4 ms·

I'm honestly out of the loop. Is there concrete irrefutable evidence Assange helped electing Trump? Seems weird, even more so with them then turning around and

I'm honestly out of the loop. Is there concrete irrefutable evidence Assange helped electing Trump? Seems weird, even more so with them then turning around and pushing for his arrest. And being an annoying guest? Are you talking about the new rules introduced by the embassy only to be looked at later saying "you broke them"?

mikeq101101 8y ago
There's no evidence. They just used the old intelligence technique where media repeats 24/7 that Assange allegedly has ties to Russia, so that people start taking it as a fact after a while.
- vermontdevil 8y ago
  Never mind that Putin’s mouthpiece just cautioned UK to respect Assange’s rights.
  - mikeq101101 8y ago
    He didn't "caution" UK, nice try to put a spin on it.
  - makomk 8y ago
    The Russian press are all over any story they can spin to make it look like the West isn't the bastion of freedom, equality and democracy it claims to be - basically, anything which makes us look like our own papers' descriptions of Russia. So that doesn't say much. (Also, ironically this BBC article and other outlets are having to use a video of Assange's arrest from Ruptly, a subsidiary of Russia Today, because they bought into their own narrative about his impending arrest being a construct of his own imagination so hard they didn't have any reporters outside to catch it.)
notahacker 8y ago
Whether anything Assange did was actually decisive in Trump's election is a pretty speculative question, but we do have leaked transcripts of his messages to Donald Trump Jr...
fiblye 8y ago
The claim is based on Wikileaks offering up information that portrays the US negatively, but little to nothing that does the same against Russia. From there, linked with the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, claims of them supporting the Trump campaign came to be. Regardless of your opinion on Trump, I’m not sure that offering up one-sided info that benefits or hurts a candidate is or should be an arrestable offense. Entire television news networks do it.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  You need information before you can leak it, do you know that they didnt attempt to find information on russia?
  - fiblye 8y ago
    Are they supposed to make such an attempt? I’m not sure of what you’re implying here.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am saying that you can hardly deduct anything about their positive affiliation with Russia just because they haven't exposed things about Russia. So unless they aren't looking for things to leak about Russia because of being in the cahoots with them then it's hardly an argument that because nothing is leaked about Russia they are somehow not attempting.
djakjxnanjak 8y ago
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download This indictment from the Meuller investigation details how GRU agents hacked the Democratic Party and coordinated with WikiLeaks (“Organization 1” in the indictment) to release the documents they obtained (using the personas “DCLeaks”, “Guccifer 2.0”).
- cedivad 8y ago
  I'm conflicted about this. It seems to be proving Wikileaks timed the release to have an effect on the election, and was aware of its wider effects, but don't you think if someone else came to them with a similar release benefiting the opposite party they would have behaved the same way? I still find it difficult to fault Wikileaks for this. They just did the leaking. From that PDF: Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Look at how Assange was critical of the Panama Papers release. Very obvious which side he is on.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      The Panama Papers were released a couple years after changes in US/Panama law meant that it was no longer a great country to launder your money for US citizens, hence why the only US citizens caught in it didn't show any wrongdoing. The whole thing stank of a US intelligence op.
      - djakjxnanjak 8y ago
        Do you have any details about what those changes in the law were? Sounds interesting.
spaced-out 8y ago
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-ass...

mikeq101101 8y ago

There's no evidence. They just used the old intelligence technique where media repeats 24/7 that Assange allegedly has ties to Russia, so that people start taking it as a fact after a while.

vermontdevil 8y ago
Never mind that Putin’s mouthpiece just cautioned UK to respect Assange’s rights.
- mikeq101101 8y ago
  He didn't "caution" UK, nice try to put a spin on it.
- makomk 8y ago
  The Russian press are all over any story they can spin to make it look like the West isn't the bastion of freedom, equality and democracy it claims to be - basically, anything which makes us look like our own papers' descriptions of Russia. So that doesn't say much. (Also, ironically this BBC article and other outlets are having to use a video of Assange's arrest from Ruptly, a subsidiary of Russia Today, because they bought into their own narrative about his impending arrest being a construct of his own imagination so hard they didn't have any reporters outside to catch it.)

notahacker 8y ago

Whether anything Assange did was actually decisive in Trump's election is a pretty speculative question, but we do have leaked transcripts of his messages to Donald Trump Jr...

fiblye 8y ago

The claim is based on Wikileaks offering up information that portrays the US negatively, but little to nothing that does the same against Russia. From there, linked with the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, claims of them supporting the Trump campaign came to be. Regardless of your opinion on Trump, I’m not sure that offering up one-sided info that benefits or hurts a candidate is or should be an arrestable offense. Entire television news networks do it.

ThomPete 8y ago
You need information before you can leak it, do you know that they didnt attempt to find information on russia?
- fiblye 8y ago
  Are they supposed to make such an attempt? I’m not sure of what you’re implying here.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am saying that you can hardly deduct anything about their positive affiliation with Russia just because they haven't exposed things about Russia. So unless they aren't looking for things to leak about Russia because of being in the cahoots with them then it's hardly an argument that because nothing is leaked about Russia they are somehow not attempting.

djakjxnanjak 8y ago

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download This indictment from the Meuller investigation details how GRU agents hacked the Democratic Party and coordinated with WikiLeaks (“Organization 1” in the indictment) to release the documents they obtained (using the personas “DCLeaks”, “Guccifer 2.0”).

cedivad 8y ago
I'm conflicted about this. It seems to be proving Wikileaks timed the release to have an effect on the election, and was aware of its wider effects, but don't you think if someone else came to them with a similar release benefiting the opposite party they would have behaved the same way? I still find it difficult to fault Wikileaks for this. They just did the leaking. From that PDF: Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
- threeseed 8y ago
  Look at how Assange was critical of the Panama Papers release. Very obvious which side he is on.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    The Panama Papers were released a couple years after changes in US/Panama law meant that it was no longer a great country to launder your money for US citizens, hence why the only US citizens caught in it didn't show any wrongdoing. The whole thing stank of a US intelligence op.
    - djakjxnanjak 8y ago
      Do you have any details about what those changes in the law were? Sounds interesting.

spaced-out 8y ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-ass...