9 votes

Topic deleted by author

4 comments

  1. [3]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      dubteedub
      Link Parent
      I usually can't stand Glenn, but I think he is right here. It seems like The Guardian was far too quick to put out this story and is now just trying to ignore it after they are unable to provide...

      I usually can't stand Glenn, but I think he is right here. It seems like The Guardian was far too quick to put out this story and is now just trying to ignore it after they are unable to provide sources or proof to their claims. It is an unfortunate case of bad reporting / journalism.

      I do disagree with this take by Glenn rounding out his write-up here.

      None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par for the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, and there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN nor MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, Jr. was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all based on false claims about the date of an email to him from a random member of the public).

      Nor is it atypical for The Guardian when it comes to its institutionally blinding contempt for Assange: During the election, the paper was forced to retract its viral report from political reporter Ben Jacobs, who decided to assert, without any whiff of basis, that Assange has a “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.”

      Trying to characterize this as "par for the Trump-Russia course" is waaay overblown. Much of the Trump-Russia collusion case has been proven and the dozens of indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas confirm that. Have there been a couple other whiffs along the way? Sure, of course. Does that mean that the whole Russia story is false? Fuck no.

      This is exactly why I pay as little attention as possible to Glenn and the Intercept as a whole. All the seem to do is try and discredit liberal politicians and the mainstream media as much as possible.

      I mean, even The Intercept has had plenty of issues itself of reporters straight up making up whole stories and quotes itself.

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. dubteedub
          Link Parent
          I mean, Don Jr. published his own messages with wikileaks where they coordinated release of the DNC hacked emails to best hurt the Democrats. WL has a political bias and was working to benefit the...

          I still have seen very, very little evidence to support, is the connection between the Trump/Wikileaks/Russia.

          I mean, Don Jr. published his own messages with wikileaks where they coordinated release of the DNC hacked emails to best hurt the Democrats. WL has a political bias and was working to benefit the Trump campaign.

          the fact of the matter is that Wikileak's have a solid track record and have made enemies of basically every major government on the planet, so the idea that major world governments wouldn't be using this situation to help discredit a group that is very problematic to them keeping secrets is honestly naive in my personal opinion.

          I honestly don't think that WL has a very good track record and think that it is pretty reasonable to assume that WL is a de facto agency of Russia at this point.

          In the fall of 2010, Wikileaks claimed they had a huge amount of information they planned to release on Russia saying "We have [compromising materials] about Russia, about your government and businessmen, but not as much as we’d like… We will publish these materials soon."

          It was largely believed that WL was going to publish definitive proof of corruption in the Russian government and how the oligarchs were siphoning billions from the government into offshore accounts.

          https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/26/is-the-kremlin-about-to-get-wikileaked/

          Just a few days later, the Russian FSB threatened Wikileaks saying "You have to understand that if there is the desire and the right team, it’s possible to shut it down forever."

          https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/

          Wikileaks never published any of the supposed compromising information on Russia and Putin. Instead since then by all accounts they appear to be working actively with the Russian intelligence to undermine the United States, and specifically the Democratic Party.

          Both Putin and Julian have an axe to grind against the Democrats and Julian seems to be either acting as a willing idiot for the Russians, or may be compromised himself and being forced to act as an agent of the Russian intelligence.

          Hell, he even started a talk show on Russia's state owned propaganda network RT - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian-assange-starts-talk-show-on-russian-tv.html

          From looking at the timeline of Wikileaks major releases, they did not take on a specifically anti-Democratic Party bent until the 2016 Presidential election.

          https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/world/wikileaks-fast-facts/index.html

          7 votes
  2. Pilgrim
    Link
    I'd point out that sometimes news organizations will delay reporting in order to give government agencies, particularly intelligence and military groups, time to address their own concerns...

    I'd point out that sometimes news organizations will delay reporting in order to give government agencies, particularly intelligence and military groups, time to address their own concerns internally. For example, the Guardian releasing more source info or photographic evidence may out intelligence officers that would rather remain incognito. I'm not saying that IS what is occurring, but it's certainly plausible.

    1 vote
  3. meme
    Link
    Greenwald is a wikileaks asset. That he doesn't immediately begin this argument by disclosing his deep ties to them and his history of defending them is very telling.

    Greenwald is a wikileaks asset. That he doesn't immediately begin this argument by disclosing his deep ties to them and his history of defending them is very telling.