61–70 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway? Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that claims such objectivity.
Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there were solid evidence of this fact, the statement wouldn't need a qualifier. Their behavior is consistent with what you'd expect from an intelligence agency. Such as well-timed releases during the 2016 US Presidential Election which seemed to heavily favor a candidate with strong ties to a foreign government well known for their intelligence capabilities.
I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.
Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?
My opinion of Julian Assange has varied over the years, depending on who the victim of his latest exposure was. I think this means that on balance he's fairly neutral. However this item is a statement of fact, no? >> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time. https://w…
1: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/201...
It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself. It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism.
they did change the outcome of a US election, and probably the course of world history, which is more than all of the anti-trump media combined, so that is a pretty big accomplishment ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway? Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that claims such objectivity.
Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.
The misbehavior at issue was hosting members of the Catalan separatist movement and releasing messages endorsing it shortly after the declaration of independence, which prompted diplomatic protest from Spain to Ecuador.
Is it false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks was a tool used to affect US election?
democracy dies in the dark you know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.
> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?
We do have this statement (and a little more detail inside) in a report by a joint report by the US Intelligence Community (regarding Russian interference with elections):
"We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
Source: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
But that doesn't explain whether Assange is either a "compromised front" for the GRU or someone else, or more a "useful idiot" to Russian intelligence for their goals.
Nonetheless, I will say, at minimum, Wikileaks and Julian Assange can no longer be seen as a neutral player, at minimum. And not a reliable narrator, either. For example, some of their tweets on the Panama Papers, which in theory I would think would be something they would in theory support, were rather strange, and actually stooped into ridiculous conspiracy theory involving USAID and George Soros (eg https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7176700566505308... and https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7174580643249643...). I generally don't treat sources that delve into conspiracy theory with a whole lot of respect...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should not people have freedom of speech?
I don't have an opinion on the idea of a smear campaign one way or the other, but just because people have the right to say whatever they feel does not mean that there isn't some organized effort to coordinate those individuals' speech.
The ridiculous hypocrisy of the "official" wikileaks organization sending out a document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION."
they are legally required to do this because to make a public statement would be a violation of the gag order he is under.