced to support the lesser of two evils. This election is different in that while one candidate is entrenched in the self-serving political establishment and all it entails (business as usual there), the other is an outright prick. The difference is while she might be a nasty piece of work, he clearly is a nasty piece of work and appears to be proud of this. America needs someone outside the establishment but it doesn't need an evil, egotistical knob-end whose legacy will most likely be ruining the chances of America ever getting someone who isn't part of the so-called 'elite'.

        As for the independents, one of them didn't even know what Aleppo was. FFS.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

          And you are not concerned about the fact that Mrs Clinton has publicly committed herself to starting a war with Russia, the only nation with a more powerful thermonuclear arsenal than the USA's (unless Israel's is bigger than both).

          Ah well, I think of it as evolution in action. At least my life is nearly over, so I have less to lose if we are all dead in six months from now.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

            Archtech,

            Perhaps you would like provide some evidence to back up the "fact" that Clinton has publicly committed to war with Russia? It's certainly something that's pased me by, and I'm pretty sure that people would have made a fuss about it if she had.

            Also, "vote for me I want to end humanity" is unlikely to make for a popular manifesto...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

          I've got a friend* in the US who said this about the election:

          I want to vote and influence the outcome of the election.

          I therefore have to vote for a party.

          It's a two party system.

          I'd rather not have to be party to either party

          But it's a two party system.

          So which party to choose?

          Not the Trump party.

          Not keen on the other side either....

          But they ain't D.Trump trying to change the constitution. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-not-people.html

          *(they're not registered as a republican or democrat voter)

      2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

        So now exposing corruption in a candidate is "diddling with elections." Sure, anything to shut his mouth, right?

        If Wikileaks had just published their trove of Clinton emails, then you could argue that was them doing what they do. But to publish them in small chunks, to keep those emails in the headlines for the whole campaign? That's another thing entirely, and looks much more like an attempt to garner publicity. The next question is then to ask who's that publicity to benefit? Is it just more good PR for Wikileaks - or is he intentionally attempting to influence the election in favour of Trump?

        Obviously it's hard to know that. Although the fact that they produced another release of emails just after Trump's lovely tape came out, where he admitted to grabbing women "by the pussy" and maybe asking later - does start to look suspiciously partisan. Maybe that's the motive? Perhaps St Julian would like to be a celeb who can just do what you like, "and they'll let you" too? Or perhaps those rape charges in Sweden are all trumped up by the evil global conspiracy, he's not a narcissistic dickhead and it's just my tinfoil hat slipping?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: I ain't Spartacus Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles.....

          ".....Although the fact that they produced another release of emails just after Trump's lovely tape came out....." Which begs the question, was the Trumpet tape leaked at exactly that moment because Dickileaks had announced they were going to release something to damage Clinton? Why sit on the Trumpet groper tape for so many years and then produce it to a carefully orchestrated media storm unless it was an attempt at deflection?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

      Democracy is an element in Wikileaks raison d'être.

      I'd consider that a rather generous statement, given that their efforts seek to undermine a democratic process (if you start digging, you should do that on both sides IMHO, not make it even clear in releases that you're targeting one side of the fence).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whils I Generlly Support the Principles or Wikileaks and Cryptome ....

        It's not "meddling in democracy", it's the time-honored tradition of mudslinging, and foreigners have been doing it since ~1776.

        That said, they're doing a piss-poor job of it, allowing Trump and Clinton to win the primaries before engaging in proper shit-slinging. Too little too late.

  9. Steve Knox
    Facepalm

    Really?

    "...with potential extradition to America..."

    You're pandering to that tired old line? Is El Reg that desperate for readers?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Really?

      Really?

      "...with potential extradition to America..."

      You're pandering to that tired old line? Is El Reg that desperate for readers?

      You are right to question that line - now more than ever.

  10. tom dial Silver badge

    It may be worth mentioning that while whoever obtained the emails from the source probably* committed a crime under US Law, it is all but certain that publishing in the US is fully protected by the first amendment and did not violate any US laws**. In addition to the fact that cutting Assange's internet service will have no affect on Wikileaks' ability to continue stirring the pot, they have not violated the law unless they obtained the messages from the DNC and other servers themselves.

    In the same way, they did not violate US law by publishing the material Bradley Manning gave them (despite the fact that Manning violated a number of laws), somewhat undermining Assange's claim of a secret plan to extradite him for US trial. That is possible, but it would be necessary to prove that he conspired in some way with Manning to break the laws, something I suspect he, and others associated with Wikileaks, would have been quite careful to avoid..

    * Unless they were turned over by the author or one of the addressees.

    ** Except possibly those dealing with criminal libel or which on examination will be found inconsistent with the first amendment..

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      I did see a report from the trial that said Manning was getting help on how to get all the data off the servers over IRC and that this help was coming from Julian Assange. Of course saying that and proving it in court are two very different beasts indeed. But that was obviously the way the investigators were thinking at the time - and I presume that would be a crime under US law. Although as that crime would be espionage, I don't think Sweden would be allowed to extradite him?

      If the public accusations that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton are correct, then presumably Wikileaks are legally in the clear over those.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Whether Wikileaks, or Assange, committed a US crime would depend a lot on the exact text of any exchanges between them and Manning, as well as who initiated any exchange between them. So far, the only evidence for US extradition efforts seems to come from Julian Assange, who is unlikely to have reliable information. In any case, once the transfer was completed, it is unlikely that the publishing could be prosecuted successfully.

  11. poopypants

    Slow motion catastrophe

    The lead-up to the election is an interesting train wreck to watch. It is difficult to support either side when one candidate is a scheming, criminal mastermind and the other is a nauseating, unintelligent, self-obsessed man-child.

    1. DocJames
      Mushroom

      Re: Slow motion catastrophe

      Given the current state of the world, I'll take the one who is capable of scheming.

      Hint: that's not the one who managed to lose ~$1bn (billion! FFS) during the biggest real estate boom in history*

      * I'm obviously exaggerating here, but it's pretty clear that New York in the mid 90s was doing so well nobody was losing, unless you were named Donald Trump. A short fingered loser. Who would want to be associated with that?

      Icon demonstrating what to avoid in voting.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Slow motion catastrophe

      What is all this crap about Clinton being a criminal mastermind?

      I'm not a fan of either Clinton - and obviously there were various scandals like Whitewater (of which I remember precisely zero details now). And I'm sure she's got plenty of skeletons in her closet, given she's been in government and the awful way US politics is funded. But why is she worse than any other senator runningn for the White House? Like say Obama, McCain or Kennedy? I certainly hear much worse invective used against her than I do against them...

      Yours,

      Confused of Tunbridge Wells

    3. IsJustabloke
      Meh

      Re: Slow motion catastrophe

      Who'd be an American eh? talk about Hobson's choice.

    4. JimC

      Re: Slow motion catastrophe

      This is why, in the medium to long term, I think the current style of western democracy is doomed. It appears that the competence of the leaders it produces is steadily reducing. History tells us no political system lasts for ever. Goodness only knows what will replace it, but I don't suppose we'll like it much. Some sort of plutocracy of the executive classes seems as likely as anything right now.

  12. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Woah!

    Can't have someone influence an election.

    Whatever would be next!

    No, people have already been well told how to vote. Don't confuse them!

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Woah!

      There's nothing wrong with trying to influence elections. You can even do it and still be a journalist, so long as you're honest about it, and tell people where you're editorialising and where you're reporting.

      However Assange and Wikileaks don't appear to be being honest. More importantly he's hiding out in Ecuador's embassy, and foreign governments are not supposed to try to influence other peoples' elections. That's very bad form, and is particularly bad for foreign relations if the side you tried to influence against go and win anyway. As they're going to be a mite pissed off with you.

      Hence governments mostly keep their big noses out of elections - why I think Obama made a mistake getting involed in the Brexit debate (although he was invited by the UK government so nobody can complain).

      So Ecuador don't want to be seen as supporting Assange, which they might be, as he's in their government building. So they've cut him off. Given he can just get a mobile phone and go online - I doubt this is going to inconvenience him unduly - but they've made the point that they're not supporting him. Which is I guess the important thing.

  13. Martin Summers

    And the Ecuadorian embassy is presumably in a signal black spot or they haven't thought of using a 4g dongle? Why would he assume it's ok to leech off their Internet anyway, some guest!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They're actually in coverage of the Relish wireless broadband service.

  14. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "WikiLeaks' webpage and Twitter feed are silent on the matter at the time of writing."

    Well, duh - they done cuts his interwebz, right?

  15. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Plan B

    pigeons - those damn Yanks can't shoot everyone out of the sky, especially around London.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Plan B

      Hmmm, an idea... Can we host in London all the foreign spies and dissidents we can get our hands on. But make a rule that they all have to use TalkTalk, so they've got no signal. That will force them to use pigeons, then all the worlds' intelligence agencies will come to London, and kill off our excess pigeon supply for free...

      Or am I just being silly? El Reg need a lightbulb icon.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely Assange's room has a window?

    Assuming he has a cell phone, a "contingency plan" won't be that hard to arrange given that tethering is pretty simple stuff and data allowances are more than good enough for email and ordinary web surfing. He might have to cut back if he's got a Netflix habit, though.

    I don't understand what this is meant to accomplish though. It isn't as if all the stuff being released is sitting on his computer and cutting him off prevents it. It won't affect the release of materials at all, it is just an annoyance to him.

    1. JimC

      Re: what this is meant to accomplish

      I don't suppose the Ecuadorian government cares that much about what Wikileaks does or doesn't do with respect to the US election. I imagine what they do care about is being seen to facilitate it.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trump supporter

    So the story here is that Assange, a man wanted in relation to accusations of rape in Sweden, might be a Trump supporter?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump supporter

      Assange is definitely not a Trump supporter - more of a Hilary hater. And let's face it, she is possibly the most corrupt person ever to try to attain the office of the President. And yet, so main so-called "liberals" seem to find that acceptable. Do you want a person whose reaction to crap coming out her to try to ratchet up tension towards Russia.

      Just in case no one has seen this, see how her supporters do business:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

      1. Stevie

        Re: Trump supporter

        " And let's face it, she is possibly the most corrupt person ever to try to attain the office of the President"

        Please stop regurgitating the Trumpeter Mantra. It makes you sound teh stoopid.

        a) She has been sucked into any number of investigations over her political life and not one of them has found her criminally liable for anything.

        2) More corrupt than, to pick one out of thin air, Warren G Harding? Mmmmmmmmmnah. You are gonna have to prove that one with verifiable facts - which incidentally should get you a front seat in the Trump motorcade given he and certain Republicans have been rabidly trying (and failing) to make any of their lame-ass allegations stick.

        $) In the words of Paul Brady "Seems that just wanting something don't mean it's gonna be". Please add proof that will withstand (yet another) hearing in front of people who actually know how the law works or shut the fuck up. Enough taxpayer dollars have been spent on Republican bile already. Who knows how much money has been spent by "interested private citizens" on top of that, all to no avail. Just imagine if all that moolah had been used for establishing a decent Health Care system.

        Talk of "special prosecutors" and "Senate Investigations" is empty rhetoric used to ding up the Clinton Chromework. There is no "there" there, at least, not enough for either of the two legal requirements (reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence) needed to actually enact punishment and penalties.

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Trump supporter

          Corrupt != criminal:

          cor·rupt

          kəˈrəpt/

          adjective

          adjective: corrupt

          1.

          having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

          "unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials"

          synonyms: dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious; informalcrooked, shady, dirty, sleazy

          "a corrupt official"

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Corruption vs corruption

            Hillary has been proven to be corrupt in her political dealings, and Trump has been proven to be corrupt in his business dealings. Not that most politicians aren't corrupt, but it is nice if you can preserve the illusion they are not for at least a little ways into their term...

            Is it any surprise that 25% of millennials surveyed recently said they'd prefer a giant meteor hit the Earth and destroy all life to having either one as President? (See #giantmeteor2016 hashtag for the origin of this meme; it is hilarious it got enough traction for a pollster to ask about it!)

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now for the bit that everyone missed..

    It's rather entertaining to notice that even the press missed an interesting fact.

    Has anyone noticed that that vast trove of emails has not contained one single shred of evidence of plans to extradite Assange or deal with him in any other way? 30k emails and there's nothing, nada, zilch, zip about Assange? Nothing at all? We know this because we would have seen this splattered all over the press if they had found something that would even allude to such plans, let alone explicitly addressed the topic.

    Has anyone at Wikileaks realised they shot themselves (or at least Assange) in the foot with this? In the process of attempting to prove a conspiracy and damage someone who already IS a firm and deep part of the US government, they have put the skids under a favourite claim by their esteemed leader, St Jules Assange, formerly known as The Soap Shy Trademark™.

    Oops.

    1. LaunchpadBS

      Re: Now for the bit that everyone missed..

      So the emails about "The only way to deal with Assange is a bullet in the head" aren't there? That is curious

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Now for the bit that everyone missed..

        So the emails about "The only way to deal with Assange is a bullet in the head" aren't there? That is curious

        Nobody would waste a bullet on Assange. All they need to do is to stand back and let him be. To repeat a statement that was originally about Trump: when someone is digging a hole, you shouldn't take their shovel away.

  19. M.Zaccone

    That's not the real reason.

    Maybe they just wanted him to tidy his room? Works with my kids every time!

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The only way out for Assange

    Is when the mighty *cough* 'Merican government finally implodes under the weight of all the truths coming out.

    posted anon to get the mask obvs, now let the downvotes rain!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone else bored of this guy?

    Time for him to face up to what he's been up to - like anyone else would... Ecuador, leave the key under the mat and we'll pick him up later.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just when the world was forgetting about him...

    It's just as likely Assange is involved in creating another media storm to remind us he exists.

  23. s. pam
    Holmes

    Obviously the CIA's coke supply from Ecuador...

    Was going to be materially affected so in a bid to control the flow of spice, they threatened the government for harbouring such a useless excuse.

    Or something like that, where's my Gruniad Translator?

  24. anoco

    In for himself

    My well developed paranoia can't stop reminding me of the obvious reason Assange is pushing for Trump. They made a deal that if Assange helped Trump win the election, then his charges would be dropped.

    Assange, just like Trump is so narcisistic and egotistical that he would destroy the world in order to save himself. Maybe Trump sweetened the deal by offering him a SCOTUS position, who knows? Nero comes to mind here.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: In for himself

      My well developed paranoia can't stop reminding me of the obvious reason Assange is pushing for Trump. They made a deal that if Assange helped Trump win the election, then his charges would be dropped.

      Oh, I could believe that. Given Assange's history of making spectacularly bad decisions it would be quite likely that he would have struck a deal with the one person who has a lifelong reputation of not sticking to his word and stiffing anyone where possible.

      I don't think the deal would be for dropping any charges, because there aren't any and it's really not worth keeping up that myth, that would not have bought St Jules. No, it would be for publicity and money. The first because he craves it more than food, and the latter because he's beyond skinned, and that's before we start adding up all the other people he himself has stiffed. You know, trivial stuff like bail money or his promise to support Manning's defence.

      So it would be plausible.

      And with a bit of luck someone will leak that later :).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022