Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ecuador Limited Assange’s Internet to Stop Interference of U.S. Election

Ecuador Limited Assange’s Internet to Stop Interference of U.S. Election

Wikileaks has published thousands of John Podesta’s emails.

The Ecuadorian government admitted it cut off and limited Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s internet access as a way to stop interfering with the U.S. presidential election. The anti-secrecy website has been publishing emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s Gmail account, including transcripts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs.

The government had enough, but also expressed its continued support of Assange:

“The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. It does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate,” Ecuador said in a statement.

“Accordingly, Ecuador has exercised its sovereign right to temporarily restrict access to some of its private communications network within its Embassy in the United Kingdom.”

The embassy agreed to give Assange asylum in 2012 at its London embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape charges.

The snafu occurred over the weekend after the site published three Goldman Sachs interviews from Hillary. Wikileaks confirmed Assange lost internet at the embassy, but when media outlets asked for a comment, the Ecuadorians refused to say anything.

On Tuesday, Wikileaks said that multiple sources claimed that Secretary of State John Kerry asked the Ecuadorian government to cut off Assange’s internet while he helped the Colombian government negotiate a peace deal with FARC. The State Department quickly denied the accusations:

“While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false,” [State Department spokesman John] Kirby said. “Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorian officials about this are simply untrue. Period.”

The Ecuadorian government also released a statement affirming its support of Assange:

Translation: “Faced with speculation of the last hours, the government of Ecuador reaffirms the validity of granted asylum to Julian Assange four years ago. We reaffirm that the protection of the Ecuadorian state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of the asylum remain.”

No one in Hillary’s campaign has confirmed the authenticity of the emails, but have not denied them either. Podesta told reporters he blames Russia for the hacks:

“I’ve been involved in politics for nearly five decades,” Mr. Podesta told reporters aboard the Clinton campaign plane. “This definitely is the first campaign that I’ve been involved with in which I’ve had to tangle with Russian intelligence agencies,” he added, “who seem to be doing everything that they can on behalf of our opponent.”

Despite the situation, Wikileaks continues to work and has dumped more Podesta emails.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Oh gawd, the hypocrisy and lies abound on all sides.

When Ecuador first gave Assange refuge, it cited his position as a journalist as one of the justifications. Now they decry “interference in elections?” I remember the day when journalists dug into the dirt of ALL candidates, and if what they found “interfered” with someone’s decision-making process regarding who they were going to vote for, then so be it. The goal was to shine light on the truth, not matter what. That seems so quaint now.

And Podesta, what a lying sack of shit that motherfucker is. Hillary sold out her office and assisted Russian firms in gaining ownership of massive stockpiles of US uranium reserves. Her ham-handed “reset” and feckless foreign policy gave Putin free reign to begin re-building the commie empire, and yet that lying motherfucker wants to try to head-fake us into thinking the other party is somehow tied to the Russians. Fuck you Podesta, if somebody gave you the Harry Reed eye treatment I would laugh in your weasel face.

    Andy in reply to Paul. | October 19, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Say— those Galapagos are some nice islands…it’d be a shame if something happened to them and your tourism industry cratered.

“The Ecuadorian government admitted it cut off and limited Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s internet access as a way to stop interfering with the U.S. presidential election.”

Absolutely. It’s the media’s role to manipulate elections. Duh.

Ecuador uses Assange’s interference in the US election to justify their interference in the US election…

So now telling the truth is “interfering in elections”?

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | October 19, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Acting as a conduit for information…true or not…IS “interfering in an election” by a foreign government.

    AND, IT IS THERE CALL. Not yours or mine.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2016 at 6:33 pm

      The irony is that Assange was revealing interference with the election by a conspiracy that includes the Clinton campaign, the DNC, PACs, the media, foreign players (e.g. George Soros), and others. They interfered with the nomination process (which, although a process of the DNC and not a public process, still resulted in interference with the general election), and they have conspired, and are surely continuing to conspire, to influence the results of the general election by a combination of dirty tricks, voter fraud, and the media’s concealment of the conspiracy.

      If Assange is guilty of anything, he’s guilty of interfering with the interference in the election.

The Washington Post and the New York Times both decided to publish the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post got hold of a “third rate burglary” at Democratic National Headquarters and never let go.

Leaks are part of our free society, and the notion that reporters should not be allowed to report, for fear of influencing an election, has never been applied when a Democratic national candidate might benefit.

The Washington Post, however, actively spikes news stories unfavorable to Democrats in election years. They will only admit it after the election, however.

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | October 19, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    How are domestic newspapers and the government of Ecuador different, Val?

    I’ll wait…

    Semper Why in reply to Valerie. | October 19, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    The part that is particularly galling is that they will admit it after the election. As they have previously done after every Presidential election in my memory. It usually hits about the first week in December. And it always takes the form of “Looking back, we weren’t really fair to [Insert Republican Nominee Here] in our coverage. We didn’t apply the same standards and that goes against the ideal of a news organization. We’ll look at this and make every effort to do better next time.”

      DaveGinOly in reply to Semper Why. | October 19, 2016 at 6:38 pm

      Like they admitted to conducing a baseless smear campaign against Palin (and admitted it was instilled by fear of her), and like Harry Reid admitted that his comments about Romney’s taxes were a complete fabrication (but excused his conduct by concluding “it worked, didn’t it?”). In a twisted way, dirty tricks are the Democrats’ way of showing their respect for an opponent.

Yah- I’m sure they would have done the same if the leaks were about Trump.

Well, Ecuador may imagine that by allowing Assange to operate from the embassy, it’s behaving like France in the seventeenth century, when it allowed its Caribbean possession, L’Île de la Tortue (the notorious Tortuga), to be used as a pirate base, primarily to annoy Spain.

It’s a legitimate concern, though as an excuse it seems unconvincing. To claim neutrality, a country is supposed to maintain business as usual, even if everybody else is setting up embargoes and blockades. A neutral Sweden was obligated to continue iron ore shipments to National Socialist Germany; to block them would be a hostile act against Germany, even if not an actual act of war. Assange’s actions aren’t criminal, by American, Ecuadoran, or UK law; the fact that somebody finds them annoying is not a good reason to butt in, at least not if one wants to claim a policy of non-intervention.

So, Wikileaks make 9-10 dumps of Podesta’s emails and Ecudaor does nothing about Assange. But, immediately after emails presenting Goldman Sachs in particular, and the rest of the global financial establishment in general, in a negative light, Assange’s email is cut off by Ecuador. Is this timing significant? Perhaps not. However, if one subscribes to the theory that global economic interests are generally supportive of the politicians who advance policies which are advantageous to these global interests, even it those policies are detrimental to the rest of the nation, then the timing makes sense.

One only has to look at the causes of the French Revolution and today’s upper financial classes as the French aristocracy to have an idea what is going on at the moment in both the U.S. and the rest of the world. Class conflict, corruption, ongoing economic depression, a government unresponsive to the needs and desires of those governed and persecution of the majority citizenry are all present now, just as they were in 1789. This is not simply another election, but one of the last peaceful demands for change, from the citizenry.

This is an intervention and is favorable to the Clinton campaign. It cannot be called “neutral”. The neutral thing to do is to stay out of the way.
The Ecuadorian government is indeed taking actions to influence the outcome of American elections. Their attempt to spin the facts is pathetic and insulting.
This particular American citizen will never forget that, and neither should the rest of you.

Ecuador has a long and honored history of being carefully neutral when it should be.

And, here, it should be, just like with the Germans prior to WWII…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | October 19, 2016 at 1:31 pm

You people don’t know anything. Nothing at all. The material is not under Assange’s control – at least that is what he always claimed. There are servers spread around the world. The leaks cannot be stopped by stopping Assange. They can’t be stopped by killing him. That was the whole point of WikiLeaks.

Only Assange, himself, has been muzzled. To that, I say good. He is a weaselly little preek who refuses to face rape charges and claims that the Clintons are the reason that Sweden wants him.

If Assange has lied, for years, about the servers being autonomous and he has complete control, then screw him. That would make him malicious, prejudiced and a tool of Putin (talk about rigged elections). There is plenty of proof that there are bogus emails mixed in with the real ones. There are enough bogus one to discredit the whole lot.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the quid pro quo didn’t exist. Never happened. The emails are mainly about internal political stuff. The speeches are no big deal. You will disagree with me. But there is no there, there.

If Trump’s internal info was leaked, it would be uglier. Like him.

This network can return to Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi all the time. Yeah, 4 people lost their lives while on a dangerous mission where the Ambassador knew the risks. It never happened before; and it will never happen under Donald Trump because ….. I don’t know. Because he is so brilliant, talented, balance, thoughtful and experienced?

    Ecuador, by giving Assange asylum, disagrees with your estimation of him. He was granted asylum because the charges against him appeared to be politically motivated. Or do you think the Ecuadoran government believes that just anybody can’t get a fair trial for rape in Sweden? There is a reason why the Ecuadoran government believes that in particular Julian Assange can’t get a fair trial there.

    Benghazi isn’t just about four dead American. It’s about the Obama administration and the Clinton-run State Dept. losing track of weapons shipments that ended up in the hands of actors hostile to US interests. The lid had to be shut on the story from the git go to prevent it all from coming out.

    Fact: Nobody has ever demonstrated that a wikileaked document was a forgery. Never. You’re dreaming, you’re delusional. It’s the way you protect yourself from the truth and your inability to acknowledge the reality of that which has been revealed.

    Trump may be worse. But if he is, he’s done it while not on the government payroll, not at the expense of US national security, and not as a government official acting in your (my) name. But again, you’re just making stuff up to help yourself cope with the revealed reality.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 19, 2016 at 7:48 pm

      “Fact: Nobody has ever demonstrated that a wikileaked document was a forgery. Never. You’re dreaming, you’re delusional. ” OH YEAH, read it and weep. http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

      The link above is by a Newsweek reporter who says that passages were lifted, out of context, from an article he wrote and placed in an email attributed to Sidney Blumenthal. All Blumenthal did was include a link to the article. That is the connect, Blumenthal passed on the link.

      READ THE DAMN LINK. IT IS BY THE AUTHOR. He WAS SURPRISED WHEN HE READ THE ‘DAMNING’ EMAIL AND REALIZED IT WAS LIFTED FROM HIS ARTICLE OUT OF CONTEXT.

      You can’t say there has never been a forgery anymore unless “you’re delusional and it’s the way you protect yourself from the truth and your inability to acknowledge the reality of that which has been revealed.”

      The Russians have used this particular trick before in Estonia, Latvia and The Ukraine. They start with legitimate stuff and then they slip in the disinformation. WikiLeaks and Assange were just a willing conduit.

      As for Benghazi, I have read plenty here and elsewhere. Best I can tell, the decision were made by someone below Hillary’s pay grade. We are always dependent on the host country’s protection and we got fewked by a local militia that changed sides. The Ambassador knew it was dangerous. Clearly he didn’t know how dangerous. BTW, nobody told anybody to stand down at the consulate. Some CIA contractors were refused authority to go because they had to protect the CIA compound. Guess what? The CIA compound was hit, too. The republican led investigation committee couldn’t come up with anything. They tried. Go on. Nothing I say will change your mind.

      I guess when Trump loses you will swear it was fixed.

The Clinton machine sent a message to Ecuador. This is how the Clintons operate. Al Capone was an amateur.

Eh, I actually think this was Ecuador making a decision without interference from Kerry, DoS or any other Dem operative.

If I had a houseguest who used my WiFi to post embarrassing shit to my homeowner’s association… yeah, I’d cut off his access. I don’t care how noble his justifications or even if I thought he was doing good things. Don’t use my resources to cause me trouble.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Semper Why. | October 19, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    If you gave refuge to someone to shelter him because of his political actions, would it make sense to at the same time prevent him from doing the things for which you gave him shelter? It’s like extending shelter to someone because he is persecuted for his religious beliefs, and then telling him that while he’s a guest he can’t practice his beliefs. It’s nonsensical.

    To put it another way, for those who disapprove of Assange and his actions, if you know someone shits on the floor, would it make sense to invite him to your home and then insist he stop doing it? Yes, it’s your prerogative to extend the invitation, and yes, you can make your own rules in your own home, but how much sense would it make? The obvious thing to do is to not extend the invitation in the first place.

    Cutting off Assange from the Internet was intended to silence him, or at least to punish him (even if Wikileaks can’t be silenced). So the Ecuadoran government that granted him asylum is now punishing him for doing the very thing for which they provided him shelter from persecution. It makes no sense for them to have done that without having been pressured by an outside force.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend