Stella Assange, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s wife, said the “world is watching” her husband’s extradition appeal hearing Tuesday. “We have two big days ahead. We don’t know what t…
Assange got e-mails for both Republican and Democratic parties from a Russian hacker associated with the Kremlin and then specifically chose to withhold the Republican e-mails and release the Democratic e-mails. If he meant anything he said about transparency, he would have released everything, but that’s not what he or his employers wanted. They wanted their puppet president in Trump, and Assange was happy to help like the Russian asset he is.
A comment replying “Source?” is not contributing to the conversation, and criticising someone for writing more than 1 word in reply is also bullshit.
It really gets on my wick when people thing saying “Source?” is a sufficient challenge in online conversation. We’re not writing academic papers here, we’re chatting shit on the internet.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
If you have a counter-argument, make it.
If all you want to do is shit on someone for not writing an academic article with citations[1] but don’t actually contribute anything yourself, go suck on a turd.
However, it should be said, @Shalakushka@kbin.social has probably got things wrong. I don’t think Russia provided emails from the Republican party. The argument doesn’t even make sense - why would Russia provide arguments on both sides if they wanted one side, their Republican tiny-handed man, to get into the White House?
Rather, what happened, as I recall, was that Assange also received intel on Russian corruption from somewhere else, then elected not to publish it. That is perhaps dodgy, but at the same time the reasoning I recall him giving was that it is obvious that Russia is corrupt - it simply was not newsworthy.
Wow, look, lemmy has a citation function! If only the hyperlinks actually worked… ↩︎
Even if this were true and from a credible source within WikiLeaks, the idea that whistleblowers should be impartial is not something I have ever heard. Assange is trying to stop the world’s most violent and virulent warmachine. Working with Russia and likely China by proxy, there are sophisticated theories of action about how best to do that.
But honestly, Clinton was losing no matter what because her strategy was flawed, which we have ample evidence of because she still won the popular vote! You can’t have it both ways.
As someone who was around for all of it, nah, you are not going to convince me Assange is an impartial good guy. Sory, but I am with camp “Russian asset” and he can reap that shit.
Maybe, perhaps probably. He just so happens to end up in Russia?
It doesn’t mean I don’t believe what either of these dudes put out in the world, it just means I am not sure that their motives were as pure as so many people today seem to think they were. (Note: back THEN, I thought these guys were the good guys, many years later having seen the way the data has been handled, where they ended up, how they’ve handled themselves, I’m much less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Russia just so happens not to extradite people to the US.
Assange has always been a bit of a dick, but sometimes being a good journalist requires people to be dicks.
At the same time, some people are Piers Morgan.
I don’t think Assange is Piers Morgan. I think Piers Morgan far more deserves what Assange has experienced so far, let alone whatever may face him in future.
As I remember it, Russia supplied Assange and Wikileaks with information about the DMC, and nothing else. Wikileaks then published the full dataset, unredacted.
Then, someone else provided evidence of Russian corruption. Wikileaks did not publish any of this. There was outcry, then Assange said publicly “Of course Russia is corrupt, that isn’t newsworthy.”
While that still leaves some room for Assange and Wikileaks being on Russia’s side, this should all be viewed in the context that the US government was rabidly frothing at the mouth to get back at Assange for (legitimately) revealing their corruption.
Why do people keep saying this? It doesn’t even make sense. Why would the Russians give Assange the RNC emails if they didn’t want them to be published? There is no evidence that I can find that the RNC emails were ever given to anyone.
That’s because they didn’t. What happened was someone subsequently released info about Russian corruption, and Wikileaks didn’t publish it, citing the fact that Russian corruption was obvious and not newsworthy.
Assange got e-mails for both Republican and Democratic parties from a Russian hacker and then specifically chose to withhold the Republican e-mails
but that’s not what he or his employers wanted.
Why would Russia give him information on both parties if Russia wanted to support one party over the other?
I think you’ve got things confused. I think the controversy was that he released information on the Democrats, provided by Russia, but then subsequently did not release information on Russia being corrupt. This was then construed as him being in support of Russia, when, by his argument, he simply did not think reporting on Russian corruption was newsworthy - of course Russia is corrupt.
If you can please provide evidence that Assange or Wikileaks were provided evidence of Republican corruption by the Russians, that would be appreciated.
Source?
Assange got e-mails for both Republican and Democratic parties from a Russian hacker associated with the Kremlin and then specifically chose to withhold the Republican e-mails and release the Democratic e-mails. If he meant anything he said about transparency, he would have released everything, but that’s not what he or his employers wanted. They wanted their puppet president in Trump, and Assange was happy to help like the Russian asset he is.
You replied to a comment asking “source?” with an entire paragraph containing zero sources.
Source is probably years of watching Rachel Maddow’s Russiagate conspiracy theorizing.
A comment replying “Source?” is not contributing to the conversation, and criticising someone for writing more than 1 word in reply is also bullshit.
It really gets on my wick when people thing saying “Source?” is a sufficient challenge in online conversation. We’re not writing academic papers here, we’re chatting shit on the internet.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
If you have a counter-argument, make it.
If all you want to do is shit on someone for not writing an academic article with citations[1] but don’t actually contribute anything yourself, go suck on a turd.
However, it should be said, @Shalakushka@kbin.social has probably got things wrong. I don’t think Russia provided emails from the Republican party. The argument doesn’t even make sense - why would Russia provide arguments on both sides if they wanted one side, their Republican tiny-handed man, to get into the White House?
Rather, what happened, as I recall, was that Assange also received intel on Russian corruption from somewhere else, then elected not to publish it. That is perhaps dodgy, but at the same time the reasoning I recall him giving was that it is obvious that Russia is corrupt - it simply was not newsworthy.
Wow, look, lemmy has a citation function! If only the hyperlinks actually worked… ↩︎
Even if this were true and from a credible source within WikiLeaks, the idea that whistleblowers should be impartial is not something I have ever heard. Assange is trying to stop the world’s most violent and virulent warmachine. Working with Russia and likely China by proxy, there are sophisticated theories of action about how best to do that.
But honestly, Clinton was losing no matter what because her strategy was flawed, which we have ample evidence of because she still won the popular vote! You can’t have it both ways.
As someone who was around for all of it, nah, you are not going to convince me Assange is an impartial good guy. Sory, but I am with camp “Russian asset” and he can reap that shit.
Do you also think Snowden was a Russian asset?
Maybe, perhaps probably. He just so happens to end up in Russia?
It doesn’t mean I don’t believe what either of these dudes put out in the world, it just means I am not sure that their motives were as pure as so many people today seem to think they were. (Note: back THEN, I thought these guys were the good guys, many years later having seen the way the data has been handled, where they ended up, how they’ve handled themselves, I’m much less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Russia just so happens not to extradite people to the US.
Assange has always been a bit of a dick, but sometimes being a good journalist requires people to be dicks.
At the same time, some people are Piers Morgan.
I don’t think Assange is Piers Morgan. I think Piers Morgan far more deserves what Assange has experienced so far, let alone whatever may face him in future.
I mean, we could probably get to consensus around Piers Morgan…
You say that, but he still features on channel 7 (in the first page of the TV guide) on UK TV.
I will not shed a tear on the day he dies. I will just say: “FINALLY!!”
Objectively, the world will be better off. The people closest to him will be better off. He is the worst kind of leech.
If he was to be incarcerated, his net worth should be used to finance the rehabilitation of other, more reputable prisoners. Eg paedophiles.
As I remember it, Russia supplied Assange and Wikileaks with information about the DMC, and nothing else. Wikileaks then published the full dataset, unredacted.
Then, someone else provided evidence of Russian corruption. Wikileaks did not publish any of this. There was outcry, then Assange said publicly “Of course Russia is corrupt, that isn’t newsworthy.”
While that still leaves some room for Assange and Wikileaks being on Russia’s side, this should all be viewed in the context that the US government was rabidly frothing at the mouth to get back at Assange for (legitimately) revealing their corruption.
Why do people keep saying this? It doesn’t even make sense. Why would the Russians give Assange the RNC emails if they didn’t want them to be published? There is no evidence that I can find that the RNC emails were ever given to anyone.
That’s because they didn’t. What happened was someone subsequently released info about Russian corruption, and Wikileaks didn’t publish it, citing the fact that Russian corruption was obvious and not newsworthy.
Why would Russia give him information on both parties if Russia wanted to support one party over the other?
I think you’ve got things confused. I think the controversy was that he released information on the Democrats, provided by Russia, but then subsequently did not release information on Russia being corrupt. This was then construed as him being in support of Russia, when, by his argument, he simply did not think reporting on Russian corruption was newsworthy - of course Russia is corrupt.
If you can please provide evidence that Assange or Wikileaks were provided evidence of Republican corruption by the Russians, that would be appreciated.
Removed by mod