back to article WikiLeaks is wiki-leaked. And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway

Julian Assange's WikiLeaks – that bastion of fiercely independent journalism – privately urged the Trump campaign to not concede the 2016 presidential election, to contest the result as rigged, and asked for one of Donald's tax returns so as to appear impartial and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's meddling in the White …

  1. John Gamble
    Big Brother

    "Just a reminder: none of this is normal. ®"

    Welcome to the new normal. At least until impeachment.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      I guess we need a definition of "normal"... I'm not sure "normal" applies. "Bizarre" maybe does but then lately nothing in politics is surprising as the smoke and mirrors just makes things murkier.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you think that admitting to it will become normal I am afraid you have more optimism than me.

    3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      At least until impeachment.

      The problem with impeachment is that then leaves Mike Pence in charge and he's far more scary than Trump.

  2. Winkypop Silver badge
    FAIL

    Shower of shites!

    If WikiLeaks had any remaining credibility....WHOOSH.....it's completely gone now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shower of shites!

      Good for you. Now you can ignore those Podesta emails laying the whole DNC fix for Hillary. Never happened, right? Even tho they were never contested...?

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: Shower of shites!

        Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" The DNC fix for Hillary is a bad thing and maybe there were some criminal acts (since parties are not part of the government that isn't clear to me) but it pales in comparison to the collusion by Don Jr. and his merry band of treasonists.

        I'm sure this will be eventually shown to have been ordered directly by the orange snowflake himself. Hopefully we'll be treated to an impeachment hearing around this time next year.

        1. DainB Bronze badge

          Re: Shower of shites!

          " Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion "

          For those not familiar with Progressive's vocabulary "evidence" in their language means "But he's literally Hitler, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

          By the way, if you understood Russian a bit you'd know that all Kremlin state media were 100% rooting for Hillary during last campaign.

          1. Potemkine! Silver badge

            Re: Shower of shites!

            By the way, if you understood Russian a bit you'd know that all Kremlin state media were 100% rooting for Hillary during last campaign.

            ROTFL!

            I guess you speak Russian fluently, don't you? As a native language maybe?

          2. netminder

            Re: Shower of shites!

            "By the way, if you understood Russian a bit you'd know that all Kremlin state media were 100% rooting for Hillary during last campaign."

            That is some nuclear grade bullshit right there. You are either really stupid or hoping everyone else is

        2. Mongrel

          Re: Shower of shites!

          "Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" "

          From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

          Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda

          1. elip

            Re: Shower of shites!

            Yes all that, but whatabout-the-evidence? We keep hearing about this mountain of evidence that the *intelligence* services have, but all we've seen is a list of public internet proxies, as attribution to any hacks. They're going to have to do better.

          2. Richocet Bronze badge

            Re: Shower of shites!

            Re: Shower of shites!

            "Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" "

            This is not Whataboutism because no one is being accused of hipocrisy.

            The accusation is that the subject is being changed - which is a red herring argument.

            At the risk of creating an misleading analogy, that logic of fairness is not applied to most areas of life:

            Why aren't organised criminals and ordinary citizens both investigated by the police?

            Why don't all employees get the same bonus irrespective of how good they are at their jobs?

            Why don't conspiracy theorists and qualified experts get the same amount of airtime?

            Because equal treatment and fair treatment are not the same.

      2. handleoclast

        Re: Shower of shites!

        @Big John

        You have just committed a tu quoque fallacy (and no, it's not Latin for "you cuck").

        If there are grounds for investigating Hillary/Podesta/etc (I'm not convinced there are) then go for it. And if any of them have broken the law, throw the book at them. I don't want corrupt politicians of any flavour because they only encourage other politicians of both sides to do the same.

        But going after Hillary (if there are grounds to do so, and I'm still not convinced of that) is no fucking excuse for ignoring Trump's behaviour. That's the tu quoque fallacy.: saying "Hillary did something bad so ignore the fact Trump did something bad." Go after both of the fuckers.

        Your response to that is predictable: "But they're ignoring Hillary." The Congressional investigations didn't ignore her (they just couldn't prove anything). Republican congresscritters are now asking the justice department to go after her with a special prosecutor, and I'm fine with that. But she's not that important because Hillary is not the fucking president. Hillary cannot launch nuclear missiles. Hillary cannot crash the economy. Hillary can, but doesn't, make the US a laughingstock around the world. Deal with Trump first because Hillary can wait. Go after both of them, but Trump first because he can do more damage (and is doing so).

        Answer me something honestly, John. Assume that Hillary won the election. Oh, wait, she did. So assume she won the electoral college. If Hillary had been accused (without evidence) of even a fraction of what Trump has done (and for which there is evidence) would you have ignored it (as you're ignoring the Trump evidence) or would you have gone apeshit?

        I'm left-wing but I want Hillary prosecuted if she has done wrong. I'm left-wing but I really want to see Tony Blair on war crimes charges. Can you honestly say you're just as impartial, or are you merely exhibiting the blind tribalism common to most of Trump's base? It's an easy question to answer, if you're honest about it: swap Hillary for Donald and say if you'd be defending her as you are Trump or going totally apeshit.

        1. Dr Paul Taylor

          Tu quoque

          On a point of information, the tu quoque (you too) defence was found to be valid at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and got Doenitz off: see here.

          That does not deflect from my view that, despite my one-time sympathy for him, it's time Assange faced his Swedish trial for alleged attempted rape and before that his British one for jumping bail. I don't think I need to say what I think of the Orange Snowflake.

          1. Tom Samplonius

            Re: Tu quoque

            "On a point of information, the tu quoque (you too) defence was found to be valid at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and got Doenitz off: see here."

            Going to to jail for 10 years doesn't count as "get(ting) off". And I don't see any evidence that Doenitz successfully used the "tu quoque" defense either. The actual factor in his defense was that the civilian merchant marine ships were typically armed, and therefore legitimate military targets.

            Though, saying someone used successfully used a tu quoque defense at Nuremberg is basically a tu quoque defense: The US justice system in 2017 is not influenced by what happened in Nuremberg in in 1945. Nuremberg was an international tribunal, so it can't even be cited as jurisprudence in the US.

      3. netminder

        Re: Shower of shites!

        Given that Wiki edited the emails before release you may want to recalibrate your concern. Then there is the whole issue of Wiki getting all its leaks and directions from Russian sources, if you are more concerned about the workings of the DNC than the machinations of Putin and his oligarchs you are part of the problem. Re4member, it could just as easily be your boy Trump they decide to torpedo next time comrade

      4. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Shower of shites!

        Good for you. Now you can ignore those Podesta emails laying the whole DNC fix for Hillary. Never happened, right? Even tho they were never contested...?

        Typical reaction of those brainwashed by right wing propaganda. As soon as someone criticises someone on the right, you immediately assume that they are a brainwashed drone who mindlessly thinks the left does no wrong.

        It's to be expected, seeing as that's how the Fox manipulated zombies operate, but what you don't realise is that most people with 'left-leaning' views actually apply critical thinking, and don't blindly worship "their side" like brainless sheep.

    2. macjules Silver badge

      Re: Shower of shites!

      "Julian Assange's WikiLeaks"

      Shome mistake shorley? Don't you mean "Ambasssador Julian Assange's WikiLeaks"

      I gather that "Imperial Ambassador to the High Court of Emperor Trump" has already been taken by the Russians.

  3. frank ly

    Private Twitter messages

    Don't they realise that if you're doing this sort of thing then you need to use burner phones or have face to face meetings in unobserved places?

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Angel

      Re: Private Twitter messages

      You mean people can see Twitter messages?? SAD.

    2. macjules Silver badge

      Re: Private Twitter messages

      Bit difficult when you have to go past the nice policeman outside the embassy, ring the door bell and explain to the receptionist that you have come to visit Mr Assange, and no you do not want a brochure detailing Ecuador’s finest exports.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Private Twitter messages

        Then you use a go-between. Someone who doesn't look out of place visiting an embassy eg a businessman (of Greek extraction) or a typical City type (like a former metals trader)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway"

    That's OK

    Trump's not even a proper POTUS anyway.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: "And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway"

      The scary thing is that Trump is a proper POTUS, nuclear button and all.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway"

        The nuclear button is a myth.

        1. lglethal Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: "And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway"

          "The nuclear button is a myth."

          Exactly. There is no such thing as the Nuclear Button. A Button would be utterly ridiculous to control the nuclear arsenal. It's just unthinkable. Totally doesnt make any sense. It's actually a Switch!

          1. macjules Silver badge

            Re: "And it's still not even a proper wiki anyway"

            He can't operate a switch. The nuclear 'button' is actually a series of preset Tweets. We only know that the first one is Covfefe.

  5. Michael Thibault

    "none of this is normal"

    You can get used to anything. That's the idea behind boiling the frog.

    Now, however, it seems the frog is aware. And is none too happy...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      %$%$#

      RIBBIT !!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The problem is, even if the frog is aware, the whole boiling plan still works. This is becoming the new normal. And the even bigger problem is, nobody seems to have any idea on how to jump out of the pot. The current political climate rewards acting like a lunatic. That's what needs to change, not any specific politician.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Transparence

    Since Wikileaks is all about transparency it is good that they are doing it to themselves.

    But it simply sounds as though Julian was thinking about PR. Good for him.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

    "Private Twitter messages obtained by The Atlantic detail how WikiLeaks interacted with the president's son, Donald Trump Jr"

    The words private and twitter don't go together in the same sentence. The leaks came from either Twitter or Congress but not Wikileaks. It's more likely that, rather than having anything to do with "Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign", the Washington intelligence establishment already had Donald Jrs Twitter msgs, which prompted the congressional investigation. The same intelligence establishment that concocted the 'golden shower' memo also found evidence of Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

    The truth is more likely that Assange leaked the Hillary emails in retaliation for her instigating an arrest warrant against Assange on false allegations of rape in Sweden. There seems to be two factions of the deep state at work here. One supporting Clinton and one supporting Drumpf, both leaking and making specious allegations against the other side. A defacto palace coup being acted out in public and apparently with the willful co-operating of the US Media.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

      Second item is a fair point. But loses marks for use of "deep state"

      1. elip

        Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

        Why anonymous? Obama himself reassured voters of the "US's Deep State" in multiple speeches.

        1. lglethal Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

          I call bollocks. Provide links or your just talking out your a$$.

          1. elip

            Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apFmKz7al0Y

    2. lglethal Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

      OK i have to react to this - you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton somehow managed to convince two women to make separate rape accusations against Assange? I assume that's what your implying. Assange has never denied that he had sex with the women. That's never been in dispute. Is your implication that the Police wouldnt have investigated rape allegations without international pressure? If that's the case, I hate to think which Country you live in. Police normally strongly investigate rape claims. And if a suspect flees a Country rather then talking to investigators that usually looks very suspicious and yes an international Arrest Warrant will normally be issued. All looks pretty normal so far to me.

      Maybe, it was the Arrest in the UK that your talking about? Well it is kinda normal that if a friendly Country (and Sweden is a friend of the UK) has an Arrest Warrant out, then the UK Police will act on that. Obviously that international pressure you talked about didnt work very well, because he was actually granted bail. That seems to go against the Party line doesnt it? I mean if all that pressure was being applied, he never would have been allowed to walk out of jail would he?

      And then he ran away to the Ecudarian Embassy. Maybe the UK wanting to arrest him when he leaves that is what your talking about? But then someone who is on bail and flees the Country is commiting a crime and that is something that normally the Police do go after. I mean that doesnt normally require international pressure. If you're on bail, you're given certain rules - not leaving the Country is usually pretty prominent on that list. You break those rules and the Police will attempt to arrest you and send you to prison for a time.

      I really cant see any conspiracy here. He was accused of rape. The Police were investigating and he fled the country. The Police issued an Arrest Warrant (as you would when a suspect flees the Country rather than be questioned). He's arrested in the UK. Released on Bail. Flees to the Ecudaorian embassy. And now the UK Police want him for breaking bail conditions. Where are you seeing a conspiracy?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

        I love the almost instant downvote on your perfect shredding, Iglethal. Wear it with pride!

        Honestly, do these people expect ElReg commentards to take anything and everything they type at face value, without questioning it? The mind boggles.

        1. Teknogrot

          Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

          That's how they process new information, why would anyone else be different?

    3. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

      Don't forget that he ran from Sweden to the UK apparently because he was worried about being extradited to the US.

      Which is about as sensible a plan as running from Norway to China when you're worried about being extradited to Russia.

      Also, why's Clinton getting the blame for this alleged conspiracy against poor widdle Julian? Wasn't Obama president then?

    4. netminder

      Re: Leaked leaks did not come from WikiLeaks

      Whats the weather like in Kiev these days, comrade?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What I want to know is whose itchy arse itched enough for them to produce the cover first?

  9. Sssss

    I'm confused. I've got a headache. But, is Assange running Wikileaks, or is somebody going freelance there? What about journalistic investigations into fake news, Russian meddling into the American election, half the speeches? Ambassador? How embarrassing, I hope he wasn't one of my students.

    This stuff doesn't help the cause of his cause.

    1. Anonymous Coward
  10. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "Just a reminder: none of this is normal."

    Not even in Norfolk?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No. We don't have of that shit in Norfolk either.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The native Iceni would never have voted in Trump. To get their support you need to be both Norfolk and good.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Iceni would never have voted in Trump. To get their support you need to be both Norfolk and good.

          And having scythes on your chariot wheels helps..

          (Yes, yes, I know that's a myth - you'd probably rip the axle off the chariot doing something like that..)

  11. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Leakedleaks.

    It's good to see that Mr. Assange has to drink the potion he prepared.

    Asking to be named as ambassador? What a bastard! He's not only a russian tool, he does not forget to work for himself and get something in return... I guess that thirty pieces of silver were not enough.

    1. Sssss

      Re: Leakedleaks.

      The language actually spoke about Assange in the third person, so that is why I asked if somebody was going rouge there. My headache has cleared up, but I'm not going back over the article to understand who write what. I understand he is in bad health, which tends to make you go off your game, but seriously, this is bad stuff for him.

      I may fully agree with his concerns as to his deportation and the secret US Court hearings concerning Wikileaks etc. I may agree that what he is accused of and what has been withdrawn is a voluntary greyish moral area, and something the reporting of had a bit of a contorted path (though if Hillary was involved in getting them to turn up together and pursue this, I don't know). I also agree a limited amount with his view to expose bad corruption innthe past. But with Snowdon stuck in Russia and him in the Peruvian embassy, having a Russian hand up your ass, and most Russians, and really bad country's people's, too frightened to leak, is pretty awkward. The US, however, is leading the way in leak related democratic reforms, or has a chance to, inorder to show those other countries how it is done.

    2. netminder

      Re: Leakedleaks.

      I'd love to know what Putin has on Assange.

      1. CRConrad

        Re: "What Putin has on Assange"

        Rape tape?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Twitter DM

    Some folks don't seem to know that Twitter has a Direct Messaging facility as well as a public one.

    But when you have caused the deaths of many incredibly brave people whose passion is freedom, simply because you disagree with their politics and couldn't be arsed to redact their names, and shrugged it off as "collateral damage", helping the Russians meddle in US elections must be child's play.

    Power corrupts. Assange has power. Go figure.

    Where is his next power play going to fall?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: next power play

      Perhaps he'd like to be appointed Russian ambassador to Ecuador?

    2. Sssss

      Re: Twitter DM

      That story. Did Assange dump the files interacted first, or was it the newspaper that did it?

      Was any direct deaths shown?

      I however, have a completely different view on how to handle these issues to Assange, more collaborative, more Obama like.

      1. Sssss

        Re: Twitter DM

        "unredacted" that is.

        Whatever happened to the feature where you annexure in the first 10 minutes, it's gone?

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Twitter DM

      "Some folks don't seem to know that Twitter has a Direct Messaging facility as well as a public one."

      <raises hand> I didn't! Actually I came here to ask what a DM was. It got two or three mentions in the article and not once was DM defined. Considering the nature of the readership, I hear you cry, surely all readers know everything about the entirety of the IT world? But wait, there's more. It seems most commentards disdain "social media" so an explanation might actually be required :-)

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Conspiracy theories

    The clue is in the first syllable.

  14. anothercynic Silver badge

    "Independent journalism"?

    Sorry, once you get involved in politics or you *are* the story, you are no longer independent.

  15. Daedalus Silver badge

    Unintended consequences

    I'm sure the Ecuadorians never intended their embassy to be used as a platform for politicking. Or if they did, I'm sure that's kinda outside the parameters of the typical embassy.

    In other words, Jools may be out on his ear shortly.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020