Wikileaks was in the tank for Trump

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

As tweeted by Don Jr himself. Not the brightest of bulbs, that one.

image

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

It's not surprising. Wikileaks is a shadow of what it was supposed to be.

It's important to understand two things. The first is that Julian Assange is, essentially, all of Wikileaks. He controls the entire thing, exercising absolute - and ironically opaque - editorial discretion over what gets leaked and when. The second is that Julian Assange has been under de facto house arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for five years. For five years, his only connection to the outside world has been through the Internet and the occasional visitor, while a banking blockade strangled Wikileak's finances. Julian Assange has essentially gone stir-crazy; over the past five years, he's steadily let his paranoia overtake his principles, and the impartiality of Wikileaks has evaporated as a result.

Assange sees himself as persecuted, a victim of Hillary Clinton's hawkish foreign policy. However accurate that believe may be, his response was essentially to throw himself on the anti-Clinton bandwagon with no qualms or reservations about his fellow passengers. So he co-operated with Putin, advising Edward Snowden to seek asylum in Russia and airing a short-lived news show on RT. Hypocritically, he began criticising fellow leakers when their leaks implicated Putin. And it all culminated in 2016 when Wikileaks started laundering Russian intelligence for the purposes of influencing a US presidential election. And the consequence of that particular Faustian bargain was...President Donald Trump. Whatever Assange's stated opinions of both candidates, these new leaks confirm that he very clearly chose a side, and now the rest of the world is enduring the consequences.

I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

Unsurprising, but given the last administration pushed to extradite key members for something that isn't a crime where they were, and wouldsn't be a crime if they were a citizen of the country pushing for extradition, do you really blame Wikileaks for throping shade anyway they can?

Ethically compromising, but no less so that other politically aligned journalist entities courting the current dual-party upset.

To put it bluntly, Trump is basically the one politician that the GOP pays lip service to. Once Trump is gone, regardless of GOP or Blue, both will push for extradition.

If you're going to go down in flames, might as well make it a bonfire.

bastardofmelbourne:

I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

I get the anger, but I don't get the morality part. Surely you don't expect people to be martyrs? I was a soldier in the ADF and I can tell you now, if the ADF didn't pay me well enough I'd consider working for whoever would. Assange is the predictable result of putting people on a pedastal and expecting the spotlight not to reveal the blemishes of the human character.

And it's not as if he was some upstanding, perfect character before.

If the last U.S. administration wanted to see me in handcuffs for essentially the crime of not being a big enough newspaper that can get away publishing mostly the same materials I published ... I would probably go political terrorist (or just fugitive) as well, and take my chances with what the world has taught me.

I'd be fucking gone and disappear somewhere in Indonesia. Probably Aceh province in Sumatra where you won't find me again. Sure, the noble thing would be surrendering myself to authorities, the noble thing might be advertising the sheer injustice of it. But then again, fuck anybody that wants me to suffer arbitrarily in a U.S. prison for the sake of some political argument. I'd rather disappear with what money I can take and be a fishing trawler operator in disguise within some little coastal town for the rest of my life.

How exactly did people expect this to go down when we're not talking about saints here, but two-bit charismatic hackers?

I know I, personally, would use whatever political leverage I had. Downright bribe whatever Indonesian police and Aceh officials/militia I need to to escape U.S. or Australian detection once I'm past the border.

Which is arguably worse than simply throwing your lot in with an (arguably) elected president. I mean bribing cops and officials of a Third World country to escape U.S. extradition, or being a political spin rep of a joke of a president? Kind of no contest. As awful as Trump is, still no contest in terms of 'dirtiness'.

Of course my actions aren't nearly as awful unless you put me up on a pedastal and start digging through the dirt. We've all got muddy fingers ... it just looks bad when someone shows the public at large how many pies you stuck them into.

This really casts doubt WikiLeaks ever wanted a better, fairer world. You cant want one AND actively help Trumps rise to power.

Its likely Assange just wanted revenge on the US and so conspired to place a freak in the white house who would heavily damage it.

You know, there was a time when I looked up to Julian Assange. Granted, I was a moronic libertarian dumbass back then who believed western society was too enlightened to believe in propaganda and that our future would be bright but even back then I should have known better. It's such a sadness how people who should represent impartial journalism and report truth for truths sake become willing accomplices of a totitarian cabal of modern day aristocrats.

I never liked Julian Assange. Guess my instincts werent wrong.

PsychedelicDiamond:
You know, there was a time when I looked up to Julian Assange.

I did have a certain amount of time for Wikileaks, as it had a sort of admirable intent about it. I think also its treatment was in ways perhaps heavy-handed. Mind you, it was a concern to me that it would end up undermining the West rather more than the West's far less transparent geopolitical enemies, and end up counterproductive. So it has ended out, I guess, although I never expected back then that would be because its controller would end up a de facto, willing accomplice of the West's enemies.

Well that's one lingering doubt finally dealt with. I assume Donnie Jr's intent was to...weaken the suspicion over the Russia meetings? These people should have their own sitcom, not presidential power. It would be like House of Cards, except after everyone's finished huffing lighter gas and sweeping sexual harassment under rugs of money.

What is Snowden up to these days? Is he separate from Wikileaks? And what's going on with anonymous lately? All has been somewhat quiet on both ends, unless i'm coincidentally missing all their activities. Seems a lot of leaks in recent times have been from independent sources.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I'd be fucking gone and disappear somewhere in Indonesia. Probably Aceh province in Sumatra where you won't find me again.

That's probably the first place they'll look now.

Xsjadoblayde:
And what's going on with anonymous lately?

They were cannibalised by the alt-right.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I get the anger, but I don't get the morality part. Surely you don't expect people to be martyrs? I was a soldier in the ADF and I can tell you now, if the ADF didn't pay me well enough I'd consider working for whoever would. Assange is the predictable result of putting people on a pedastal and expecting the spotlight not to reveal the blemishes of the human character.

I expect anyone who voluntarily claims to be motivated by concerns of principle over concerns of pragmatism to value those principles well enough not to throw them away in support of...this.

Baffle2:

That's probably the first place they'll look now.

And that's why I'll be in Borneo...

Not to distract from the issue at hand, namely that WikiLeaks is (no longer) a neutral force for transparency, but I do find it a little ironic that The Atlantic and co(and without checking I see in my crystal ball that other big news websites are covering this with glee) is so eager to break this leak when the mainstream media declined to break other, bigger leaks when approached by whistleblowers, thus making Wikileaks the behemoth it is nowadays. You didn't do the job you desperately wanted and left it to someone like Assange - what did you think was going to happen?

Anyway, I think whats needed now is that everyone just approaches Wikileaks with caution - as long as the information they release isn't edited, they are still very valuable.

bastardofmelbourne:

I expect anyone who voluntarily claims to be motivated by concerns of principle over concerns of pragmatism to value those principles well enough not to throw them away in support of...this.

Fair dos, and I've done my fair share of championing the needs of others. But only because my own weren't sufficiently challenged at the time. I'm of the slightly different bent that you really can't trust anybody, and anything a person says or does, when you push them to the point of having so few ideas of their security or remove them of any capacity an idea of their fate.

You tell a person they're going to die, many preople deal with that quite well so long as you give them a reasonably certain time period that's at least fairly concise. There is only, truly, one thing that stops all of us from going utterly mad from life I've found. That is the idea that 99.999% chance you'll go to bed and wake up in the same place. Uninjured, unmoved, the capacity to know you can be rested.

You threaten someone without even that barest idea of consistency, it will drive anyone to chronic unreliability and desperation. I know that well enough, I've been there on the streets. Nothing I did on the streets could be remotely considered 'proud' or 'upstanding'. Nothing they say should be taken as true, or even accurate as to their desires. They're living in an insane world and if that goes on long enough, it takes far too much faith to assume they much less know what they're talking about, much less you being able to actually share a meaningful definition of what one might consider 'common virtues'.

You can't be utterly insane (living it, or yourself being it) and moral. That's asking way too much of a person and it's way too much of a leap of faith that I would rather not take.

Of course that informs me of my concern that people shouldn't be placed in that situation in the first place.

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

He's ideologically an anarchist, he thrives on chaos, and the US establishment has shown itself extremely eager to have him arrested for his activism, perhaps even throw him in Guantanamo.

Why exactly wouldn't you expect him to try to stir up as much shit as possible when it looks like he has nowhere to go but down?

I'd also add that he always struck me as the kind of activist more motivated by a dislike for authority and a virulent antagonism for people at the top rather than one motivated by empathy for other people.

Sonmi:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

He's ideologically an anarchist, he thrives on chaos, and the US establishment has shown itself extremely eager to have him arrested for his activism, perhaps even throw him in Guantanamo.

Why exactly wouldn't you expect him to try to stir up as much shit as possible when it looks like he has nowhere to go but down?

I'd also add that he always struck me as the kind of activist more motivated by a dislike for authority and a virulent antagonism for people at the top rather than one motivated by empathy for other people.

Sounds like a shitty person.

Saelune:
Sounds like a shitty person.

A shitty person on a not-so-shitty crusade, yes.

EDIT: That being said, said crusade is mostly fought through childish and irresponsible measures though.

Sonmi:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

He's ideologically an anarchist, he thrives on chaos, and the US establishment has shown itself extremely eager to have him arrested for his activism, perhaps even throw him in Guantanamo.

Why exactly wouldn't you expect him to try to stir up as much shit as possible when it looks like he has nowhere to go but down?

I'd also add that he always struck me as the kind of activist more motivated by a dislike for authority and a virulent antagonism for people at the top rather than one motivated by empathy for other people.

In other words the kinds you should never expect to accomplish anything of value. His only goal is to see the world burn? Where I come from we don't call someone like that an activist, we call them a terrorist.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Sonmi:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, shit, Assange; if you were going to sell your soul, your principles, and your credibility, could you at least have chosen a more noble end goal than Donald fucking Trump?

He's ideologically an anarchist, he thrives on chaos, and the US establishment has shown itself extremely eager to have him arrested for his activism, perhaps even throw him in Guantanamo.

Why exactly wouldn't you expect him to try to stir up as much shit as possible when it looks like he has nowhere to go but down?

I'd also add that he always struck me as the kind of activist more motivated by a dislike for authority and a virulent antagonism for people at the top rather than one motivated by empathy for other people.

In other words the kinds you should never expect to accomplish anything of value. His only goal is to see the world burn? Where I come from we don't call someone like that an activist, we call them a terrorist.

More like he's a petulant child that was naively (but genuinely) fighting for something just, but now that he's thoroughly (and unjustly) fucked, he's throwing a tantrum and trying to inflict as much damage on the entity trying to take him down with no regard with who it's going to affect.

Calling him a "terrorist" for exposing the dark underbelly of American politics is pretty much regurgitating FOX News talking points, that's what the American right called him for releasing those videos of American troops murdering first responders and innocent civilians after all.

His goal is not as much "See the world burn" as it is "Taking down the oppressive Western hegemony at any cost". In practice, they're the same, but they have a different ideological basis.

EDIT: Also, to say that he never accomplished anything of value is being disingenuous. Many of the leaks genuinely exposed general corruption and immoral behaviour in American politics, which are in great need of transparency.

Wikileaks has gone from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Stupid.
Chaotic Stupid is the greatest threat to Democracy.
Chaotic Stupid is a growing trend in politics.
It takes the form of swing voters who arbitrarily switch sides every 8 years because they have no core beliefs, other than "I didn't like the job this party did, so I'll go in the complete opposite direction"
It comes in Primary voters on both sides of the aisle voting for the perceived outsider regardless of their experience or competence.
It comes from voters in the general voting for incompetent Nazi dogwhistles because "The system needs a shakeup."

Please, Wikileaks was always fucked up. They made their name from vast leaks of unfiltered data which ranged from the "put's people's lives in immediate danger" category to the "destroyed families by publishing the results of paternity tests" category, unapologetically and unashamedly.

Why are we suddenly supposed to be all shocked at their actions?

What does the 'wiki' in wikileaks stand for?

So is there any media source today that is not biased in some way and has actual ability to expose stuff?

Kwak:
What does the 'wiki' in wikileaks stand for?

That wikileaks uses a wiki-based (or used to use, been ages since I visited last) format for its' website. My personal reflection is that was probably also a way to become famous by association with Wikipedia, by appearing to be an off-shot to them.

Okay, what does the 'wiki' in wikipedia stand for?

Nevermind, looked it up.
A wiki (/ˈwɪki/ (About this sound listen) WIK-ee) is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser. In a typical wiki, text is written using a simplified markup language and often edited with the help of a rich-text editor.[1]

Always assumed it was a made-up nonsense word with no particular meaning.

So apparently the Atlantic purposefully ommited parts of Wikileaks' message. Specifically the part where it refers to "pro-Russia" and "pro-Trump"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f

Trump Jr. also backs this up, since he's posted the messages on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fmedia%2F529984315706a6c4b803cee5c158685f%3FpostId%3D65ecd7c2468f

Sonmi:
His goal is not as much "See the world burn" as it is "Taking down the oppressive Western hegemony at any cost".

I have known several people like this. They never seem to reflect on what realistically will follow. Sure, they all have an idea of what they want to happen with the fall of the West, but have no real proof it would happen that way, beyond their desire.

TheFinish:
So apparently the Atlantic purposefully ommited parts of Wikileaks' message. Specifically the part where it refers to "pro-Russia" and "pro-Trump"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f

Trump Jr. also backs this up, since he's posted the messages on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fmedia%2F529984315706a6c4b803cee5c158685f%3FpostId%3D65ecd7c2468f

I love how the anti-democrats have been hating Wikileaks ever since they started making it clear that they are in fact neutral and not the politically partisan organisation they thought it was, and because their corrupt candidate and party had its dirty laundry exposed they try to blame Wikileaks for it instead of blaming the only people who deserve it.

The religious left never ceases to amaze me. Though I pity the sane liberals due to the association.

Zontar:

TheFinish:
So apparently the Atlantic purposefully ommited parts of Wikileaks' message. Specifically the part where it refers to "pro-Russia" and "pro-Trump"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f

Trump Jr. also backs this up, since he's posted the messages on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fmedia%2F529984315706a6c4b803cee5c158685f%3FpostId%3D65ecd7c2468f

I love how the anti-democrats have been hating Wikileaks ever since they started making it clear that they are in fact neutral and not the politically partisan organisation they thought it was, and because their corrupt candidate and party had its dirty laundry exposed they try to blame Wikileaks for it instead of blaming the only people who deserve it.

The religious left never ceases to amaze me. Though I pity the sane liberals due to the association.

Stop making up terms.

altnameJag:
As tweeted by Don Jr himself. Not the brightest of bulbs, that one.

image

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

So... they're in the tank for Trump because they wanted leaks from Trump?

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:
As tweeted by Don Jr himself. Not the brightest of bulbs, that one.

image

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

So... they're in the tank for Trump because they wanted leaks from Trump?

"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality. That means that the vast amounts of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have a much higher impact..."

Wikileaks was offering to leak things that team Trump was thinking would probably get leaked anyway, and cause no extra damage, and be things 5eam trump knew about before hand, so that they could look more impartial, so they could hurt Clinton more.

That's not being on Team Trump? Offering to help sell their narrative?

altnameJag:
That's not being on Team Trump? Offering to help sell their narrative?

I'm pretty sure they try to sell anyone they ask for leaks on the benefits of leaking.

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:
That's not being on Team Trump? Offering to help sell their narrative?

I'm pretty sure they try to sell anyone they ask for leaks on the benefits of leaking.

Hmm, yes.

Now combine that by not actually leaking anything substantial about Trump ever.

altnameJag:

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:
That's not being on Team Trump? Offering to help sell their narrative?

I'm pretty sure they try to sell anyone they ask for leaks on the benefits of leaking.

Hmm, yes.

Now combine that by not actually leaking anything substantial about Trump ever.

Can only leak what you can get. And apparently Don Jr. wasn't sold on the utility of leaking tax returns to them.

altnameJag:

"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality. That means that the vast amounts of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have a much higher impact..."

Wikileaks was offering to leak things that team Trump was thinking would probably get leaked anyway, and cause no extra damage, and be things 5eam trump knew about before hand, so that they could look more impartial, so they could hurt Clinton more.

That's not being on Team Trump? Offering to help sell their narrative?

Full quote.
"because it won't be perceived as coming from a "pro-Trump" "pro-Russia" source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."
An appeal that may be considered dodgy, but given the context-establishing phrase which was inexplicably edited out of the communication can also be understood in a different light.
And the impact and implication of this contact has now been forever tarnished because they couldn't resist just twisting the truth a little.
Seriously, fuck modern journalism. Just report the basic facts, don't edit and cut to produce the angle you want the audience to experience. We can handle not having things in the blackest of blacks and whitest of whites you hack frauds.

Kwak:

Seriously, fuck modern journalism. Just report the basic facts, don't edit and cut to produce the angle you want the audience to experience. We can handle not having things in the blackest of blacks and whitest of whites you hack frauds.

You realize you say this about a story where the journalist is asking someone to intentionally "leak" something through them clandestinely so that they could bolster their reputation and have their actual leaks hit with more impact, right?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here