I can think of at least one instance where they targeted individuals: publishing the names and addresses of members of the extreme-right British National Party. Of course that is OTOH hard to square with the narrative that they're right-wing Trumpists.
Assange probably has no love for Trump, but certainly hates Hillary and was willing to get in bed with whoever was necessary to hurt her.
While there was no similar mass disclosure (most likely because of the political goals of those conducting the operation), Republican groups, not just Democrats, were compromised by the same actors behind the DNC attack.
Source - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hac...
I think you are being naive if you believe that everything that has been hacked has been leaked or that the leaks are motivated be an ideology of transparency rather than political objectives.
It's entirely possible that either they failed to break in or that they failed to get any significant information.
Comey disputes that in the linked article.
>or that they failed to get any significant information.
Or maybe it is possible that they got more significant information and it was never leaked because it is more valuable as blackmail material. Neither of us know which one of those theories is right.
What we do know is that both sides were hacked, probably by the Russians, and data from only one side was released. By wide consensus those releases were timed in order to maximize the damage they did to Clinton. That is exactly the type of action you would expect from someone motivated by politics.
>> "We did not develop any evidence that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked." - Linked Article
Seems pretty contradictory to me. Maybe a previous admin's RNC or something, but not the current one...
Honestly, these intelligence agencies are pretty clueless. They use the same tactics to identify malware sources that they use to thwart their own identification as a malware source. I wouldn't believe anything they say about the source of malware - or anything anyone says. It's far too easy to make it look like someone else did it - use their or nearby providers, use their malware or slightly modified versions of it, copy their strings, etc. It's pretty easy stuff to do if you've got a bit of assembly skill too.
> By wide consensus those releases were timed in order to maximize the damage they did to Clinton. That is exactly the type of action you would expect from someone motivated by politics.
Or you know, just someone motivated to make impactful leaks. Despite these emails not being in my political favor, I wouldn't have done anything differently in their shoes. Would you have? and if you would have, would you honestly say that your actions weren't politically motivated?
I think _not_ releasing in this case or avoiding impact would have been more clearly politically motivated.
I mentioned this in my other post. The RNC was hacked, but we don't know the timeline due to Comey's vague terminology.
>Honestly, these intelligence agencies are pretty clueless.
This is incredibly patronizing. They have a much greater expertise on these things than two doofuses like us debating on the Internet.
>Or you know, just someone motivated to make impactful leaks. Despite these emails not being in my political favor, I wouldn't have done anything differently in their shoes. Would you have?
It isn't just the timing of the leaks, go back and read what they were saying about them. They stoked the flames of Pizzagate. Assange was quoted as saying the leaks would guarantee Clinton's arrest. Those aren't the actions of someone who is politically neutral.
I probably am naive, but at least I'm not so naive as to hear anything from Comey other than CYA over his own "election-affecting" but now-forgotten Clintonian email releases.
As I said above, however, we're really in the dark when we're reading tea leaves of nuance in testimony about an open investigation, by an effectively independent civil servant who has given directly-misleading testimony within the last year.
Not so much that — we have ample evidence to the contrary — but more conventional media outlets like the NYT, WaPo, CNN and so on are more than happy to publish unredacted leaks themselves, if they embarrass Trump. Wikileaks is whom you bring your story to when nobody else will publish it.
You don't see leaks from 3-letter agencies because someone phished them - while it's definitely possible to contact them.
You can do a lot with training - simply frequently attempting phishing on your own employees can do a lot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/wikileak...
Uh huh. After the US Election debacle, I'm not so sure of that.
And funnily enough, those who called for death warrants against Assange have literally apologized (Palin) and done a complete 180 (Trump, Hannity) and praise him.
But yes, now that Trump is a politician, I imagine it's only a matter of time.
>> I'm just saying he's not impartial
Assange != Wikileaks
Having documents on both sides and releasing one and not the other would be a break with impartiality. Having personal political opinions has nothing to do with Wikileaks impartiality.
No, but it is real suspicious.
1 - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-trump-surrogates-once-led-fi...