6 ms·

>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but As

>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank transfers of billions of dollars. Assange's selective leaking based on his biases has been documented for years: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... >The court records, placed under seal by a Manhattan federal court and obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source, show in detail how a group of hacktivists breached the Syrian government’s networks on the eve of the country’s civil war and extracted emails about major bank transactions the Syrian regime was hurriedly making amid a host of economic sanctions. In the spring of 2012, most of the emails found their way into a WikiLeaks database. >But one set of emails in particular didn’t make it into the cache of documents published by WikiLeaks in July 2012 as “The Syria Files,” despite the fact that the hackers themselves were ecstatic at their discovery. The correspondence, which WikiLeaks has denied withholding, describes “more than” €2 billion ($2.4 billion, at current exchange rates) moving from the Central Bank of Syria to Russia’s VTB Bank. We know this because the courts showed the data that Assange personally held back.

dijit 6y ago
Ugh, don't make me do this: Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted. FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.
- fsloth 6y ago
  Selectively releasing everyone else's dirt except for Russia is a strong indicator of non-neutral stance.
  - dijit 6y ago
    Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.
    - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
      WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records. >WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. >The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation. >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache. Assange would later go on to propagate and distribute manipulated leaks sent by Guccifer 2.0 and other known Russian fronts like the "CyberBerkut" promotion of his I linked at the thread top.
      - wyck 6y ago
        Nothing your saying in this thread is true.
        thatlongthrow1 6y ago
        Refute.
        evgen 6y ago
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  Assange asking Guccifer 2.0 for Hillary leaks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=... Assange helping Guccifer 2.0 distribute manipulated Hillary leaks: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764256561539735552 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764256561539735552 How the leaks were taken from other sources and manipulated: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjevd/guccifer-2-is-bullshitting-us-about-his-alleged-clinton-foundation-hack https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjevd/guccifer-2-is-bull... >Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers. >A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.” >But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation. >A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    Telling that you're spewing this from a throwaway.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    This does not alter the claim that info released by Wikileaks was never fake.
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  It is not worth engaging. I have met powerful people who have an unreasonable bug up their ass about Assange. These are Americans who state that this Australian is a traitor who should be prosecuted and executed for treason over the collateral murder video. It is the same exact moral and ethical rot that has corrupted our police forces. Edit: These downvotes are enlightening.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Any proof that WikiLeaks actually had the emails about that particular Russian bank transfer? The theory you're promoting is that Assange leaked a huge trove of emails on Syria, a Russian ally, including large numbers of emails detailing Syria's relationship to Russia. But then, because Assange is secretly a Russian agent, he removed one particular set of emails. The obvious question is: why did he publish the emails in the first place?
mapgrep 6y ago
Selective leaking and selective redaction do not correspond to any US crimes and if they did could be leveled against many publishers. What is the point of raising this in the context of a criminal indictment? I haven’t even examined what you are raising for accuracy, I’m merely asking, what does this have to do with throwing someone in prison?
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This is a politically motivated perversion of Justice , you here are implying he is loyal to Russia and therefore deserves it. You know, even if you were right, you are not helping your case? Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  >Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. From the article you linked: Mr Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. >they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I see two possible interpretations: A - This is a special process meant to assure that reports are truly independent and neutral. These conclusions are even more trustworthy. B - UN Special Rapporteur can't be trusted, it's is a random nobody that can publish untrue allegations and slap UN logo on top. It appears you are implying B is the correct interpretations. If so, why? Additionally, can you suggest a more trustworthy, unbiased party than the UN?
    - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
      OK I'll be explicit. You attempted to spin the opinion of special rapporteur into that of the UN. In every special rapporteur article they have to put the disclaimer I posted because of people like you attempting to frame something in false or malicious ways. To recap your claim: >Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. UN's actual position as stated in the article you posted: >The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. That line is meant for you: >they are not UN staff
fit2rule 6y ago
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Ask yourself this: why is it so important to leak information that is being held in secrecy by a state that is committing war crimes at an alarming rate? The answer is: because the 5-eyes War Coalition is committing war crimes at an alarming rate. It literally started what it hoped to conflagration into World War 3, by invading Iraq illegally and on false pretences in 2003. And every day since that invasion, the world has been on fire. The world has not forgotten the victims of these wars. Millions of innocent people have been massacred by the USA and its War Coalition in an utterly dire conflagration. The sheer SCALE of the war, of which the Western public are indeed extremely ignorant, is staggering. If you had two criminals in the room, one of them was thieving the cutlery and the other was burning a pile of dead bodies in the corner, which would you want to deal with, first? The USA and its War Coalition has a lot of criminal activity going on. Like, a lot. And every twenty minutes for twenty years, it has been dropping bombs - mostly on innocent people - for its own economic purposes. That is a fire that the leaks will put out. (The leaks will continue, because the crimes are huge.)
- lordlimecat 6y ago
  > And every day since that invasion, the world has been on fire. Obviously things were peacable around the world beforehand, and every conflict or human rights violation since then can be blamed on the Iraq invasion. Never mind that civilian casualties by coalition forces are absolutely dwarfed by those by the opposition, or that US in general gets an extremely high degree of scrutiny and commits relatively few war crimes / civilian casualties. This is a brilliant attempt at distraction from the incredible corruption and human rights violations from other countries such as Russia. Should the US get a free pass? Of course not, but it's rather tiresome to hear Chinese and Russian agitators say "but what about the 10k civilian casualties over 10 years" while asking the world to please ignore the Uighur genocide or the invasions of Ukraine. The fact is that Wikileaks has a well established bias. They publish things that are true when it harms the US, and often leave out as much exonerating context as possible. Collateral murder for instance specifically tried to downplay the aspects where the gunner provided a rationale for engaging and sought approval, instead using voiceovers and editing to imply a lack of ROE. >Millions of innocent people have been massacred by the USA and its War Coalition in an utterly dire conflagration. I'd love to see a source on this. The most critical estimate I've seen (Iraq Body Count) has coalition innocents killed around 30k, Over 15 years. While opposition are over 300k. Please source your facts.

dijit 6y ago

Ugh, don't make me do this: Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted. FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.

fsloth 6y ago
Selectively releasing everyone else's dirt except for Russia is a strong indicator of non-neutral stance.
- dijit 6y ago
  Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.
  - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
    WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records. >WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. >The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation. >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache. Assange would later go on to propagate and distribute manipulated leaks sent by Guccifer 2.0 and other known Russian fronts like the "CyberBerkut" promotion of his I linked at the thread top.
    - wyck 6y ago
      Nothing your saying in this thread is true.
      - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
        Refute.
      - evgen 6y ago
thatlongthrow1 6y ago
Assange asking Guccifer 2.0 for Hillary leaks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=... Assange helping Guccifer 2.0 distribute manipulated Hillary leaks: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764256561539735552 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764256561539735552 How the leaks were taken from other sources and manipulated: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjevd/guccifer-2-is-bullshitting-us-about-his-alleged-clinton-foundation-hack https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjevd/guccifer-2-is-bull... >Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers. >A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.” >But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation. >A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  Telling that you're spewing this from a throwaway.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This does not alter the claim that info released by Wikileaks was never fake.
DaniloDias 6y ago
It is not worth engaging. I have met powerful people who have an unreasonable bug up their ass about Assange. These are Americans who state that this Australian is a traitor who should be prosecuted and executed for treason over the collateral murder video. It is the same exact moral and ethical rot that has corrupted our police forces. Edit: These downvotes are enlightening.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

Any proof that WikiLeaks actually had the emails about that particular Russian bank transfer? The theory you're promoting is that Assange leaked a huge trove of emails on Syria, a Russian ally, including large numbers of emails detailing Syria's relationship to Russia. But then, because Assange is secretly a Russian agent, he removed one particular set of emails. The obvious question is: why did he publish the emails in the first place?

mapgrep 6y ago

Selective leaking and selective redaction do not correspond to any US crimes and if they did could be leveled against many publishers. What is the point of raising this in the context of a criminal indictment? I haven’t even examined what you are raising for accuracy, I’m merely asking, what does this have to do with throwing someone in prison?

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

This is a politically motivated perversion of Justice , you here are implying he is loyal to Russia and therefore deserves it. You know, even if you were right, you are not helping your case? Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

thatlongthrow1 6y ago
>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. From the article you linked: Mr Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. >they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I see two possible interpretations: A - This is a special process meant to assure that reports are truly independent and neutral. These conclusions are even more trustworthy. B - UN Special Rapporteur can't be trusted, it's is a random nobody that can publish untrue allegations and slap UN logo on top. It appears you are implying B is the correct interpretations. If so, why? Additionally, can you suggest a more trustworthy, unbiased party than the UN?
  - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
    OK I'll be explicit. You attempted to spin the opinion of special rapporteur into that of the UN. In every special rapporteur article they have to put the disclaimer I posted because of people like you attempting to frame something in false or malicious ways. To recap your claim: >Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. UN's actual position as stated in the article you posted: >The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. That line is meant for you: >they are not UN staff

fit2rule 6y ago

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Ask yourself this: why is it so important to leak information that is being held in secrecy by a state that is committing war crimes at an alarming rate? The answer is: because the 5-eyes War Coalition is committing war crimes at an alarming rate. It literally started what it hoped to conflagration into World War 3, by invading Iraq illegally and on false pretences in 2003. And every day since that invasion, the world has been on fire. The world has not forgotten the victims of these wars. Millions of innocent people have been massacred by the USA and its War Coalition in an utterly dire conflagration. The sheer SCALE of the war, of which the Western public are indeed extremely ignorant, is staggering. If you had two criminals in the room, one of them was thieving the cutlery and the other was burning a pile of dead bodies in the corner, which would you want to deal with, first? The USA and its War Coalition has a lot of criminal activity going on. Like, a lot. And every twenty minutes for twenty years, it has been dropping bombs - mostly on innocent people - for its own economic purposes. That is a fire that the leaks will put out. (The leaks will continue, because the crimes are huge.)

lordlimecat 6y ago
> And every day since that invasion, the world has been on fire. Obviously things were peacable around the world beforehand, and every conflict or human rights violation since then can be blamed on the Iraq invasion. Never mind that civilian casualties by coalition forces are absolutely dwarfed by those by the opposition, or that US in general gets an extremely high degree of scrutiny and commits relatively few war crimes / civilian casualties. This is a brilliant attempt at distraction from the incredible corruption and human rights violations from other countries such as Russia. Should the US get a free pass? Of course not, but it's rather tiresome to hear Chinese and Russian agitators say "but what about the 10k civilian casualties over 10 years" while asking the world to please ignore the Uighur genocide or the invasions of Ukraine. The fact is that Wikileaks has a well established bias. They publish things that are true when it harms the US, and often leave out as much exonerating context as possible. Collateral murder for instance specifically tried to downplay the aspects where the gunner provided a rationale for engaging and sought approval, instead using voiceovers and editing to imply a lack of ROE. >Millions of innocent people have been massacred by the USA and its War Coalition in an utterly dire conflagration. I'd love to see a source on this. The most critical estimate I've seen (Iraq Body Count) has coalition innocents killed around 30k, Over 15 years. While opposition are over 300k. Please source your facts.