Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

emma.best

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 227 posts

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

soundwave106 wrote: post #67
porphyrogene wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?

I don't think we have any document released yet that describes any full picture. 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 t…

> the US National Intelligence Agency

It's a joint report by the US Intelligence Community. There is no “US National Intelligence Agency”; the position of Director of National Intelligence was created to specifically split the role of overall head of the intelligence community (the DNI) from the head of a particular agency (the overall head of the IC used to be the Director of the CIA.)

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#73

Post by cromulent »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #28
driverdan wrote: post #22

This is the original source: https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-to... After it was leaked WL released their edited version.

Among the bullets from the original version: > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks. > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands. > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs. What on Earth…?

I think it comes from Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book.

For example:

"Julian ate everything with his hands and he always wiped his fingers on his pants. I have never seen pants as greasy as his in my whole life."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/23/ten-thin...

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#74

Post by hannasanarion »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #47
mywittyname wrote: post #33

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.

>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. Alright... Help me understand how this does not reflect WaPo, CNN, NYT, and others in an identical way.

Did any of those sources make a big announcement that they have super-duper incriminating emails about a candidate and then slowly release them in a trickle over the course of 30 days leading up to the election?

Emails which, by the way, were so boring and mundane and contained so little evidence of misconduct that people determined to hate Clinton needed to treat "pizza" as secret code for "child sex slaves", to extract a scandal from them.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#75

Post by soundwave106 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #71
soundwave106 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have any document released yet that describes any full picture. 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 t…

> the US National Intelligence Agency It's a joint report by the US Intelligence Community. There is no “US National Intelligence Agency”; the position of Director of National Intelligence was created to specifically split the role of overall head of the intelligence community (the DNI) from the head of a particular agency (the overall head of the IC used to be the Director of the CIA.)

Thanks for the clarification, I have corrected the text.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#76

Post by Varcht »

walrus01 wrote: post #20
jklinger410 wrote: post #15

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.

"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador isolated and gagged Mr. Assange due to his comments on Sergei Skripal [in fact, he was isolated over his refusal to delete a factually accurate tweet about the arrest of the president of Catalonia by Spain in Germany, along with U.S. debt pressure on Ecuador. The president of Ecuador Lenin Moreno admitted that these two countries were the issue, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/]."

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#77

Post by Varcht »

hannasanarion wrote: post #60
smacktoward wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever needed to compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organ…

We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have stopped operating in the way you describe. They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished). They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)…

"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/, https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#..., https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/ & https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results]."

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#78

Post by mrguyorama »

soundwave106 wrote: post #67
porphyrogene wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?

I don't think we have any document released yet that describes any full picture. 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 t…

>and actually stooped into ridiculous conspiracy theory involving USAID and George Soros

Just using the "George Soros" dog whistle should disqualify them as a reliable source

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#79

Post by hannasanarion »

Varcht wrote: post #77
hannasanarion wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have stopped operating in the way you describe. They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished). They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)…

"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ , https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#... , https://wikileaks.org/syria-files…

ooooOOOOOOooooOOOO is Julian going to sue me for defamation now?

Allow me to amend: Wikileaks now publishes Russia and putin related material long after they aquire them and only after they are called out on it.

They sat on the "spy files" for a full year, and only published them after their source went around telling other publications about them. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#80

Post by mrguyorama »

hannasanarion wrote: post #55
davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…

Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original Guardian story. 1. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail. 2. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because the…

Reading this makes me sad. I thought the intercept was quality journalism. I didn't know they had this kind of history
Post reply on HN