A resolution introduced in the United States House of Representatives calls for an end to the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    165·
    11 months ago

    It’s been a while and I misremembered some of the details, it was through through the Russians (who were de facto on the Trump campaign):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#Communications_with_WikiLeaks

    A week after Guccifer 2.0 appeared online, WikiLeaks sent the persona a message saying to “send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” After not receiving a reply, on July 6, 2016 WikiLeaks sent another message that said “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.” Guccifer 2.0 responded “ok … i see,” and WikiLeaks added “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary … so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.” On July 14, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an email with an encrypted attachment labeled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.” According to the indictment, the email explained that “the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents.”
    Four days later, WikiLeaks responded that it had received “the 1Gb or so archive” and would release the files that week. The DNC emails were released several days later.

    Hardly an unbiased source, WikiLeaks was targeting Clinton for the benefit of Trump.

    Trump reportedly offered to pardon Assange if he denied the connection:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/trump-offered-to-pardon-assange-if-he-denied-russia-helped-leak-democrats-emails-lawyer-idUSKBN20D2A2/

    • SLfgb@feddit.nlOPEnglish
      22·
      11 months ago

      As a matter of fact, Julian has denied that the source was Russia. The reported ‘offer’ from the Trump admin was rejected because WikiLeaks NEVER reveals its sources.

      Not that I agree with your assessment, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a news outlet that doesn’t have a bias. This case isn’t about whether you have sympathy for his perceived bias. It is about the threat to the ability of any outlet to publish true information in the public interest, anywhere in the world. The charges relate to 2010/2011 publications only: the diplomatic cables, guantanamo detainee assessment briefs, Iraq Rules of Engagement, and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. The US’ overreach in jurisdiction is already being copied by other nations such as Russia. It’s the first amendment that’s under threat.

      P.S. that Wikipedia article is full of disinformation. A New York judge actually threw out the case against WikiLeaks publishing DNC emails as it is 1st amendment protected news in the public interest. It revealed how the DNC rigged the primaries. The Podesta emails also revealed Clinton’s ‘pied piper’ strategy: she wanted to run against Trump, so got the media to boost coverage on him. She clearly underestimated him. Bernie could have won against him.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        21·
        11 months ago

        WikiLeaks’ pro-trump bias is clear from the chat log itself, no editorializing needed. It doesn’t matter if it’s first amendment protected to assist a fascist to take power. I have no love or sympathy remaining for Assange, and I was one of his fans early on, I feel incredibly betrayed as an American.

        • SLfgb@feddit.nlOPEnglish
          22·
          11 months ago

          It doesn’t matter to you Hillary stole the primaries from Bernie, boosted Trump’s visibility, and still lost against him? Polls at the time showed for Bernie vs Trump Bernie would’ve won. You can thank Hillary for giving you Trump for president. But I think you’d rather kill the messenger.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            22·
            11 months ago

            Nice whattaboutism. You realize there can be more than one factor causing things? He wasn’t just the messenger, he had intent of furthering the interests of one party over another, Assange isn’t the unbiased journalist he portrayed himself to be.

        • SLfgb@feddit.nlOPEnglish
          22·
          11 months ago

          It doesn’t matter if it’s first amendment protected to assist a fascist to take power.

          Again, the indicment relates to 2010/2011 publications only. Nothing to do with Trump.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            22·
            11 months ago

            Cool, I don’t have sympathy for him due to reasons unrelated to this indictment.

    • SLfgb@feddit.nlOPEnglish
      23·
      11 months ago

      And the Wikipedia is completely unbiased impartial neutral and aaaalways accurate