Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the wasn't-expecting-that dept.

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

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: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:41AM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:41AM (#720521) Journal

    While there are many examples in history of benevolent competent monarchs, they are by no means the only possibility. Heredity is a crapshoot.

    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

    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?

    and also be incentivized to rule for the good of the people rather than to increase power.


    Oh wait, you're serious. Why the heck would that be true? Perhaps you haven't heard the line about "power corrupts..."

    And a ultimately accountable monarch

    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."

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:28PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:28PM (#720644) Journal

    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.