Did Wikileaks release any info on the opponent?
Where did the allegations of 'tax havens' come from, I wonder?
Julian Assange will sleep easy tonight – assuming he sleeps at all – after Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno Garcés retained power. Opposition candidate Guillermo Lasso, of the Creando Oportunidades, party, had pledged to evict Assange from Ecuador's London embassy within 30 days of an election win. Lasso's planned to find …
Where did the allegations of 'tax havens' come from, I wonder?
Yup. Given that any semblance of unbiased operation has now gone, you wonder who Wikileaks is targeting now to help one of their members evade justice, get a mortgage, force a raise or promotion - once you have people believe that you're doing something "journalistic" "for the community" the sky is the limit.
Wasn't Robert Mugabe in need of some help? Oh no, wait, he just jails people. Not a WL client then, I guess.
The thing that worried me the most about Assange's certainty that Wikileaks didn't get the DNC material from Russia was that they're supposed to have to super-anonymous submission system that prevents them from knowing who is giving them material. So either that's not true, or Assange lied when he had no clue who the source was (and if so, was he lying to cover for Trump, or cover for the Russians?)
Not that it wouldn't be trivial for Russia (or the CIA, or the Chinese, or Iran or Israel) to create some fake hacker like "Guccifer 2.0" to send the material to Wikileaks. If Russia didn't want the source known, they won't send it from a @kremlin.ru address, after all. If Assange thinks he could tell if whether it was really Russians behind a 'front man' submitting the material, lack of sunlight for five years has obviously driven him over the edge (I couldn't blame him, it would drive me batty as well!)
The thing that worried me the most about Assange's certainty that Wikileaks didn't get the DNC material from Russia
Right? He's so absurdly confident that it wasn't Russia the only way he could be sure was if the Russians had told him to say it wasn't Russia. Even if it was Russia he still hasn't done anything wrong in US law. The only other way it could be not Russia, and he knows for sure AND he's worried about US extradition is if he's more talented as a hacker than the record suggests he is; in which case he really does have something to worry about.
Thing about tradecraft is if your org is being infiltrated you're not supposed to know you're being infiltrated. Unless he's polygraphing everybody (which is itself massively unreliable) or subjecting them to fairly extensive torture - both of which are extremely unlikely - you're not *supposed* to know.
If you believe Assange he's already been caught in one honeytrap (CIA), two isn't exactly out of the question.
I suspect 'challenge' would have been a more suitable word than 'leave' - because to leave this country, he'd first have leave the embassy - at which point he'll be arrested.
Well... they could wrap him in plastic and pack him in a large box for shipping. Ship him UPS or Fed-Ex to the place of his choice. Label it as a proper diplomatic packet and no one will be the wiser.
I assume that any legitimate diplomat still has all the perks and benefits that come with the position, even when not stationed inside their embassy?
Surely then, if it's costing Ecuador money having Assange as an unwanted lodger for the past few years, they could put the embassy up for sale (as it's really nothing more than a flat) and just move further up the road? The ambassador and associated staff can just stroll up the street to their new lodgings, but Assange would either have to break cover and try and run to the new location without being spotted, or would be fair game for the police to go in and collect him the instant his current residence loses its diplomatic status?
> Surely then, if it's costing Ecuador money having Assange as an unwanted lodger for the past few years, they could put the embassy up for sale (as it's really nothing more than a flat) and just move further up the road?
They could, but it's far cheaper to simply say "There's the door, leave now or you'll be removed".
Either one would have a political price though, note that even the candidate that wants him gone said he'd try and find somewhere else that Assange could be moved to (quite how they'd achieve that is something else).
Simply evicting him is something that the opposition would always exploit (even if they secretly agreed with the decision). Even if they want him gone, it's not nearly as simple as booting him out. In theory, they could do it now, on the basis that they've got a full term to try and score back political points, but it'd still be risky.
It would have been hard to transfer him to another emabassy. South American countries generally recognise the convention of diplomatic asylum. However this isn't part of the Vienna Conventions, which are the global 'rules' covering diplomats and embassies - so it's something that only applies if both governments agree. And our government don't, along with most others.
In South America it's common practise for the outgoing government during a coup to hole up in various embassies, then (often delicate) negotiations over the next few months get them out of the country and into exile. Obviously you might really want to kill the ex el Presidente when you've just taken over, as that should make your new regime more secure. But, on the other hand, some ambitious colonel might soon be pitching you out on your ear, so having a way to get out suddenly looks a lot more attractive.
Hence in South America, Assange would have sat in the Ecuadorian embassy for a few months, and a deal would probably have been quietly done to get him to Ecuador. In this country the government can't do that, as there's a court order to send him to Sweden.
On a side note, if he stays there much longer, he might get his own clause in the Brexit deal. If we don't stay in the European Arrest Warrant system, then I don't know if the outstanding warrant would still apply (as the law was valid when it was issued), or if Sweden would have to apply for extradition. So there's something for him to look forward to...
This post has been deleted by its author
"his use of Ecuador's embassy is costing the country money it can ill-afford."
So why aren't they charging him rent? It's not as he's still paying hotel bills or anything. If Assange is short of cash, maybe he could rent his home out foe some income and pass some of that on to the Ecuadorians.
Because the simple folk are much better known for their desire to conform than their ability to think independently; when the pack leader du jour reaches for a stone, everyone else is eager to do the same lest they be judged different and cast out of the mob. Considering Assange is a) being continually dragged back into the limelight for another cheap potshot by the media and b) somewhat difficult to look up to these days and that c) the only thing mobs are good at is either cheering or lynching whoever crosses their path, the latter becomes inevitable. Hari Seldon could probably even point out the specific equation that makes it so.
This post has been deleted by its author