5 ms·

Yeah, physically visiting a potential Russian asset _in_the_London_embassy_ will get you more scrutiny from the DoJ. I have zero sympathy for this person.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
close04 7y ago
> visiting a potential Russian asset That's unfair considering everybody is a potential asset to someone, whether the "good" or the "bad" guys.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  Potential in this case is being used to indicate that there is significant evidence that he is a Russian asset, but that it has not been specifically proven. Not potential in 'well he has potential uses if he is an asset.' Perhaps a more specific phrase would have been 'suspected Russian asset'
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    There is zero credible evidence that Assange is working with the Russian government. Please stop spreading propaganda.
    - mr_overalls 7y ago
      https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-worked-with-the-russians-because-he-thought-hillary-was-a-sociopath https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-wo... "While it’s not clear whether WikiLeaks participated in that now-infamous DNC hack, Mueller’s investigation revealed that WikiLeaks sought to spread conspiracies about where they got the information, obscure whether they knew it came from Russia, and release documents at times that seemingly benefited Trump by consuming the news cycle." https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf "The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media.Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information."RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."
      - megous 7y ago
        By this standard a whole bunch of american libertarians, gold bugs, etc. are also russian assets, because they had a show on RT in the past. RT at the time just gave more voice to all kinds of pre-existing fringe voices in US to sow discord in US.
        cthalupa 7y ago
        I mean, a lot of them probably are, or at least had overtures to flip them. Giving an (at least semi-)hostile foreign government leverage over your is one of the very first steps in tradecraft to flipping someone and turning them into an asset. I feel like believing that there would be no effort on the part of the Russian government to turn these people into assets is fairly naive.
      - whamlastxmas 7y ago
        You first link isn't worth anything. Wikileaks has never revealed sources, so to say they're "obscuring whether... it came from Russia" is ridiculous. He explicitly said it WASN'T Russia, I don't know how he could make it any clearer. Wikileaks has a 100% track record and there's no reason to doubt that statement. And of course evidence about HRC committing crimes benefits Trump, but that has nothing to do with Russia. I don't know why you've even included it. Also - wow, a journalist meets with other journalists. How damning. Clearly he's a Russian asset. Maybe him being in contact with American news organizations also means he's an American asset and actually working for the CIA.
        cthalupa 7y ago
        You are comparing a state run propaganda organization to independent news organizations. You simply cannot compare RT to CNN because RT is owned and funded by the Russian government. They have done some work to try and distance themselves from this idea, yet it's all quite surface level - even a Wikipedia level investigation of who is who at the senior leadership level will reveal more than enough ties to prove that the Russian government pulls the strings. As one example, Margarita Simonyan is the Editor in Chief of both RT and fully state-run Rossiya Segodnya (... which, "coincidentally", also translates in English as 'Russia Today'). 3rd party media watchdog organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and Accuracy In Media consider RT as a propaganda arm of the Russian government as the results of their investigations into their reporting accuracy. Negative reporting of Putin is directly banned by RT. They have a propensity for airing conspiracy theory based content as news, as well. They keep people like Tony Gosling on staff, an anti-semite who spends much of his time peddling conspiracy theories about a worldwide zionist illuminati, have run stories about how the boston bombing was perpetrated by the US government, how EU citizens have all been microchipped to release hormones that make them submissive, etc. RT is not a legitimate news organization. They are an arm of the Russian government, and Assange would surely know exactly who and what they are. Working with them is incredibly damning evidence. Personally, I don't believe that Assange was always a Russian asset. I think when he started WikiLeaks his intentions were relatively noble, at least in his eyes. But I think that the position he was put in over his actions ultimately gave the Russians significant leverage over him, and they were able to use that to flip him. But based on his recent actions, there is a significant body of evidence that he is a Russian asset. And to put it bluntly, your argument that RT is a legitimate news organization really only has 3 possible explanations that I can personally see: That you are informed on the subject and have taken a stance counter to independent media watchdogs/Western governments/etc. (Which may be fine, but I'm curious how you can rectify that view with all of the evidence that is publicly available), that you are uninformed on the subject and thus basing your defense of Assange on an incomplete understanding of the situation, or that you are informed but some bias in favor of Assange has you ignoring all of the evidence out there on RT.
    - mr_overalls 7y ago
      Ecuador concluded that Assange was working with Russian intelligence, too. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-excl... Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.
      - whamlastxmas 7y ago
        Assange also met with Americans and got deliveries from Americans. Does that mean he's an asset for the CIA? There is equal evidence there. I don't understand how people make these giant leaps to conclusions one way but not another. >Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London It could also be Chinese take-out. But CNN is going to speculate it's POTENTIALLY HACKED MATERIALS. Literally any delivery is potentially hacked materials. This is ridiculous. Also, what makes meetings suspicious? There's no follow-up here, no substance. Why does CNN simply describe them as suspicious rather than provide evidence that suggests it might be? Why is it a bombshell that he allegedly got hacked or leaked materials by courier? He clearly got them somehow, does it matter whether it was over email or in person? It's also possible it was a carrier pigeon - there's pigeons in the UK after all. And if he's getting materials from a courier, why does he need fancy hardware to get it digitally? This makes no sense. There is absolutely nothing in this article other than speculation with a clear, logic-defying bias. And none of it is credible evidence Assange is working with the Russian government.
        ggjgggt5ttg 7y ago
        You're clearly dodging the points you're responding to. Ecuador also claims he worked with Russia. Do you have any links showing countries claiming the opposite?
        7y ago
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      I answer this more specifically downthread, but: Repeated meetings with Russia's propaganda arm is fairly conclusive evidence, especially considering Assange would be under no false impressions about the legitimacy of RT as a news organization. By the nature of his job he would know exactly what RT is and choosing to repeatedly work with them is quite damning evidence.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

close04 7y ago

> visiting a potential Russian asset That's unfair considering everybody is a potential asset to someone, whether the "good" or the "bad" guys.

cthalupa 7y ago
Potential in this case is being used to indicate that there is significant evidence that he is a Russian asset, but that it has not been specifically proven. Not potential in 'well he has potential uses if he is an asset.' Perhaps a more specific phrase would have been 'suspected Russian asset'
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  There is zero credible evidence that Assange is working with the Russian government. Please stop spreading propaganda.
  - mr_overalls 7y ago
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-worked-with-the-russians-because-he-thought-hillary-was-a-sociopath https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-wo... "While it’s not clear whether WikiLeaks participated in that now-infamous DNC hack, Mueller’s investigation revealed that WikiLeaks sought to spread conspiracies about where they got the information, obscure whether they knew it came from Russia, and release documents at times that seemingly benefited Trump by consuming the news cycle." https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf "The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media.Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information."RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."
    - megous 7y ago
      By this standard a whole bunch of american libertarians, gold bugs, etc. are also russian assets, because they had a show on RT in the past. RT at the time just gave more voice to all kinds of pre-existing fringe voices in US to sow discord in US.
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        I mean, a lot of them probably are, or at least had overtures to flip them. Giving an (at least semi-)hostile foreign government leverage over your is one of the very first steps in tradecraft to flipping someone and turning them into an asset. I feel like believing that there would be no effort on the part of the Russian government to turn these people into assets is fairly naive.
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      You first link isn't worth anything. Wikileaks has never revealed sources, so to say they're "obscuring whether... it came from Russia" is ridiculous. He explicitly said it WASN'T Russia, I don't know how he could make it any clearer. Wikileaks has a 100% track record and there's no reason to doubt that statement. And of course evidence about HRC committing crimes benefits Trump, but that has nothing to do with Russia. I don't know why you've even included it. Also - wow, a journalist meets with other journalists. How damning. Clearly he's a Russian asset. Maybe him being in contact with American news organizations also means he's an American asset and actually working for the CIA.
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        You are comparing a state run propaganda organization to independent news organizations. You simply cannot compare RT to CNN because RT is owned and funded by the Russian government. They have done some work to try and distance themselves from this idea, yet it's all quite surface level - even a Wikipedia level investigation of who is who at the senior leadership level will reveal more than enough ties to prove that the Russian government pulls the strings. As one example, Margarita Simonyan is the Editor in Chief of both RT and fully state-run Rossiya Segodnya (... which, "coincidentally", also translates in English as 'Russia Today'). 3rd party media watchdog organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and Accuracy In Media consider RT as a propaganda arm of the Russian government as the results of their investigations into their reporting accuracy. Negative reporting of Putin is directly banned by RT. They have a propensity for airing conspiracy theory based content as news, as well. They keep people like Tony Gosling on staff, an anti-semite who spends much of his time peddling conspiracy theories about a worldwide zionist illuminati, have run stories about how the boston bombing was perpetrated by the US government, how EU citizens have all been microchipped to release hormones that make them submissive, etc. RT is not a legitimate news organization. They are an arm of the Russian government, and Assange would surely know exactly who and what they are. Working with them is incredibly damning evidence. Personally, I don't believe that Assange was always a Russian asset. I think when he started WikiLeaks his intentions were relatively noble, at least in his eyes. But I think that the position he was put in over his actions ultimately gave the Russians significant leverage over him, and they were able to use that to flip him. But based on his recent actions, there is a significant body of evidence that he is a Russian asset. And to put it bluntly, your argument that RT is a legitimate news organization really only has 3 possible explanations that I can personally see: That you are informed on the subject and have taken a stance counter to independent media watchdogs/Western governments/etc. (Which may be fine, but I'm curious how you can rectify that view with all of the evidence that is publicly available), that you are uninformed on the subject and thus basing your defense of Assange on an incomplete understanding of the situation, or that you are informed but some bias in favor of Assange has you ignoring all of the evidence out there on RT.
  - mr_overalls 7y ago
    Ecuador concluded that Assange was working with Russian intelligence, too. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-excl... Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      Assange also met with Americans and got deliveries from Americans. Does that mean he's an asset for the CIA? There is equal evidence there. I don't understand how people make these giant leaps to conclusions one way but not another. >Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London It could also be Chinese take-out. But CNN is going to speculate it's POTENTIALLY HACKED MATERIALS. Literally any delivery is potentially hacked materials. This is ridiculous. Also, what makes meetings suspicious? There's no follow-up here, no substance. Why does CNN simply describe them as suspicious rather than provide evidence that suggests it might be? Why is it a bombshell that he allegedly got hacked or leaked materials by courier? He clearly got them somehow, does it matter whether it was over email or in person? It's also possible it was a carrier pigeon - there's pigeons in the UK after all. And if he's getting materials from a courier, why does he need fancy hardware to get it digitally? This makes no sense. There is absolutely nothing in this article other than speculation with a clear, logic-defying bias. And none of it is credible evidence Assange is working with the Russian government.
      - ggjgggt5ttg 7y ago
        You're clearly dodging the points you're responding to. Ecuador also claims he worked with Russia. Do you have any links showing countries claiming the opposite?
        7y ago
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    I answer this more specifically downthread, but: Repeated meetings with Russia's propaganda arm is fairly conclusive evidence, especially considering Assange would be under no false impressions about the legitimacy of RT as a news organization. By the nature of his job he would know exactly what RT is and choosing to repeatedly work with them is quite damning evidence.