4 ms·

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 explic

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.

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.