Julian Assange Tries to Save Net Neutrality With Rambling …

Julian Assangewhose organization Wikileaks sad, thirsty Twitter DMs to Donald Trump Jr. recently leaked, revealing he sought to coordinate with Donald Trumps presidential campaignappears to have had a moment of buyers regret on Tuesday evening.

Upon hearing the Republican-controlled FCC had finally scheduled a vote to scrap Barack Obama-era net neutrality rules, potentially enriching massive digital conglomerates at the expense of the open web, some brief glimmer of the old Assange seemed to spark back to life. But not really very brightly, as he was only able to express his opposition to the White House-backed change in the form of convoluted pretzel logic posited as a Machiavellian 4-dimensional chess move.

Dear @realDonaldTrump, Assange wrote. Net neutrality of some form is important. Your opponents control most internet companies. Without neutrality they can make your tweets load slowly, CNN load fast and infest everyones phones with their ads. Careful.

As Assange has continued to hole up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for years while attempting to avoid extradition, Wikileaks has largely fallen apart and his originally stated mission of radical transparency has increasingly given way to bizarre pro-Trump ramblings, suspiciously biased editorial decisions, and Twitter braggadocio.

To Assanges credit, while appealing to the presidents manically paranoid psychology is not actually how public policy decisions should be made, that is one of the few approaches capable of grabbing his attention. Anti-trust advocates may have won a similar victory recently when Trumps Department of Justice sued to block a (very bad for the public interest) merger between AT&T and Time Warner, possibly because Trump hates Time Warner subsidiary CNN with an unholy passion.

Alas, Assange is still probably barking up the wrong tree. Pais agency is ostensibly independent, and Pai is very committed to repealing the neutrality rules, so even the unlikely event of a last-minute pivot from the White House might not be enough to blunt his momentum. Its yet even less likely that Republicans in Congress, who are broadly anti-net neutrality, would be willing to override the FCC to bring back an Obama-era directive.

See original here:
Julian Assange Tries to Save Net Neutrality With Rambling …

Saturday Night Live Spies on a Meeting Between Donald Trump …

November 18, 2017 9:00PM PT

It was a sketch months in the making but potentially the start of a new recurring property.

Saturday Night Live opened its Nov. 18 episode with a cold open sketch entitled The Mueller Files, inspired by Robert Muellers investigation into Julian Assange and Wikileaks back in May of this year, an action once again made topical by Mueller more recentlysubpoenaing the Trump campaign for Russia-related documents.

SNL enacted a secret, Deep Throat-style meeting between Donald Trump Jr. (played by Mikey Day) and Julian Assange (played by Kate McKinnon) in London. As secure as sliding into my DMs is, I thought this would be safer, Days Trump Jr. said.

Alex Moffat later turned the nefarious duo into a mismatched threesome when he came in as Eric Trump, which prompted a comparison between McKinnons Assange and Draco Malfoy, though they noted that was a low blow and that making fun of appearances is dads thing.

McKinnons Assange was there to hand over Hillary Clintons emails but said he was not some dumb blond you can take advantage of. What he wanted in return was to be cleared of espionage charges. Days Trump Jr. said their family takes care of their allies, to which Moffats Eric asked about Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani and mom.

Watch the Nov. 18 SNL cold open below:

Saturday Night Live airs live coast-to-coast Saturdays at 11:30 p.m. ET/8:30 p.m. PT on NBC.

View post:
Saturday Night Live Spies on a Meeting Between Donald Trump …

Kate McKinnon debuts Julian Assange impression on ‘Saturday …

By L.A. Ross2017-11-19 05:12:56 UTC

Saturday Night Live took us behind the scenes in its cold open tonight of a totally plausible meeting between Julian Assange and the Brothers Trump in the first installment of what we can only hope will be many, many more episodes of The Mueller Files.

Kate McKinnon debuted her expert Assange impression reason enough to hope for more replete with a suspicion-inducing pleather jacket and weird white-blonde haircut.

Its not white, its a platinum bob with a mans front wisp. Sorry, Julian.

Anyway, the meeting, which ostensibly took place between Assange and Donald Trump Jr. (Mikey Day) in the basement of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where the real Assange has been holed up since 2012 avoiding extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault charges was crashed by a delightfully inept Eric Trump (Alex Moffat), who did just about everything he could to blow the clandestine convention.

My brother Eric is waiting in the car. Not to worry, I told him to honk the horn if he gets scared.

Needless to say, the horn honked. For a while.

The correspondence between Trump Jr. and Assange might have actually gone down, as the Atlantic reported this week. It probably didnt involve an adolescent baby man waving at cars and playing with spinny doodles while calling the founder of Wikileaks, Draco Malfoy.

But wouldnt it have been better if it did?

Read more from the original source:
Kate McKinnon debuts Julian Assange impression on ‘Saturday …

Julian Assanges strange new obsession ThinkProgress

As Catalonians gear up for Sundays independence referendum a vote that will not be recognized by Madrid, and may yet be canceled altogether a new, surprising figure has emerged as the primary spokesman for Catalan independence: Julian Assange.

The WikiLeaks founder, and current tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, has come out forcefully in favor of breaking Catalonia off from the rest of Spain. Where Assange had previously remained largely silent on the issue of Catalonian secession, he has, over just the past two weeks, unleashed approximately 100 tweets on the topic to his 400,000 followers.

Assange is, of course, neither Catalonian nor Spanish, and it remains unclear what Catalans independence push has to do with Assanges prior work pertaining to privacy and information security. But that didnt stop him from kick-starting his own campaign for Catalonian independence on Sept. 9, when Assange tweeted out a photo (in both English and Catalan) comparing the issue of Catalonian secession with, bizarrely, the Tiananmen Square protests, the latter of which not only had nothing to do with secession but also saw hundreds of protesters, if not more, killed by Chinese authorities.

In the time since, Assange has only picked up the pace of plugging support for Catalonias secession movement. Despite the fact that he claimed he has no position on independence itself, Assange has referred to Madrid as a banana monarchy, with the planned referendum forcing the Spanish deep state to surface. He has also compared the situation between Catalonia and Spain to one of an occupying power against a liberation struggle.

Assanges support, mirroring his prior statements on geopolitical developments, has also veered into the bizarre and conspiratorial. To wit, Assange has claimed that Spain may block all internet! in pursuit of clamping down on the vote. For good measure, Assange has also flirted with pushing violence in the region. Despite saying he wasnt encouraging non-peaceful means of protest, Assange added that non-violence has a limit and that Catalonias [one million] fit men are a force which if rallied vastly eclipses the available capacities of Spains police & army as police.

On its face, Assange may appear to be another celebrity simply lending their name to an international cause theyve just stumbled upon, following in the footsteps of Yoko Ono and Peter Gabriel. However, Assange has used the Catalonia referendum to not only stake the campaign as the next great battle in cryptography, but to condemn Spanish coverage of the referendum all while plugging coverage from Russian propaganda outlets like RT.

Assanges transformation into the leading voice of Catalonian independence hasnt gone unnoticed in the Spanish press. Over the weekend, the countrys flagship El Pas newspaperoffered a detailed social media analysis of Assanges reach, as well as the Twitter bots and sock-puppet accounts helping promote pro-secession messaging. The paper pointed to Assanges role alongside a legion of bots to turn a lie into a trend shared millions of times.

El Pass analysis, which further highlights pro-secession material on a raft of conspiracy sites, cites the machinery of Russian interference helping prop the pro-secession campaign, adding that Assange has become the main international agitator of the Catalan crisis, spreading opinions and half-truths as if they were news.

While no Russian actors have claimed responsibility for the bots and sock-puppet accounts focused on fracturing Spain, the campaign fits a broader trend of Kremlin-linked organizations and individuals supplying support for Western secession movements. Not only would Catalonian secession immediately raise questions about EU or NATO membership, but Catalonian independence advocates are among those whove flown to Moscow to meet with a group that, as of 2016, received Kremlin funding to help network Western separatist groups. This group, the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, issued a statement last week supporting the secession push, comparing Catalonia to Crimea the latter of which continues to be widely regarded in the international community as a constituent part of Ukraine.

Among the other secessionist groups whove traveled to Russia include those from California, who opened a California embassy in Moscow earlier this year, and Texas. A pro-Texas secession Facebook page, which had gathered a quarter-million followers and organized separatist rallies across the state last November, was recently shuttered in a rollback of fake accounts linked to Russian actors. (Calling for secession remains illegal in Russia.)

Assange, of course, hosted his own show on RT, and WikiLeaks Twitter feed has regularly published materials and conspiracy theories backing Kremlin claims.

As it is, Assanges conversion into a bullhorn for Catalan independence has only distracted from Madrids heavy-handed response to Barcelonas push for a referendum. Despite the fact that no previous Catalonian independence referenda, of which there have been multiple over the past few years, has resulted in majority support for statehood, the Spanish governments response to the latest vote push which includes arresting a number of senior Catalan officials and a notable influx of police risks tipping the balance in favor of outright secession.

The referendum, despite Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoys statement that hell do whatever is needed to prevent the vote, remains scheduled for next Sunday, with heated rhetoric only continuing to rise in both Barcelona and Madrid.

In the interim, Assange has only continued pushing support for voting on Catalonian independence and announcing that hed like to see California vote on secession next.

Read more from the original source:
Julian Assanges strange new obsession ThinkProgress

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange claims he made 50,000% return on …

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims his organization has made a 50,000 percent return on bitcoin after investing in the cryptocurrency in 2010 and it’s all thanks to the U.S. government.

In a tweet over the weekend, Assange posted a screenshot of bitcoin prices on July 18, 2010 and October 14, 2017 on industry website CoinDesk. In this period, the price of bitcoin went from $0.06 to around $5,814. This represents a 9,689,900 percent increase.

Assange, however, said that he has made a 50,000 percent return, presumably investing in bitcoin over the six-year period.

And the WikiLeaks founder said this was because the U.S. government forced payment companies like Visa and MasterCard to carry out “an illegal banking blockade” against his organization.

In 2010, MasterCard blocked its products being used to pay WikiLeaks. Paypal also restricted the account used by WikiLeaks after it said the group has violated its policy.

Assange said that this is the reason WikiLeaks invested in bitcoin. The cryptocurrency allows anonymous payments and can be moved around the world easily. It is, however, very volatile.

Read more:
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange claims he made 50,000% return on …

Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s Interview With Morning …

Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Glazier Arboretum Park where she often likes to hike in Chappaqua, N.Y. Adrienne Grunwald for NPR hide caption

Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Glazier Arboretum Park where she often likes to hike in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Ten months after losing the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton is out with a memoir, What Happened. Morning Edition host Rachel Martin talked to Clinton about her book, the election’s outcome and how she’s carried on. Here’s the full transcript of their conversation. The audio on this page is an edited version of the interview that was broadcast on Morning Edition.

Rachel Martin: Hillary Clinton joins us now from her home in Chappaqua, New York. Secretary Clinton, thanks so much for being here.

Thank you so much, Rachel.

How’s being home?

It’s actually great. It is wonderful being home having time to putter around clean closets spend, you know, long days going for walks, seeing my grandchildren, taking friends out to dinner. So it’s not where I wanted to be, but it is a great reminder of what more there is to do in life and what the future can be like.

I’d like to start our conversation about your new memoir by asking you to recount a particular event. This is a campaign event that you did in Mingo County, West Virginia, a town called Williamson. This is coal country, and you had met many voters there weren’t happy with you. They were angry over comments that you had made around that time about wanting to “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” So you knew this was going to be a tough appearance and you wrote in the book the following quote: “All I knew for certain was they were angry, they were loud and they hated my guts.” Can you just describe what that day felt like to you and what it signified as you moved forward in your campaign?

Well, it was a particularly difficult, even painful day because I had made clear for years, starting back in my 2008 campaign, that I understood what was happening in the changing fortunes of coal, that were largely global market forces, but also a growing recognition of the challenges that climate change posed. And I had given a number of speeches. I had a very well-developed plan to invest money into the area, and then in the midst of explaining that I said a sentence which I would, you know, I regretfully say, was taken out of context, blown up, and really was a rallying cry for people and others who were running the campaign against me to come out and blow this up out of all proportion. Now my campaign said, really, there’s no point going to West Virginia because Democrats haven’t won it in years. It didn’t matter whether you said something or not, a Democratic candidate was not going to win it. But I felt a personal responsibility to the people in that state who had been good to me in the past, and to my husband, and I also wanted to make clear that I was much more than one gaffe, and I had a very strong commitment to helping them, so off I went to Mingo County, and when I got out of the car, when I got to the health center that I was going to be visiting, there was a large, very vocal demonstration against me, and the people were yelling all kinds of insults and attacks. And in the crowd was a man named Blankenship, who had just been convicted in fact, was on his way to jail for the negligent deaths of a number of the coal miners that his company employed. So it was a fraught, really incredibly difficult time. I went inside and met with a group of people who were trying to do what I think we should be doing in communities like the ones I was visiting across our country, particularly in rural and small town America. They were trying to make things better. So this health center, which had been strongly supported with federal dollars, was providing better health care with a particular emphasis on the opioid crisis. We sat and talked through what more could be done. And one of the people who was there at the invitation of the health center was a laid-off coal mine employee, and I talked with him and his wife. He was really emotional about what it meant to lose that job. He talked about how hard it was to tell his children. They were getting by on his wife’s income from her small business.

He was also angry at you for those comments that you made.

Well, he was. He was angry at me because of the comments, but his anger, his disappointment, his fear was much broader than that. And that’s what I was trying to address, and to tell him, “Look, I’m sorry that what I said came across that way and that’s not what I at all meant. In fact, I have a record of trying to help areas like this and I have a plan to do just that. But I understand.” And we did talk about what it felt like for him, a very proud man, to be unemployed. And I never doubted the hurt and the anger that so many people were feeling around our country, not just in West Virginia, but I thought what my job was to do as a candidate for president was to tell people what I could do for them if they gave me the chance to serve and that’s what I tried to do even that day.

And you decided to include that anecdote for a reason. I mean, what did it signify to you? Is that when you started to understand you were missing something important about the country, in that moment?

No, I understood that long before, Rachel, and in the book, what I tried to point out is, I understood there was anger and fear and people were really unhappy because of what had happened in the financial crash. I understood all of that, and I understood that my opponent had been, from the beginning of the primaries, fueling that anger, and providing scapegoats, and a kind of cynical nostalgia that was rooted in saying, basically, you know, all these other people whether it’s African-Americans or Muslims or immigrants or women or whomever we’re going to get it back to the way it was. And that’s going to be my gift to you. I understood all of that. What I didn’t and I say this in the book I didn’t really do well is conveying how much I understood of that, conveying how I got the despair and the anger. I talked about it, I talked about it constantly. I talked about jobs. I talked about the despair of people in America, white Americans who were dying at an unbelievable rate because of suicide, opioid abuse, alcoholism, so much that really signifies that despair. I talked about it, but I didn’t really convey the emotional resonance that would have maybe made it possible for somebody to say, “Yeah, you know, maybe that one sentence she said was taken out of context because look at what she’s done and look at what she says she will do.”

So you kept going to policy solutions and you’re saying you should have given a more emotional response?

Well, I think a more emotional response, but honest. Not like we’re going to bring back coal. Not like we’re going to build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Not like that, but more of a connection emotionally first before saying, “I think I’ve got the best experience, I think I’ve got the best ideas that will actually make a difference in your life.”

Your campaign advisers told you time and again that a significant portion of the American electorate didn’t trust you. They polled on that particular question, and that word. Donald Trump used that he branded you as “Crooked Hillary.” Bernie Sanders even picked up on that theme. Why didn’t you tackle the trust issue head on?

Well, we thought we did. And I certainly tried to do that. It was somewhat disorienting, I will say, because I came out of the State Department with the highest approval ratings of anybody in national public life. I think 69 percent approval. When we started the campaign we had every reason to believe that we had a path forward that relied on how people felt about me and how they thought about my work over many years. But it’s absolutely true that between the consistent pounding on me, first by Bernie Sanders, but more consistently by his supporters, and the theme that Trump stuck with, it really was hard to break out from under that. But as I say in the book, Rachel, despite all of that, I was on the path to winning and I felt great about the three debates. I thought we were on the right to, you know, move toward the end of the campaign. And then unfortunately the Comey letter, aided to great measure by the Russian WikiLeaks, raised all those doubts again. And so even though I won the popular vote, enough people in a few states, with respect to the electoral college, were just raising all these questions. And I saw that, we saw that, we scrambled hard those last 11 days to provide rebuttal and answers and came really close. But, you know, it was difficult.

You mentioned, and you spent time in the book talking about the forces you feel were working against you. You also say sexism was one of them, but you yourself, in the book, acknowledged that a good number of young women didn’t vote for you, which is presumably not a sexist choice. They just weren’t inspired by your message.

I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. I did win the women’s vote. I didn’t win the vote of white women, but I got more white women votes than Barack Obama did. I think it’s much more difficult to unpack all of this, and with respect specifically to young women, I do think that for a lot of young women, gender is just not the motivating force that maybe it will be in the future. But then it wasn’t. The same way that being African-American was really motivating and exhilarating for black voters. But as I point out in the book and I think that chapter I wrote on being a woman in politics really will be of interest to a lot of women and men. I talk about a conversation I had with Sheryl Sandberg, who has really helped to put into perspective a lot of research that supports common experiences. And she said, look, the research is absolutely definitive. The more professionally successful a man is, the more likable he is; the more professionally successful a woman is, the less likable she is. And that when women are serving on behalf of someone else, as I was when I was Secretary of State, for example, they are seen favorably. But when they step into the arena and say, wait a minute I think I could do the job, I would like to have that opportunity, their favorabilities goes down. And Sheryl ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure and I’m talking principally about white women they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for “the girl.” And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me, as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.

So I knew going in that this would be a hurdle for me. But what happened to me with the Comey letter really threw it into stark relief, because I was making progress, as I point out in the book, I was ahead by 26 points in the Philadelphia suburbs, and that was predominantly led by women Republican and independent women, as well as Democratic women, who had seen me in those debates who were going to really give me the chance to serve. And then after the Comey letter, my momentum was stopped. My numbers dropped, and we were scrambling to try to put it back together, and we ran out of time.

Why would it have ever gotten to the point where something like the Comey letter could have shifted so many opinions? Why was it ever that tenuous? I mean, you say in the book, “American elections are about change, or they’re about the future, or some combination thereof.” And for many people you are about neither. Did your candidacy have an irreparable flaw from the beginning?

I don’t think so. When you win the popular vote by three million votes, and when there were all of these outside forces coming at me right until the very end, I don’t think you can say that we didn’t have a strong campaign. I’m proud of the campaign we ran. We had an incredible organization. We had more people working on the ground in states like Wisconsin and Michigan.

But you could not put together the Obama coalition. You did lose five million people who voted for him who did not vote for you.

I would say two things about that. First, there were certainly people who voted for him who felt like, for whatever combination of reasons and there’s some good research about this that, you know, they just weren’t happy with where things were and they didn’t know what they were going to do, and they did not vote for me. That’s absolutely the case. But you have to also look at the suppression of voters. The principal objects of voter suppression were African-American voters and young voters. There was a very extensive analysis about what happened in North Carolina recently in The New York Times and there’s been a lot written and much information collected about what happened in Wisconsin: 200,000 predominantly black voters being disenfranchised in the greater Milwaukee area. This was the first election, the first presidential election, where the Voting Rights Act that had been severely damaged by the Supreme Court decision in 2013, was fully in effect, and the Republicans wasted no time in doing everything they could to make it hard to vote.

But you won the African-American vote.

But not in the numbers that I needed. And that goes back to your question. If you look at the AP work that was done in Milwaukee, it’s quite chilling. The 85 year old woman she no longer has a photo I.D. She doesn’t drive. She comes to vote with her Medicare card, her utility bills, a lot of identification. She’s turned away. The Navy veteran who moved from Chicago to Wisconsin, goes to vote, but he still has his Illinois driver’s license even though he had registered in Wisconsin turned away. And I think that’s an interesting comparison. The voter suppression in Wisconsin worked. Across the border into Illinois, where they had not done any of this suppression, where they in fact made it easier to vote with same-day voter registration, they were immune to the impact of suppression. And, of course, I won in Illinois, just like I won in neighboring Minnesota. But in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania in particular, as well as North Carolina, there was a concerted effort to suppress the vote. Now, I want to throw this into the future because, you know, the reason I wrote this book was not only to tell people what I believe happened, to explain the best I could, but also to point out some things that we have to as a country take seriously in order to avoid what happened ever happening in the future. And voter suppression is one of those things. Sexism and misogyny alive and well and working in our politics and our society. But then the Russian role that was played I think is something that everybody, I don’t care what political party you are, must take seriously, because they are not going to stop. They were successful, and they’re going to keep at everything they can to destabilize and undermine our democracy.

Could another Democrat have beaten Donald Trump?

Oh, I don’t think it’s useful to speculate, because I was the nominee. I mean, you can say that about George W. Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry…

Although you do spend more than 400 pages going back in time and thinking about what if’s.

Oh, I do. But what ifs that I think are realistic to think about because, you know, what if I hadn’t made the dumb mistake about e-mails? And it was a dumb mistake, but it was an even dumber scandal. What if the Russians hadn’t been literally encouraged by Donald Trump to do even more to disrupt the election? What if the Supreme Court had not reversed the Voting Rights Act, which I was proud to vote for when I was in the Senate, and I still maintain the kind of protections to make sure that no American is disenfranchised?

What if Joe Biden had been the nominee?

Well, he wasn’t. And, you know, he ran in ’08, and he didn’t run in this time. If he wants to run in the future, he can do that. But I think that, as I start off explaining what happened in the book, let’s not forget the historical weight here. It’s really difficult to succeed a president of your own party who has served two terms. That is a historical fact. So I think it would have been tough for Democrats. I think that the closeness of our election, the hyper partisan attitudes that people have would have made it hard. But I was very proud of the campaign I ran and I think I was on the way to winning. And that didn’t happen in the end. And I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anybody, Democrat or Republican, going forward.

Are you saying Donald Trump in some ways was unbeatable? Because it is so difficult to undercut the momentum, people seeking change, want to change parties after eight years. People didn’t see you as the change candidate, they would have likely not seen any Democrat as the change candidate, and he had the upper hand.

Well, he dispatched about 16 Republican opponents who had been governors and senators and successful business people that showed that he was really plugged in to a certain part of the electorate. And he started his campaign with a vile attack on Mexicans, calling them rapists and criminals, and he never stopped, and he was rewarded. Time and time again he was rewarded, Rachel, by the press, which saw this reality TV show going on. It was just irresistible. You know, show the empty podium, let’s really build it up. He calls for violence at his rallies, pays very little price for it, he insults every kind of person, just about, that we can imagine, and particularly with vicious comments about women, political as well as press figures. So he got away with it, because he did have a kind of attraction to people. He called it “not being politically correct” but in fact it was rude, it was, you know, discriminatory, it was bigoted, it was prejudiced, and yet it fed into part of the electorate that just wanted to have a primal scream. They didn’t like what was going on. They wanted something different. They weren’t interested in what you could actually do, because clearly Trump hasn’t done very much that he said he would do. But they really responded to his racial and ethnic and sexist appeals.

Did you consider recalibrating your campaign, I mean especially as you watched him dispense with all these primary candidates?

We did. We did. And I really thought I was providing a contrast that would attract enough voters to win. And let me make two points about that. By all accounts I won every debate. I mean, even the after-action reviews were very positive. I thought that would really matter. And it was clear he didn’t know what he was talking about, he had really nothing to say. He just kind of fumed and carried on. That would have been enough any other time. But it wasn’t this time because my path toward November was being disrupted with Russians, and, you know, the emails once again in the news. But when we got ready for the general election, I had three different very smart groups work independently, and I asked them, “So what should be the theme of our general election?” and they each, amazingly, came up with the same slogan: “Stronger together.” Because what they argued, and what I believed, was that America does better when we’re working together, when we’re helping each other, when we’re aiming toward a future of opportunity where we have broad-based economic growth that includes everybody and, where, yes, we stand up for human rights and civil rights. So I was thrilled that all three of those individual groups of thinkers came up with that. In this climate where we were running against people who would say or do anything, and “Lock her up” was the chant of the year, it was hard to break through on that. But I and my campaign worked tirelessly to convey the message, to convey what was behind that message. And look, I say in the book, I think I would have been a really good president. I think I would have been a president that would have been working for all Americans, not just for those who voted for me. And that’s what is missing right now, among many other things in this White House.

I want to ask you about something you write at the very beginning of this book. You talk about needing to learn lessons from the 2008 campaign to apply to the campaign in 2016. And you write this: that unlike in 2008, you were, “determined to run like an underdog and avoid any whiff of entitlement.” So you were aware that that was kind of around you in 2008. But there is and was this whole wing of the Democratic Party, many of whom ended up supporting Bernie Sanders, who believe that that is exactly how you ran in 2016 as a person who, yes, had paid their dues, had done the work and had prepared, and that somehow you believed it was your turn to be president.

Well, I just totally reject that. As you probably would have expected me to say. I find this criticism from Sanders supporters to be so off base. He’s not even a Democrat. That’s not a slam on him. He says it himself. He didn’t support Democrats. He’s not supporting Democrats now. I know a lot of Democrats. I’ve been working on behalf of Democrats, to be elected, to be re-elected, for decades. And so yes, I was familiar to broad parts of the electorate, and I’m proud of that. And I did well across the country. I won by four million votes. That’s a landslide. I won, really, by March and April. But he just kept going, and he and his followers’ attacks on me kept getting more and more personal, despite him asking me not to attack him personally. And, you know, I really regret that. But now he’s got a chance to prove that he’s something other than a spoiler. And that is to help other Democrats. And I don’t know if he will or not, but I’m hoping he will.

Did you underestimate the way that your familiarity with the American public could negatively impact your campaign?

Well, I thought it was pretty revolutionary that I was the first woman to have a realistic chance of becoming president. So I don’t know how any woman who is not familiar to people, since we have so many hurdles to overcome, could have even been in that position that I found myself. So if I won, you know, I would have been seen as a genius, my campaign would have been as perfect. I understand all of that. But I’m not writing this book, I’m not talking to you about it because I’m somehow aggrieved. I don’t feel that at all. I very much am still proud as I can be that I had the chance to run, that I got to be the nominee, but I am really worried about the country. I am worried about its direction. I’m worried about what I see as a mean-spirited agenda coming out of this White House. And my concerns as a former Secretary of State about what’s going on around the world. So I have a platform. I won more votes than anybody in American history for president besides President Obama. And I’m going to keep talking and trying to raise the questions that I hope Americans will take seriously and that I hope the press will take seriously, because we’ve got a lot of choppy water ahead of us.

Although you say you still want a role in shaping the Democratic Party of the future, you’re still going to talk about the issues you find to be important, but there are some Democrats out there saying they don’t want you to do that. That writing this book is opening old wounds, re-litigating a past and it doesn’t help move the party forward. Have you reconciled that, that people might not want you around as the party steps forward?

Well, they don’t have to buy my book, and they can turn off the radio when they hear me talking. I’m not going anywhere. I have the experience, I have the insight, I have the scars that I think give me not only the right, but the responsibility to speak out. And 2018 is going to be incredibly momentous. We have a chance I won 24 congressional districts that have a Republican member of Congress sitting in them. And I think that gives us some idea that maybe, if we are really focused we have a chance to pick up seats, maybe take back the House. We’ve got to defend the Democratic senators. I have a lot of ideas about how best to do that. And a lot of people are already calling asking for my help and my support. I’ve started a new organization called Onward Together, which is, you know, funding and lifting up some of the grassroots groups that have started around the country. I’ll be supporting candidates. So there will always be the naysayers. I understand that and most of them as you might notice are anonymous, but that’s fine. But I’m responding to a very large outpouring of people who want to know what I have to say, who are excited that I’m not going to be, you know, slipping away into the background, but going to stay front and center, doing what I can to try to speak out on behalf of this country that I love, and just want to do everything I can to make sure it’s strong going forward.

Hillary Clinton’s new memoir is out today. It is called What Happened. Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much, Rachel. Good to talk to you.

Go here to see the original:
Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s Interview With Morning …

Bitcoin Price Index – Real-time Bitcoin Price Charts

Tether Claims $30 Million in US Dollar Token Stolen By Attacker

Nov 21, 2017 at 04:15 | Stan Higgins

The team behind the stable cryptocurrency Tether is claiming $30 million worth of its funds have been sent to an unauthorized address.

Nov 20, 2017 at 21:10 | Brady Dale

Options exchange CBOE has released early specifications for its planned bitcoin futures product.

Nov 20, 2017 at 17:00 | Stan Higgins

CME Group’s planned bitcoin futures product could start trading on Dec. 11, according to the firm’s website.

Nov 20, 2017 at 15:18 | Stan Higgins

The price of bitcoin has hit yet another all-time high, passing above $8,200 for the first time.

Nov 20, 2017 at 14:00 | Omkar Godbole

With talk of a possible derivatives market on the way, the price of ether, ethereum’s native token, looks to be on the rise.

Nov 20, 2017 at 12:15 | Omkar Godbole

Bitcoin prices are at their highest ever, but there may be a chink in the cryptocurrency’s armor low volumes.

Nov 20, 2017 at 07:00 | Nikhilesh De

A plurality of respondents to a new survey from brokerage firm Triad Securities said they believe bitcoin is in a bubble that’s primed to crash.

Nov 20, 2017 at 06:00 | William Mallers

The CMEs plan to offer bitcoin futures will benefit the futures trading and bitcoin communities alike notwithstanding hand-wringing in both

Nov 20, 2017 at 03:16 | Stan Higgins

Bitcoin’s price rose above $8,100 for the first time on Sunday.

Nov 18, 2017 at 21:59 | Michael del Castillo

The first ever LedgerX long-term bitcoin futures option pegs the cryptocurrency price at $10,000 by next December.

Go here to see the original:

Bitcoin Price Index – Real-time Bitcoin Price Charts

WeUseCoins – Official Site

Price…Global Vol….Diff….

I’m a big fan of Bitcoin… Regulation of money supply needs to be depoliticized.

Bitcoin is a technological tour de force.

Every informed person needs to know about Bitcoin because it might be one of the world’s most important developments.

With the Bitcoin price so volatile everyone is curious. Bitcoin, the category creator of blockchain technology, is the World Wide Ledger yet extremely complicated and no one definition fully encapsulates it. By analogy it is like being able to send a gold coin via email. It is a consensus network that enables a new payment system and a completely digital money.

It is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. Bitcoin was the first practical implementation and is currently the most prominent triple entry bookkeeping system in existence.

Beware of the confusingly similar Bcash, BCH, Bitcoin Cash project.

The first Bitcoin specification and proof of concept was published in 2009 by an unknown individual under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto who revealed little about himself and left the project in late 2010. The Bitcoin community has since grown exponentially.

Satoshi’s anonymity often raises unjustified concerns because of a misunderstanding of Bitcoin’s open-source nature. Everyone has access to all of the source code all of the time and any developer can review or modify the software code. As such, the identity of Bitcoin’s inventor is probably as relevant today as the identity of the person who invented paper.

Over $1B of investment into Bitcoin and blockchain companies has taken place resulting in thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of individuals involved from around the world.

Nobody owns the Bitcoin network much like no one owns the technology behind email or the Internet. Bitcoin transactions are verified by Bitcoin miners which has an entire industry and Bitcoin cloud mining options. While developers are improving the software they cannot force a change in the Bitcoin protocol because all users are free to choose what software and version they use.

In order to stay compatible with each other, all users need to use software complying with the same rules. Bitcoin can only work correctly with a complete consensus among all users. Therefore, all users and developers have a strong incentive to protect this consensus.

From a user perspective, Bitcoin is nothing more than a mobile app or computer program that provides a personal Bitcoin wallet and enables a user to send and receive bitcoins.

Behind the scenes, the Bitcoin network is sharing a massive public ledger called the “block chain”. This ledger contains every transaction ever processed which enables a user’s computer to verify the validity of each transaction. The authenticity of each transaction is protected by digital signatures corresponding to the sending addresses therefore allowing all users to have full control over sending bitcoins.

Thus, there is no fraud, no chargebacks and no identifying information that could be compromised resulting in identity theft. To learn more about Bitcoin, you can consult the original Bitcoin whitepaper, read through the extremely thorough Frequently Asked Questions, listen to a Bitcoin podcast or read the latest Bitcoin news.

Many people new to Bitcoin are curious about how to get some. Bitcoin faucets, places where bitcoins are given away for free, have been a part of spreading Bitcoin since the earliest days. But one problem is running out of bitcoins to give! That is why we have figured out a sustainable way to give away free bitcoins with sponsors.

Read more here:

WeUseCoins – Official Site

Bitcoin Crashes and Then Surges in Wild Weekend Action …

Bitcoin is proving that investing in digital currencies isnt for the faint of heart.

After plunging as much as 29 percent from a record high following the cancellation of a technology upgrade on Nov. 8, the largest cryptocurrency came roaring back in early trading Monday before fluctuating between gains and losses.

Crypto trading is not for the novice investor, said JohnSpallanzani, chief macro strategist at GFI Securities LLC in New York.

While multiple reasons are being cited for the price volatility, one of the more viable is that some investors are switching to alternative coins. Bitcoin cash, an offshoot of bitcoin that includes many of the technical upgrades being debated by developers, has more than doubled in the same period.

We have seen similar steep falls in bitcoin throughout the year — specifically in June and September — but every time a considerable decline occurs, new investors jump in to experience the new asset class, Hussein Sayed, chief market strategist at ForexTime Ltd., a currency broker that uses the brand FXTM, wrote in a note Monday.

While markets had been focusing on bitcoins more than 500 percent surge this year, bitcoin cash was gaining popularity because of its larger block size. Thats a characteristic that makes transactions cheaper and faster than the original.

When a faction of the cryptocurrency community canceled plans to increase bitcoins block size on Wednesday — a move that would have created another offshoot — some supporters of bigger blocks rallied around bitcoin cash.

The resulting volatility has been extreme even by bitcoins wild standards and comes amid growing interest in cryptocurrencies among regulators, banks and fund managers. While skeptics have called its rapid advance a bubble, the asset has become too big for many on Wall Street to ignore. Even after shrinking as much as $38 billion since Nov. 8, bitcoin boasts a market value of about $110 billion.

Supporters of bitcoins technology upgrade are now switching support to bitcoin cash, said Mike Kayamori, head of Tokyo-based Quoine, the worlds second most-active bitcoin exchange over the past day. Theres a panic about whats happening. People shouldnt panic. Just hold on to both coins until we see how it plays out.

Read more: A QuickTake on the bitcoin communitys infighting

The cancellation of last weeks bitcoin upgrade has left users to choose between the two versions of the cryptocurrency. On one side is the original bitcoin, powered by so-called SegWit technology, which aims to improve its performance by moving unessential data off of its underlying blockchain. On the other side is bitcoin cash, which allowsits blockchain to handle eight times as much data as the original.

Proponents of bitcoin cash believe their approach is simpler and closer to the original goal of bitcoin,whichwas described primarily as a payment system in its white paper. Supporters of the original bitcoin say that vision is too limited,and that by improving the blockchain with SegWit technology, bitcoin can become a new digital-asset class that not only supports payments but countless other functions.

While bitcoin cash has been around for months, it saw limited support as the community awaited last weeks technology upgrade for the original bitcoin, which promised similar features. Now that the upgrade has been called off, businesses that use the cryptocurrency primarily as a payment method are expected to increase adoption of bitcoin cash.

While bitcoin cash surged over the weekend, it hasnt been a straight line up. The cryptocurrency was trading at $1,300 at 4:45 p.m. in New York, down from a high of about $2,478 on Sunday, Coinmarketcap.com prices show.

Bitcoin has been similarly volatile; it initially rose after news that it would avoid another split, but the gains were short-lived. Its plunge earlier Monday to as low as $5,605 compares with an intraday record $7,882 on Nov. 8.

Volume across bitcoin exchanges jumped to 436,021 bitcoins on Sunday, the highest since September, Bitcoinity.org data show. BitMEX, an exchange for cryptocurrency derivatives that allows shorting, saw record activity on Sunday, Chief Executive Officer Arthur Hayes said.

With assistance by Natasha Doff

Continue reading here:

Bitcoin Crashes and Then Surges in Wild Weekend Action …

Help make Julian Assange Australia’s US ambassador, WikiLeaks …

WikiLeaks tried to have Julian Assange installed as the Australian ambassador to the US after Donald Trumps election, a new leak of private correspondence from inside the Trump circle has revealed.

On Tuesday the Atlantic magazine reported Donald Trump Jr, the presidents son, was in contact with WikiLeaks via Twitter direct messages during the final stages of the 2016 election. Copies of the correspondence were handed to congressional investigators by Trump Jrs lawyers and then obtained by the Atlantic.

Trump Jr subsequently tweeted a transcript of what he said was the entire exchange.

It reveals WikiLeaks and Trump Jr sought information from each another and details a string of increasingly bold suggestions made by WikiLeaks to Trump Jr, including asking for the president-elect to tell Australia to appoint Assange ambassador to the US.

On 16 December, a month after Trumps election, WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr to have his father suggest Australia appoint Assange to the post in Washington, DC.

Hi Don. Hope youre doing well! WikiLeaks wrote to Trump Jr. In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to DC.

WikiLeaks went as far as suggesting wording for Trump: Thats a real smart tough guy and the most famous australian [sic] you have! or something similar, WikiLeaks wrote.

They wont do it but it will send the right signals to Australia, UK + Sweden to start following the law and stop bending it to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.

WikiLeaks also encouraged Trump Jr to leak his fathers tax returns to prevent them being published by a biased source such as the New York Times. If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality, WikiLeaks explained.

It also urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the election as rigged, and in July told the presidents son to release emails detailing his contact with Russian figures during the campaign.

While most of the communication was one-sided, the exchanges between Trump Jr and WikiLeaks came at a highly sensitive moment. They took place only months before the election, at the height of WikiLeaks publication of hacked emails belonging to senior Democratic figures.

US intelligence agencies allege the leaks came from the Russian government, which Assange has denied.

On Twitter, Assange said he cannot confirm the alleged DMs and said the Atlantic story was edited and clearly does not have the full context.

However he also pointed to a tweet from his own account in July in which he said he had contacted Trump Jr to urge him to release emails relating to Trump Jrs meeting with a Russian lawyer he believed might have damaging information on the Clinton campaign.

Assange said the messages showed that WikiLeaks loves its pending publications and ignores those who ask for details.

Trump Jr. was rebuffed just like Cambridge Analytica. In both cases WikiLeaks had publicly teased the publications, he wrote.

Thousands of people asked about them. WikiLeaks can be very effective at convincing even high profile people that it is their interest to promote links to its publications.

WikiLeaks has such chutzpah that it allegedly tried to convince Trump Jr to leak his fathers tax returns & his own Russian lawyer meeting emails (he did). WikiLeaks appears to beguile some people into transparency by convincing them that it is in their interest.



High point

Low point

He says

They say

Assange has had a rocky relationship with the Australian government. In 2010 the former prime minister Julia Gillard described the release by WikiLeaks of classified documents from the US State Department as illegal, and after he was granted asylum by Ecuador in 2012 Australia was accused of abandoning him.

Last year the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, met Assanges lawyers after a United Nations report found Assange had been arbitrarily detained since his arrest in 2010.

See original here:
Help make Julian Assange Australia’s US ambassador, WikiLeaks …