I also thought this was already known. Back in 2017 it was news. Not the Manafort connection, but that suprises no-one. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html
It is known that Assange has a strong grudge against Clinton.
Well, if you want to deny the citations with bullshit whackery, go right ahead.
I recall Assange saying he would leave the embassy when Manning was out of prison. She’s been out almost 2 years now.
Quite possibly they did note it, but we wouldn’t know if they did, nor what they would have made of any such information. They’re not in the business of running public prosecutions, even if there were some identifiable evidence of a crime in UK law, which seems rather doubtful. They’re about collecting information and keeping it secret for their own purposes, and what they might or might not have done with this particular piece of information is another matter entirely.
Dude, it’s not a good look to challenge another poster’s cites while simultaneously admitting that you didn’t read them.
I have never understood this viewpoint that Russia is somehow not a European nation. It is true that the bulk of Russian territory is in Asia, but at the same time the bulk of Russians live in Europe. The Russian viewpoint is fundamentally European, and has been since Peter the Great.
I didn’t read #2-4 because the first one was BS. I asked for him to pull out what he thought was not BS.
Wow. Flat out admitting to arguing without reading.
Sigh.
No. You didn’t.
Sage Rate said that there was “fairly good evidence that WikiLeaks is largely funded and protected by Russia” and then proceeded to provide 4 cites. You quoted all 4 cites and dismissed them with
Which, we now know, you said because you only looked at (perused? Clicked on? “Read” is pretty dubious at this point) the first link.
By the way, the reason you got all indignant and didn’t read cites 2 through 4 is because a Director of National Intelligence and a Director of the CIA (who is now the Secretary of State*) were cited as sources. That was your line in the sand.
*Confirmation is coming from inside the administration!
Yes I admitted that I didn’t read something someone linked to because I tried one of their cites and it was BS. I’m not going to keep clicking on their links if they want to throw some fluff in there. Give me the raw evidence or move on.
Pompeo is an unhinged Russia baiter, and Clapper is known chiefly for blatant perjury and domestic spying.
What reason would I have to lie to someone like yourself?
In the past people have made a certain claim and when I questioned them about it, either the poster or someone else helpfully posted a direct quote. My gut feeling is there really is no good quote from the internal communications that would serve as evidence of Russia controlling Wikileaks. If there was, it would have been presented in the thread by now.
Again, you are prevaricating.
Originally, you doubted that there was any connection between Russia and Wikileaks.
When provided info, you simply decided that the first snippet was not to your liking. Done, full stop.
Never mind any of the rest, which includes (per the links you’re dismissing outright):
Now, to continue, you want evidence of Russia ‘controlling’ Wikileaks. Presumably, demonstrating that Assange is a conduit to Russia is no longer sufficient. We must show evidence of control.
Sounds good.
The reporting has insinuated that colluding with WikiLeaks is the same as colluding with Russia. I never said there was no connection. I have a connection with my employer, it doesn’t follow that if you collude with me, you are colluding with the grocer.
This is simple stuff. Perhaps we are dealing with a language barrier?
Yes I also skimmed the second link and saw the things you quote. They were explained to my liking. Thing is, when I skim I usually read only quotes because many journalists like to spin narratives out of whole cloth. I am still waiting for the promised internal communications. I was asked what evidence would satisfy me. I answered.
You’ve clicked and read 50% of the links, and found 50% of the information I mentioned. …Curious.
Here’s some more:
Or, to summarize:
Assange tends to speak up and show off his knowledge when Stone, Russia, or a “David Satter” are commented on in chat, otherwise he mostly ignores everyone; various people who have worked with WikiLeaks are worried about their possible Russian connections; WikiLeaks likes to echo Russian propaganda; Assange works for the Russian news; and one of Assange’s most frequent visitors is an official representative of a Russian oligarch.
If you don’t trust the summaries, well then you know how to resolve that.
:rolleyes:
:dubious:
For the record, I wouldn’t classify the relationship as Russia “controls” WikiLeaks, simply that they have significant leverage over them (as, presumably, does Ecuador) and WikiLeaks is operating on their own under that influence.
Assange may well be a true believer and probably views it all as though he’s just biding his time until he gets the upper hand again and can lay into Russia, Ecuador, and anyone else that has ever used him. Personally, I would call that a delusion, and you need to interpret Assange’s words in that light.
Unrelated, but I’ll also add that WikiLeaks served as the introducer and middle-man for Snowden and his case of asylum in Russia. See previous links.
And I’ll also say, WillFarnaby, that if you can’t concentrate enough to read and your mind is racing too fast to be able to get past your initial gut reactions to actual meditation and data diving, then you may want to see a specialist in ADHD.
Indeed. The nature of the game is precisely that they don’t need to “control”, in any visibly linear sense, anyone they can treat as a manipulable “useful idiot”. It’s far more to their advantage to be able to muddy the waters at arm’s length.
Even better than DIDN’T READ – now we have a demand for spoon-feeding.
That is a long long way from saying that colluding with Wikileaks is colluding with Russia. So the internal communications basically reveal nothing but more opportunities for speculation from clickbait journos.
More speculation, yippee.
If you ignore your gut, I feel bad for you and doubt your ability to navigate life safely. In this case, my gut feeling was right on. The internal communications revealed nothing about the Wikileaks/Russia relationship.
“In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”
