I thought he was like one of the most important whistleblowers of our time exposing war crimes and shit. Some of you don’t wanna see him live another day, why is that?
“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”
Yeah, quite a few that opposed Putin just so happen to walk out of windows and poison themselves, one even put cuffs on beat the shit out of himself and gladly ate poison, while locked up
You are aware that people can disagree with your conclusions without being a shill, right? Seth Rich’s parents would also like you to stop disrespecting his memory by saying he was murdered by the DNC, they even refute he was the DNC email leaker.
if you made any sense in your “disagreement” other than vitriolic repetition of easily discredited lies, well then i’d consider you might not be a shill.
the DNC leaks were an inside job. This was proven forensically by Bill Binny, an NSA whistleblower…
Seth Rich fit the MO and was murdered shortly thereafter by people that didn’t take anything… killed, not robbed…
it could’ve been not him, but there’s a lot more reason to think it was him over russian hackers… or are you really taking the government’s word on leaks about the government?
his parents would have no way of knowing any better than me, so i don’t see how that’s relevant…
Bill Benny, Trump Qult member, enthusiastically refutes reports that exonerates the DNC of murder. Shocking. You accuse me of taking the government’s word when you’re taking the word of someone with an agenda. I mention Seth’s parents because they have a a vested interest in finding out the truth of what happened to their son and their conclusion is the DNC leaker conspiracy theory is a a load of bullshit.
A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.
no they did not! they never had leaks from the RNC and as such, could not release it.
you know they don’t do any hacking, right?
people (usually whistleblowers) leak info to wikiLEAKS, and then they verify it and publish it.
they would love to do rnc leaks if they had that information…
He’s the reason we got Trump in 2016. He likes to pick and choose which facts to leak and which to keep concealed in order to further his own agenda. Not to mention he gets this information from foreign agents who stole it from our government.
Edward Snowden is far more deserving of recognition for his whistleblowing. He didn’t do it to personally profit from it, just because he knew it was the right thing to do.
Mueller Report PDF download Page 44: 3. Use of WikiLeaks
In order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks. GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks’s private communication system.
a. WikiLeaks’s Expressed Opposition Toward the Clinton Campaign
WikiLeaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, privately expressed opposition to candidate Clinton well before the first release of stolen documents. In November 2015, Assange wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better for GOP to win . . . Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. . . . With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. . . . She’s a bright, well connected, sadisitic sociopath.”156 In March 2016, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of approximately 30,000 Clinton emails that had been obtained through FOIA litigation.157 While designing the archive, one WikiLeaks member explained the reason for building the archive to another associate: -[W]e want this repository to become “the place” to search for background on hillary’s plotting at the state department during 2009-2013. . . . Firstly because its useful and will annoy Hillary, but secondly because we want to be seen to be a resource/player in the US election, because eit [sic] may en[]courage people to send us even more important leaks.
b. WikiLeaks’s First Contact with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
Shortly after the GRU’s first release of stolen documents through dcleaks.com in June 2016, GRU officers also used the DCLeaks persona to contact WikiLeaks about possible coordination in the future release of stolen emails. On June 14, 2016, @dcleaks_ sent a direct message to @WikiLeaks, noting, “You announced your organization was preparing to publish more Hillary’s emails. We are ready to support you. We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents. Let’s do it together. What do you think about publishing our info at the same moment? Thank you.”159 Investigative Technique Around the same time, WikiLeaks initiated communications with the GRU persona Guccifer 2.0 shortly after it was used to release documents stolen from the DNC. On June 22, 2016, seven days after Guccifer 2.0’s first releases of stolen DNC documents, WikiLeaks used Twitter’s direct message function to contact the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account and suggest that Guccifer 2.0 “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”160 On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
c. The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Materials to WikiLeaks
Both the GRU and WikiLeaks sought to hide their communications, which has limited the Office’s ability to collect all of the communications between them. Thus, although it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks, The Office was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by the GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England. 62 Investigative Technique On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later. Similar communications occurred between WikiLeaks and the GRU-operated persona DCLeaks. On September 15, 2016, @dcleaks wrote to @WikiLeaks, “hi there! I’m from DC Leaks. How could we discuss some submission-related issues? Am trying to reach out to you via your secured chat but getting no response. I’ve got something that might interest you. You won’t be disappointed, I promise.”168 The WikiLeaks account responded, “Hi there,” without further elaboration. The @dcleaks_ account did not respond immediately. The same day, the Twitter account @guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the personas.169 During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.170 An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange’s computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172 The WikiLeaks site also released PDFs and other documents taken from Podesta that were attachments to emails in his account; these documents had a creation date of October 2, 2016, which appears to be the date the attachments were separately staged by WikiLeaks on its site.173 Beginning on September 20, 2016, WikiLeaks and DCLeaks resumed communications in a brief exchange. On September 22, 2016, a DCLeaks email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com sent an email to a WikiLeaks account with the subject “Submission” and the message “Hi from DCLeaks.” The email Investigative Technique contained a PGP-encrypted message with the filename “wiki_mail.txt.gpg.”174 The email, however, bears a number of similarities to the July 14, 2016 email in which GRU officers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to give WikiLeaks access to the archive of DNC files. On September 22, 2016 (the same day of DCLeaks’ email to WikiLeaks), the Twitter account @dcleaks_ sent a single message to @WikiLeaks with the string of characters Investigative Technique The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016. For example, public reporting identified Andrew Müller-Maguhn as a WikiLeaks associate who may have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to WikiLeaks
On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released the first emails stolen from the Podesta email account. In total, WikiLeaks released 33 tranches of stolen emails between October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The releases included private speeches given by Clinton;177 internal communications between Podesta and other high-ranking members of the Clinton Campaign;178 and correspondence related to the Clinton Foundation.179 In total, WikiLeaks released over 50,000 documents stolen from Podesta’s personal email account. The last-in-time email released from Podesta’s account was dated March 21, 2016, two days after Podesta received a spearphishing email sent by the GRU.
d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials
As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks’s claims about the source of material that it posted. Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”180 Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter…that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”181 After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian
If you go against Russia/China/North Korea/Iran/India, they send a hitman to assassinate you. If you go against US and its allies, they assassinate your character first and you die in an accident in the prison with the camera footage missing.
And this is if you are actually somewhat popular, if not there are a tons of black sites they where they do Russia/China/North Korea/India shit and their populace will deflect how they are more humane like their life depends on it.
Because Assange kicked the DNC’s dog. The Republican’s were going to hate him no matter what because rationality never figured into their “my country, right or wrong” stupidity, but apparently because he released the DNC’s executive corruption and didn’t pull something out of his ass regarding the oTheR SidE, he’s obviously a russian asset.
Read into what is known and what he is accused of, and decide for yourself whether he is a traitor or whistleblower. While it won’t change anything for him, you don’t have to agree with the government’s position
Not an American, nor was he living in America at the time. I fail to see how “foreign citizen acts in ways contrary to my country’s best interests” equals “treason”.
The USA created some thoroughly disproven ‘rape’ charges (it was never a rape charge but that was the media reporting and most people don’t read beyond headlines).
Classic painting of him as a traitor. We have ‘evidence’ you can’t see that he works for [insert enemy here]
Personally? Because being a (white male) whistle blower shouldn't protect him from facing consequences for his sexual abuses, yet it seems to nonetheless.
Fuck him (though I've not said a word about him before this for longer than I can remember, so I don't know if I fall in to the category of "hating on him", I just don't give a shit about him, and definitely don't think he deserves the halo the public seem to have bestowed on him).
But he didn’t commit any sexual offenses in the US. There’s no reason to extradite him other than for his work as a journalist. I mean I think the guy is a scumbag but that’s an important freedom that the US intelligence services have been trampling for decades. Espionage and journalism are clearly distinct, but our legal system maliciously conflates them.
If anyone should be facing a firing squad for putting people at risk, it would be Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney long before Assange. There are verifiable deaths from those leaks, yet nothing even close to justice has been visited on either of those traitors.
One of the things I struggle to understand (maybe I should read more about it) is how US law has jurisdiction to stifle speech outside of US territories.
Like if Romania declared Borat a state secret, would every pirate on that swarm with a seed ratio above 0.00 be subject to extradition?
The US (and Canada, where I live) has an extradition treaty with Romania.
The US treaty does mention that
…neither Party shall refuse extradition based on the citizenship of the person sought.
But I haven’t read it in detail so that may or may not be relevant (the past I quoted is referring to a particular part of the treaty).
My understand is that typically the threshold for extradition is mutual criminality which I suppose is my answer to how US law applies itself outside US territories (because leaking state secrets is a crime in most countries). So I withdraw my inquiry.
If Romania declared Borat a state secret pirates could perhaps be extradited.
But also note that I don’t think Assange can be charged with treason, because he isn’t American.
Yes, literally a show on Russian state TV. He got a paycheck from the Russian government. I mean, is it that hard to grasp that this little fact makes the “he’s a russian asset” accusations at least understandable? And I am not saying he is one. I am not that informed about him and Wikileaks to have a strong opinion.
RT is not the russian government…
so everything else you have to say is pointless propaganda
claiming he’s definitely a russian asset because he had a tv show is like saying everyone that’s been on ABC is an american asset…
it’s worse than just stupid
they were state funded but not controlled back then, they’ve been slowly adding on censorship laws… not every human in russia is this super evil, red-scare, diabolical agent plotting against your freedom…
they were, very recently, much freer and more democratic… putin has slowly been turning it back into a dictatorship
see also: …wikipedia.org/…/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
You’re too used to people making attacks. That’s not what I was trying to do. I was asking questions. I don’t know how much of RTs funding comes from the state, and I don’t even know if they run commercials.
I don’t know how RT is funded, and I’ve never watched it.
is not innocently asking questions.
but it does not matter.
even if RT was 100% a puppet and they employed assange to interview people and speak truth, that doesn’t make him a russian asset
it was one of the least significant things he ever did in his long career… and he had some really good interviews…
You're full of it. From the time they were founded, they operated in the same building as RIA Novosti. RT didn't exist until AFTER the various independent journalists and their associations were ALREADY being rounded up and cast out of Russian society.
They are now and have always been state-controlled. Stop apologizing for dictatorships.
uh huh… so after he’s already arrested and detained inside the ecuadorian embassy, he takes an opportunity to have a webcam interview show distributed on rt…
after he’s already internationally famous and has a shitload of money… he’s “paid employee of rt” and that discredits everything he did for years before and after that…
you sound a lot like a paid government employee
(p.s. rt was a lot freer then and had some pretty good journalism about topics other than russia… but go ahead and keep repeating yourself like an idiot)
1 I’ve seen no evidence Assange is wealthy 2 Sure seems like cozying up to Russia is a decent escape plan when you’re worried about being locked up in the west 3 I never said all his leaks are bs, I rather appreciated what he and Snowden did. I just think he’s a self aggrandizing hypocrite 4 I could easily paint you as a Russian shill but that’d be fucking stupid because I have no evidence beyond “wahhh this guy on the internet has a different read of a situation than meeee”. I’m not sure if you’re an idiot or not, but it seems pretty clear you’re a prick. Bye.
you definitely get it with RT having changed in the last decade…
but on Bill Maher he said A: they only publish things they can verify, and B: russia would not be shy about just assassinating him, so unfortunately they’re very hesitant to piss them off.
i need to find that clip and just reply with that…
And now I think you’re part of the disinformation campaign. Although people have accused him of leaking information that compromised it an operatives, there should not have been any documents that he leaked that contain such information, which means other people were misclassifying data, and yet we have no evidence that any of them were ever pursued with prosecution. So then the whole claim looks a lot like a big lie.
And if the above argument is too shallow, we could look a little more deeply and ask who the agents are that add to be pulled out of their posts, and also whether foreign governments already knew that those people were agents, on account of the information being available from sources that were not top secret, that had presumably been compromised by some of the other major world spy agencies.
I don’t see how leaking diplomatic cables could be seen as attacking the United States as a country. Certainly it could be seen as undercutting the State Department, because it revealed how anti-democratic the State Department actually is.
Add comment