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.

[–] ralphio@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

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

[+] Shalakushka@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (19 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The trial is not due to the accusations you make, and for the record, there's no law against being biased or not impartial.

[–] livus@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] DoYouNot@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You replied to a comment asking "source?" with an entire paragraph containing zero sources.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

Source is probably years of watching Rachel Maddow’s Russiagate conspiracy theorizing.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

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.

[^1]: Wow, look, lemmy has a citation function! If only the hyperlinks actually worked...

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.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 8 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] ralphio@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 8 months ago

man discovers journalists can have biases

man demands they be executed/detained forever

yep its a liberal; free speech for the slave owners moment.

[–] Tremble@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago

And you are a doltish Karen.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments