SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DNC serves WikiLeaks with lawsuit via Twitter
The Democratic National Committee on Friday officially served its lawsuit to WikiLeaks via Twitter, employing a rare method to serve its suit to the elusive group that has thus far been unresponsive.
As CBS News first reported last month, the DNC filed a motion with a federal court in Manhattan requesting permission to serve its complaint to WikiLeaks on Twitter, a platform the DNC argued the website uses regularly. The DNC filed a lawsuit in April against the Trump campaign, Russian government and WikiLeaks, alleging a massive conspiracy to tilt the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor.
All of the DNC's attempts to serve the lawsuit via email failed, the DNC said in last month's motion to the judge, which was ultimately approved.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London embassy for six years, is considering an offer to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, his lawyer said on Thursday.
WikiLeaks published a letter from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday which asked Assange to make himself available to testify in person at a closed hearing as part of its investigation into whether Moscow meddled to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. "The U.S. Senate Select Committee request confirms their interest in hearing from Mr Assange," lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in a statement.
Julian Assange 'seriously considering' request to meet US Senate committee
Lawyers for Julian Assange say they are "seriously considering" a request from a US Senate committee to interview the WikiLeaks founder as part of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The Senate select committee on intelligence has written to Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for more than six years.
[...] The chairman of the committee, Richard Burr, wrote: "As you are aware, the Senate select committee on intelligence is conducting a bipartisan inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. As part of that inquiry, the committee requests that you make yourself available for a closed interview with bipartisan committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location."
The ultimate irony would involve Julian Assange avoiding Metropolitan Police arrest by somehow fleeing to the United States.
See also: Mueller subpoenas Randy Credico, who Roger Stone says was his WikiLeaks back channel
Previously: DNC's Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks is an Attack on Freedom of the Press
Related: Prominent Whistleblowers and Journalists Defend Julian Assange at Online Vigil
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:44AM (16 children)
I sincerely doubt that there will be. Our grand experiment with representative democracy has failed.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:52AM (3 children)
*BZZT* WRING
The problem is corruption via lack of transparency and centralized control of media. It is too easy to suppress information, and direct democracy simply isnt suitable for every situation. All other systems are worse so far.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:16PM (2 children)
That's how it's been failing. Pointing out the problems doesn't make them automatically go away.
There are a lot of system design problems in the US government, in particular that the Constitution has no ability to enforce itself, so those in power ignore it whenever they see fit.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday August 15 2018, @10:41PM (1 child)
Just interpret the second amendment as declaring the People as the Sergent at Arms for the government. The Constitution is supposed to be upheld by the guns the citizens hold. The founders expected those in government to run away with power as soon as they could.
The unfortunate thing we have going on is that the Left is terrified of guns and okay with larger government as long as that government takes away the guns. The bad thing about the right is that they are only interested in the second amendment for the purpose of defending the second amendment, but not anything else. Those to the right is that gun rights have made them docile, they assume that as long as the second amendment stands the remainder cannot be taken away. The right is a frog being slowly cooked and by the time they realize that the second amendment was the last thing the government was coming for it will be too late.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:48AM
The large number of armed citizens has not lead to the constitution being upheld. So think of another approach.
For that matter, vigilante groups were notorious for their disregard of both law and justice. I suspect that the approach you're suggesting has no way of being fixed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sweettea on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:29AM (10 children)
I hope we swiftly become a monarchy. The people have demonstrated that demogogues are more popular than good governors. But demogogues don't want to face their incompetence at actual government at the next election, so they build structures like the NSA to justify their continued election. Monarchy solves such problems, particularly hereditary: one raised from birth to govern, and who has no additional power, is likely to both know how to govern better than a demogogue and also be incentivized to rule for the good of the people rather than to increase power. Certainly the nobles will plot and intrigue, but they have no incentive to spy outside their circle. And a ultimately accountable monarch is far preferable to the faceless bureaucracy where nobody takes responsibility for a rule denying people what they want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:36AM
You can just move to england?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:48AM
A monarch does have some of the right incentives. A diligent and conscientious monarch will probably make a better ruler than anyone that would actually be elected to an analogous position in a democracy.
But, at least when you elect a twit you can un-elect him next election with relatively little fuss. It's considerably messier to get rid of a hereditary monarch.
And the real-life examples aren't all that great. Don't talk to me about the QEII, she's only a ceremonial figurehead for the commonwealth democracies. As far as I know all the European "monarchs" are vestigial, and most worldwide are. There are a very few real monarchs left; The King of Bahrain, The Sultan of Brunei, The King of Eswatini, The King of Jordan, The Emir of Kuwait, the King of Lesotho, the Sultan of Oman, The Emir of Qatar, The King of Saudi Arabia... that's it or very near. The King of Morocco looks like an edge case, he's been forced to allow some constitutional reforms that weakened him recently and if that keeps up he'll be removed or turned into a figurehead soon. The Thai king is a corner case - on paper as much a figurehead as any European monarch, in fact he might have enough public support to take back over if he wanted to. Partly because the country is otherwise run by the military and often corrupt politicians in phases, which I'm sure gets tiresome.
Anyway you might notice that it's not a particularly impressive list of countries, or rulers. Not that they're all bad, but your thesis would probably lead us to expect better.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:16AM
Are you suggesting Hillary would have been a "good governor"? Hilla-rious.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:41AM (1 child)
While there are many examples in history of benevolent competent monarchs, they are by no means the only possibility. Heredity is a crapshoot.
Okay, perhaps govern better than a demogogue, but many politicians are professionals already training their entire careers, and look what we get. (Also, plenty of families with multiple generations who are major politicians.) Why is strict heredity going to be better than what we already see from career politicians?
HAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh wait, you're serious. Why the heck would that be true? Perhaps you haven't heard the line about "power corrupts..."
Huh. Accountable to whom? I'm not sure you understand the definition of "monarch." ( Hint: it's in the root "mon-".)
Perhaps you're confusing actual monarchy (where the monarch has real power) with most of the "Constitutional monarchies" that exist today, where the monarch is mostly a figurehead and real power is in a "prime minister" or some such role, who is either elected directly or elected by a body of popular representatives.
If you need a refresher on the kind of crap that actual monarchs do to their people, I can recommend some reading on the subject by a guy named Jefferson. It's called the "Declaration of Independence."
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:28PM
An interesting in between case is the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy in Britain. They didn't have a rule of primo-geniture. IIRC anyone out to the first degree (sons, possibly daughters, cousins, nephews, possibly neices) of the current monarch could be elected by the "council of elders" as the next king (or queen?).
IIUC, most of the rulers were well intentioned, but many were somewhat incompetent. I've even heard it claimed that William of Normandy was qualified as a candidate. I'm not sure that's true, and I don't know what the Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards bastards was. And when I look up his ancestry on the net it doesn't seem likely.
OTOH, the Anglo-Saxons weren't running a police state. And "well intentioned" probably means they supported the traditional nobility.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:11PM (3 children)
It puzzles me why you would propose to replace democracy, imperfect as it may be, with a clearly inferior system?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:12PM (2 children)
It's because little pussy snowflakes on either side can't stand the rough and tumble of democracy and would like a nice strong dictator to make decisions for them. Ask the East Germans how well that worked.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:50PM (1 child)
The same person who thinks the republican party is dying but not the democratic...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:17PM
No, I think both of them are dying, but that we'd be better off with the one who's more anti-science and pro-religion dying more quickly.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2018, @06:19AM
Right off the bat, this would mean we probably get more than 8 years out of Trump. We might get 20.
Trump Jr. is excellent.
After that... I'm much less certain, but I think the result would still be good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:24PM
WTF? A corrupt, self-serving elite can no longer collude to prejudice and manipulate the outcome of the vote. Suddenly, we're hearing that democracy has failed?
Writing on his novel "Naked Lunch", William S. Burroughs stated Jack Kerouac suggested the title.
What did everyone see? [youtube.com]