He’ll lose unfortunately, as he’s been designated an enemy of big daddy US and the UK will bend over backwards to make sure that happens. The whole thing is ridiculous, he’s been held for years now
The fact that you’re being downvoted tells you a lot of people only got information of this Russian agent from wikileaks and other russian leaning sources.
Downvote me fanboys. He’s a political activist sitting on info to use when it’s most politically damaging, not acting quickly as possible to stop suffering. If he really gave a damn about anything but being an information broker he would have exposed all of Russias crap they did in Ukraine and Georgia since 2014, instead he was hyper focused on making the west look bad.
Edit: Oh look, the downvoted didn’t start till almost 7AM Moscow Time, surely that’s just a coincidence!
I don’t agree with the root comment, but Wikileaks has repeatedly ignored leaks of Russian classified info and many of their sources appear to be Russian Intelligence.
I wouldn’t characterize him as a Russian spy, more of an asset. Wikileaks selectively released information rather than being the safe harbor for all intelligence leaks that they purported to be.
Someone who worked inside Wikileaks certainly felt they were newsworthy
We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”
Foreign Policy endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. This was the first time in its 50-year history the magazine endorsed a candidate.
you will forgive me if i don't find your source to be credible in this regard.
It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?
>but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on
it seems to me that it was totally out (or later became totally available), regardless of the reporting that was done. it's innuendo to imply that they refused to publish it for any reason outside of their normal editorial standards.
I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.
The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.
he can still "publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight" without publishing every document about such an institution. any particular document or set of documents may be unable to be verified or not of particular interest or already available through other sources. he didn't promise to publish every byte that mentioned the kremlin regardless of his editorial standards.
It’s not a lie, he refused to publish the Kremlin leaks for reasons I found paper thin. Sorry we don’t agree, I’ll refrain from calling you names because what’s the fucking point?
A guy embarrasses the richest and most powerful people in the world by telling you the dirty secrets they were hiding from you. And when they tell you that it’s the messenger who’s the enemy, you believe them SMH.
If you’re against wikileaks, you’re against the rights of journalists and you’re opposed to the freedom of information.
Nope. If NYT wants to publish stuff about warrantless wiretapping that’s fine. More power to them.
WikiLeaks edited video and text content from day 1. The US Army caught them out several times by just releasing the full video. They didn’t even try with the DNC emails, they put sensational headers on them had nothing to do with what was written in the email. Then there’s the revelations of the GOP and RUS hacks which somehow have yet to see the light of day.
So yeah after that fumbling attempt at creating propaganda it wasn’t exactly a surprise to find out the Russian GRU were essentially running the site by the mid 2010’s. Assange went beyond journalism and into foreign agent territory when he edited his stuff out of truthfulness and selectively released documents to influence American politics.
So no you don’t get to tie him to investigative journalism like the Panama Papers.
Add comment