5 ms·

Don’t forget Hillary was fixated on Assange for a long time, and was even quoted with “Can’t we just drone the guy?”. The direct spat lead to Assange helping T

Don’t forget Hillary was fixated on Assange for a long time, and was even quoted with “Can’t we just drone the guy?”. The direct spat lead to Assange helping Trump and the Russians publish Hillary’s email server spool. I don’t like that Assange ended up helping Trump and Russia, but you can’t blame him for helping the one person who can kick the person out of office who wants to Tomahawk you

harry8 2y ago
I think this is nonsense? As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered. Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?
- whoitwas 2y ago
  Wikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.
  - harry8 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      What? It's true. Wikileaks had a canary to let everyone know if they were compromised. The canary died and so they can't be seen as reliable.
      - harry8 2y ago
        Again. What canary? Where is the source?
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Your comment has no substance and is against house rules: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. Leave the moderating to dang, it's his job and he gets paid for it. If you have nothing to say, don't reply at all.
      - whoitwas 2y ago
        I would have to dig up a decade old computer or scour the web for years. THis is nonsense. It's 100% true that Wikileaks has a cryptographic canary that expired sometime after Julian Assange was incarcerated.
        harry8 2y ago
        Forgive me, I've never heard of a "cryptographic canary." Google tuned up nothing for me about what it is or how it relates to wikileaks. It gave me the strong impression of being nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Have you got a link for what it is? My prior is that any evidence of substance that contributed to a belief in wikileaks being untrustworthy would be /very/ easy to find in many locations. Maybe it's not but I can't think why. Perhaps you know?
        whoitwas 2y ago
        Wikileaks information was trustworthy and accurate. It may still be that the information prior to their canary expiring is okay, but anything released after can't be trusted. I'd assume that once the canary died whichever actors compromised them scrubbed it. It's been over a decade now, but I do have a machine somewhere with evidence. Some nerd bigger than me here certainly has evidence available in a dropbox or somewhere accessible. I don't.
        harry8 2y ago
        What is the canary? Source?
  - GolfPopper 2y ago
    I thought it was the warrant canary of their email provider (Riseup) that died in 2016. Did Wikileaks ever even have a canary? Riseup currently has a canary[1], they state that it would not trigger for "gag orders, FISA court orders, National Security Letters" which seems like it makes it pretty useless. 1. https://riseup.net/en/canary https://riseup.net/en/canary
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      From wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys
      - b112 2y ago
        This says nothing about it being a canary. All canaries are stated as such. Instead, all I see is some debate about PGP. I can believe that only one submission ever used it. PGP is not friendly to people who barely undersrand how computers work (99.999% of the population), and some panicking whistleblower isn't interested in taking a layman's course in crypto to send some docs. So why would wikileaks renew their useless(from their perspective) PGP key?
  - edm0nd 2y ago
    Wikileaks in general (as a website) has been dead for years now. Just go look at the website. Last update in the Leaks section is from 2018. Last update in the News section is from 2021. I'm interested to see if Assange brings it back to life.
- rtpg 2y ago
  I thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?
  - bardan 2y ago
    It isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know? The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.
    - rtpg 2y ago
      I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
      - bardan 2y ago
        As I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.
  - GolfPopper 2y ago
    Foreign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://archive.is/ztpnZ https://archive.is/ztpnZ
    - rendall 2y ago
CalChris 2y ago
Unproven. At best unproven and denied. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik...
- nullc 2y ago
  Your link does not include a denial, it includes Clinton saying she did not recall making such a comment. Is there an outright denial elsewhere?
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >Your link does not include a denial I don't recall calling for or making detailed plans to assassinate the leaders of the G7 at their recent summit. I also don't recall claiming that you were a pedophile, a murderer and a cross-dresser. So does that mean you believe I have actually said/done the above, as I haven't denied them?
    - nullc 2y ago
      No one reported you claimed those things and particularly not in an official meeting where there should have been minutes and would have been witnesses which could have boosted a lack of recollection to certainty. Your examples also fail to continue with "but if I did it was a joke" -- a remark itself almost as damning as the act. We're not talking about mere defamation in the case of Assange: talking about the secretary of state-- who unambiguously has the power to murder foreign persons with a suggestion-- suggesting that she's would joke about murdering people. Not a great look. So, no, your remarks are unambiguously not denials, but no denial was required in your case.
    - oska 2y ago
      Mate, this is the comment that they were directly replying to : > At best unproven and denied.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  1. Clinton neither admitted nor denied it. She only said she "didn't recall" making that statement. 2. In any case, Clinton has been very openly critical of Assange, saying the charges were not punishing journalism and that "he has to answer for what he's done." [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50 https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50
hipadev23 2y ago
Check your sources. Alex Jones doesn't count.
usernottaken 2y ago
I don't think the issue is whether Clinton made this comment or not. The legend simply points out what every one is thinking. That this threw the election for her, and that is likely her entire perspective on this. The Trump admin was likely motivated to prosecute, so as to appear they were not in collusion with the release of the emails, and the current administration directly backed HC. People like Kromberg do not come out of a vacuum.
richrichie 2y ago
No evidence of Russian hand. Most likely a DNC insider work.
- crummy 2y ago
  A DNC insider that set up a very large trail indicating external phishing? Edit: at the time I think this was considered to be a pretty comprehensive description of what happened. Not sure if new information has come to light since then. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-int...
  - richrichie 2y ago
    Anything is possible. Don’t underestimate the stupidity of the party members. Hillary ran her own email server that trafficked classified information and that was maintained by a couple of Pakistani dudes.
- aredox 2y ago
  This is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 has been clearly identified as Russian. Julian Assange lied about Seth Rich, and never excused himseéf to his bereaved parents. He is no better than Alex Jones.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    > has been clearly identified as Russian Identified by the same people that have lied about pretty much everything else?

harry8 2y ago

I think this is nonsense? As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered. Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?

whoitwas 2y ago
Wikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.
- harry8 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    What? It's true. Wikileaks had a canary to let everyone know if they were compromised. The canary died and so they can't be seen as reliable.
    - harry8 2y ago
      Again. What canary? Where is the source?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Your comment has no substance and is against house rules: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. Leave the moderating to dang, it's his job and he gets paid for it. If you have nothing to say, don't reply at all.
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      I would have to dig up a decade old computer or scour the web for years. THis is nonsense. It's 100% true that Wikileaks has a cryptographic canary that expired sometime after Julian Assange was incarcerated.
      - harry8 2y ago
        Forgive me, I've never heard of a "cryptographic canary." Google tuned up nothing for me about what it is or how it relates to wikileaks. It gave me the strong impression of being nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Have you got a link for what it is? My prior is that any evidence of substance that contributed to a belief in wikileaks being untrustworthy would be /very/ easy to find in many locations. Maybe it's not but I can't think why. Perhaps you know?
        whoitwas 2y ago
        Wikileaks information was trustworthy and accurate. It may still be that the information prior to their canary expiring is okay, but anything released after can't be trusted. I'd assume that once the canary died whichever actors compromised them scrubbed it. It's been over a decade now, but I do have a machine somewhere with evidence. Some nerd bigger than me here certainly has evidence available in a dropbox or somewhere accessible. I don't.
        harry8 2y ago
        What is the canary? Source?
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  I thought it was the warrant canary of their email provider (Riseup) that died in 2016. Did Wikileaks ever even have a canary? Riseup currently has a canary[1], they state that it would not trigger for "gag orders, FISA court orders, National Security Letters" which seems like it makes it pretty useless. 1. https://riseup.net/en/canary https://riseup.net/en/canary
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    From wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys
    - b112 2y ago
      This says nothing about it being a canary. All canaries are stated as such. Instead, all I see is some debate about PGP. I can believe that only one submission ever used it. PGP is not friendly to people who barely undersrand how computers work (99.999% of the population), and some panicking whistleblower isn't interested in taking a layman's course in crypto to send some docs. So why would wikileaks renew their useless(from their perspective) PGP key?
- edm0nd 2y ago
  Wikileaks in general (as a website) has been dead for years now. Just go look at the website. Last update in the Leaks section is from 2018. Last update in the News section is from 2021. I'm interested to see if Assange brings it back to life.
rtpg 2y ago
I thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?
- bardan 2y ago
  It isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know? The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
    - bardan 2y ago
      As I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Foreign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://archive.is/ztpnZ https://archive.is/ztpnZ
  - rendall 2y ago

CalChris 2y ago

Unproven. At best unproven and denied. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik...

nullc 2y ago
Your link does not include a denial, it includes Clinton saying she did not recall making such a comment. Is there an outright denial elsewhere?
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >Your link does not include a denial I don't recall calling for or making detailed plans to assassinate the leaders of the G7 at their recent summit. I also don't recall claiming that you were a pedophile, a murderer and a cross-dresser. So does that mean you believe I have actually said/done the above, as I haven't denied them?
  - nullc 2y ago
    No one reported you claimed those things and particularly not in an official meeting where there should have been minutes and would have been witnesses which could have boosted a lack of recollection to certainty. Your examples also fail to continue with "but if I did it was a joke" -- a remark itself almost as damning as the act. We're not talking about mere defamation in the case of Assange: talking about the secretary of state-- who unambiguously has the power to murder foreign persons with a suggestion-- suggesting that she's would joke about murdering people. Not a great look. So, no, your remarks are unambiguously not denials, but no denial was required in your case.
  - oska 2y ago
    Mate, this is the comment that they were directly replying to : > At best unproven and denied.
paulddraper 2y ago
1. Clinton neither admitted nor denied it. She only said she "didn't recall" making that statement. 2. In any case, Clinton has been very openly critical of Assange, saying the charges were not punishing journalism and that "he has to answer for what he's done." [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50 https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50

hipadev23 2y ago

Check your sources. Alex Jones doesn't count.

usernottaken 2y ago

I don't think the issue is whether Clinton made this comment or not. The legend simply points out what every one is thinking. That this threw the election for her, and that is likely her entire perspective on this. The Trump admin was likely motivated to prosecute, so as to appear they were not in collusion with the release of the emails, and the current administration directly backed HC. People like Kromberg do not come out of a vacuum.

richrichie 2y ago

No evidence of Russian hand. Most likely a DNC insider work.

crummy 2y ago
A DNC insider that set up a very large trail indicating external phishing? Edit: at the time I think this was considered to be a pretty comprehensive description of what happened. Not sure if new information has come to light since then. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-int...
- richrichie 2y ago
  Anything is possible. Don’t underestimate the stupidity of the party members. Hillary ran her own email server that trafficked classified information and that was maintained by a couple of Pakistani dudes.
aredox 2y ago
This is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 has been clearly identified as Russian. Julian Assange lied about Seth Rich, and never excused himseéf to his bereaved parents. He is no better than Alex Jones.
- richrichie 2y ago
  > has been clearly identified as Russian Identified by the same people that have lied about pretty much everything else?