deleted by creator
But they also know how to show a good poker face. “Have a nice day!”, while they fleece you.
She was born in South Africa, but holds dual Swedish and Spanish citizenship.
deleted by creator
His lawyer in Sweden to help him avoid the rape charges extradition who got into the embassy as his lawyer and secretly got pregnant twice and had two children while Assange was in an embassy annoying everyone… That married him in 2022.
The only good thing about her is that she doesn’t sound like a Russian operative like Assange and whatever the fuck happened to WikiLeaks.
In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.
WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.
In the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of potentially damaging emails about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign, information the U.S. intelligence community believes was hacked as part of a Kremlin-directed campaign. Assange’s role in publishing the leaks sparked allegations that he was advancing a Russian-backed agenda.
So the argument from Assange was that all relevant information from the cache was already public from previous publication. The entire cache was public when FP published the article you’re referring to so they could have pointed out what was actually worth reporting if there was anything.
Here’s the article for everyone else:
The point about the 2012 Syria emails is more interesting, but the whole point about Wikileaks running cover for Russia never made a lot of sense to me since they have published damaging info about Russia.
ETA: I’d be remiss not to mention that the discussion of Assange’s biases is a red herring to the real problem which is the US’s attempt to criminalize publication of state secrets.
Stop spreading propaganda you stupid inferior American
Assange’s fate could be decided at the end of the two-day hearing Wednesday, but it’s more likely that it could take weeks for the judges to decide on his conviction
Removed by mod
The trial is not due to the accusations you make, and for the record, there’s no law against being biased or not impartial.
True but they do have a point.
Every time Lemmy discusses this, there are people going on about bias in journalism, as if that’s somehow relevant to how many human rights he should be allowed to have.
Source?
Assange got e-mails for both Republican and Democratic parties from a Russian hacker associated with the Kremlin and then specifically chose to withhold the Republican e-mails and release the Democratic e-mails. If he meant anything he said about transparency, he would have released everything, but that’s not what he or his employers wanted. They wanted their puppet president in Trump, and Assange was happy to help like the Russian asset he is.
You replied to a comment asking “source?” with an entire paragraph containing zero sources.
Source is probably years of watching Rachel Maddow’s Russiagate conspiracy theorizing.
A comment replying “Source?” is not contributing to the conversation, and criticising someone for writing more than 1 word in reply is also bullshit.
It really gets on my wick when people thing saying “Source?” is a sufficient challenge in online conversation. We’re not writing academic papers here, we’re chatting shit on the internet.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
If you have a counter-argument, make it.
If all you want to do is shit on someone for not writing an academic article with citations[1] but don’t actually contribute anything yourself, go suck on a turd.
However, it should be said, @Shalakushka@kbin.social has probably got things wrong. I don’t think Russia provided emails from the Republican party. The argument doesn’t even make sense - why would Russia provide arguments on both sides if they wanted one side, their Republican tiny-handed man, to get into the White House?
Rather, what happened, as I recall, was that Assange also received intel on Russian corruption from somewhere else, then elected not to publish it. That is perhaps dodgy, but at the same time the reasoning I recall him giving was that it is obvious that Russia is corrupt - it simply was not newsworthy.
Wow, look, lemmy has a citation function! If only the hyperlinks actually worked… ↩︎
Even if this were true and from a credible source within WikiLeaks, the idea that whistleblowers should be impartial is not something I have ever heard. Assange is trying to stop the world’s most violent and virulent warmachine. Working with Russia and likely China by proxy, there are sophisticated theories of action about how best to do that.
But honestly, Clinton was losing no matter what because her strategy was flawed, which we have ample evidence of because she still won the popular vote! You can’t have it both ways.
As I remember it, Russia supplied Assange and Wikileaks with information about the DMC, and nothing else. Wikileaks then published the full dataset, unredacted.
Then, someone else provided evidence of Russian corruption. Wikileaks did not publish any of this. There was outcry, then Assange said publicly “Of course Russia is corrupt, that isn’t newsworthy.”
While that still leaves some room for Assange and Wikileaks being on Russia’s side, this should all be viewed in the context that the US government was rabidly frothing at the mouth to get back at Assange for (legitimately) revealing their corruption.
As someone who was around for all of it, nah, you are not going to convince me Assange is an impartial good guy. Sory, but I am with camp “Russian asset” and he can reap that shit.
Do you also think Snowden was a Russian asset?
Maybe, perhaps probably. He just so happens to end up in Russia?
It doesn’t mean I don’t believe what either of these dudes put out in the world, it just means I am not sure that their motives were as pure as so many people today seem to think they were. (Note: back THEN, I thought these guys were the good guys, many years later having seen the way the data has been handled, where they ended up, how they’ve handled themselves, I’m much less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Russia just so happens not to extradite people to the US.
Assange has always been a bit of a dick, but sometimes being a good journalist requires people to be dicks.
At the same time, some people are Piers Morgan.
I don’t think Assange is Piers Morgan. I think Piers Morgan far more deserves what Assange has experienced so far, let alone whatever may face him in future.
Assange got e-mails for both Republican and Democratic parties from a Russian hacker and then specifically chose to withhold the Republican e-mails
but that’s not what he or his employers wanted.
Why would Russia give him information on both parties if Russia wanted to support one party over the other?
I think you’ve got things confused. I think the controversy was that he released information on the Democrats, provided by Russia, but then subsequently did not release information on Russia being corrupt. This was then construed as him being in support of Russia, when, by his argument, he simply did not think reporting on Russian corruption was newsworthy - of course Russia is corrupt.
If you can please provide evidence that Assange or Wikileaks were provided evidence of Republican corruption by the Russians, that would be appreciated.
Why do people keep saying this? It doesn’t even make sense. Why would the Russians give Assange the RNC emails if they didn’t want them to be published? There is no evidence that I can find that the RNC emails were ever given to anyone.
That’s because they didn’t. What happened was someone subsequently released info about Russian corruption, and Wikileaks didn’t publish it, citing the fact that Russian corruption was obvious and not newsworthy.
Stupid brain-dead idiot. Please jump
man discovers journalists can have biases
man demands they be executed/detained forever
yep its a liberal; free speech for the slave owners moment.
Please jump
Dude, no.
The American obsession with Russians is a mental condition.
70 years of red scare propaganda really did a number on you guys.
… and yeh here we are with hundreds of thousands dead and the blood just fucking pouring off Putin’s hands.
weird.
Note: Bush and Cheney are war criminals in my book.
Every US president is a war criminal.
Possibly. Your response regarding thinking Russia is problematic being a mental condition sounds like a mental condition, though.
What’s that got to do with this? Whataboutism
I’m not saying Putin is a good guy, he obviously isn’t. I’m critiquing the fact that Americans can’t seem to take responsibility for their own fuckups.
For instance: Trump is horrible, and he might do evil things with Putin. But then democrats keep framing it as if he’s Putin’s puppet. As if he, an American, can’t just be evil on his own terms. Russians must be pulling the strings, causing every shitty thing.
Trump is an idiot. Many people pull his strings, but Putin especially.
Not sure what point you’re really trying to make.
You’re letting Trump get off easy by suggesting he’s being manipulated by someone else. He’s not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
But the bigger point is this: Assange did something that benefitted Putin. That doesn’t mean he is Putin’s agent. Americans are so obsessed with Russia, they see it everywhere, which is just not true.
My friend, the evidence that Russia is wilding out and putting its shit out there all over the world is vast. I am not sure what to tell you if you can’t see that.
The US fucks up all the time, badly, granted. Why are you continuously trying to obfuscate Russia’s shitty actions by talking about other countries?
because this is about the US trying to arrest a journalist if you havent noticed
Of course, every country worth it’s salt is putting out propaganda, interfering with elections, and more.
But what I don’t agree with is that every time someone exposes the dark side of the U.S. (like people voting for Trump, or democrats being caught doing something shitty again), the default is to blame an external evil instead of acknowledging your own mistakes.
Trump is an evil idiot who was brought up as being a NY tabloid sensationalist. His mum got off on him being on the front page in the rags. So much so, he still dreams of being Times’ Man of the Year, and even faked his own cover page.
That doesn’t mean he hasn’t been in bed with and under direction from Russian crime syndicates, and by proxy the Russian government, since the 1980’s. Both can easily be true.
Just like dictators in Europe can say bad things about Russia while still sucking up in any practical issue that matters. What they say creates some form of plausible deniability, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t moving in tune with their puppet strings.
There certainly is a fair amount of evil in America. There were American leaders who supported Hitler - they even attempted a mini uprising (that failed). Those same branches are trying again right now, but this time they’re following Russia rather than Germany.
The Russian/Red/communist scare is a different thing entirely. That was the US trying to cement global dominance against the rise of socialism and the little people gaining control (which is deeply ironic, given that the US was founded on freedom and people trying to get away from Colonial Britain). However, in this instance, highlighting Russian interference and nefarious actions is absolutely valid and should not be disregarded.
And you are a doltish Karen.
What do the sportsbet odds say? /s I feel so sorry for this guy and his family
Can’t wait to stop hearing about this guy.
This comment section is proof that lemmy is as brain dead and propagandized as reddit.
Oh no! People aren’t reacting the way I want them to! Maybe you are the one who is “brain dead and propagandized”. Did you ever think of that?
If this was reddit, it would be full of the admin approved “factual opinion” with a wave of deleted & hidden comments, and banned users.
This is miles better than getting force-fed actual propaganda.
Agreed. I’ve been blocking these accounts. People really do have brain rot. Absolutely stupid dumb fuck idiots. I hate them all
Lol the guy who registers fediverse username with live letter to Reddit. Lol. Go back you bot lover
Then leave. Nobody is forcing you to continually steep yourself in the wrong viewpoints.
I personally don’t think he’s a rapist but I do think he needs to be in prison for dumping all that classified material.
If that makes me brain dead, I don’t want any part of what you consider dialogue.
Why should the US get to keep its war crimes hidden again?
Not a fan of the first amendment, I take it? Not only did Assange not break any US laws, he wasn’t even within US jurisdiction at the time.
Then he should be found innocent rather than hide away for a decade.
People fucking died because of the information he just dumped out there. But no, we are not allowed differences of opinion.
This isn’t supposed to be an echo chamber!
You think I’m wrong then convince me, don’t insult me. If you think the First Amendment applies to dumping government files… make that argument in court and good luck, but don’t fucking condescend to me in an internet forum.
The Guardian, Nov. 2022: ‘Publishing is not a crime’: media groups urge US to drop Julian Assange charges: First outlets to publish WikiLeaks material, including the Guardian, come together to oppose prosecution
The letter:
Publishing is not a crime: The US government should end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.
Twelve years ago, on November 28th 2010, our five international media outlets – the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El País and Der Spiegel – published a series of revelations in cooperation with WikiLeaks that made the headlines around the globe.
“Cablegate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US state department, disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.
In the words of the New York Times, the documents told “the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money”. Even now in 2022, journalists and historians continue to publish new revelations, using the unique trove of documents.
For Julian Assange, publisher of WikiLeaks, the publication of “Cablegate” and several other related leaks had the most severe consequences. On [April 11th] 2019, Assange was arrested in London on a US arrest warrant, and has now been held for three and a half years in a high-security British prison usually used for terrorists and members of organised crime groups. He faces extradition to the US and a sentence of up to 175 years in an American maximum-security prison.
This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticise his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.
The Obama-Biden administration, in office during the WikiLeaks publication in 2010, refrained from indicting Assange, explaining that they would have had to indict journalists from major news outlets too. Their position placed a premium on press freedom, despite its uncomfortable consequences. Under Donald Trump however, the position changed. The DoJ relied on an old law, the Espionage Act of 1917 (designed to prosecute potential spies during world war one), which has never been used to prosecute a publisher or broadcaster.
This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s first amendment and the freedom of the press.
Obtaining and disclosing sensitive information when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists. If that work is criminalised, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.
Twelve years after the publication of “Cablegate”, it is time for the US government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.
Publishing is not a crime.
The editors and publishers of:
The New York Times
The Guardian
Le Monde
Der Spiegel
El PaísOkay.
Make that argument in court.
I know there are lots of people who disagree with me. I’m okay with that. But I’m also in no position to make a difference here.
What he did wasn’t publishing. He dumped sensitive data. In my opinion.
It’s just silly to think he doesn’t have to deal with the trial. If he is innocent, let the fucking system decide that.
I can think that Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange did brave things and still think they should stand trial.
In Assange’s case I think he went way way too far, but was still brave.
I’m mostly annoyed by all this yammering that there is one true opinion here and that everyone else is deluded, as if this wasn’t a huge event with ongoing consequences.
Nuance is important if you’re gonna understand anyone’s viewpoints.
The rape allegations do seem to be farcical, but I don’t think he should be in prison for releasing classified material - it’s not like he hacked the Pentagon to get it.
However his apparent biases definitely do raise questions and point towards other issues.
What bias? Stupid
The apparent bias where he released documents about the Democrats but did not release documents about the Republicans and/or Russians, having received said Democrat documents from the Russians.
Maybe it’s a little more nuanced, I dunno. I can’t remember all the shit I’ve read over the years, the freshest stuff is from the comments in these threads.
My guess is that he didn’t actually have dirt on the Republicans, as one commenter suggested. Why would Russia provide that, when the supposed goal of Russia was to get their Republican man in the White House?
Then, maybe, he got some other dirt on Russia from somewhere else, but didn’t release that. However there could be any number of valid reasons there. I do vaguely remember something about him saying like (my complete paraphrasing) “reporting on Russian corruption isn’t of journalistic interest to me, of course Russia and Putin are corrupt.”
So yeah, his “apparent biases” raise questions. That doesn’t mean those questions can’t have valid answers.
But that also doesn’t mean the questions are invalid in and of themselves. They should be addressed openly and succintly every time, such that objective truth wins over incessant lies.
The only stupidity here is in your 3 word comment. Try harder.
Get off our site. You’re not welcome here
