Where's that evidence beyond (a) he's anti-US government and (b) of all the international powers that might wish to launder dirt on the US through Asssage, one of the names on that list is Russia?
That doesn't make anything "pretty clear" that his information just so happened to come from the place that was also the convenient national bogeyman of the time.
If he really had an interest in transparency he'd release the Republican emails. But he didn't. So I can only assume the guy is a propagandist designed to sow chaos.
>“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post.
>“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.
If Wikileak's primary goal is transparency, why not release these docs too?
[1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
To portray this as an difficult decision for poor Assange is just absurd. He made clear in his own emails, his entire goal was to bring down Clinton. She lost the election for many reasons, including Assange's efforts but also a very poorly run campaign and many bad decisions on her own part.
Freedom of reportage doesn't have a political party. It is literally ensconced in the 1st Amendment. Attacking messengers when personal causes are impugned by truth: this is a red flag for extraordinary hackery.
Then, compare that to the track record of the organizations you compared to. Wikileaks has incredibly high standards.
This is why we have crackpots like Trump, chants of "lock her up", skepticism of established institutions, and skepticism of science moving to the forefront. Assange isn't the only one doing this, but he was a big part of it.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hi...
> https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_...
> Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value.
I would encourage anybody to read the source document above to see the whole analysis, but it's pretty impartial and paints a sceptical picture.
I don't see anything wrong with journalists addressing a claim, investigating it and declaring in their opinions that it's probably not true. What, specifically, is wrong with that?
The fact that you posted the image without referencing the article that claims it's probably a hoax makes me think you were intentionally trying to mislead people.
In this case the way it works is that Wikileaks drops select truths in a select order and then other more transparently bad faith actors in the "alternative media" use what Wikileaks drops as the kernels of lies and wild-ass conspiracy theories. All this happens long before good faith actors can manage to even start digesting the information.
I have not seen proof of collusion in this process, but in 2016 it was so well executed that I would not be surprised. I watched all that stuff unfold in real time and it was obviously a propaganda operation... and a really damn slick one. I was kind of impressed.
Edit: here's a somewhat clunky made up example to illustrate the principle:
Lets say you are driving and you accidentally hit and kill a pedestrian who happens to be an ex business partner. Lets say you and this ex business partner had a falling out, but later made up and came to an amicable agreement.
Lets say I leak e-mails showing the disagreement and falling out, but sort of "forget" to leak the make-up and later agreement. I also leak only the most damning e-mails from your side, redacting e-mails from the other side that might cast our accident victim in a bad light.
I can make you look like a murderer when in reality the event was just an accident. I have done nothing but tell the truth.
Seriously, the notion that "media" does anything is preposterous. Even if you think they want to manufacture consent, it's pretty obvious there is nothing near consensus amongst themselves. Everyone who writes news can make mistakes or let bias slip in, but that's not a conspiracy.
On the flip side, Assange was always pretty upfront about how he did his work for his own agenda. Anything he ever published that actually helped people was purely coincidental.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
> Assange was pretty clearly outed as having been working for or at least with Russian disinformation agents.
This is 100% false, and you should be liable for defamation.
Your personal (absurdly malformed) opinions about personality shouldn't play a role in whether someone is subject to persecution and imprisonment.
But... then there was a falling out between the left and Assange when he found out Hillary wished out loud that he was dead and he then cherry picked the bad stuff even more... though he never had inauthentic releases. They just didn’t like what they saw (in the mirror).
So, it’s clear his motives shifted (given the circumstances it was reasonable), but the left suddenly didn’t want more dirt from him cuz he was making them look bad (and forced the question, are WE the baddies?)...
So here we are, he was the useful idiot they now can throw under the bus accusing him of being in cahoots with the Russians (a charge dismissed when people on the right claimed the same back in the good old days way back when Wikileaks and the left were aligned)
That's because it's a valuable service. Look, I'd love it if sunshine could shine equally into all corners of the world, but if an ideologically impure weirdo with bad hygiene and some vile sexual habits wants to shine sunshine just into my own country's dark corners.... then fine!
I want my country to live up to its own ideals, and that requires making everyone aware of when it doesn't. Justice isn't a zero-sum international game of tit-for-tat.
If you're referring to the allegations made against Assange and investigated by the Swedish prosecutor's office that forced him to remain confined in the embassy in the UK, then those were dropped, and the UN special investigator who looked at Assange's case found that the whole investigation was conducted in bad faith:
https://www.exberliner.com/features/julian-assange-trial-202...
> But that’s exactly the point. I don’t know whether Julian Assange committed sexual assault or not, but what I do know is that Sweden never cared to find out. They wanted to use these allegations to discredit him. And once they had actively spread these allegations into every corner of the world, they then made sure that there would never be a proper trial because, as the prosecutor finally admitted in November 2019, they never had sufficient evidence to even press charges against Julian Assange.
> Sweden went out of its way to make sure the public was informed of the allegations against Assange, even against the will of the concerned women,
So- these women (plural) DID make allegations. And if publicizing them was against the womens' will, then we know that they didn't make these claims for the sake of publicity.
I'll readily believe that Sweden publicized them with political intent, and that they didn't have enough evidence to successfully prosecute. But what evidence there is (regardless of legal standards) definitely exists, and has not been recanted, and I have seen nothing to suggest it was a lie. And in general, I believe women. Just because it's not up to a legal standard of convincingness doesn't mean we have to just ignore it.
Similarly if Bielorussian authorities were investigating claims made by women against Roman Prostaevich, I would be less inclined to automatically believe that he had doone something to some women than I am for women telling their stories against Jeffrey Epstein.
The truth is only being anti-corruption when your opponent is corrupt and ignoring corruption from your allies is itself a form of corruption.
if a country is nr. 1 and runs the biggest propaganda operation the world has ever seen (Hollywood, Netflix, but also US based social media companies inventing algorithms that influence and steer behavior) then they need to be treated with large amount of pressure and critic to everything they do (justified or not).
The problem in all of this is that the emperor has no clothes. E.g. the emperor being the polarized US public that doesn't see that their country didn't have any form of coherent foreign policy that wasn't a racist, war-mongering and hypocrite "America first" (since at least Reagan).
Because liberals hate America, right? This sort of thinking from conservatives baffles me. Improvement of any sort - personal, cultural, political - depends on acknowledging legitimate criticism. US citizens aren't required to be blindly loyal to their country. To state an obvious near-tautology, the only way to make things better is to encourage and facilitate useful criticism, so that bad things can be improved.
The relative lack of freedom to criticize is exactly why so many autocratic states become mired in corruption; there's no non-destructive mechanism for accountability and change in government.
He also released actual CIA hacking tools (Vault 7), which was a monumentally stupid, destructive act.
From my perspective she sort of make Margret Tatcher look like a socialist.
I do think most of us were fooled by wikileaks because it starter out being against the Iraq war. This was before snowden, back when people weren’t actually being serious when they joked about echelon listening in on us. It was also back when we, at least in Europe, figures that Russia was going to be our friend and it was sort of pre-information war. Apparently the information was was already well on its way, but we didn’t really know, and we didn’t take anyone who warned us serious. Us being the general public.
It was also a world where everything surrounding American politics, and to some extend all western politics, wasn’t always this us/them, left/right, blue/red nonsense that it is today. Anyone, from the most conservative to the most liberal who watched the wikileaks leaks on the journalist and the children being killed by drones (or maybe it was far away airplanes) were appalled by it, because it was simply appalling and back then, people cared more about wrong/right than their “team” looking good.
So I think it is understandable that people bought into wikileaks being genuine but these days… well… let’s just say that the west still hasn’t recovered from in the war on truthful information and that we are still struggling with trust issues and all the wonderful things like flat-earth, anti-vaccine and what not stupidity that’s running ever more rampant in our society. Among other things, because people like Assange showed us why we shouldn’t trust our institutions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
I remember a comment from some years ago that went like: America's left is Europe's right and America's right is Europe's batshit lunatics :-P
It is all relative.