Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the times-they-are-a'changing dept.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is finally being questioned by prosecutors more than six years after he was first accused of rape in Sweden.

Ingrid Isgren, Sweden's deputy chief prosecutor, arrived at the Ecuadorian Embassy this morning, according to The Guardian, ending a stalemate which began in 2012 when the South American nation offered Assange political asylum on the grounds that he faced political persecution from the United States.

Assange claims that the rape accusations, which he denies, are part of a plot to extradite him to the United States that would swing into action were he to answer prosecutors' questions in the Scandinavian country.

The interview suggests some forward movement is being made in the diplomatic deadlock between Ecuador and Sweden regarding the arrangements for Swedish prosecutors to talk to Assange in the embassy.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:25AM (#426785)

    If wikileaks dares release anything juicy about the donald, he's likely to send a special forces team to forcibly extract Assange.
    Clinton might have used soft power or continued to officially ignore him like the US has been doing for all these years.
    But, Mr "Anybody who hits me, we’re gonna hit them ten times harder," [foxnews.com] ain't gonna play dat way. #MAGA!!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:30AM (#426789)

    Comey and Assange won the election for President-Elect Trump. If Trump believes in rewarding his friends, he should pardon Assange for any U.S. crimes he may have committed in the past.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:37AM (#426824)

      Is there any actual evidence that those two actually caused Trump to win? If the Democrats had been forth someone better--like Bernie Sanders--they would have likely won. Instead, people chose a terrible candidate who failed to motivate people to vote. Why are people making flimsy excuses for the democratic party? Stop making excuses and learn from your failure.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:25AM (#426838)

        > Is there any actual evidence that those two actually caused Trump to win?

        Is there any actual evidence that "someone better" would have mattered?

        Look, its a plausible theory. The numbers are looking like relatively few democrats switched parties. Rather she simply didn't get the turnout of the "obama coalition." Obama didn't even get the turnout of the obama coalition in 2012, but she got even less (despite being on track to get more votes than he got in 2012). The non-stories from wikileaks and comey, that the mainstream media who "love" clinton breathlessly reported but barely analyzed, could easily have repressed turnout by a couple of percentage points.

        It certainly wasn't the only cause. As the saying goes: just because you won doesn't mean that you did everything right, and just because you lost doesn't mean you did everything wrong. Maybe Sanders would have won, or maybe he would have been creamed just as badly but from another direction. He did have vulnerabilities that Clinton never attacked during the primary - like the way the college his wife ran went bankrupt because of over-expansion that she initiated. Or their multiple houses. Who knows what else Trump would have used to attack him? The Obamacare price hikes - despite being a non-issue for most Obamacare buyers because of income-based subsidizes - were a potent campaign point for Trump that would have worked on Sanders too.

        Or maybe there never was an "obama coalition" - that his election, like his Nobel Peace Prize, was more about not being Bush and that after 8 years of a democrat in the whitehouse lots of people were inclined to vote for a republican no matter what.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:07AM (#426896)

          Is there any actual evidence that "someone better" would have mattered?

          Mattered, yes. Mattered enough to move the votes, that requires another earth to make an actual experiment.

          But when we have democrats telling us they disliked Hillary enough to vote for Trump, AND republicans telling us they disliked Trump enough to vote for Bernie, That has got to matter.

        • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:04AM

          by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:04AM (#426908) Journal

          Is there any actual evidence that "someone better" would have mattered?

          Yes. Opinion polls throughout the primaries showed that the Democrats had only one candidate who wasn't a long way ahead of Trump: Clinton. The others all had a significant lead, Clinton was ahead by a statistically insignificant margin.

          Add to that, Trump managed to get about as many votes as the last two Republican Presidential candidates and only slightly more than John Kerry in 2004. In contrast, Obama got 10M and 5M more votes than Clinton in the last two elections. A lot of people who voted for Obama simply couldn't be bothered to turn up to vote for Clinton. She wasn't a lesser of two evils by enough of a margin to matter.

          --
          sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:42PM (#427002)

          Or maybe there never was an "obama coalition" - that his election, like his Nobel Peace Prize, was more about not being Bush and that after 8 years of a democrat in the whitehouse lots of people were inclined to vote for a republican no matter what.

          and he was black

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:52AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:52AM (#426804) Journal

    You're talking about Mrs. Hillary "Can't we just drone this guy" Clinton?

    Seriously, read: https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/clinton-assange-wikileaks-drone/2016/10/04/id/751517/ [newsmax.com]

    This is the same woman who has been implicated in a couple dozen murders. And, you think she's into "soft power"? I believe that you have some kind of sexist attitude, and you fail to understand that women can be just as deadly as any male. Hillary is NOT your nurturing mother type of woman. She will take a life in a heartbeat.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:28AM (#426821)

      > You're talking about Mrs. Hillary "Can't we just drone this guy" Clinton?

      Nope, I'm not. Because that was just another fake news story.
      Why are you believing that shit when it would take just 30 seconds to debunk? [snopes.com]

      I get it, its easy to doubt things you disagree with. It takes real discipline to doubt the people telling you the things you want to hear.
      But after being wrong so many times, you'd think you'd get tired of it.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:41AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:41AM (#426845) Journal

        Snopes says "unproven". It hasn't yet been "proven" to everyone's satisfaction that man has walked on the moon. You go ahead and hang with the people who need incontrivertible proof with their own eyes. Meanwhile, those of us with more sense will just accept that Hillary is a killer.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:45AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:45AM (#426847)

          > Meanwhile, those of us with more sense will just accept that Hillary is a killer.

          Strangers waitin'
          Up and down the boulevard
          Their shadows searchin' in the night
          Streetlights, people
          Livin' just to find emotion
          Hidin' somewhere in the night

          Don't Stop Believin'
          Hold on to the feelin'
          Streetlight, people
          Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

          Don't Stop Believin'
          Hold on to the feelin'
          Streetlight, people
          Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

          Don't stop believin'
          Hold on
          Streetlight, people
          Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

          Don't stop believin'

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:25PM (#426960)

          So in your hierarchy of trust a random blogger with a history of made-up stories telling an uncorroborated story - despite claiming there were witnesses - without naming a single source is good enough because why?

          Are you so completely adrift that anyone who tells you what you want to hear is a somebody you will believe? Aren't you one to say that women who claim to be raped shouldn't automatically be believed because she might just be using it to hurt a man she has a grudge against? What's the difference here?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:11PM (#427078)

          Its called "presumption of innocence", the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, rather than your idea that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:13PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:13PM (#427259) Journal

            In the court of public opinion, it's whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPL say.

            I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, nor even a jurist. I am a voter, a taxpayer, and an old bastard who has had 60 years to get acquainted with human nature.

            There is no presumption of innocence, you silly AC.

        • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:40PM

          by charon (5660) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:40PM (#427247) Journal
          I have one question for you and the other hysterical people who think the Clintons have murdered people who endanger their livelihood/political career/graft opportunities: how come James Comey is still breathing?
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:15PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:15PM (#427260) Journal

            Comey completed his mission. DESPITE proof that Clinton had done wrong, and lied about it, he recommended that the government not seek charges. He did what he was paid to do. He MAY NOT remain breathing for very much longer, but he did complete his mission.

            • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:50PM

              by charon (5660) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:50PM (#427280) Journal
              But then he brought up some new emails 11 days before the election, quite possibly costing her the presidency. That's the part where a hypothetical murderous politician would consider herself "double-crossed."
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:10AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:10AM (#426833) Journal

      You should know that the guy who owns Newsmax, the source you cited, is good pals with Bill Clinton. Ponder that.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:28AM (#426840)

        Evidence beyond your personal experience?

        Either way, newsmax was just repeating the rumor, they weren't the source.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:32PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:32PM (#427027) Journal

          Well, let's see.

          Would the blog that Chris Ruddy runs on the Clinton Foundation site work for you [clintonfoundation.org]?

          How about his editorial lauding Bill and Hillary Clinton and saying he is one of their donors [newsmax.com]?

          How about the story in the Weekly Standard about the $1 million pledge Chris Ruddy gave to the Clinton Foundation [weeklystandard.com]?

          There you have the guy himself defending the Clintons, admitting he gives them money, and third party verification that he does. Does that count as substantiated for you yet, or does your Quellenkritik persist?

          The point I made, and continue to make, stands: the elites only pretend to be at each other's throats for the cameras, to keep the hoi poloi distracted, when in fact they are all pals and work together to suppress democracy and extract wealth they have not earned. In other words, they rig the game for their benefit, and we all lose.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:14PM (#427081)

            the elites only pretend to be at each other's throats for the cameras, to keep the hoi poloi distracted, when in fact they are all pals and work together to suppress democracy and extract wealth they have not earned.

            Yup. Just look at how fast das Fuhrer Drumpf went from "Crooked Hillary, source of all evil" to "The Clintons are good people, I don't want to hurt them".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @09:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @09:29PM (#427212)

      You're talking about a guy working with the Russians to get as much dirt on Clinton they could, and he was timing his releases to do the maximum damage to her (just before the Dem Convention, two weeks before the general election, etc.), and only her. Even if she really did make that comment, are you seriously holding against her an off-the-cuff and off-mike comment, even if made out of frustration and not as a joke? Seriously? I've seen many of your posts, and I know you'd have much more to say than that. Geez, It reminds me of that time that we almost seriously started WWIII when Reagan outlawed Russia and definitively started the first strike [wikipedia.org]. Wait, what? You mean he wasn't serious??

      I swear the alt-right and the rest of the vocal republicans are the biggest set of crybabies and whiners and pathetic losers, bar none. Remember how "outrageous" it was when Clinton used the term "basket of deplorables"? Remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the butthurt that was felt from Hannity all the way down to the crassest racist asshole with the Trump sign? OMG, their feelings were hurt! They had to take a breath from their string of invectives hurled at Clinton: "Crooked Hillary", "Bitch", etc., etc., etc, but OMG, say "basket of deplorables" and they all faint away with the vapors. Is your red stick shoved so far up your ass that you are so removed from reality or from being able to look into the mirror for any signs of hypocrisy?

      who has been implicated in a couple dozen murders.

      No, I guess not.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:25PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:25PM (#427268) Journal

        "are you seriously holding against her an off-the-cuff and off-mike comment,"

        Most certainly.

        "I know you'd have much more to say than that."

        Hmmm. You are both right, and wrong. I have said much worse. I'm the man who had the squad leader's back when we hit the beach. I carried an M-14 out into fuzzy-wuzzy land (Rudyard Kipling, for those of you who don't understand the reference) I most certainly DID say much worse than "can't we just drone the guy".

        But, my targets were all awake, standing up, and facing me, with weapons in their hands (Mal, in Firefly).

        I'm not one to suggest murdering a man in his sleep, or to bomb him at his wedding, or kill his family as he drives along to visit Grandma. I am from an entirely different culture than Hillary, and her murderous clan.

        This alt-right nonsense. If it makes you feel better to call me names, go right ahead. But, for the record, I am INDEFUCKINGPENDENT!! I didn't vote for Trump. I posted my vote in another thread. I voted Johnson, and went right on down the ticket voting for Libertarians.

        Thanks for playing, though.

        Oh - crybabies and whiners. My wife just read to me an article she stumbled across. Do you know why Hillary didn't return to the post-election event with her senior party people?

        BECAUSE SHE WAS THROWING A TANTRUM!! That's right, a full blown tantrum, like you might expect from little boys and girls who have just left toddlerhood.

        THAT was your "presidential material", LMAO