Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 16 2018, @06:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the Big-Ooooops dept.

Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange

Prosecutors Have Prepared Indictment of Julian Assange, a Filing Reveals

The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, marking a drastic escalation of the government's yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group. It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange. The indictment came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned charges against him. "The court filing was made in error," said Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia. "That was not the intended name for this filing."

[...] Seamus Hughes, a terrorism expert at George Washington University who closely tracks court cases, uncovered the filing and posted it on Twitter.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to say on Thursday what led to the inadvertent disclosure. It was made in a recently unsealed filing in an apparently unrelated sex-crimes case charging a man named Seitu Sulayman Kokayi with coercing and enticing an underage person to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Mr. Kokayi was charged in early August, and on Aug. 22, prosecutors filed a three-page document laying out boilerplate arguments for why his case at that time needed to remain sealed.

While the filing started out referencing Mr. Kokayi, federal prosecutors abruptly switched on its second page to discussing the fact that someone named "Assange" had been secretly indicted, and went on to make clear that this person was the subject of significant publicity, lived abroad and would need to be extradited — suggesting that prosecutors had inadvertently pasted text from a similar court filing into the wrong document and then filed it.

"Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged," prosecutors wrote. They added, "The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter."

#Vindicated.

Also at The Guardian, The Washington Post, MarketWatch, and The New Republic.

Previously: Prominent Whistleblowers and Journalists Defend Julian Assange at Online Vigil
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
DNC Serves WikiLeaks Lawsuit Over Twitter; US Senate Invites Assange to Testify for Russia Probe
The Guardian: Russian Diplomats Planned to Sneak Julian Assange Out of the UK
Julian Assange Sues Ecuador for "Violating His Fundamental Rights"
UK Said Assange Would Not be Extradited If He Leaves Embassy Refuge


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @07:55PM (89 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @07:55PM (#762821)

    Assange knew what he was doing and knew that it was going to get the (unwanted) attention of the US government. Assange did it because he loves the attention, to help his Russian friends and to put his thumb in HRC's eye. He succeeded on all three, but now acts like he is some sort of victim (as he hides for more than 7 years in the Ecuadorian embassy in England).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 16 2018, @08:16PM (61 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @08:16PM (#762829) Homepage Journal

    You're right, he knew what he was doing. But, he is still the victim. He's a reporter. He reports what people give him to report on. Fascists hate reporters. And, as you point out, HRC is a fascist.

    --
    Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:02PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:02PM (#762843)

      A douche with a website does not a journalist make.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:22PM (#762850)

        A douche with a website does not a journalist make.

        These days that's what 90% of journalism is. And it has a long tradition in print. A journalist according to most sources is also, "one who prepares news." So no, fail, 100%.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday November 16 2018, @11:00PM (5 children)

        by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 16 2018, @11:00PM (#762883) Journal

        I admire the US constitution and I think it is unlikely that any modern state will introduce anything anywhere near as egalitarian and enlightened.
        However, there appears to be a movement in the USA to claim that the first amendment only applies to 'Journalists' and 'The Press'. I would posit that the next step is to licence journalists.
        This is totally in opposition to the ideals in the constitution, and I think you should oppose at every opportunity the notion that being a journalist gives you extra rights. Those rights belong to everyone.

        --
        No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:13PM (#762893)

          Wasn't it CNN who claimed only they, as professional journalists, were authorized to handle the Wikileaks releases?

          If journalist licensing is on the horizon, it will be welcomed by the media oligarchs.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:18PM (#762894)

            CNN has a First Amendment right to say dumb bullshit.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:05AM (#762953)

          Yeah, the first amendment needs to be preserved, just like the second amendment! Wait... OK, so...

          The founders didn't envision advanced journalism with photos, video, and recorded audio. That stuff is for military-grade propaganda. The first amendment gives you the right to a quill pen, and maybe some movable lead type.

          People under 21 shouldn't speak. They might say something dumb.

          Felons shouldn't speak. They might say something evil.

          It shouldn't be possible to put more than 10 sentences in a paragraph or more than 10 paragraphs on a page. Changing the page should require a tool.

          Words longer than 0.50 inches should be illegal, not counting compound words.

          Every document must have a serial number. Every printing tool must have one too, and must be registered with the government.

          Trimming paper should require a federal paper trimming license.

          Getting a license to speak should require that you be fingerprinted and take a class on correct ideas. Actually getting the license is at the discretion of your local police chief.

          In some locations, you have to hide your documents in an envelope when you carry them in public. In other locations, you have to openly display your documents for all to see. Either way, violating the requirement is a felony.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:25AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:25AM (#762956)

          It is called a 'Press Pass' and only 'reputable' journalists from large organizations were usually given one. They are necessary for getting into all sorts of press events and even some conventions (E3 was notorious for this, which is what lead to the initial round of internet journalists when everybody wanted to see the latest tech when E3 was the hot thing in the 90s. Hell, Megatokyo's opening plot centered around their attempt and failure to get into E3!)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:51AM (#762992)

            That's basically an admission ticket to a hosted event(s). You have always been able select your invitees/guests on your property.
            What you can't do is stop people talking or reporting.
            I think the judge was wrong when he ordered them to re-instate Jim Acrosta's white house pass, and I hope they appeal it. The can't stop him talking but they can certainly keep him out.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:33PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:33PM (#763137) Journal

        A douche with a website does not a journalist make.

        Actually, yes, that does make a journalist. But then again, you haven't been officially licensed to disagree with me and hence, your opinion is invalid.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 16 2018, @09:15PM (45 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday November 16 2018, @09:15PM (#762846) Journal

      He reports what people give him to report on. Fascists hate reporters. And, as you point out, HRC is a fascist.

      Clinton didn't go after Assange. Trump is the only one that's done so. Is Trump a fascist?

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by edIII on Friday November 16 2018, @09:52PM (33 children)

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @09:52PM (#762859)

        She didn't? I guess she just called for his death by drone strike trying her hand at stand-up comedy?

        I dunno if she did anything official, but she was vocal about how an assassination of Assange would be in our best interests.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:42PM (16 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:42PM (#762874)

          I dunno if she did anything official, but she was vocal about how an assassination of Assange would be in our best interests.

          Wait, so Assange has free speech rights in the US even though he is not a citizen and was not in the US when he released documents obtained illegally by Russia, but Clinton does not have free speech to voice her opinion?

          I don't know the last time (if ever) Assange was in the US but it hasn't been for at least the number of years that he's been hiding in that embassy. Why does the US Constitution apply to him?

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday November 16 2018, @11:03PM (3 children)

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @11:03PM (#762885)

            This isn't a 1st Amendment argument, no matter how much you may try to spin it that way. This about a simple statement, "Clinton didn't go after Assange", which is arguably untrue.

            She was an elected figure, with far more influence over these decisions than you or I. When a former Secretary of State asks, "Can’t we just drone this guy?", that can very legitimately be seen as "going after the guy". "Drone this guy" directly translates to, "Execute this man using advanced military UAVs". If you are on the receiving end of that, you are not thinking about the 1st Amendment rights of a US politician, but looking up into the sky and wondering when death will rain down on you. No shit he decided to spend his life inside an embassy. They're not going to drone attack an Ecuadorian embassy.

            Assange's rights to free speech, or his acting as a member of the press, or Clinton's opinions and free speech rights are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether she was going after the man. I'm hard pressed to see how you could conclude otherwise, regardless of political leanings.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:23AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:23AM (#763012)

              Others defending Assange have been calling this a 1st Amendment issue (free press and free speech). It is neither because Assange, nor his actions, are not covered by the US Constitution. If you're not on US territory, or a US citizen, the the US Constitution does not apply to you.

              Clinton has only been elected to the US Senate (was it one or two terms?). In her position as Secretary of State she was appointed by the President after being confirmed by the Senate.

              Clinton's position as Secretary of State has (had) zero power to order any military or police actions. Zero. In fact, the Secretary of State doesn't even get to decide how much security the embassies get (security requirements are determined by the CIA, and visible security is staffed by the US Marines).

              Clinton did state that she thought Assange should be "droned" (however it was phrased), which we all can agree was a statement expressing her sentiments that the US would be better off if Assange was dead (however it was performed). But she has zero authority to request such actions against Assange. Her public statements, though broadcast to the world, were her opinions.

              Assange is not hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because of Clinton's statements. He is there because he skipped bail in the UK related to extraditing him to Sweden to face questioning related to charges of sexual assault. The charges were subsequently dropped, but not until after Assange took refuge inside the embassy.

              Assange has released documents about many countries, including those who are much less subtle about eliminating people they don't like. They may not have the drone capabilities of the US, but they "get their man" anyway. Assange has much more to worry about than Clinton's public statements.

              Lastly, I am no fan of Clinton, but I am less of a fan of Assange. He is a phony. He is all about self promotion no matter what motives he claims. And he does not reveal documents he has about some counties because he "likes" them. If he was truly in the business of revealing the "truth" he shouldn't be holding anything back.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:15PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:15PM (#763092)

              "Can’t we just drone this guy?", that can very legitimately be seen as "going after the guy". "Drone this guy" directly translates to, "Execute this man using advanced military UAVs".

              So, in a closed meeting where no orders were given, someone possibly made a dark joke that nobody acts on nor was expected to act on and that's proof they are a fascist. Versus actually putting the gears of the justice department into motion and producing not just an investigation but a criminal complaint filed under seal. You, my friend, need to grow a sense of proportion. Too much time on the internet has debilitated your ability to accurately perceive reality.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Saturday November 17 2018, @11:03PM

                by pTamok (3042) on Saturday November 17 2018, @11:03PM (#763246)

                "Can’t we just drone this guy?", that can very legitimately be seen as "going after the guy". "Drone this guy" directly translates to, "Execute this man using advanced military UAVs".

                So, in a closed meeting where no orders were given, someone possibly made a dark joke that nobody acts on nor was expected to act on and that's proof they are a fascist. Versus actually putting the gears of the justice department into motion and producing not just an investigation but a criminal complaint filed under seal. You, my friend, need to grow a sense of proportion. Too much time on the internet has debilitated your ability to accurately perceive reality.

                "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" [wikipedia.org]

                Non-orders, expressed by people in power can have consequences.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:05PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:05PM (#762887)

            You have either ulterior motives, a low intellect, or have never read it. The US Constitution is quite clear about which bits apply to citizens, and which bits apply to everyone.

            Here's a hint. When it says "people" it applies to everyone. When it says "citizen" it applies to US citizens.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @08:49AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @08:49AM (#763003)

              Here's a hint. When it says "people" it applies to everyone. When it says "citizen" it applies to US citizens.

              Here's a hint: it applies to "people" who are in the US, not people the world over. Assange is not, and was not, in the US. So how does it apply to him?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:07AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:07AM (#763007)

                Here's a hint: it applies to "people" who are in the US, not people the world over.

                No, it applies to everyone, and it always has.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:17PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:17PM (#763163)

                  Got anything to back up this fantasy? The US Constitution does not apply all over the world, only in the US and US territories. Go to some other country, let's say Thailand, and say something derogatory against their government. Not only will you find that "free speech" doesn't exist there, but that Thailand has the death penalty for people who speak out against the government or say anything even remotely negative about their king.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @03:03PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @03:03PM (#763877) Journal

                    Got anything to back up this fantasy? The US Constitution does not apply all over the world, only in the US and US territories. Go to some other country, let's say Thailand, and say something derogatory against their government. Not only will you find that "free speech" doesn't exist there, but that Thailand has the death penalty for people who speak out against the government or say anything even remotely negative about their king.

                    What happens when you say something derogatory about Thailand in the US? Does that mean that Thailand police can just swing by and arrest you? Extradition works with two conditions: 1) that the activity (which causes an effect in another country) is a crime both where the act occurred and in the country which was affected by the act, and 2) there is an expectation that the defendant will receive the full protection of the law and that this protection meets the standards of the source country from which the defendant is to be extradited.

                    We have this coy game where the defendant is supposed to be extradited to the US, and then despite being in the jurisdiction of the US Constitution subject to illegal kangaroo courts that refuse to honor the rights that the Constitution has granted. How can you not see the danger inherent in that? What happens when the next administration arrests you and extradites you to say, Saudi Arabia for anti-Islam hate speech? You might not even be offered the rudimentary legal protections of Saudi Arabia, because you committed your crimes elsewhere and aren't a citizen. Similarly, what happens when other countries start refusing to extradite people to the US because the US no longer offers rule of law and proper legal protection to defendants? Think of the blowback next time.

                    Finally, if you're going to try someone in the US, then the Constitution mandates that they receive the full legal protections due a defendant in the US. Period. There is no provision for these sorts of games. The Founders were smarter than that.

              • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday November 19 2018, @03:02AM

                by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 19 2018, @03:02AM (#763760)

                This becomes a moot point. If Assange was not in the US at the time, then it cannot be said that he committed crime on US soil. Ipso Facto, he can't be arrested and extradited to the US for a crime that did not occur there.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:46AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:46AM (#762947) Homepage Journal

            Sometimes, there are consequences for exercising your free speech. Conspiracy to murder is covered by free speech, but it's also covered by some laws designed to punish that conspiracy.

            --
            Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:37PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:37PM (#763152) Journal

            Wait, so Assange has free speech rights in the US even though he is not a citizen and was not in the US when he released documents obtained illegally by Russia, but Clinton does not have free speech to voice her opinion?

            Why shouldn't he and Wikileaks have free speech rights again? And the problem with Clinton is not that she is exercising her speech, but rather that she is a government official who joked about killing someone for the mere act of speech.

            I don't know the last time (if ever) Assange was in the US but it hasn't been for at least the number of years that he's been hiding in that embassy. Why does the US Constitution apply to him?

            Because there are a number of places where rights are given to "The People" not citizens. Even if technically, Assange is not a member of "the People" at the time of the speech, he would be once he is extradited. The First Amendment in particular applies to The People not to citizens.

            Finally, what's up with the coy attempts to circumvent sound legal principles? Next time, think of how it can be used against you when your team isn't in power.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:39PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:39PM (#763170)

              Assange doesn't get free speech under the US Constitution because he is not covered by it. The "people" mentioned in the US Constitution are people in the US at the time of their actions, not all over the world. I don't know if the Ecuadorian government grants its citizens and residents "free speech", but that's whose laws Assange's free speech would reside.

              Assange will not get retroactive rights under the US Constitution if/when he is extradited to the US. And what you refer to as his "speech" (releasing illegally obtained documents) is covered by US laws (we'll have to wait to see which ones his charging documents include).

              I am well aware of how rights can be revoked and "used against me". But Assange does not have the same rights in the US as a US resident does, nor someone visiting the US. He was a foreign actor, on foreign soil, taking actions that violated US law. You may not agree with the laws, or you may think the US should extend their Constitution to include Assange, but that doesn't mean you're going to get your wish.

              Regarding Clinton, her speech was exactly that: speech. And I don't really think she meant it as a joke. Was it ill advised? Yes. Was it heartless and brutal? Yes. Does it make her a vile human being? Yes. Was it speech? Yes. Was it covered by the 1st Amendment? Yes. Does she get more rights under the US Constitution than Assange? Yes (because he is not covered by the US Constitution).

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:59PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:59PM (#763190) Journal

                Assange doesn't get free speech under the US Constitution because he is not covered by it.

                And as I noted, extraditing him to stand trial in the US would bring him under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.

                The "people" mentioned in the US Constitution are people in the US at the time of their actions, not all over the world.

                Or at the time of their trials.

                I am well aware of how rights can be revoked and "used against me".

                You are demonstrating otherwise.

                But Assange does not have the same rights in the US as a US resident does

                Which is not in dispute. But he does get significant protections under the US Constitution even for speech and other activities that were taken outside of the US.

                Regarding Clinton, her speech was exactly that: speech.

                Inappropriate speech by a representative of the US government and the US people.

                • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday November 19 2018, @03:12AM (1 child)

                  by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 19 2018, @03:12AM (#763763)

                  To claim on one hand that Assange can be charged under US law and then on the other hand to say that US legal protections don't apply to him is trying to have your cake and eat it.

                  Then again, US courts will charge a minor as an adult for taking a nude photo of themselves (so legally they are both a minor and adult at the same time), so it's hard to argue that there's no precedent for stupidity on this one.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @02:51PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @02:51PM (#763876) Journal
                    Indeed. That's an excellent way to state the problem. When combined with your observation [soylentnews.org] that the alleged crime was not even committed on US soil, we end up with a conundrum. Why is it supposed to be valid for the US to charge people elsewhere in the world for crimes that may or may not have occurred, without US legal protections when the opposite can be just as valid? That the US can't charge those people for those alleged crimes because they didn't do them in the US?

                    Current extradition requires that the act be a crime in both countries and that the defendant will receive the legal protections that he is due as considered by the country from which the defendant would be extradited. This coy game of not properly providing the full constitutional rights, would then be a valid justification for denying future extraditions to the US. That's merely one example of how this can backfire.

                    We also have the specter of prosecutor shopping where people are extradited to countries with favorable (to the prosecutor) laws for punishing the defendant. Disparage Islam in public? You just might be seeing Saudi, Pakistani, or Indonesian prosecutors in your future as your government rids itself of a nettlesome critic.

                    And I have to roll my eyes again at the AC who started this thread. He or she clearly hasn't thought through the many ways this derails the rule of law and democracy, despite protests to the contrary.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:21AM (14 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:21AM (#762909) Journal

          She didn't? I guess she just called for his death by drone strike trying her hand at stand-up comedy?

          Snopes rates that allegation as unproven. [snopes.com]

          I dunno if she did anything official,

          She didn't.

          but she was vocal about how an assassination of Assange would be in our best interests.

          No, that's a lie. Even if we assume that the unnamed sources aren't exaggerating, the worst you can say is she brought it up in a single meeting.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:52AM (12 children)

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:52AM (#762927)

            I'll take a look at the Snopes article. To say she didn't do anything official may be pushing it. Bringing up the drone strike in a single meeting is still just as bad as bringing it up in five meetings, and if discussed at the meeting in question, was sure as fuck official. It is still just as chilling to free speech and the press, as any dictators killing journalists in their countries. Like Putin and his relationship with his detractors.

            The way I heard it reported, was that the sources were from inside the state department that had access to the minutes of the meeting. I believe Clinton had it out for Assange as much as Assange had it out for Clinton. That, and she's an unelectable fucking cunt of a globalist that conspired against Bernie Sanders and denied us all democracy. That is actually factual. So forgive me if I absolutely believe she asked if they could do a drone strike on Assange.

            My dislike of her isn't political really. She betrayed us all early in her husband's first term by abandoning her virtue signalling over health care, and the dumb fucking cunt practically wrote Walmart's anti-union strategies. She was never part of us, and always an elite comfortable with fucking over the middle class. Her, and her piece of shit husband Bill, ARE responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, may they burn in fucking hell for what came next.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:49AM (11 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:49AM (#762951) Homepage Journal

              Yes, look at Snopes - but bear in mind that they are a liberal tool. That chick who was hired to investigate political stuff is 1000% progressive. She's never met a conservative she likes, and she's never met a progressive she didn't like. She might not lie to you, but she won't tell the truth, either.

              --
              Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:30AM (10 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:30AM (#762957)

                Yes, look at Snopes - but bear in mind that they are a liberal tool.

                you are a liberal tool.
                its textbook fascism that when you can't argue the facts, work the refs instead.
                find a new trick npc

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:58AM (4 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:58AM (#762983) Homepage Journal

                  Get your facts straight. Facts are facts, and you don't get to twist them to your liking.

                  https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/ [dailycaller.com]

                  Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

                  Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

                  Snopes is pretty reliable, so long as you're not looking for political opinions. Their politics is liberal/left and maybe even progressive. I'll visit Snopes for anything else, but politics is politics.

                  --
                  Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:29AM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:29AM (#763014)

                    Using the Daily Caller as a "news" source that claims others are left/liberal/progressive? Seriously? They think hardline conservatives are too soft.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @10:51AM (2 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @10:51AM (#763028) Homepage Journal

                      So, find your own source. There are plenty. Fact is, Snopes is biased. They should have stayed out of politics, or if they were going to get into politics, they should have hired an unbiased blogger. Or, at the least, a blogger whose biases didn't favor either the D's or the R's.

                      --
                      Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:01PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:01PM (#763087)

                        So, find your own source.

                        lolwut?
                        Did you just tell him to go find a reliable source that proves YOU right because you are too damn stupid to do it yourself?
                        If you fascists werent so dangerous you'd be a slapstick comedy show.

                        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:52PM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:52PM (#763105) Homepage Journal

                          No, dumbass, I told him that if he doesn't like my source, he can find his own. Community college, literacy 101 - try it.

                          --
                          Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:01AM (4 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:01AM (#762984) Homepage Journal
                  --
                  Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @01:58PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @01:58PM (#763084)

                    Dude, you are citing tucker carlson's nazi website. No wonder you think snopes is biased - if you want to understand why RWNJs think the mainstream press are liars, its because they know their own RWNJ press is a grift bazar so they think everybody else is too.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:54PM (2 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:54PM (#763107) Homepage Journal

                      Yeah - Nazi. Got it. Do you have an approved list of non-Nazi sites?

                      --
                      Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:42PM (#763171)

                        Anything not in your browser history?

                        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:41AM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:41AM (#763269) Homepage Journal

                          Hillary's server, but it seems I'm late getting there. That leaves the Vatican.

                          --
                          Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
          • (Score: 2) by Username on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:29PM

            by Username (4557) on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:29PM (#763067)

            Here is a rebuttal [youtube.com] to the snopes article by Hilary Clinton's friend, Cenk of The Young Turks.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:01AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:01AM (#762986) Journal

          I guess she just called for his death by drone strike trying her hand at stand-up comedy?

          Incidentally, not getting a laugh during a stand-up comedy act is called bombing [thoughtco.com].
          So... yeah... there...make what you can of it.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:24AM (#762925)

        Because Trump is a fascist doesn't mean HRC is not a fascist.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:36AM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:36AM (#762941)

        What a partisan shill. The ruling class has been going after Assange for as long as he's been imprisoned in that embassy. Did you forget why he was in the embassy?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:36AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:36AM (#762958)

          Or maybe, just maybe, he actually wasn't the angel he claimed to be and he played on the paranoia of the conspiracy-theory susceptible for the notoriety and to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. After all, not only did he go all inon the the seth rich lies in general he falsely implied that seth rich was the source for the stuff he got from russia just to keep his own name in the news. That's not the actions of a trustworthy person. So his credibility is in the shitter nowadays.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:13AM (3 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:13AM (#762989) Homepage Journal

            I don't believe Assange ever made any claims to being an angel. On at least two occassions, Assange did his thinking with his penis, which isn't very angelic.

            Actually, what we have here, is confirmation that Assange was justifiably paranoid. The documents are there, confirming that the US is and/or was trying to extradite him. The documents also tend to confirm that all of the foreign governments involved have been less than open and honest.

            WTF does your angel shit have to do with anything?

            --
            Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:06PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:06PM (#763090)

              I don't believe Assange ever made any claims to being an angel. On at least two occassions, Assange did his thinking with his penis, which isn't very angelic.

              Dude you live some kind of alt-reality.

              He literally claimed to have not used his penis to sexually assault two women. Its like the central narrative of his life for the last 10+ years. The fact that you have it exactly reversed is nutso. Of all the things you could have cited to "prove" he's a not a bad guy, you had to go to with that? Man you are dumb as a fucking rock.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:50PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:50PM (#763103) Homepage Journal

                You must be American. There are no allegations of rape, or sexual assault, or anything of the nature. The allegation involves failure to use a condom when he went back for seconds. An impropriety, nothing more, it seems. Because we don't use terms and charges used over there, few of us understand any charge less than sexual assault.

                --
                Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:45PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:45PM (#763172)

                Man you are dumb as a fucking rock.

                Stop insulting rocks!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:44AM (#763017)

          Did you forget why he was in the embassy?

          Because he was afraid to face questioning about sexual assault allegations so he skipped bail in the UK and sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. Hiding out because he was afraid to face the music is not being "imprisoned".

          Before you cry out "the charges were dropped!", yes they were. Yet assange ran and hid even though he claimed he was innocent. Would the US have tried to extradite him once he was back in Sweden? They may have. The US would have had to bring charges against Assange (which they never have) in order to attempt to extradite him. Assange releasing the DNC emails took place years after Assange took up permanent residence in the Ecuadorian embassy, and those charges were revealed in this court filing.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:44AM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:44AM (#762945) Homepage Journal

        "Can't we just drone him or something?"

        --
        Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:28AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:28AM (#763013)

          Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 17 2018, @10:52AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @10:52AM (#763030) Homepage Journal

            Nope. Some things, you have to do for yourself.

            --
            Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:00PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:00PM (#762860)

      I'm still putting a lot into context. It's obvious that the Democratic Party has been pushing the Russia narrative for a while. But it's not just DeathMonkey's post up there, I've read some things I think on Common Dreams, to the effect that the deep state will (in accordance with the Russia narrative) capture Assange, lock him up, throw away the key, then this will all be blamed on Trump. Because Trump is bad, and an aberration, and certainly not just a symptom, etc etc

      And then in my dream, Manbearpig came to Assange's rescue in 2020, vanquishing the Orange Terror. But that's what I get for eating cheap pizza before bed!

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @11:10PM (#762892)

        Here's the Common Dreams article that was on my mind: 'Dangerous Path for Democracy' and Dire Threat to Press Freedom: Trump DOJ's Secret Charges Against WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Revealed [commondreams.org]:

        "I hope people see how precedent the Trump administration wants to get against WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act can easily be turned around and used on mainstream reporters," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote on Twitter. "Hard to overstate how dangerous it would be for press freedom."

        That article cites Glenn Greenwald over at The Intercept: As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom [theintercept.com]:

        Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions....

        I break the paragraph here. The point is that this is being framed as a goal of the Trump administration, the hostility of the alt-right towards (almost paradoxically) corporate capitalist "mainstream" news sources now being used as cover for the ruling class' hostility towards journalists like Assange (i.e. journalists that do not simply regurgitate ruling class propaganda). The rest of that paragraph however points out that in reality the persecution of journalists is bipartisan:

        ...Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:27AM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:27AM (#762911) Journal

        ...capture Assange, lock him up, throw away the key, then this will all be blamed on Trump. Because Trump is bad, and an aberration, and certainly not just a symptom, etc etc

        Or maybe he'll be blamed because he's in charge of the executive branch. Y'know, the branch that does the locking up and key throwing.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:41AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:41AM (#762943)

          When will the ruling class of capitalist elites whose interests were harmed by the Collateral Murder video be blamed for the obvious invention of bogus sexual accusations?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:31AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @09:31AM (#763015)

            capitalist elites whose interests were harmed by the Collateral Murder video

            yes

            the obvious invention of bogus sexual accusations?

            no

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:48PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:48PM (#763156) Journal

            ruling class of capitalist elites

            Why include the term "capitalist"? I doubt anyone cares outside of the intelligence and military bureaucracy.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 16 2018, @08:21PM (25 children)

    by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday November 16 2018, @08:21PM (#762831) Journal

    It's not known what Assange would be charged with. Charges in relation to the Clinton emails are a good guess, but maybe President Trump's new AG could just sweep the sealed indictment under the rug. Trump did ask for those emails after all.

    If Trump really values loyalty (or at least good service), he ought to pardon Assange after the 2020 elections have concluded. It would be an interesting parallel to Obama's pardoning of Chelsea Manning.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by mendax on Friday November 16 2018, @08:36PM (2 children)

      by mendax (2840) on Friday November 16 2018, @08:36PM (#762834)

      It would be an interesting parallel to Obama's pardoning of Chelsea Manning.

      It should be noted that Obama did not pardon Chelsea Manning. He commuted his sentence to time served, and Manning had served a good stretch of time already. He still has a felony conviction that will dog him the rest of his life. Julian Assange does not want to rot away in an American jail or prison at all... and I don't blame him.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:39AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:39AM (#762974)

        I don't blame him.

        Well, you wouldn't, would you?

        "Assange called himself Mendax—from Horace’s splendide mendax, or “nobly untruthful”—and he established a reputation as a sophisticated programmer who could break into the most secure networks." (The New Yorker [newyorker.com])

        • (Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:46AM

          by mendax (2840) on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:46AM (#762982)

          Yes, that is true. I found it to be a strange parallel that he and I share the same handle. Fortunately, he and I are different people. I'd hate to be in his shoes at this moment.

          --
          It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:06PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @09:06PM (#762844)

      Trump did ask for those emails after all.

      So? Does a candidate asking for stolen emails somehow make the illegal activities go away? Since the first Russian activity attempting to access HRC's email came after Trump asked for the emails make it a "job for hire"?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday November 16 2018, @09:20PM (17 children)

        by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday November 16 2018, @09:20PM (#762848) Journal

        My point was that Trump owes Assange a favor. He's all about loyalty.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday November 16 2018, @09:29PM (12 children)

          by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @09:29PM (#762854) Journal

          I don't know that he owes him a favor, but WHAT THE HELL would he be charged with that has a chance of sticking to a foreign reporter?
           
          It would be funny to see the cognitive dissonance all around that a pardon would create though.

          --
          В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Osamabobama on Friday November 16 2018, @10:47PM (3 children)

            by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday November 16 2018, @10:47PM (#762876)

            WHAT THE HELL would he be charged with ...

            Well, traditionally, that would be rape.

            --
            Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
            • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday November 16 2018, @11:07PM (1 child)

              by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @11:07PM (#762889) Journal

              That's not a U.S. thing, and was weak sauce anyway.

              --
              В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
              • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Pav on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:18AM

                by Pav (114) on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:18AM (#762907)

                "Sex, lies and Julian Assange" [abc.net.au] was a Four Corners (an Australian investigative news program) report into Assange, Wikileaks and the whole situation surrounding the rape allegations. Assange himself looks like a typical flawed human, but certainly no rapist. The Wikileaks backstory was frankly more interesting.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:41AM (#762962)

              Well, traditionally, that would be rape.

              The rape charges were in europe, not the USA. But good call!

          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday November 16 2018, @10:49PM

            by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 16 2018, @10:49PM (#762879) Journal

            I'm sure they could find something. I know of at least two guys who had never been to the USA who were extradited there to face charges. The bloke from 'drink or die' in AU and another in the UK who supposedly hacked into NASA.

            --
            No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by lars on Friday November 16 2018, @11:04PM (6 children)

            by lars (4376) on Friday November 16 2018, @11:04PM (#762886)

            There are logs of chatting with Manning that were leaked. In them he gives Manning instructions on how to hack military computers. Specifically rainbow tables for password hashes IIRC. This takes from from receiving classified information (totally legal), to being part of a conspiracy to take it (very illegal).

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Friday November 16 2018, @11:09PM (5 children)

              by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @11:09PM (#762890) Journal

              Now THAT's one of the most potentially important bits and characteristically ignored. -sigh-

              I'll dig around see if i can find info on it. Thanks :)

              --
              В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:10AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:10AM (#762932)
                • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:36PM (2 children)

                  by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:36PM (#763069) Journal

                  Raw text is always better. Articles try to sanitize important bits.

                  Quite possibly they were just using a widely known publicly available cracking/password auditing tool like l0phtcrack.

                  --
                  В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:08PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:08PM (#763091)

                    That's irrelevant. The fact is he went from being a passive receiver to actively advising. That's the line between legality and illegality.

                    • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:49PM

                      by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:49PM (#763512) Journal

                      No doubt. I didn't mean to imply that. Just speculating that these weren't hacker geniuses, just likely using a common tool available at the time for Lanman hash auditing. Every NT admin of the late 90's ran L0PHT against their domain and got woke when they recovered half the passwords within hours. These guys did have an effect on password policies at least.
                       
                      That doesn't mean that saying "Yeah, we can do ROT13" is not breaking the law (btw you should always use double ROT13, it's twice as secure), just that its a weak PW scheme.

                      --
                      В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
              • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:16PM

                by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:16PM (#763062) Journal

                Found some old articles with it:

                In a March 8, 2010, chat, Manning asked Assange for help in cracking a password so he could log onto the classified computer anonymously, Fein said.

                “Any good at IM-Hash cracking?” Manning asks.

                “Yes,” is the reply. “We have rainbow tables for IM,” the interlocutor says, citing a tool that can be used to decipher passwords.

                Manning sends a string of numbers.

                “Passed it on to our guys,” is the reply.

                --
                В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday November 16 2018, @11:57PM (3 children)

          by NewNic (6420) on Friday November 16 2018, @11:57PM (#762905) Journal

          He's all about loyalty.

          You don't really read the news, do you?

          Trump is all about loyalty, but only loyalty to him. In Trump's mind, it doesn't flow the other way: there is no quid pro quo that Trump feels obligated to honour.

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:22AM (#762935)

            As someone who has had to deal with a couple of people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (and because of that experience can see trump's disorder plain as day) its not that trump believes in loyalty, he believes in whatever he can say to make people do what he wants. Which is textbook NPD logic.

            My learning about the NPD of people in my family just happens to have coincided with the election of trump, before that I was just as ignorant and naive as anybody else about how utterly foreign NPD thought processes are. I think this country would be 1000x better off if more people understood NPD - and not just for understanding trump, but all kinds of other malignant actors in our daily lives too because once you know how they think so many "odd" behaviors by people in general make so much more sense. If anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole, you can start by googling "narcissistic parents" other useful concepts to google - DARVO, "golden child and scapegoat" (ivanka is the classic golden child) and especially "gaslighting" which is the #1 tool of narcissists.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:00PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 17 2018, @06:00PM (#763161) Journal

              I was just as ignorant and naive as anybody else about how utterly foreign NPD thought processes are.

              If you're human, you're not so ignorant and naive as you think. Many of these disorders are merely normal human thinking with enough dysfunction tossed in that it counts as a mental illness.

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:13AM

            by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Saturday November 17 2018, @07:13AM (#762988) Journal
            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 16 2018, @10:40PM (2 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday November 16 2018, @10:40PM (#762872) Homepage

      Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning because muh tranny rather than for doing the right thing and jailing and continuing the torture of a tranny is bad optics for Leftists. And, while I used to be pro-Manning, I now believe that he did it almost entirely because he had an axe to grind because the Army douchebags were picking on him all the time and he wanted to "stick it to the man." Still, he did a good thing for all of us.

      And now I'm rubbing my hands together like a filthy Jew because my "free Bradley Manning" poster I got from a march will become a valuable collector's item and I will someday receive lots of sheckels for it.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @10:48PM (#762878)

        I saw this movie before. "The return of the stupid to the basement of chastity."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:27AM (#762936)

          Mama is very Proud of her Boy, soon he'll get to live in the broom closet.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:03AM (#763279)

    Zuck, the Goog boys, MS, Apple, Amazon et al also "know what they're doing" but nobody wants to throw them in the slammer. I call double-standard on this.