7 ms·

> Or they can stop colluding with Russia under the pretext of freedom Could you provide a source? I'd love to know more.

by vuln 9y ago

Retroity 9y ago
Don't worry guys, the DNC said so, so it must be true!
- roywiggins 9y ago
  "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks." - Mike Pompeo, current CIA director and nominee for Secretary of State I'm all for skepticism of what people say, especially people in positions like CIA Director, but when a Republican CIA director agrees with the DNC about what happened, it seems not entirely unreasonable to give it some credence. He is in the absolutely perfect position to say otherwise, if he believed otherwise, and is in the perfect position to reevaluate the previous intelligence report. He's the director of the CIA! If he thinks there's evidence backing another narrative, he can just come out and say so.
  - fareesh 9y ago
    Even if Satan himself proved he was real and aided Wikileaks by publishing true information, I'd be all for it. What's being suggested is that they selectively publish true information by not publishing certain things that don't suit a particular agenda. This accusation is being asserted without evidence, and can therefore be dismissed without evidence.
    - jamespo 9y ago
      Indeed, just a coincidence since http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks... wikileaks hasn't posted anything meaningful about Russia
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        Pretty sure that wikileaks has disclosed information on Russia. Your link was from 2010, eight years ago. https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
    - darawk 9y ago
      > This accusation is being asserted without evidence, and can therefore be dismissed without evidence. What? There's plenty of evidence. Wikileaks consistently published information damaging to Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the election, and published zero information damaging to Trump.
      - jarfil 9y ago
        Unless you can prove that WikiLeaks received some information damaging to Trump and then REFUSED to publish it, all you're saying is that nobody sent them such information.
      - belorn 9y ago
        Assange intention has been rather clear after the statement Hillary gave as the Secretary of State during cablegate and the involvement of US diplomats in the Swedish investigation. I don't get it why people think that he is supposed to be unbiased in his view of her and trump. What is a normal reaction to be publicly declared a murderer and enemy combatant (with an implied statement to be droned) for publishing documents from people involved in the US military that wanted to give the public information? In the context of what he perceive she has done against him, what is the likeliest outcome if he comes into contact with damaging information and a request to publish it? "No thank you, only if you provide equally damaging information on her opponent or else it will look bad?".
  - sneak 9y ago
    “hostile intelligence service” here being used as a euphemism for “a journalist publishing secrets we don’t want published”.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Wikileaks are not journalists and they do not follow e.g. journalistic ethics. They've done unprofessional things like posting anti-semitic statements[1] and bizarre things like doxing most of the women in Turkey[2] or posting sensitive information about people who've been victims of rape, suffer from mental illnesses, or are gay in countries where that's a big risk. That's all politically neutral and completely outside of what real journalists would sanction. They may not be officially part of the Russian intelligence apparatus but they definitely don't seem to act contrary to Russian interests, they actively ignored leaks about the Russian government[4], and their public tweets about the Panama Papers were a lot more consistent with protecting Russian interests rather than the purported belief in exposing secrets[5]. They also didn't ask whether they were being used by sources like Guccifer 2 which was later revealed to be a Russian front. Other governments have come to the same conclusion – e.g. here's a German report which alleges British and French agreement: http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/merkel-vorgefuehrt-russischer-geheimdienst-nutzt-wikileaks-fuer-kampagnen_id_5977879.html http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/merkel-vorgefuehrt-russi... 1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikileaks_might_have_meant_by_that_anti_semitic_tweet.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... 2. http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-do... 3. https://apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb/private-lives-are-exposed-wikileaks-spills-its-secrets https://apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb/private-... 4. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le... 5. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7174580643249643... and https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717670056650530816 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7176700566505308...
      - sneak 9y ago
  - belorn 9y ago
    Lets imagine we had a list over every official leaked story that an intelligence service has given to any of the global large news papers. NYT, guardian, CNN, fox news and so on. Can we assume that that list is not empty? Is it not likely that a few stories that the guardian has posted is from US intelligence service, knowingly or unknowing. If so, should we label them also non-state hostile intelligence service? I would bet that this is how other nations would justify blocking unwanted news papers in national firewalls. They are after all not blocking the free press but rather the (non-)state hostile intelligence service. What would a reasonable definition be of a hostile intelligence service.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Do you recall what precipitated the invasion of Iraq?
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      There was no report signed off by the CIA, DNI, and DHS that concluded with high confidence that the Iraq government had WMDs. The WMD intelligence, such as it was, came from raw reports pulled directly from the lower levels of the CIA bypassing the ordinary processes. The report on Russian hacking pulled from conclusions drawn by the entire US intelligence community. Also, did you read the Mueller indictment of a dozen Russian hackers? It goes into some detail on the kinds of information that the IC has about it. The thing is- the IC makes mistakes. But a single disaster of a conclusion like the WMD debacle cannot be used to discredit every single subsequent conclusion, otherwise we could never prosecute anyone on terror charges ever again. Pointing at the WMD fuckup and using that to disprove every conclusion you don't like means you aren't actually engaging in the substance. If tomorrow they conclude something you agree with and I don't, will you take me seriously when I say "but Iraq tho"? Probably not.
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        I wasn't saying, "but Iraq" to discredit every subsequent conclusion. You will be hard pressed to find that in my comment. I mentioned that to help temper the people who are apparently engaging in confirmation bias, accepting statements without evidence when it seems to align with their beliefs.
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        You also make another interesting point, even if it wasn't your intent. Mueller's indictment of hackers was in a legal system that would throw out the indictment if it were not logically and legally sound. The followup to that is, why wasn't there a presentation of the actual data that formed the conclusions of the IC the in the other cases that you mention? If you look at them, carefully, they have also been discredited since their presentations. The conclusions should be: 1) people are people with their own agendas and designs, and 2) appealing to authority isn't critical or independent thinking.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > He is in the absolutely perfect position to say otherwise Let's explore that claim: Mike Pompeo had three general options, regardless of the truth: 1) State that he has no such evidence. In this case he'd draw the ire of the dems, probably the ire of various dem/republican pundits, and certainly the ire of members of the intelligence community who had already stated a clear link exists. 2) Say nothing. This is a decent short term tactic but would open him up to being vulnerable in future hearings since he has no stated position. 3) Claim that evidence exists. This puts him safely in the company of republican/dem pundits, rest of intelligence community, etc. We don't know the truth because we don't have the evidence. But I don't think we can say with certainty that Mike Pompeo was in the "perfect position" to reveal the truth. It's equally likely he was in the perfect position to go along with a narrative that was both popular and unsupported by factual evidence.
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      Literally nobody else in the Trump administration minds drawing Democratic ire. If he was afraid of Democratic anger, he would be the only guy in the administration who does. Pompeo cheerleaded the Benghazi inquest when he was in Congress! "Triggering the libs" is approximately 30% of the Trump administration's modus operandi. I don't see much evidence that Pompeo is an exception. If he is, then Trump's goal of draining the swamp has been thwarted by his own appointee. So... why did Trump appoint him to be Secretary of State? He's obviously been coopted by the Dems, blinded to the truth, and willing to go along with Deep State shenanigans. But Trump trusts him to talk to Kim Jong Un. That seems like terrible judgment. The only resolution to this is that Trump himself has been compromised by the Deep State, or is too stupid to realize that his own guys are. Either that or he's telling the truth as he understands it.
thegeekpirate 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

> Or they can stop colluding with Russia under the pretext of freedom Could you provide a source? I'd love to know more.

by vuln 9y ago

> Or they can stop colluding with Russia under the pretext of freedom Could you provide a source? I'd love to know more.

Retroity 9y ago

Don't worry guys, the DNC said so, so it must be true!

roywiggins 9y ago
"It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks." - Mike Pompeo, current CIA director and nominee for Secretary of State I'm all for skepticism of what people say, especially people in positions like CIA Director, but when a Republican CIA director agrees with the DNC about what happened, it seems not entirely unreasonable to give it some credence. He is in the absolutely perfect position to say otherwise, if he believed otherwise, and is in the perfect position to reevaluate the previous intelligence report. He's the director of the CIA! If he thinks there's evidence backing another narrative, he can just come out and say so.
- fareesh 9y ago
  Even if Satan himself proved he was real and aided Wikileaks by publishing true information, I'd be all for it. What's being suggested is that they selectively publish true information by not publishing certain things that don't suit a particular agenda. This accusation is being asserted without evidence, and can therefore be dismissed without evidence.
  - jamespo 9y ago
    Indeed, just a coincidence since http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks... wikileaks hasn't posted anything meaningful about Russia
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Pretty sure that wikileaks has disclosed information on Russia. Your link was from 2010, eight years ago. https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
  - darawk 9y ago
    > This accusation is being asserted without evidence, and can therefore be dismissed without evidence. What? There's plenty of evidence. Wikileaks consistently published information damaging to Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the election, and published zero information damaging to Trump.
    - jarfil 9y ago
      Unless you can prove that WikiLeaks received some information damaging to Trump and then REFUSED to publish it, all you're saying is that nobody sent them such information.
    - belorn 9y ago
      Assange intention has been rather clear after the statement Hillary gave as the Secretary of State during cablegate and the involvement of US diplomats in the Swedish investigation. I don't get it why people think that he is supposed to be unbiased in his view of her and trump. What is a normal reaction to be publicly declared a murderer and enemy combatant (with an implied statement to be droned) for publishing documents from people involved in the US military that wanted to give the public information? In the context of what he perceive she has done against him, what is the likeliest outcome if he comes into contact with damaging information and a request to publish it? "No thank you, only if you provide equally damaging information on her opponent or else it will look bad?".
- sneak 9y ago
  “hostile intelligence service” here being used as a euphemism for “a journalist publishing secrets we don’t want published”.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Wikileaks are not journalists and they do not follow e.g. journalistic ethics. They've done unprofessional things like posting anti-semitic statements[1] and bizarre things like doxing most of the women in Turkey[2] or posting sensitive information about people who've been victims of rape, suffer from mental illnesses, or are gay in countries where that's a big risk. That's all politically neutral and completely outside of what real journalists would sanction. They may not be officially part of the Russian intelligence apparatus but they definitely don't seem to act contrary to Russian interests, they actively ignored leaks about the Russian government[4], and their public tweets about the Panama Papers were a lot more consistent with protecting Russian interests rather than the purported belief in exposing secrets[5]. They also didn't ask whether they were being used by sources like Guccifer 2 which was later revealed to be a Russian front. Other governments have come to the same conclusion – e.g. here's a German report which alleges British and French agreement: http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/merkel-vorgefuehrt-russischer-geheimdienst-nutzt-wikileaks-fuer-kampagnen_id_5977879.html http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/merkel-vorgefuehrt-russi... 1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikileaks_might_have_meant_by_that_anti_semitic_tweet.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... 2. http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-do... 3. https://apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb/private-lives-are-exposed-wikileaks-spills-its-secrets https://apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb/private-... 4. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le... 5. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7174580643249643... and https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717670056650530816 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7176700566505308...
    - sneak 9y ago
- belorn 9y ago
  Lets imagine we had a list over every official leaked story that an intelligence service has given to any of the global large news papers. NYT, guardian, CNN, fox news and so on. Can we assume that that list is not empty? Is it not likely that a few stories that the guardian has posted is from US intelligence service, knowingly or unknowing. If so, should we label them also non-state hostile intelligence service? I would bet that this is how other nations would justify blocking unwanted news papers in national firewalls. They are after all not blocking the free press but rather the (non-)state hostile intelligence service. What would a reasonable definition be of a hostile intelligence service.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  Do you recall what precipitated the invasion of Iraq?
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    There was no report signed off by the CIA, DNI, and DHS that concluded with high confidence that the Iraq government had WMDs. The WMD intelligence, such as it was, came from raw reports pulled directly from the lower levels of the CIA bypassing the ordinary processes. The report on Russian hacking pulled from conclusions drawn by the entire US intelligence community. Also, did you read the Mueller indictment of a dozen Russian hackers? It goes into some detail on the kinds of information that the IC has about it. The thing is- the IC makes mistakes. But a single disaster of a conclusion like the WMD debacle cannot be used to discredit every single subsequent conclusion, otherwise we could never prosecute anyone on terror charges ever again. Pointing at the WMD fuckup and using that to disprove every conclusion you don't like means you aren't actually engaging in the substance. If tomorrow they conclude something you agree with and I don't, will you take me seriously when I say "but Iraq tho"? Probably not.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      I wasn't saying, "but Iraq" to discredit every subsequent conclusion. You will be hard pressed to find that in my comment. I mentioned that to help temper the people who are apparently engaging in confirmation bias, accepting statements without evidence when it seems to align with their beliefs.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      You also make another interesting point, even if it wasn't your intent. Mueller's indictment of hackers was in a legal system that would throw out the indictment if it were not logically and legally sound. The followup to that is, why wasn't there a presentation of the actual data that formed the conclusions of the IC the in the other cases that you mention? If you look at them, carefully, they have also been discredited since their presentations. The conclusions should be: 1) people are people with their own agendas and designs, and 2) appealing to authority isn't critical or independent thinking.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > He is in the absolutely perfect position to say otherwise Let's explore that claim: Mike Pompeo had three general options, regardless of the truth: 1) State that he has no such evidence. In this case he'd draw the ire of the dems, probably the ire of various dem/republican pundits, and certainly the ire of members of the intelligence community who had already stated a clear link exists. 2) Say nothing. This is a decent short term tactic but would open him up to being vulnerable in future hearings since he has no stated position. 3) Claim that evidence exists. This puts him safely in the company of republican/dem pundits, rest of intelligence community, etc. We don't know the truth because we don't have the evidence. But I don't think we can say with certainty that Mike Pompeo was in the "perfect position" to reveal the truth. It's equally likely he was in the perfect position to go along with a narrative that was both popular and unsupported by factual evidence.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Literally nobody else in the Trump administration minds drawing Democratic ire. If he was afraid of Democratic anger, he would be the only guy in the administration who does. Pompeo cheerleaded the Benghazi inquest when he was in Congress! "Triggering the libs" is approximately 30% of the Trump administration's modus operandi. I don't see much evidence that Pompeo is an exception. If he is, then Trump's goal of draining the swamp has been thwarted by his own appointee. So... why did Trump appoint him to be Secretary of State? He's obviously been coopted by the Dems, blinded to the truth, and willing to go along with Deep State shenanigans. But Trump trusts him to talk to Kim Jong Un. That seems like terrible judgment. The only resolution to this is that Trump himself has been compromised by the Deep State, or is too stupid to realize that his own guys are. Either that or he's telling the truth as he understands it.

thegeekpirate 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]