9 ms·

In the instance of the Manning probes and cases I can accept that he is filling the role of a journalist, he just isn't a very good one that failed to protect h

In the instance of the Manning probes and cases I can accept that he is filling the role of a journalist, he just isn't a very good one that failed to protect his sources. I can mostly accept up to the 2016 elections that he was relatively clean of any real ethical violations / legal trouble despite what journalists and the govt might say. Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.

k1m 6y ago
> He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was. > ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a-trump-supporter-92db307784d7 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a... She writes: > In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.” Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
cassepipe 6y ago
Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation. I see the same attitude over and over to blame Russia in order not to address the content of the emails. So much bad faith from Clinton's supporters. I am tired of people making it look like it's comparable with the Cambridge Analytical scandal.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation. I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so. Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc. It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
  - cassepipe 6y ago
    Wow that's a very weird argument. We are not talking about the privacy of you and me but about the party apparatus conspiring to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the democratic candidate. At that point you might as well argue that the taking of the winter palace was a illegitimate because I don't know about but would you like to see your home invaded by a bunch of angry people?
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      Okay. When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
      - cassepipe 6y ago
        Just post your email, I'll forward that to you
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >We are not talking about the privacy of you and me You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role. Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are? And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is? How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide? Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_photos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
rtx 6y ago
>influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.
stefan_ 6y ago
What's gonna be the excuse when the democrats don't win in 2020? Because thinking a mail leak and some $50k in Facebook ad buys get you an election is not only absurdly stupid, it is extremely condescending towards your fellow Americans in the voting booth.

k1m 6y ago

> He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was. > ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a-trump-supporter-92db307784d7 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a... She writes: > In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.” Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.

cassepipe 6y ago

Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation. I see the same attitude over and over to blame Russia in order not to address the content of the emails. So much bad faith from Clinton's supporters. I am tired of people making it look like it's comparable with the Cambridge Analytical scandal.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation. I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so. Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc. It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Wow that's a very weird argument. We are not talking about the privacy of you and me but about the party apparatus conspiring to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the democratic candidate. At that point you might as well argue that the taking of the winter palace was a illegitimate because I don't know about but would you like to see your home invaded by a bunch of angry people?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Okay. When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
    - cassepipe 6y ago
      Just post your email, I'll forward that to you
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >We are not talking about the privacy of you and me You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role. Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are? And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is? How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide? Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_photos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...

rtx 6y ago

>influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.

stefan_ 6y ago

What's gonna be the excuse when the democrats don't win in 2020? Because thinking a mail leak and some $50k in Facebook ad buys get you an election is not only absurdly stupid, it is extremely condescending towards your fellow Americans in the voting booth.