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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
