5 ms·

are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he withheld the truth on them?

DonHopkins 5y ago
Are you denying that he washed and selectively released Russian propaganda, and also worked with the Trump campaign? So do you believe Seth Rich was murdered then? Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward for you to suggest that it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... >WikiLeaks statements >Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues.[78] >According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[83]
- roenxi 5y ago
  It is impressive that the Russians manage to maintain such a stranglehold on the US consciousness given the number of special interest groups they have to keep in front of. It would appear that this "Russian propaganda" involves aggressively telling the truth. It is a bit awkward to suggest that is an effective tactic against the US.
  - zepto 5y ago
    The Soviet’s had a newspaper called ‘Truth’. This is a kind of journalism the Russians are experienced with.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  [flagged]
- ruined 5y ago
  seth rich probably had nothing to do with wikileaks, but there's no doubt that he was murdered. and honestly i can't hold it against assange for being on the lookout or even paranoid about things like that, given his circumstances. being wrong about that simply puts him in the company of a huge section of the political establishment that was promoting the case. i also don't really care if the source of the leak was a Russian hacker. the damning part is the data was real.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Just to be more forceful on one point - Seth Rich had absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks and it's extraordinarily shameful that Assange winked and nodded like he did. Rich was a low level staffer working for the DNC to help voters find polling stations - he wouldn't have had any access to their email systems (and of course wouldn't have had access to Podesta's emails since Podesta didn't even work for the DNC and it was his private Gmail that was compromised). Both Podesta's and the DNC's leaked emails came from targeted Spearfishing campaigns, some of the source emails for these were leaked alongside the rest of the contents. (e.g. Podesta's: https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/b4836dda-c936-44a0-ae5f-fd44c7a8533e/thumbnail/620x664/f9b6fee3d666689abea43885e13e2a09/podesta-phishing.png https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/b4836dda-...)
petesergeant 5y ago
> are you denying he released the truth Yes, 100%. I think the documents he released were all authentic, but that’s a great distance from either being “the truth” or being in service of “the truth”. The majority of propaganda is factual while attempting to subvert "the truth".
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Propaganda isn't trying to subvert the truth, whether quoted or unquoted. Propaganda is trying to promote a particular position. Nobody has as a goal to subvert the truth, that's just a caricature of one's enemies. What we do is public relations, what they do is propaganda. It's just a rationalization to disregard the standards that one would normally use to judge information i.e. its accuracy.
  - pohl 5y ago
    Nobody has as a goal to subvert the truth Seriously? This is priority #1 of anyone with alignment with authoritarian goals. Does the phrase "alternative facts" ring a bell? Ever heard of Joseph Goebbels?

DonHopkins 5y ago

Are you denying that he washed and selectively released Russian propaganda, and also worked with the Trump campaign? So do you believe Seth Rich was murdered then? Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward for you to suggest that it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... >WikiLeaks statements >Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues.[78] >According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[83]

roenxi 5y ago
It is impressive that the Russians manage to maintain such a stranglehold on the US consciousness given the number of special interest groups they have to keep in front of. It would appear that this "Russian propaganda" involves aggressively telling the truth. It is a bit awkward to suggest that is an effective tactic against the US.
- zepto 5y ago
  The Soviet’s had a newspaper called ‘Truth’. This is a kind of journalism the Russians are experienced with.
mdorazio 5y ago
[flagged]
ruined 5y ago
seth rich probably had nothing to do with wikileaks, but there's no doubt that he was murdered. and honestly i can't hold it against assange for being on the lookout or even paranoid about things like that, given his circumstances. being wrong about that simply puts him in the company of a huge section of the political establishment that was promoting the case. i also don't really care if the source of the leak was a Russian hacker. the damning part is the data was real.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Just to be more forceful on one point - Seth Rich had absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks and it's extraordinarily shameful that Assange winked and nodded like he did. Rich was a low level staffer working for the DNC to help voters find polling stations - he wouldn't have had any access to their email systems (and of course wouldn't have had access to Podesta's emails since Podesta didn't even work for the DNC and it was his private Gmail that was compromised). Both Podesta's and the DNC's leaked emails came from targeted Spearfishing campaigns, some of the source emails for these were leaked alongside the rest of the contents. (e.g. Podesta's: https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/b4836dda-c936-44a0-ae5f-fd44c7a8533e/thumbnail/620x664/f9b6fee3d666689abea43885e13e2a09/podesta-phishing.png https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/10/28/b4836dda-...)

petesergeant 5y ago

> are you denying he released the truth Yes, 100%. I think the documents he released were all authentic, but that’s a great distance from either being “the truth” or being in service of “the truth”. The majority of propaganda is factual while attempting to subvert "the truth".

pessimizer 5y ago
Propaganda isn't trying to subvert the truth, whether quoted or unquoted. Propaganda is trying to promote a particular position. Nobody has as a goal to subvert the truth, that's just a caricature of one's enemies. What we do is public relations, what they do is propaganda. It's just a rationalization to disregard the standards that one would normally use to judge information i.e. its accuracy.
- pohl 5y ago
  Nobody has as a goal to subvert the truth Seriously? This is priority #1 of anyone with alignment with authoritarian goals. Does the phrase "alternative facts" ring a bell? Ever heard of Joseph Goebbels?