What we have here is a time-honored tradition of US intelligence agencies tarring antiwar individuals and organizations as agents of a foreign power.
A solid antiwar appeal from an insane warmonger.
Remember kids, the Trump campaign’s friendliness with the Russians was a good thing. So even if they were using Assange or WikiLeaks as an intermediary, all is well. 
I only pay attention to my gut when it tells me I’m hungry. Ya know why: guts have no brains. Letting your gut do your thinking is as stupid as letting your genitals do your thinking.
That must be why most people think they’re taller than they really are.
Source 1: Asserts a link between DC Leaks, Wikileaks, Guccifer 2.0 and Russian intelligence, on the authority of unnamed intelligence officials. Also mentions Assange working with RT, but then Wikileaks has, or has had, long standing relationships with many media organisations, including the Washington Post and the Guardian itself. The rest of the article lists leaks by wikileaks and reports claims by the intelligence community that these leaks were from Russian hacks. None of these claims are supported by any evidence beyond an appeal to authority and the assumption that unnamed intelligence officials and/or intelligence reports are always honest and reliable. This has no evidentiary value.
Source 2: A list of leaks about Russia which Wikileaks are alleged to have ignored, the implication being that they were protecting Russia. Except the first leak is one they rejected because most of it was already public, and the rest wasn’t important, and indeed the media ignored it when it was released elsewhere. They allegedly rejected another set of documents with no connection to Russia so they could focus on the American election in 2016, which is in line with their known policy on major events. So again, no actual indication of any link to Russia. Lots of sizzle, no sausage.
Source 3: Not exactly written in a journalistic tone, focuses on Wikileaks being unwise enough to work with Israel Shamir, which is irrelevant to this matter, and otherwise rests entirely on the claim that the DNC information was hacked by the Russians, rather than actually presenting any evidence of said claim. That is a separate technical issue, and if you don’t already accept what the article is claiming then it has no value at all.
Source 4 alleges that Assange, a globe trotting media figure, once applied by proxy for a visa to enter Russia, which he didn’t receive. And then a mere six years later he was accused of colluding with the Russian government. Coincidence? Yes, it’s a coincidence. I mean, what is this even meant to show? This whole list of citations is just a bullshit gish gallop.
The first source is a full record of leaked internal Wikileaks chat logs.
The second source doesn’t support your accusations against wikileaks, and presents evidence against a connection between the Kremlin and Wikileaks. Were you expecting no-one to read these?
The third source is a listicle. The five top pieces of evidence that Russia and Wikileaks are in bed together. This must be it then, the evidence we’ve been looking for. The first is that he worked for RT. Okay, that’s not evidence. What about the second item on the list? Assange once met with Assad, who is generally reported as a Russian ally. Three: he helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong, having arranged several possible places for him to seek asylum, and quite correctly told him he’d be safer from America in Russia. 4: most of his leaks have come from western nations. 5) The wikileaks twitter account has agreed with Russia on at least four or five separate occasions. This is getting pathetic now.
Okay, last chance, the fourth source. Claims Assange met several times with a man he was talking to about his potential extradition, but that man had previously worked for someone who also employed someone who worked for Donald Trump. Or, if you prefer, he met with someone whose former employer is alleged to be linked with Russian organised crime. It’s another case of six degrees of collusion, it’s nothing.
Now, I didn’t read the entire archive of internal Wikileaks chat logs, but I read the rest of these sources, and I should have followed the example of the chap who didn’t. You’ve assembled a high pile of innuendo and irrelevance, and a few pieces of evidence that your position is wrong, and called it a day. What you haven’t done is provide any plausible evidence for your position.
On the current issue it seems obvious that this claim, the OP claim, is nonsense. We have an established set of facts: Assange is in the embassy (although certain conspiracy theories have him sneaking out to collude in the wild), these is only one entrance to the embassy, the entrance is watched continuously by the British authorities and the Ecuadorian authorities who both keep records of everyone going in and out.
Now we have what is claimed to be a document from the Ecuadorian intelligence services which implicitly posits the existence of a massive conspiracy between all of these people and the Russian government to sneak someone into the embassy for an in-person meeting which would make no sense at all, and to keep that secret.
So either there is a massive conspiracy between a huge group of people with no allegiance to each other and no common interests with no obvious purpose to do something that doesn’t make sense, or there is a fake document. The new Ecuadorian government is looking to reorientate Ecuador from its previous left wing inclination into a more neoliberal, free market, pro American position. They therefore have the motive means and opportunity the fake this document, whereas the previous Ecuadorian government and the British intelligence and security services had no such motive to hide a visit from Manafort. There can be only one reasonable conclusion with the presently available evidence.
I was using “gut” in the colloquial sense, you should have used your brain to grasp that.
In the colloquial sense, “gut” means “I have no reason to believe this, but do anyway”. It’s not something to brag about.
You would have to explain why you don’t believe it supports my statement. I believe that it does, but I may have misread or misunderstood something.
There is a fallacy going around that evidence works by smoking guns. That’s not how evidence works. That’s how TV works.
Proof is based on the probability of lots of hints of a thing, each with low probability of being meaningful, all coexisting.
So here let’s take an example, let’s say I tell you that there was a swan on the grass.
I give a link, the link describes a mystery object that everyone who saw says was white.
You read the link and say, “Doesn’t describe a swan. False news!” And you ignore and forget the story.
I give a second link. The link describes a thing with feathers.
You read the link and say, “Doesn’t describe a swan. False news!” And you ignore and forget the story.
I give a third link. The links says that one of the witnesses was reminded of a Danish fairy tale.
You read the link and say, “Doesn’t describe a swan. False news!” And you ignore and forget the story.
I give a fourth link. The link says the object moved from the grass to the water, and floated.
You read the link and say, “Doesn’t describe a swan. False news!” And you ignore and forget the story.
I give a fifth link. The link says that the object had a long neck and a small head.
You read the link and say, “Doesn’t describe a swan. False news!” And you ignore and forget the story.
Again, a smoking gun is not how evidence works in crime, historical investigation, counter-intelligence, or scientific investigation. It’s a compilation of small hints. If you demand each one to be a smoking gun, then you’ll never get anywhere. You have to put it all together and decide what hypotheses fit all of the facts.
In the case of WikiLeaks, the alternative hypothesis would be that there are accusations of a Russian connection, and thus there is journalistic data about connections to Russia, because the connections are not none. If you asked them to investigate the connections to Venezuela, they might produce an equal amount of material.
That hypothesis would fit a large number of the facts, for example, Assange looking for asylum in Russia in 2010 and 2017. But it doesn’t explain WikiLeaks rejecting good information about Russia, why they steered and arranged Snowden’s trip to Russia, Assange’s bonus knowledge/interest in Russia, Snowden working for RT, WikiLeaks echoing Russian propaganda, or Pompeo supporting the WikiLeaks/Russia connection despite that being bad for his administration.
Well, in fairness, it could be a goose.
Is there a Danish fairy tale about a goose?
False news!
No. No, that’s wrong.
That’s from your gut, right?
On the SDMB, at least, it does.
No in this case it was “I sense I am being bullshitted”. If you ain’t got that gut feeling, perhaps you are one of those people who have sent money to Nigerian princes. IOW, you probably get got.
**WillFarnaby **- from your first post in this thread it seems like there was an effort to shift the discussion away from the thread topic and now we’ve gone down the rabbit hole of petty sniping. I can’t see that you’ve added anything to the thread given your eschewing of reviewing cites provided. **As such, I’m directing you to not post in this thread going forward. ** If you’d like to discuss, you are welcome to open an ATMB thread.
Everyone else - Let’s get this thread back on track to the subject of Manafort, Assange, Russian connections, and the Guardian article and no more of what’s in each others’ guts.
[/moderating]
Thank you.
As it turns out, other than denials, gotchas, and speculation, there’s not been a lot more to discuss.
And, as seems to always happen these days, another story is now pushing out the last one with a new stunner. The Manafort-Assange story is being crowded out by Cohen pleading guilty to even more.
“My gut tells me” is the male version of “feminine intuition”.