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 …
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...
"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.
" 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’
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...
"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.
".....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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
"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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
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?
".....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?
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).
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
" 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.
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"
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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 :).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
