7 ms·

It’s not just “Establishment Democrats”. He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government in publishing DNC emails but suppressing damaging information

It’s not just “Establishment Democrats”. He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government in publishing DNC emails but suppressing damaging information on Republicans.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Surely, as a non-American he could chose any side he felt like? Much like I can - randomly or otherwise - choose any faction in the Nigerian elections. Or is their some planet-wide law that he fell under?
- ben_w 5y ago
  He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it. Furthermore, as Assange isn’t an American citizen and doesn’t get to vote in the USA, none of them have no reason to put personal dislike aside and defend him or his actions. Hell, he might have been a lot better off now if he was a USA citizen, or even if he’d been officially working for Russia. Right now, he’s a conveniently unlicensed hot potato: held personally liable by the powers, not even really seen as a journalist even if he was one.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it. Indeed, hate away. But its a big jump to imprisoning (or as some would like killing) him. Just as - and focus here - its not ok to extradite atheists to Saudi Arabia for heresy committed in say New Zealand. Its after all just a wee election.
- abandonliberty 5y ago
  I don't understand your comment. Whether he should be pardoned or not is separate from him picking sides and making adversaries of the democrats. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions of others into account?
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > Whether he should be pardoned? How do you pardon a foreign citizen?
- techrat 5y ago
  'Choosing a side' is what ceased to allow him to claim he was an impartial leaker and/or journalist.
pydry 5y ago
>He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government Based upon the talking points at the time, establishment Democrats very much wanted this to be true. This makes sense since the Russians are a convenient scapegoat. >suppressing damaging information on Republicans. They wanted this to be true but it didnt happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_wikileaks_has_not_suppressed_any_trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_...
- elpin 5y ago
  "On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”". https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
  - pydry 5y ago
    This suggests they wanted Bernie to win. In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well, journalism.
    - elpin 5y ago
      It shows they wanted to prevent Hillary from building supporters to hurt her campaign and were explicitly strategizing how to achieve that end: "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters" They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of winning: "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting"
      - 5y ago
zionic 5y ago
This is false. A single republican’s personal laptop got hacked and a years-out-of-date outlook db was stolen. The DNC had their email server itself hacked, which is an entirely different level of compromise. Of course, they crafted a narrative that “republicans were hacked too!” which of course is true but highly misleading (typical of such propaganda campaigns). This was highly effective, as it’s still popping up in discussions like this one 5+ years later.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  There's also no evidence the hacked laptop's data was offered to Wikileaks.

It’s not just “Establishment Democrats”. He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government in publishing DNC emails but suppressing damaging information on Republicans.

throwaway210222 5y ago

Surely, as a non-American he could chose any side he felt like? Much like I can - randomly or otherwise - choose any faction in the Nigerian elections. Or is their some planet-wide law that he fell under?

ben_w 5y ago
He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it. Furthermore, as Assange isn’t an American citizen and doesn’t get to vote in the USA, none of them have no reason to put personal dislike aside and defend him or his actions. Hell, he might have been a lot better off now if he was a USA citizen, or even if he’d been officially working for Russia. Right now, he’s a conveniently unlicensed hot potato: held personally liable by the powers, not even really seen as a journalist even if he was one.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > He can side with whoever he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like him for it. Indeed, hate away. But its a big jump to imprisoning (or as some would like killing) him. Just as - and focus here - its not ok to extradite atheists to Saudi Arabia for heresy committed in say New Zealand. Its after all just a wee election.
abandonliberty 5y ago
I don't understand your comment. Whether he should be pardoned or not is separate from him picking sides and making adversaries of the democrats. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't take the actions of others into account?
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > Whether he should be pardoned? How do you pardon a foreign citizen?
techrat 5y ago
'Choosing a side' is what ceased to allow him to claim he was an impartial leaker and/or journalist.

pydry 5y ago

>He literally acted as a stooge for the Russian government Based upon the talking points at the time, establishment Democrats very much wanted this to be true. This makes sense since the Russians are a convenient scapegoat. >suppressing damaging information on Republicans. They wanted this to be true but it didnt happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_wikileaks_has_not_suppressed_any_trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5pmo25/debunked_...

elpin 5y ago
"On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”". https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
- pydry 5y ago
  This suggests they wanted Bernie to win. In any case, hitting up sources for leaks is, well, journalism.
  - elpin 5y ago
    It shows they wanted to prevent Hillary from building supporters to hurt her campaign and were explicitly strategizing how to achieve that end: "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters" They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of winning: "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting"
    - 5y ago

zionic 5y ago

This is false. A single republican’s personal laptop got hacked and a years-out-of-date outlook db was stolen. The DNC had their email server itself hacked, which is an entirely different level of compromise. Of course, they crafted a narrative that “republicans were hacked too!” which of course is true but highly misleading (typical of such propaganda campaigns). This was highly effective, as it’s still popping up in discussions like this one 5+ years later.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
There's also no evidence the hacked laptop's data was offered to Wikileaks.