32 votes

Here are the 285,000 Manafort text messages that WikiLeaks wouldn't publish

21 comments

  1. [3]
    hungariantoast Link
    Direct link to the torrent for the whole archive: https://archive.org/download/ManafortTextMessages/ManafortTextMessages_archive.torrent
    11 votes
    1. [2]
      delicious_grownups Link Parent
      Thanks for posting! I'm hoping some actively motivated tilders, redditors, or tweeters will comb through these texts. Also, fuck Julian Assange to the Moon and back

      Thanks for posting! I'm hoping some actively motivated tilders, redditors, or tweeters will comb through these texts.

      Also, fuck Julian Assange to the Moon and back

      10 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. delicious_grownups Link Parent
          Supposedly the database she provided is searchable, but hey, you guys are smarter than I am

          Supposedly the database she provided is searchable, but hey, you guys are smarter than I am

          3 votes
  2. [6]
    harrygibus Link
    It seems that she doesn't have a clue how Wikileaks operates. They don't redundantly publish material that has already been published (in this case by the hackers who got it in 2016). It's like...

    It seems that she doesn't have a clue how Wikileaks operates. They don't redundantly publish material that has already been published (in this case by the hackers who got it in 2016).

    It's like she's blaming wikileaks for her not knowing how to go on the darkweb or parse a database.

    6 votes
    1. [3]
      vektor (edited ) Link Parent
      I don't think your assessment is fair. Wikileaks has been acting like a journalistic outlet, contrary to their stated mission. Iirc, this is not the only case of wikileaks having data that they...

      I don't think your assessment is fair. Wikileaks has been acting like a journalistic outlet, contrary to their stated mission. Iirc, this is not the only case of wikileaks having data that they don't publish. Wikileaks is clearly biased and should be called out for it, particularly since their claim of neutrality is (was?) all over the place.

      Also, the words publish and darkweb don't go well together. Is it technically available to the public? Ehh, I guess. Does that mean you should skip a leak with notable public interest? If no one had actually seen the damn thing yet, no, because de facto it is unavailable/unknown to 99% of the population. Unless I'm missing something and the fact that that db was available on the darkweb was big news back then, in which case - fair enough.

      Regardless, I don't think wikileaks' behaviour in the 2016 election was fair or appropriate by any measure.

      Edit: Disregard, because I just google'd a bit and I - obviously, I suppose - found that the contents of the database has been topic of the news a while back already... However, her argument still stands: Not available to the general public, wikileaks is obviously biased, and quite frankly I think WL would have picked it up if it was a leak on the democrats.

      It's like she's blaming wikileaks for her not knowing how to go on the darkweb or parse a database.

      No. She's blaming wikileaks for not providing the database to the general public sooner. She states that this publication is intended for the general public.

      12 votes
      1. [2]
        harrygibus Link Parent
        I really don't know where to begin - your arguments against their actions are all over the place, and bad at that. I'm not even sure I need to approach this but let's just be clear - Wikileaks is...

        I really don't know where to begin - your arguments against their actions are all over the place, and bad at that.

        acting like a journalistic outlet, contrary to their stated mission

        I'm not even sure I need to approach this but let's just be clear - Wikileaks is not journalism, it's antijournalism - it prints the stuff the MSM doesn't, won't, or (as a function of being corporate lapdogs) can't. It purposely seeks out stuff that will piss off the status quo. It seeks to shine a light in the darkness. This is not to say that their efforts shouldn't be given the protections that other journalists get just because they don't check every other box on the list. I personally think it's irresponsible that Rachel Maddow has spent 90% of her time talking about Russiagate for the last twoish years - but I also understand that her corporate parent has it's own narrative to pursue.

        Bias: everyone is biased. The biggest problem with it is when you claim you're not. When you call someone out for bias you open yourself up to questions of the same. WL is a private organization and will do as they see fit. The DNC used the same argument when it came to their obvious bias in the 2016 election - but they are a political party that should operate in the light as much as possible because they are effectively picking the representatives of our nation. Wikileaks is a pseudo journalistic organization that operates on donations - they should probably be given some leeway to spend their relatively meager budget as they see fit. To this day has anyone refuted any of the information that WL released on the DNC? - no. For years political organizations have sought information they can release (or have covertly released) to create an October Surprise - you seem to be upset because Wikileaks did it out in the light?

        Darkweb: this place is full of nefarious assholes that you don't want to piss off. It's occupied by hackers who will definitely hold a grudge when you try to steal their thunder. When your entire operation counts on your servers attached to the same internet that these people operate on you're better off giving them a wide berth when it comes to information they have exposed.

        This is just some random thoughts I had about your comments and I'm not really invested in WL or the argument enough to bother formatting it any better - but I hope you'll reconsider that organizations that act outside the MSM are very important to journalism and while they should be given a critical eye - they are not automatically the enemy just because they release information that doesn't fit the standard narrative.

        2 votes
        1. vektor Link Parent
          Ok, so your argument is that wikileaks is a private entity that should do as they please? I agree. They can do whatever they want as long as it's within the law, and since they're all about...

          Ok, so your argument is that wikileaks is a private entity that should do as they please? I agree. They can do whatever they want as long as it's within the law, and since they're all about whistleblowing: even outside the law, but only within reason. Granted.

          But if they completely disregard journalistic ethics, you don't deserve press privileges, simple as that. Moreover, we shouldn't treat them as the neutral party they portray themselves as. They pick and choose what to report on. Look at their twitter. Does that look neutral to you? Sure doesn't to me. Am I neutral? Is MSNBC neutral? Nah. MSNBC might claim neutrality (and among WL, me and MSNBC, they probably have the best claim to it), but barely anyone actually is. But I disagree that to call out bias, you have to be neutral. I'm biased in my own ways, but how does that stand in the way of calling out WL for their bias? Particularly, since they claim neutrality and more importantly independence. I'm not denying them the right to be biased, but I think that that bias should be highlighted. (Your argument seems to imply to me that everyone is biased, thus no one should call out bias, thus no one can call anyone biased. That is not helpful when we want to talk about bias. Please correct me if I misread you there.)

          For years political organizations have sought information they can release (or have covertly released) to create an October Surprise - you seem to be upset because Wikileaks did it out in the light?

          I'm "upset" because WL made it an october surprise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they had the info for their october surprise way ahead of time, and they dropped it to maximize its effect. And I don't mean in the sense of "pick the time that'll generate the most discussion" but "pick the time that will benefit our candidate the most". And while that's not directly a problem, it clearly demonstrates bias. They picked a side.

          This is just some random thoughts I had about your comments and I'm not really invested in WL or the argument enough to bother formatting it any better - but I hope you'll reconsider that organizations that act outside the MSM are very important to journalism and while they should be given a critical eye - they are not automatically the enemy just because they release information that doesn't fit the standard narrative.

          I'm not even claiming that. The mission of WL, as publicly stated, is fine. In fact, I appreciate whistleblowing. I do not appreciate them taking sides and being (at least for all I can tell) relatively intransparent. They could do better, and as long as they don't, they're not better than any other partisan MSM outlet.

          Of course, my whole argument rests on the (up until here implicit) premise that wikileaks should and can be held to higher standards than for-profit organizations where single persons or political groups hold a lot of influence. Wikipedia for example manages their conflicts of interest and political leanings much better.

          2 votes
    2. delicious_grownups Link Parent
      I think that's a serious mischaracterization

      I think that's a serious mischaracterization

      2 votes
    3. anti Link Parent
      For a journalist it's irresponsible.

      For a journalist it's irresponsible.

      1 vote
  3. [7]
    acr Link
    I read through some of it. So far nothing crazy. Still looking.

    I read through some of it. So far nothing crazy. Still looking.

    3 votes
    1. [6]
      delicious_grownups Link Parent
      I imagine that a lot of it is benign, but I'll bet there are some damning things in there, as I recall, his daughter had a few things to say about his involvement with Russia and Ukraine

      I imagine that a lot of it is benign, but I'll bet there are some damning things in there, as I recall, his daughter had a few things to say about his involvement with Russia and Ukraine

      5 votes
      1. [5]
        acr (edited ) Link Parent
        25 results when I search "Russia'. Russia: https://imgur.com/a/5LBPicN Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/0VeXgVq

        25 results when I search "Russia'.

        Russia:
        https://imgur.com/a/5LBPicN

        Ukraine:
        https://imgur.com/a/0VeXgVq

        7 votes
        1. aethicglass Link Parent
          What reference numbers for those? I can't read the images either.

          What reference numbers for those? I can't read the images either.

          3 votes
        2. [3]
          delicious_grownups Link Parent
          Oh man. Can't read the image but I'm going to house into this myself tonight. I've been getting butt fucked for the man all day

          Oh man. Can't read the image but I'm going to house into this myself tonight. I've been getting butt fucked for the man all day

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            acr Link Parent
            Why can't you read the image. Nevermind, I looked at it. It didn't look like that when I posted it from my desktop earlier today.

            Why can't you read the image.

            Nevermind, I looked at it. It didn't look like that when I posted it from my desktop earlier today.

            2 votes
  4. [4]
    aethicglass Link
    I'm kinda confused. Does his wife use his phone a bunch as well? Edit: I'm an idiot. It's his daughter's. Now I feel like a creep.

    I'm kinda confused. Does his wife use his phone a bunch as well?

    Edit: I'm an idiot. It's his daughter's. Now I feel like a creep.

    3 votes
    1. [3]
      delicious_grownups Link Parent
      You're not a creep

      You're not a creep

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        aethicglass Link Parent
        Haha I hope just. Just feels like it. I went through a couple months in 2016, skipped around a bit between march-july. I really should have spent the past few hours trying to get some work done...

        Haha I hope just. Just feels like it. I went through a couple months in 2016, skipped around a bit between march-july. I really should have spent the past few hours trying to get some work done instead.

        In the brief period I read through, there's some stuff about affairs, some excitement about the announcement of Manafort getting the position, some funny stuff about Trump, but nothing very noteworthy. Just a lot of gossip, talking about pregnancy (good Lord, endless, never-ending, unstoppable chatting about who's knocked up, how to get knocked up, who shouldn't be getting knocked up, what to eat if you get knocked up), relationship drama, dick pics, travel plans... I don't think this person ever actually sets her phone down from the time she wakes up til the time she sleeps.

        I'm curious what people would think of me if they read through my texts. Probably a boring thinks-he-knows-it-all with no social life. "He only ever talks about how to mud drywall and how hungry he is." I'd like to think I would come off as more interesting than that, but regardless it would be pretty embarrassing. I do a bit of gossiping (used to be more, and I used to think it was a lot, but that baseline has shifted significantly after looking through some of this), and some of that could be taken out of context the wrong way pretty easily. But even just having boring mundanity under public scrutiny and judgment seems like it would be pretty awful.

        Public scrutiny is a scary thing. And reading this stuff is making me question the value of my existence, so I think I'll leave it to others to comb through.

        1 vote
        1. delicious_grownups Link Parent
          Totally understood. I've actually not gone through much of it myself, other than what's been posted here. Altho that's largely because I've been on mobile all day. Granted, you have a point. They...

          Totally understood. I've actually not gone through much of it myself, other than what's been posted here. Altho that's largely because I've been on mobile all day. Granted, you have a point. They are people and they did have their privacy violated, but it was violated two years ago, not today. That doesn't negate anything, just stating that it's been a while since they were released

          2 votes