"3 things: vocal & active supporter of WL & Assange for 10yrs, was in a twitter DM group that incl
@wikileaks, visited assange several times at the embassy"
What has he been convicted of?
Talk about burying the lede.
In most dictatorships you would be dragged out of your house and shot because you didn’t like the same toothpaste as your “dear leader”. The author needs to get a clue. Go live in North Korea.
That's unfair considering everybody is a potential asset to someone, whether the "good" or the "bad" guys.
Perhaps a more specific phrase would have been 'suspected Russian asset'
"While it’s not clear whether WikiLeaks participated in that now-infamous DNC hack, Mueller’s investigation revealed that WikiLeaks sought to spread conspiracies about where they got the information, obscure whether they knew it came from Russia, and release documents at times that seemingly benefited Trump by consuming the news cycle."
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
"The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media.Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information."RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."
Giving an (at least semi-)hostile foreign government leverage over your is one of the very first steps in tradecraft to flipping someone and turning them into an asset. I feel like believing that there would be no effort on the part of the Russian government to turn these people into assets is fairly naive.
Also - wow, a journalist meets with other journalists. How damning. Clearly he's a Russian asset. Maybe him being in contact with American news organizations also means he's an American asset and actually working for the CIA.
3rd party media watchdog organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and Accuracy In Media consider RT as a propaganda arm of the Russian government as the results of their investigations into their reporting accuracy. Negative reporting of Putin is directly banned by RT.
They have a propensity for airing conspiracy theory based content as news, as well. They keep people like Tony Gosling on staff, an anti-semite who spends much of his time peddling conspiracy theories about a worldwide zionist illuminati, have run stories about how the boston bombing was perpetrated by the US government, how EU citizens have all been microchipped to release hormones that make them submissive, etc.
RT is not a legitimate news organization. They are an arm of the Russian government, and Assange would surely know exactly who and what they are. Working with them is incredibly damning evidence.
Personally, I don't believe that Assange was always a Russian asset. I think when he started WikiLeaks his intentions were relatively noble, at least in his eyes. But I think that the position he was put in over his actions ultimately gave the Russians significant leverage over him, and they were able to use that to flip him. But based on his recent actions, there is a significant body of evidence that he is a Russian asset. And to put it bluntly, your argument that RT is a legitimate news organization really only has 3 possible explanations that I can personally see: That you are informed on the subject and have taken a stance counter to independent media watchdogs/Western governments/etc. (Which may be fine, but I'm curious how you can rectify that view with all of the evidence that is publicly available), that you are uninformed on the subject and thus basing your defense of Assange on an incomplete understanding of the situation, or that you are informed but some bias in favor of Assange has you ignoring all of the evidence out there on RT.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-excl...
Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.
>Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London
It could also be Chinese take-out. But CNN is going to speculate it's POTENTIALLY HACKED MATERIALS. Literally any delivery is potentially hacked materials. This is ridiculous.
Also, what makes meetings suspicious? There's no follow-up here, no substance. Why does CNN simply describe them as suspicious rather than provide evidence that suggests it might be?
Why is it a bombshell that he allegedly got hacked or leaked materials by courier? He clearly got them somehow, does it matter whether it was over email or in person? It's also possible it was a carrier pigeon - there's pigeons in the UK after all. And if he's getting materials from a courier, why does he need fancy hardware to get it digitally? This makes no sense.
There is absolutely nothing in this article other than speculation with a clear, logic-defying bias. And none of it is credible evidence Assange is working with the Russian government.
Moreno (Ecuadorian President) used Assange as a political tool. He's created a smear campaign against Assange, claiming he smeared feces on the wall and attacked embassy guards, both of which have no evidence (which is especially relevant considering Assange was under 24/7 recorded surveillance). Moreno has also since labeled Assange a terrorist, which is absolutely ridiculous. And as it came out with this report, hired a security firm that illicitly spied on Assange and tried to exort him for millions of dollars. It is clear that whatever accusations come from Moreno are not substantiated or credible.
[1] https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/04/10/inenglish/1554906053_63... [2] https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/03/inenglish/1556898556_07...
Repeated meetings with Russia's propaganda arm is fairly conclusive evidence, especially considering Assange would be under no false impressions about the legitimacy of RT as a news organization. By the nature of his job he would know exactly what RT is and choosing to repeatedly work with them is quite damning evidence.