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

81–90 of 227 posts

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

#81

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

hannasanarion wrote: post #74
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ext…

So, your answer is an anecdote about the release of TRUE information you don't like the timing of, and an entirely unrelated topic of conspiracy theorists.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Perhaps you could re-read the initial exchange and try again?

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

#83

Post by taylodl »

hannasanarion wrote: post #79
Varcht wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Are you suggesting Wikileaks may have had a hidden agenda? Say it ain't so!

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

#84

Post by hannasanarion »

mrguyorama wrote: post #80
hannasanarion wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah. And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others.

The Intercept isn't safe any more, and it's increasingly becoming sidelined, with the biggest leak since Snowden, the Panama Papers, being given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, by a source that is still anonymous 4 years later.

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

#85

Post by georgeecollins »

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…

I could see the point in clarifying something like that where an important event is in dispute. Unfortunately this covers things that no sane organization should feel a need to clarify as a fact. I can understand why a person may want to debate these facts, but I think a sensible organization would let many of these things go: " It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange bleaches his hair. It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s mother is, or ever was, a “hippie”. It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a “hacker”. " It just sounds a little kooky.

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

#86

Post by mywittyname »

porphyrogene wrote: post #51
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.

I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter.

Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.

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

#87

Post by CamperBob2 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #84
mrguyorama wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah. And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others. The Intercept isn't safe any more, and it's increasingly becoming sidelined, with the biggest leak since Snowden, the Panama Papers, being given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, by a source that is still anonymous 4 years later.

And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others.

Including Reality Winner, right?

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

#89

Post by nkurz »

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…

Could you provide evidence for your "evidence"? That is, I realize that The Guardian claims that they saw a list showing "Paul Manaford" as a guest to the embassy, but I haven't seen outside evidence that this list exists and is accurate. And I've seen others claiming that Manafort's name (misspelled or not) was not on the previously released guest lists: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/assange-neve...

I currently trust The Intercept more than I trust most other news sources, and if your two points are true, then I clearly am trusting them too much. If you have have evidence that would move this beyond a "he said, she said" level (with the Guardian claiming one thing and The Intercept saying the claims are false), please point to it so I can update my beliefs. Currently it feels more like you are simply asserting that we should trust one source over another.

Post reply on HN