Does Wikileaks claim to be investigative? I thought they just published stuff that was leaked to them.
1 Like
They claim to be journalists when it suits them.
13 Likes
Hey Julian I’ll buy you a coffee at Pellegrini’s if its still there when you get back.
Alright, so if you assume for a second that he didn’t have any dirt on Trump, but did get a massive cache of dirt on the DNC. Would you want him to keep that dirt on the DNC a secret? In some sort of false sense of equality?
I’m glad we know how corrupt the DNC is. I’m also sad about it but I’d rather know it then be ignorant about it.
Trump or Assange?
There was no real dirt to be leaked on the DNC. If there was anything substantial, where are the convictions? No. Wikileaks was acting as an arm of “some” propaganda machine not as good faith whistleblowers.
4 Likes
Why did 4 people quit their job over it then? Something can be newsworthy, unethical, undemocratic and fully legal all at the same time.
From Wikipedia (I hope the “wiki” in the name of this organization doesn’t cause any problems):
The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership’s publicly stated neutrality,[6] as several DNC operatives seemed to deride Sanders’ campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton’s nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[7] The revelations prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[8] The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”[9] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[10]
I agree there is a lot around the timing of the leaks that is fishy. And Assanges motives may have been clouded by his (justified imo) grudge against Clinton.
But if you build a organization where your main motive is to bring more transparency into government, and have a mission to leak everything that is relevant while protecting the identity of the person that leaked it to you. Do you then have a choice in that framework other then to be abused by Putin?
The choice is not easy:
- Stick to your mission and your normal operating procedure and accept that you may be abused for political gain
- Delay the releasing of the data, thereby making a explicit political choice, trying to “help” Clinton.
- Not release the data at all, thereby making a even more political choice and going against your own mission statement.
If I had been in his shoes I may have chosen for option 2, but I actually respect him for sticking to his ideals and going for the difficult option. I also don’t think he could have anticipated the amount to which the “but her emails”-crowd have inflated the relevance of the leak.
1 Like
Should read: well-aligned with Putin and the GOP.
1 Like
I think we’re crossing paths here. I said REAL dirt. Anything that even remotely equals the level of corruption of 45 and his campaign staff. There wasn’t anything. What was released was outrageous, but not whistle blower worthy.
If Assange had dirt on Russia and 45 (which is implied by the allegation that 45 asked for a favor) then that story would have been far more whistle blower worthy than any unfairness the DNC perpetrated.
Adding: you can’t release “dirt” on one player and not the other (especially if you have it) and claim your unbiased.
1 Like
And nobody here can prove he had “dirt” on Trump or the GOP that he withheld. I find it very farfetched that he would hide any dirt he had on them. But if you are insisting we believe that based on nothing go right ahead, I just won’t join you.
The amount of dirt coming out through other means makes a dedicated muckraking organisation not turning any up seem a bit implausible too, though.
6 Likes
10 Likes
They are not that though. They are a muck accepting, verifying and re-sharing organization.
1 Like
Touché, but I think my point still stands once corrected for that inaccuracy.
1 Like
I find it much more far fetched that Wikileaks was the one “journalism” organization on Earth that didn’t get any dirt on either Trump or the GOP in the last four years.
I guess it must just be because Trump and his cronies have all been so squeaky-clean, right?
7 Likes
Assange explicitly stated at the time that he was trying to cause maximal damage to Clinton and her party, and that was reflected in the timing of the releases and the relentlessly hostile commentary on them. That makes the principle he was actually following was “Fuck Democrats!” and I see no cause to respect him for following it.
16 Likes
No, but for a guy that pretends to be a wholesale distributor of honesty about secrets, kind of funny that so much has come out to embarrass the US, and Clinton and the DNC, but not a peep comes out that would offend Putin. If the DNC funded a talk show, I would expect it to be biased. RT literally gave Assange his own show on their network and he still pretends that any suggestion he’s allied with Putin is McCarthyism.
8 Likes
I’ve actually heard Putin/Trump apologists insist that the Russia Today network isn’t biased toward Putin just because it happens to be an actual state-funded propaganda arm of the Russian government. The denial is strong with these people.
12 Likes
