15 ms·

Again, it's proof of a relationship. His actions via Wikileaks is proof he is a Russian asset. King and Ventura didn't participate in a coordinated attack on Am

by seppin 6y ago

Again, it's proof of a relationship. His actions via Wikileaks is proof he is a Russian asset. King and Ventura didn't participate in a coordinated attack on American democracy, so your comparison remains useless. > If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent "why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?" That's really not how it works.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Publishing reliable information that is politically relevant is not a "coordinated attack on American democracy," it's journalism. The only link you've provided is common between the three of them. >why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges? We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?
- seppin 6y ago
  > Publishing reliable information that is politically relevant Trying desperately to turn emails (that amounted mostly to dirty laundry) stolen by a government into manufactured scandals and conspiracies the day after the worst revelations about Russia's preferred candidate dropped was not, and is not, journalism. How on earth can you get something so basic wrong? > We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting? Nice little straw man there. We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy. The proof of said relationship, if made public, reveals how Russia was monitored/caught and helps them conceal their future efforts at recruiting assets. Which is why the "if you have proof why not make it public?" argument in relation to espionage is and always will be a bad faith argument. Snowden did it too. He knows damn well everything he says will go unchallenged, and he uses that silence to his rhetorical advantage. But you knew all that already.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >How on earth can you get something so basic wrong? Nothing you said has any connection to whether it's journalism. He received and published politically relevant information. >We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy So based on something he did in 2016, you think that's proof he was a Russian agent from the mid 2000's that the US intelligence agencies just let do whatever he wanted for years. I do not understand that point of view. > always will be a bad faith argument The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial. I also don't have any clue what you think I knew already. I have seen no evidence that Assange or Snowden are foreign agents.
    - seppin 6y ago
      Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC. They only leaked DNC material (via their cutout Wikileaks so people can claim in bad faith it wasn't really Russia), and did so at the time it was most needed by the Trump campaign. If you consider receiving state-hacked materials and leaking them in perfect coordination with a political campaign (see Roger Stone indictment) journalism, then there's nothing else to discuss. Oh, and it wasn't just any political campaign. It was the campaign actively supported by the state actor that gave you the materials to begin with. All common coincidences in the journalism world I guess, right? > So based on something he did in 2016 Speculation no one can answer, ignored. > The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial. You aren't listening to what i'm saying. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person. And responding to any claim made exposes you publicly to confirm what you know and how you know it, which further damages your intelligence collection efforts. Which is why "show me the evidence" is not in good faith, especially not someone like Snoweden that knows damn well how intelligence works. He knows he won't get push back publicly, so he has complete ownership of the narrative. "None of my leaks results in anyone dying". The American IC is not going to list their assets that were executed in hostile countries as a result, for the reasons I mentioned. > accused's right to a fair trial Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice. Neither had any intention of risking jail for "what they believe in" - yet some people still view them alongside whistleblowers that actually did.

by seppin 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Publishing reliable information that is politically relevant is not a "coordinated attack on American democracy," it's journalism. The only link you've provided is common between the three of them. >why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges? We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?

seppin 6y ago
> Publishing reliable information that is politically relevant Trying desperately to turn emails (that amounted mostly to dirty laundry) stolen by a government into manufactured scandals and conspiracies the day after the worst revelations about Russia's preferred candidate dropped was not, and is not, journalism. How on earth can you get something so basic wrong? > We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting? Nice little straw man there. We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy. The proof of said relationship, if made public, reveals how Russia was monitored/caught and helps them conceal their future efforts at recruiting assets. Which is why the "if you have proof why not make it public?" argument in relation to espionage is and always will be a bad faith argument. Snowden did it too. He knows damn well everything he says will go unchallenged, and he uses that silence to his rhetorical advantage. But you knew all that already.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >How on earth can you get something so basic wrong? Nothing you said has any connection to whether it's journalism. He received and published politically relevant information. >We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy So based on something he did in 2016, you think that's proof he was a Russian agent from the mid 2000's that the US intelligence agencies just let do whatever he wanted for years. I do not understand that point of view. > always will be a bad faith argument The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial. I also don't have any clue what you think I knew already. I have seen no evidence that Assange or Snowden are foreign agents.
  - seppin 6y ago
    Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC. They only leaked DNC material (via their cutout Wikileaks so people can claim in bad faith it wasn't really Russia), and did so at the time it was most needed by the Trump campaign. If you consider receiving state-hacked materials and leaking them in perfect coordination with a political campaign (see Roger Stone indictment) journalism, then there's nothing else to discuss. Oh, and it wasn't just any political campaign. It was the campaign actively supported by the state actor that gave you the materials to begin with. All common coincidences in the journalism world I guess, right? > So based on something he did in 2016 Speculation no one can answer, ignored. > The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial. You aren't listening to what i'm saying. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person. And responding to any claim made exposes you publicly to confirm what you know and how you know it, which further damages your intelligence collection efforts. Which is why "show me the evidence" is not in good faith, especially not someone like Snoweden that knows damn well how intelligence works. He knows he won't get push back publicly, so he has complete ownership of the narrative. "None of my leaks results in anyone dying". The American IC is not going to list their assets that were executed in hostile countries as a result, for the reasons I mentioned. > accused's right to a fair trial Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice. Neither had any intention of risking jail for "what they believe in" - yet some people still view them alongside whistleblowers that actually did.