Ecuador has a far left wing president who is in the general orbit of Hugo Chavez. The idea of the US pressuring the late Chavez into turning its back on a political ally is rediculous; the idea of the US being somehow behind Ecuador tiring of Assange seems equally far-fetched.
<shrug> I got nothing then. Assange pissed his hosts off somehow. Maybe he got gas from that veggie dinner Pam Anderson brought him. 
Not at all.
Like I said, depends on whose ox is getting gored. The guy was always a bit of a self important twat but that was easier to overlook at one point.
I think the biggest danger to Assange is that he’s increasingly discrediting himself by actively aiding a political candidate that is loathed by many of the people who probably supported his causes only a few years ago. There are progressives and sympathizers in the United States and the Western democratic world and see someone who once stood for unpopular but ethical causes, who now finds himself supporting a fascist candidate.
It would be one thing if Assange were genuinely revealing evidence suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to global stability and libertarian democracy as we know it – but that’s not the case. Could you argue that some of Clinton’s policies are potentially problematic and could result in the deaths of people? Sure, but that comes with the nature of the job and most mature people understand that.
So what then is the weight of Clinton’s emails? Even if the emails are genuine - and there’s every reason to believe that they are - what value do they truly hold? So far, it appears that Assange has basically confirmed what most people who aren’t naive already knew, which is that the inner workings of a political campaign can get feisty and raw. There’s strategy and the strategy of trying to figure out how voters are going to react to speeches, advertising, and spin is no different than marketing divisions of global companies trying to figure out how to influence consumers.
Assange asserts that Wikileaks can force governments to operate with less secrecy and behave better. However, by being a tool of an authoritarian government in Russia and aiding the campaign of the candidate who has introduced vitriol and violent rhetoric into the world’s most influential democracy, people will no longer view him as a friend of liberty, but as a biased puppet of authoritarians. He loses the high ground. He loses is rason detre.
Pure class huh? LOL hope the Ambassador bummed a ride with somebody.
Good luck getting a ride with her on Air Force 1. 
This is troubling. Politicians need to listen to their security.
Frankly, I find this both unsurprising and untroubling. Comparing Rice and Clinton’s is kind if silly. Yes, the technocrat/academic (Rice) followed security’s orders and the politician (Clinton) did not. I would be pretty surprised if very many politicians cancel events whenever Agent Smith tells them to.
It would be easier to take Assange seriously if he was actually what he said, a neutral way to disseminate leaked info. Anyone can submit leaked info to wikileaks with strong encryption, details are on their website. Are you telling me they have received not one document critical of Trump? Given how many people he has pissed off there must be some submissions of documents relevant to Trump.
Also I might have missed one but as far as I can see Wikileaks has never released documents explicitly coming from Russian sources which are critical of Russian politicans or business figures in their 10 year history. Again, no one sent them any leaks from Russian sources? They cover plenty of other countries all over the world.
And this whole “cut off by a state actor” thing was done for maximum media whorage over nothing. They knew it was Ecuador that cut off his access, which they are entitled to do since he’s a guest in their Embassy. Announcing that from the start would have got a bit less attention than what they actually did.
CarnalK pretty much nailed it. Assange has always been more than a little egocentric.
And so you know I’m not full of shit here’s an article with some evidence that Wikileaks has held back information that was damaging to Russia’s interest.
Assange clearly has an agenda in that he carefully chooses the timing of releases and chooses not to release some things that he has. Trump is against everything he stands for, he is against net neutrality, and he wants to tighten libel laws to make it easier to sue media. Something stinks, so no it’s not fair to say “you were all for Assange when he had leaks harming Bush but now it’s about Clinton”… nope, its about Assange has lost all credibility because of his actions since 2011.
Don’t leave out the money shot:
Wikileaks in and of itself isn’t the problem; it’s the false equivalency of the news media that assumes Wikileaks’ media dumps deserve the same amount of coverage that Trump’s numerous scandals.
At this point in the election, Clinton could murder someone in the middle of Times Square and she would still be elected. Minds are made up.
Wikileaks is a stale, ‘so last decade’ sort of newsmaker. Folks generally just figure that every statement, no matter how outrageous, can be spun to look harmless.
In other words, can’t we, for a few weeks, concentrate on what the candidate’s governance objectives will be if they are elected?
Or, if you will, how many arrests will it take to quell the Trumper Revolution?
CNN has a good summary and analysis of the leaks so far.
Or that they deserve coverage at all. Off-the-record private, stolen, conversations where no evidence of wrongdoing exists are not what ethical journalists should publish. The only exception so far (in terms of “newsworthiness”) is the direct text of the Goldman Sachs speeches as they were a specific election issue.
I like Thomas Friedman’s column today and largely agree with his assessment that I like the wikileaks version of Hillary Clinton better than the polished politician version.
In sort of a surprising statement, Marco Rubio said that he wouldn’t be discussing anything that came to light only because of WikiLeaks because he believes that it’s an effort from a foreign government to influence the election and because he thinks that it’s an invitation to blackmail government officials at all levels with stuff that’s very embarrassing but not really relevant.
My cynical heart says that he must have some really awful stuff located in his own outbox to take this position, but it’s frankly a lot more nuanced of a position than I would have expected from him.
I feel the same. She’s a center-left DINO. WikiHillary for Pres!
Marco’s smart enough to see the potential danger of being blackmailed by some future college drop out and wants the US government to strengthen its hand in dealing with hacks and leaks. It’s kind of amazing that a party that was outraged by Chelsea Manning’s leaks about the military can now turn around and cheer the same guy. In so many ways the republican party has sold its soul to the devil.
Shocking? Not even worth raising a eyebrow. “Boring” is the word I’d use.