"It's therefore possible to imagine links from Trump, to Cambridge Analytica, to Russia."
Yes, but it takes a strong imagination, or a whole lot of desperation.
Fugitive couch-surfer and angry leaker Julian Assange has made the explosive claim that Cambridge Analytica asked WikiLeaks for something before last year's US presidential election. I can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica [prior to November last year] and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks. — Julian …
"Yes, but it takes a strong imagination, or a whole lot of desperation."
never understimate the ability of "the left" in the USA to twist things via the willing accomplices in the "Lame-stream" media, and blow a "nothing" completely out of proportion [allegations of collusion with the Russians by Trump and his election committee] while *BLATANTLY* *IGNORING* the actual _CRIMES_ being done [with willing accomplices in the justice department, FBI, CIA, and white house at the time the crimes were committed] by Mrs. Clinton, and even the entire Democrat National Committee!
The entire "Russia, Russia, Russia" thing was apparently started by a dossier claiming that Trump hired hookers to pee on a bed in a Russian hotel. It was allegedly _SO_ scathing that Senator McCain had someone FLY to the UK to bring it back to the U.S.. And now, we know for CERTAIN that it was not only faked up [and the man's name is known, the guy that wrote it - I forget who it is though], but it was BOUGHT and PAID FOR by Mrs. Clinton and the Demo-Rat Party, _AND_ handed off to the FBI and the CIA and other intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies, who then treated it as if it were CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE. Currently, there's an investigation giong on to see whether or not they used this to justify SEARCH WARRANTS for "wire tapping", surveylance, searches, etc. basically violating the privacy and rights of innocent U.S. Citizens.
Putting all of this in perspective, a company hired by Trump's campaign apparently asked WikiLeaks for information that they'd already PUBLISHED. I have heard (on the radio) that the response from WIkiLeaks was that it was already published, and they should just "go and get it". Or something like that.
But WHAT! A! SCANDAL! THAT! MUST! BE! to ask for something that was ALREADY! PUBLISHED!!!
Because, it's Trump, and not Mrs. Clinton, a member of the "protected class" and a card-carrying leftist elitist.
"secret unicorn farms where horns are ground into chemical weapons that will see North Korea achieve world domination"
At last the truth is reported in the press, I've been saying this for years, the real bombshell is that the people grounding the horns are leprechauns from Iran.
Can we have a new monthly award? I'd like to call it the "Arsesange talking out of the Arse Award" to be given to the person or persons that make a useless statement or claim that can't be verified due to the limited details given on something relevant in the news to get attention.
Trump was exhorting his love for wikileaks throughout the campaign and begging them to release more emails. In addition, Roger Stone (a slimy GOP operative) was making contact with Assange to get Hillary's emails. Then it turns out Cambridge Analytica (another part of the Trump campaign) was making contacts with Assange for emails. And then we have stories like Matt Tait who was asked by another GOP operative to hack Hillary's emails. Then we have Trump Jr meeting Russians about Hillary's emails.
It's almost like there is a conspiracy here or something. Let's be clear too - opposition research is a normal thing in US politics and legal. Conspiring with agents of foreign adversaries, and hacking is extremely illegal.
And on the day that this new Assange contact dropped, Russia, Breitbart and a bunch of media outlets start screaming in unison about who funded the dossier. Almost like it was coordinated or something. The troll farms in Russia must be working over time to combat every revelation. It's starting to all sound a bit desperate.
Wikileaks was in the middle of a lot of this, and Assange undoubtedly knows more than he's said so far. He's probably dangling this juicy but hardly surprising tidbit hoping to get some pressure applied from the White House to get him off couch arrest, with the implied threat he might place a call to Robert Mueller if he doesn't get what he wants.
> "...hacking is extremely illegal."
So what? Potesta's emails were taken by a Democrat insider because Bernie was shafted by the DNC and that insider was gunned down a week later. Hillary's illegally held emails were evidence of a felony in progress. That's why she tried to destroy them (illegally), claiming they were all about yoga lessons and the like, all 30,000 of them. Then there were some that made it onto Weiner's laptop, incredibly.
The Democrats kept insisting that the Russians were behind all this somehow, so on the off-chance they were actually correct, a few GOP operatives sought to acquire copies of those damning emails to put her in her political grave as she deserved. No crime there.
The Democrats are crashing and burning at long last, and you keep projecting their crimes onto the GOP with the same tired old innuendo. The fact is that pretty soon we may be seeing some high-level Dems in the dock. I expect them to start turning on each other in exchange for plea bargains. It's generally what happens when a crime syndicate gets dismantled.
"Potesta's emails were taken by a Democrat insider because Bernie was shafted by the DNC and that insider was gunned down a week later."
Proof or stfu. FBI couldn't find it, nor anyone else. Be the hero we need BJ. If it's true it will change the USA forever and you will go down in history and be filthy rich.
> "If it's true it will change the USA forever..."
So if I could wave a wand and acquire proof that the Dems offed the squealer, the Left would come to their senses at last and join the Republican Party in a big drum circle? Would we even want that?
Hmmm, perhaps it would be better to allow those few to retain faith without evidence, as an object lesson to others...
What's not funny is you have it all backwards and inside out.
The GOP was upset at WikiLeaks because of Snowden and wanted it shut down. Whereas the DNC was supportive of WikiLeaks because of this and because of course, they have to take an opposite stand.
Then Hillary decided she was above the law and nobody will ever see her in a bad light.
Suddenly, her email server was found, the DNC site hacked and documents hit the Internet.
Then the GOP loved WikiLeaks and the DNC hated WikiLeaks.
Typical politicians no matter which party or what side.
"nobody will ever see her in a bad light"
We must read different newspapers or something because as far as I've seen she's been getting hammered in the right wing US press since her hubby was elected, twenty something years ago, but then maybe you missed that whole Bengahzi thing, did it not make the news in the US?
The former Ambassador Craig Murray has said that he met the leaker in the US and this person was not Russian and was a DNC staffer. He has of course declined to identify this person for obvious reasons.
Two things are being elided here:
1. Supposed Russian elements did attempt to hack the DNC but did NOT get the emails.
2. The emails were Leaked from within the DNC.
I'm not sure I'd believe Craig Murray if he told me what day it is. But just a vague suggestion with no further info doesn't really tell us much worth listening to.
And what are the obvious reasons? If it's important that we know how these emails came out, then it's important that we get that information. Anything else is just unverifiable teasing.
I do not understand it.
His org, Wikileaks, has been a game-changer and – on balance – a force for good. Who knows how many heinous government and corporate acts from around the world would not have come to light were it not for Wikileaks. Sure, they have an agenda. Sure, they could have handled some of the leaks better. But at a time when proper news outlets have been extremely derelict in their investigative duties we ought to be thankful that Wikileaks has cast a light on some seriously murky goings on.
But no. Every time round here we get the same chorus of comments about deficiencies of character or character vices. Because as we all know that is _ever_ so relevant and not at _all_ logical fallacy 101.
For future articles that mention Assange take it as read that we know you don't like Assange. And try to comment about the substance of the article and not on whatever ideological fairground attraction you're riding on today.
Why the Assange hate on El Reg?
Because Assange defines what Wikileaks does, how it acts and what (absence of) ethics it applies to what it does.
Thus, a concept that may have had some merit even though it was only ever invented to legitimise Assange's hacking activities by means of an apparent gloss of public service was subverted by bias, dodgy dealings, a need for publicity that goes well beyond desperate and an attitude to personal relations that appears to be shared between its glorious leader and the orange blob in the White House.
The difference is that the orange one is a sexual predator roaming between places he mostly owns but for which he still docks the tax payer, whereas the other one is a sexual predator that is hiding in an embassy by abusing the asylum system, waiting for time limits on his activities to expire so he can claim there was nothing to it, he just hid there because everyone was so unfair to him.
The short version is that the Assange hate is well deserved. We spend our lives listening to BS and delivering regardless, so let's just say that we recognise it when we hear it. Logic is a very useful tool.
I think that about covers it, I'm sure others will add what I missed.
“I’m The Leader of the Gang (I am)” is a magnificent song, chant, anthem.
Doesn’t stop Gary Glitter being a completely obnoxious evil cunt.
Don’t cross the general good points of Wikileaks with the behaviour of Assange, one good deed does not make you a Saint.
“I’m The Leader of the Gang (I am)” is a magnificent song, chant, anthem.
I always thought that was "I'm Henry the Eighth, I am" brought to us by Herman's Hermits as part of the British Invasion of the 60's. (With "Henry" pronounced more like "enery" in whatever local dialect that was...)
A force for good? Really? So their actions during the presidential election were not biased in any way? There was only dirt on Clinton, so they leaked that and if there had been dirt on Trump, they'd have leaked that too?
Wikeleaks wasn't used as a handy tool to influence the election?
Wikileaks love to leak classified and juicy information, they normally divulge every and all details, but in this case there's only Assange hinting to some communication that happened, but refuses to provide details.
Come on, that's a load of bollocks.
> A force for good? Really? So their actions during the presidential election were not biased in any way? There was only dirt on Clinton, so they leaked that and if there had been dirt on Trump, they'd have leaked that too?
I said _on balance_. There have been many many leaks. But you choose just one. So what?
> Wikeleaks wasn't used as a handy tool to influence the election?
One data point out of hundreds if not thousands. So what?
Yes, really really.
> Wikileaks love to leak classified and juicy information, they normally divulge every and all details, but in this case there's only Assange hinting to some communication that happened, but refuses to provide details.
> Come on, that's a load of bollocks.
Right back at you.
Why the dislike of Assange I wonder? Hmmm. The running away and hiding from rape allegations really doesn't help you know...
His erratic love-hate relationship with the press makes a pretty bad impression too. One month he's working with the Guardian, then denouncing them as traitors.
Perhaps the fact that they got a leak of footage of a US helicopter operating over Bagdad and released it as "Collaterol Murder" while editing out the bits of the vid showing the people who were "murdered" were in fact armed? That one's not totally black-and-white as they eventually also released the whole footage, but it doesn't make them look like impartial revealers of truth to me.
So when Assange got hold of Clinton's emails and leaked them a few at a time during months of the campaign - rather than just putting them all out there at once - that looked like trying to milk the headlines to keep the story live for as long as possible. At best because he's an attention whore seeking headlines, at worst because he was a Trump partisan, or even a Russian agent.
Oh and what heinous government acts have they revealed? The Afghan war-logs revealed nothing that wasn't already known about that war. Other than the names and GPS co-ordinates of locals who'd given info to NATO troops. Some of them were just revealing where the Taleban had planted minefields. Assange apparently had no care for their safety.
The diplomatic cables revealed that diplomats don't always tell the whole truth, do deals in private and gossip a lot. If you're shocked by that, I suggest you grow up. They're at least politically and historically very interesting, so you can justify publication despite the risk of doing harm. The war-logs not so much.
My question would be, "why do Assange's supporters still support him, despite all the things he's done?"
Wikileaks may have started with a noble goal, but it is far from noble now, and its founder even less so. Sort of like the difference between Google in the early "do no evil" days versus today.
Even if you believe that Wikileaks had no partisan goals in last year's election, you must accept they willingly allowed themselves to be totally manipulated for partisan aims as far as the timing of and dribbling out of leaks. Every time there was some major bad news about Trump, another batch of leaks came out. Kind of convenient!
It is really not surprising if you consider Assange's viewpoint. Clinton had publicly called for him and Wikileaks to be prosecuted for their role in leaking the state department cables which happened under her watch in 2010. He has said from the start that the US government had engineered the Swedish rape charges as a way of bringing him to the US to stand trial and taking refuge in the embassy was the only way out for him. None of us have a clue if that's true or not, but he believed it, and if it happened the Secretary of State or her underlings would probably have been involved in the negotiation of such a strategy. Easy to see why he wouldn't have wanted her as president, and Trump became "the enemy of my enemy" for him when he got the nomination.
> "Wikileaks may have started with a noble goal, but it is far from noble now..."
Because Wikileaks went against the crime queen, who happened to be the Left's approved candidate, and one just doesn't DO that sort of thing!
I'm quite sure that if there had been large piles of damning crime evidence laying around at the RNC as well, that Wikileaks would have been all over that too. But you can't glom data that doesn't exist, so they were left with just the Democrats to expose. I'm guessing that those who run Wikileaks are probably left-leaning, so the fact that they didn't bury Hillary's crimes (as the rest of the left did) is commendable.
US intelligence agencies believe that leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) made their way to WikiLeaks through Russian sources.
You know, I find it funny that people would take Assange's word that he had been approached by Cambridge Analytica but not take his word that he did not receive those emails from Russian sources.
Cherry picking much?
Anyway, I suspect those emails were actually leaked by Imran Awan. Which, now that I think about it, I find very interesting that there isn't a story about him on this site.
This article exemplifies the problem with the Trump-Russia assertions. A political research firm that had Trump among others as a customer seeks information that WikiLeaks chooses not to say what it was. But, Trump was undoubtedly the intended recipient of this unspecified information. Information is obtained at 3 a.m. at bars but it bears a great deal of substantiation. Quality information neither is.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019