7 ms·

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making abou

by txru 8y ago

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank him for withholding just the proper amount of information for us to make our voting decision? Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people? [0] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

ENGNR 8y ago
That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them
- txru 8y ago
  The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    There is a big difference between these two cases: 1. Here are DNC leaks, here are RNC leaks. Thanks, oh you want me to withhold on the RNC ones because you like those. Sure! 2. Here are DNC leaks, we have some RNC leaks, but we won't give them to you. Thanks, can I please have the RNC ones too? No. Okay. In the first case, one actively withholds important information. In the second case, one is publishing all information available. You might argue that in the second case, you should hold fast and say 'give me everything or I don't show anything' and therefore case 2 is bad. But you can't deny that case 1 is worse than case 2.
    - deepakhj 7y ago
      From Mueller's filing on the GRU, Organization 1 is WikiLeaks: The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia Charges: Count 1 (Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States) In or around 2016, the Russian Federation ("Russia") operated a military intelligence agency called the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff ("GRU"). These units conducted large scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants ... were GRU officers who knowingly and intentionally conspired ... to gain unauthorized access (to "hack") into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election ... steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the "Clinton Campaign"), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign's chairman. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1"), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government. pg 17 Use of Organization 1: In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days preferable [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." On or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file container instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 22, 29016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released. Conversations reported from WikiLeaks to DJT JR. "Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us," WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump's followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. "There's many great stories the press are missing and we're sure some of your follows [sic] will find it," WikiLeaks went on. "Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4." WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee's oldest son and campaign surrogate. "A PAC run anti-TRump site putintrump.org is about to launch," WikiLeaks wrote. "The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.'" Wikileaks urged Donald Trump Jr. to tell his father to not concede if he lost on Election Day, according to a bombshell report from The Atlantic that alleges the president's eldest child and the transparency organization secretly corresponded in private direct messages on Twitter during the U.S. presidential campaign.
  - ENGNR 7y ago
    Back in the day journalists didn't pick a side, they just checked the facts and published anything in the public interest
- mikeash 8y ago
  He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. I wouldn’t trust what he says.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Yeah, it’s kind of funny. But it does seem to indicate that he’d rather cause a fuss than convey the truth.
    - freeflight 7y ago
      What about it is misleading?
      - mikeash 7y ago
        It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.
        freeflight 7y ago
        Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088
        mikeash 7y ago
        What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"? Just look at the discussion that occurred: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened. Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.
calhoun137 8y ago
I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know" By the way, the indictment for the extradition request has nothing to do with the 2016 election, but rather the Iraq war logs from back in 2010. I understand you may not like Assange very much and think he is a bad person, but I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture and that many people are raising the alarm that this is an extremely dangerous attack on the first amendment and the freedom of the press.
- txru 7y ago
  Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was information, and it was illuminating to the nature of American politics. What I have a problem with is, these sorts of leaks allow American elections to become a target of nation-state attacks. We shouldn't become used to making electoral decisions based on what the Russian state wants us to know about our politicians-- we need to make those discoveries ourselves, with investigative journalists that have skin in the game. I understand that the request has nothing to do with the election, and likely would have happened without. Still, when inciting American citizens to break the law, I would hope that one would have some stronger backup than a single embassy's forbearance to carry you through to safety. Conspiracy isn't some newly made up charge, Assange didn't have to encourage Manning to do anything other than release what she had legal access to at the time.
  - islanderfun 7y ago
    This line of thinking seems right and what I assume most would take away from this incident (Maybe I have to reevaluate my line of thinking?). I'm surprised to see so many people making this a black or white, 1 or 0 binary choice out of this whole ordeal.
overgard 7y ago
Just because he prefers revealing truths about one side over another (which -- presumably a lot of entities are like that) doesn't mean those truths aren't important to reveal. Yeah it's a political act, but it's an extremely important one and one that deserves protection. Was Snowden obligated to reveal information about 3rd party hackers to make it fair for the NSA? You seem to be under the impression that he's obligated to be fair. But outside of things like the New York Times what political speech is ever fair? The only obligation I think he has is to not lie or fabricate evidence.
- scarmig 7y ago
  What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? Nothing illegal or particularly surprising was revealed in the 2016 emails; the only illegal act involved here was (presumably) Russian hackers committing several federal felonies in order to get access to those emails. Yes, they were embarrassing, but any political organization, or indeed any organization at all, will have mundane communications that seem shocking to an outsider. The RNC almost certainly had more shit talking about their candidate in their emails. Assange had access to those RNC emails, and chose not to release them, even though they'd be, if anything, more interesting than the DNC ones. Assange is no information freedom fighter; he amounts to a political operative who collaborates with criminals to ratfuck candidate he doesn't like, for whatever reason. He has a similar history with e.g. refusals to release Russian state secrets. Why should we celebrate a hypocrite who is motivated primarily by petty personal feuds?
  - overgard 7y ago
    I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagine Trump's genital grabbing comments were just as damaging). The democrats were more than capable of beating themselves, honestly. People would have overlooked the email stuff for a more likable candidate (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations); she lost because people found her extremely unlikable -- like they did in 2008. (NB: I'm not right wing and I didn't vote for Trump) > What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? What political information isn't targeted and weaponized? And I have no idea, it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not. Maybe future historians will be able to say.
robdachshund 7y ago
Clinton has been in politics for decades. Trump has not. Humor me here, but perhaps trump didnt have any dirty laundry we weren't already aware of. Clinton rigged a primary and controlled the dnc from top to bottom. Do you think trump somehow had something on the same level as that? I really don't understand this argument. The only thing they had on him was the "grab em by the pussy" recording. He was already well known for having some shady real estate deals. He was not the former first lady, secretary of state, or a senator that had the power to do corrupt things for decades within the government. When Watergate came out, did Republicans deny the facts and ask why equivalent dirt hadn't been dropped on McGovern? No, they read the facts and believed them without worrying about partisanship or trying to spin it into a Russian boogeyman. You dont sound like you read any of this information or refuse to listen to it on principle. I have no doubts that the people had every right to see what Clinton was doing and criticize her for it. I'm not going to ignore the revelations because trump is a mean guy and I dont like him.
antidesitter 7y ago
> Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people? What agenda would that be? Edit: It’s a sad state of affairs for HN when a question like this immediately gets downvoted twice without explanation. HN is indeed changing, and not for the better.
- roguecoder 7y ago
  Assange himself told us his agenda: he hated Clinton and wanted to prevent her election [1]. He then collaborated with Roger Stone[2] to desciminate the documents stolen by Russian intelligence [3], and succeeded at his goal. 1: https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-and-wikileaks-directly-messaged-during-election https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-and-wikileaks-dire... 3: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    Can you explain why disseminating this information “didn't align with the best interests of the American people”?
mr_toad 7y ago
> While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Having worked in government a long time I can in all good faith say that obstructing the distribution of information that will make governments look bad is the primary occupation of vast numbers of government officials. Some of them will happily use any legal technicality, no matter the principles.
cheesymuffin 7y ago
And do you really think that he's the only one who had access to that information? If you're interested in the truth, you should be glad that someone out there is able and chooses to provide you with new information, even if he doesn't provide all of it.
- roguecoder 7y ago
  So when your emails come out, you’ll thank whoever publishes them? Have any good recipes in there?
  - cheesymuffin 7y ago
    You totally missed the point but ok
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. There is no proof that Assange knowingly cooperated with Russia, meaning it would be unlikely that he would have any idea what data they had. On top of that, Comey and Clapper are not trustworthy sources.
- roguecoder 7y ago
  Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew, it merely means it has not yet been publicly proven that he knew. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on his ignorance.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew, Yes, it does. "Unlikely" is a better fit than "almost certainly," as all the evidence available supports the conclusion that he was not aware of the data.
thatoneuser 7y ago
Afaik assange said he didn't have anything on trump that was worse than what trump had said himself. Trump was hardly beloved by the rnc, so what would it have done to leak rnc docs assuming they existed? You almost seem mad that the dems suffered damage from a politically motivated revealing of their behavior. Maybe if they didn't do the bad things they would have had nothing to worry about. I personally think his actions did align with the best interests of the American people. And I think the people who disagree mostly just are sour that Clinton rightfully lost.
raxxorrax 7y ago
> making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. So torture and other war crimes has nothing to do with being criminal and the unrelated issue to this particular crime, that isn't grounded in any evidence what-so-ever (manipulation of the election, really?) We have a case of computer sabotage and a case of war crimes. There are indeed people that want to turn the criminal into "good guy".

by txru 8y ago

ENGNR 8y ago

That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them

txru 8y ago
The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.
- rocqua 7y ago
  There is a big difference between these two cases: 1. Here are DNC leaks, here are RNC leaks. Thanks, oh you want me to withhold on the RNC ones because you like those. Sure! 2. Here are DNC leaks, we have some RNC leaks, but we won't give them to you. Thanks, can I please have the RNC ones too? No. Okay. In the first case, one actively withholds important information. In the second case, one is publishing all information available. You might argue that in the second case, you should hold fast and say 'give me everything or I don't show anything' and therefore case 2 is bad. But you can't deny that case 1 is worse than case 2.
  - deepakhj 7y ago
    From Mueller's filing on the GRU, Organization 1 is WikiLeaks: The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia Charges: Count 1 (Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States) In or around 2016, the Russian Federation ("Russia") operated a military intelligence agency called the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff ("GRU"). These units conducted large scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants ... were GRU officers who knowingly and intentionally conspired ... to gain unauthorized access (to "hack") into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election ... steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the "Clinton Campaign"), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign's chairman. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1"), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government. pg 17 Use of Organization 1: In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days preferable [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." On or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file container instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 22, 29016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released. Conversations reported from WikiLeaks to DJT JR. "Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us," WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump's followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. "There's many great stories the press are missing and we're sure some of your follows [sic] will find it," WikiLeaks went on. "Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4." WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee's oldest son and campaign surrogate. "A PAC run anti-TRump site putintrump.org is about to launch," WikiLeaks wrote. "The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.'" Wikileaks urged Donald Trump Jr. to tell his father to not concede if he lost on Election Day, according to a bombshell report from The Atlantic that alleges the president's eldest child and the transparency organization secretly corresponded in private direct messages on Twitter during the U.S. presidential campaign.
- ENGNR 7y ago
  Back in the day journalists didn't pick a side, they just checked the facts and published anything in the public interest
mikeash 8y ago
He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. I wouldn’t trust what he says.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Yeah, it’s kind of funny. But it does seem to indicate that he’d rather cause a fuss than convey the truth.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    What about it is misleading?
    - mikeash 7y ago
      It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.
      - freeflight 7y ago
        Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088
        mikeash 7y ago
        What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"? Just look at the discussion that occurred: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened. Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.

calhoun137 8y ago

I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know" By the way, the indictment for the extradition request has nothing to do with the 2016 election, but rather the Iraq war logs from back in 2010. I understand you may not like Assange very much and think he is a bad person, but I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture and that many people are raising the alarm that this is an extremely dangerous attack on the first amendment and the freedom of the press.

txru 7y ago
Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was information, and it was illuminating to the nature of American politics. What I have a problem with is, these sorts of leaks allow American elections to become a target of nation-state attacks. We shouldn't become used to making electoral decisions based on what the Russian state wants us to know about our politicians-- we need to make those discoveries ourselves, with investigative journalists that have skin in the game. I understand that the request has nothing to do with the election, and likely would have happened without. Still, when inciting American citizens to break the law, I would hope that one would have some stronger backup than a single embassy's forbearance to carry you through to safety. Conspiracy isn't some newly made up charge, Assange didn't have to encourage Manning to do anything other than release what she had legal access to at the time.
- islanderfun 7y ago
  This line of thinking seems right and what I assume most would take away from this incident (Maybe I have to reevaluate my line of thinking?). I'm surprised to see so many people making this a black or white, 1 or 0 binary choice out of this whole ordeal.

overgard 7y ago

Just because he prefers revealing truths about one side over another (which -- presumably a lot of entities are like that) doesn't mean those truths aren't important to reveal. Yeah it's a political act, but it's an extremely important one and one that deserves protection. Was Snowden obligated to reveal information about 3rd party hackers to make it fair for the NSA? You seem to be under the impression that he's obligated to be fair. But outside of things like the New York Times what political speech is ever fair? The only obligation I think he has is to not lie or fabricate evidence.

scarmig 7y ago
What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? Nothing illegal or particularly surprising was revealed in the 2016 emails; the only illegal act involved here was (presumably) Russian hackers committing several federal felonies in order to get access to those emails. Yes, they were embarrassing, but any political organization, or indeed any organization at all, will have mundane communications that seem shocking to an outsider. The RNC almost certainly had more shit talking about their candidate in their emails. Assange had access to those RNC emails, and chose not to release them, even though they'd be, if anything, more interesting than the DNC ones. Assange is no information freedom fighter; he amounts to a political operative who collaborates with criminals to ratfuck candidate he doesn't like, for whatever reason. He has a similar history with e.g. refusals to release Russian state secrets. Why should we celebrate a hypocrite who is motivated primarily by petty personal feuds?
- overgard 7y ago
  I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagine Trump's genital grabbing comments were just as damaging). The democrats were more than capable of beating themselves, honestly. People would have overlooked the email stuff for a more likable candidate (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations); she lost because people found her extremely unlikable -- like they did in 2008. (NB: I'm not right wing and I didn't vote for Trump) > What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? What political information isn't targeted and weaponized? And I have no idea, it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not. Maybe future historians will be able to say.

robdachshund 7y ago

Clinton has been in politics for decades. Trump has not. Humor me here, but perhaps trump didnt have any dirty laundry we weren't already aware of. Clinton rigged a primary and controlled the dnc from top to bottom. Do you think trump somehow had something on the same level as that? I really don't understand this argument. The only thing they had on him was the "grab em by the pussy" recording. He was already well known for having some shady real estate deals. He was not the former first lady, secretary of state, or a senator that had the power to do corrupt things for decades within the government. When Watergate came out, did Republicans deny the facts and ask why equivalent dirt hadn't been dropped on McGovern? No, they read the facts and believed them without worrying about partisanship or trying to spin it into a Russian boogeyman. You dont sound like you read any of this information or refuse to listen to it on principle. I have no doubts that the people had every right to see what Clinton was doing and criticize her for it. I'm not going to ignore the revelations because trump is a mean guy and I dont like him.

antidesitter 7y ago

> Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people? What agenda would that be? Edit: It’s a sad state of affairs for HN when a question like this immediately gets downvoted twice without explanation. HN is indeed changing, and not for the better.

roguecoder 7y ago
Assange himself told us his agenda: he hated Clinton and wanted to prevent her election [1]. He then collaborated with Roger Stone[2] to desciminate the documents stolen by Russian intelligence [3], and succeeded at his goal. 1: https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-and-wikileaks-directly-messaged-during-election https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-and-wikileaks-dire... 3: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...
- antidesitter 7y ago
  Can you explain why disseminating this information “didn't align with the best interests of the American people”?

mr_toad 7y ago

> While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Having worked in government a long time I can in all good faith say that obstructing the distribution of information that will make governments look bad is the primary occupation of vast numbers of government officials. Some of them will happily use any legal technicality, no matter the principles.

cheesymuffin 7y ago

And do you really think that he's the only one who had access to that information? If you're interested in the truth, you should be glad that someone out there is able and chooses to provide you with new information, even if he doesn't provide all of it.

roguecoder 7y ago
So when your emails come out, you’ll thank whoever publishes them? Have any good recipes in there?
- cheesymuffin 7y ago
  You totally missed the point but ok

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. There is no proof that Assange knowingly cooperated with Russia, meaning it would be unlikely that he would have any idea what data they had. On top of that, Comey and Clapper are not trustworthy sources.

roguecoder 7y ago
Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew, it merely means it has not yet been publicly proven that he knew. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on his ignorance.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew, Yes, it does. "Unlikely" is a better fit than "almost certainly," as all the evidence available supports the conclusion that he was not aware of the data.

thatoneuser 7y ago

Afaik assange said he didn't have anything on trump that was worse than what trump had said himself. Trump was hardly beloved by the rnc, so what would it have done to leak rnc docs assuming they existed? You almost seem mad that the dems suffered damage from a politically motivated revealing of their behavior. Maybe if they didn't do the bad things they would have had nothing to worry about. I personally think his actions did align with the best interests of the American people. And I think the people who disagree mostly just are sour that Clinton rightfully lost.

raxxorrax 7y ago

> making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. So torture and other war crimes has nothing to do with being criminal and the unrelated issue to this particular crime, that isn't grounded in any evidence what-so-ever (manipulation of the election, really?) We have a case of computer sabotage and a case of war crimes. There are indeed people that want to turn the criminal into "good guy".