wikileaks refused to publish Russia intel

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Wikileaks turned down huge caches of leaked information about Russia at the same time it was publishing every email it could about Hillary.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

They claimed it was because the information was already public or couldn't verify it. Of course I'm not sure how they verified Podesta's recipes but...whatever. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I hope Assange is happy with what he wrought. Hillary lost, Trump won and the Kremlin is happy.
 
LOL. Ok, so "a source" provided FP with a "partial chat log" which only shows wikileaks' side of a conversation about alleged leaks in which they say they can't verify the authenticity of the documents. The alleged leak is about Russian machinations in Ukraine, and parts of it is later written about by BBC and others, and then "The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny." Of course FP doesn't give us access to "elsewhere" or scrutinized if the material is authentic.

Shocking.

Then the usual weaving together of a propaganda story begins, including some leak about Russia wikileaks "teased" about in October of 2010, only to start leaking Chelsea Manning's material about the US crimes in Iraq a month later. What else happened in that following month that maybe did something to the schedule is of course not mentioned (the manhunt on Assange over the "rape" nonsense in Sweden started).

And this junk comes on the footsteps of the news about Rohrabacher having visited Assange and delivering information directly to Trump.

It can't be that difficult to see through stuff like that, can it folks? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It perfectly aligns with my view of Assange as a tool.
 
Supposedly, Assange specifically asked about the impact of the material on the election. Getting more negative news about Russia in a time when Republicans fell more and more in love with Putin's politics might have caused the wrong kind of impact.
 
Travis said:
Wikileaks turned down huge caches of leaked information about Russia at the same time it was publishing every email it could about Hillary.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

They claimed it was because the information was already public or couldn't verify it. Of course I'm not sure how they verified Podesta's recipes but...whatever. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I hope Assange is happy with what he wrought. Hillary lost, Trump won and the Kremlin is happy.
Click to expand...

I think their awards of journalism should be revoked and the whole thing rebranded as an official FSB front.

McHrozni
 
Travis said:
It perfectly aligns with my view of Assange as a tool.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be a "tool" to be preferentially accessed by others for propaganda purposes. If I have some pregnant, revealing truth/expose I want to get out to the masses - and it fits the type of stuff WikiLeaks publishes - then I'm going to use that "tool."

You can't tell, merely because of the outlet, that the information is bogus. Especially as the default. Spin I would take as a matter of course, and refusing to publish stuff that doesn't follow the narrative is probably common too. But! But there are things that do follow the narrative, and we want to know about them.

Anyhow, if I get the scoop about selling aborted fetal organs illegally, I wouldn't expect it to interest WikiLeaks much. Outraged, I'm going to seek an organization that agrees with me and will treat the matter seriously. Just an artifact of the media structure, nothing necessarily nefarious.
 
Childlike Empress said:
LOL. Ok, so "a source" provided FP with a "partial chat log" which only shows wikileaks' side of a conversation about alleged leaks in which they say they can't verify the authenticity of the documents. The alleged leak is about Russian machinations in Ukraine, and parts of it is later written about by BBC and others, and then "The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny." Of course FP doesn't give us access to "elsewhere" or scrutinized if the material is authentic.

Shocking.

Then the usual weaving together of a propaganda story begins, including some leak about Russia wikileaks "teased" about in October of 2010, only to start leaking Chelsea Manning's material about the US crimes in Iraq a month later. What else happened in that following month that maybe did something to the schedule is of course not mentioned (the manhunt on Assange over the "rape" nonsense in Sweden started).

And this junk comes on the footsteps of the news about Rohrabacher having visited Assange and delivering information directly to Trump.

It can't be that difficult to see through stuff like that, can it folks? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah, so many scare quotes! You have scared me!

It feels very odd to see someone getting angry at an anonymous "source" for leaked information and defending wikileaks at the same time.
 
Travis said:
Wikileaks turned down huge caches of leaked information about Russia at the same time it was publishing every email it could about Hillary.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

They claimed it was because the information was already public or couldn't verify it. Of course I'm not sure how they verified Podesta's recipes but...whatever. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I hope Assange is happy with what he wrought. Hillary lost, Trump won and the Kremlin is happy.
Click to expand...
I have noted for a very long time that Assange was a pile of rancid feces pretending to just be a urine stain on your white shag carpets. Of course the little tird is happy - he is a useless pos and likely would piss himself bloody if he fooled with Russia and got caught!
 
Has WikiLeaks put out any sort of statement about this? A rebuttal or explanation?
 
Childlike Empress said:
They have better things to do. They retweeted this, though. There's also something in the original junk that they told FP before publishing, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Assange has also now commented giving similar reasons. In short, WikiLeaks says the info it was offered was old stuff and they don't publish old stuff, FP says it had some new stuff in it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
An official fsb front can still be good journalism. Their podesta release was accurate.
Click to expand...

*ahem*

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...inton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University’s Global Security Initiative, citing Russia’s long history of spreading disinformation.

Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King’s College London.

A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-russia-hillary-clinton-campaign-democrats-229707

Still, security experts of both parties have been warning of potential Russian fakery in the document leaks since late July, shortly after the first huge batch of hacked internal emails from the Democratic National Committee forced the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and widened the split between the party’s Clinton and Bernie Sanders factions.

“It is not unthinkable that those responsible will steal and release more files, and even salt the files they release with plausible forgeries,” a bipartisan group of national security experts from the Aspen Institute said in a statement July 28.

More broadly, the spreading of false information by intelligence services “is a technique that goes back to Tsarist times,” said James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in an interview Wednesday. Past examples include the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus, as well as a 2014 incident in which hackers modified the reported vote totals for the Ukrainian presidential election — falsely showing a right-wing victory that Russian state television reported almost immediately.

Cyberspace offers Russia both increased opportunities for using faked information to sow chaos and improved chances of doing it convincingly.

“It has to look and feel real. The whole point is, you’re trying to alter reality,” said Kenneth Geers, a former staffer at NATO’s cyber defense center in Tallinn, Estonia, noting that Russian hackers study conversations on their targets’ network before attempting to forge their communications. Estonia is frequent target of suspected Russian digital assaults.
Click to expand...
 
Wikileaks refuses to to anything that isn't counterproductive. It's, like, their thang. They're counterprods.

Good money in that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom