Hmmmm.........

1/6/2017 12:04:11 PM

Yea, shit is getting really bizarre.

I keep ruminating why Trump, weeks ago, didn't just come out with a statement along the lines of: " My team and I are concerned about America's cyber security and are monitoring all new intel closely."

That's it. Just leave it at that and all of this would blow over as Russian shenanigans. Instead it's the ONE issue that he won't back down from or flip flop on. Why?

1/6/2017 12:28:33 PM

I imagine this will come after the investigation into Guiliani and his role with the FBI leaks, right?

[Edited on January 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM. Reason : X]

1/6/2017 12:31:34 PM

Why exactly do we still care about The Kremlin's social media branch?

[Edited on January 6, 2017 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2017 7:46:34 PM

Quote :

"Why?"

It seriously undercuts his legitimacy and political mandate.

1/7/2017 12:52:20 AM

His mandate only exists in his mind (his butt buddies share that delusion too).

A sober and presidential "we are monitoring the situation and developing intel" would do more for his legitimacy than constantly tweeting dismissive remarks about intelligence agencies.

Anyone paying attention understands that there isn't the kind of evidence to change the election.

1/8/2017 9:18:03 AM

I do separate and hold to different standards Julian Assange and the president-elect of the United States. Assange basically runs a company and he has done a lot for his bottom line (let's face it, fooling the extremes of both ideologies is a cottage industry).

^ trump also did that with the popular vote trying to sow doubts into its legitimacy by saying he won it when you remove the illegals who voted. Sadly many believe him.

Also, he is notoriously insecure. Literally nobody outside the fringes is wanting a change in the election results.

[Edited on January 8, 2017 at 10:07 AM. Reason : He's a fragile shell of a man. Has been forever..]

1/8/2017 10:06:19 AM

The entirety of the comments on the NY times regarding Russian hacking revolve around pleading for Obama to call off the election results and remain president. This isn't a "fringe group" being conned by this witchhunt; it's a significant portion of Democrats refusing to take any responsibility for their actions.

1/8/2017 10:57:26 AM

Great. The same people that thought enough Electoral College Electors were going to defect from Trump to elect Hillary and that Trump will be impeached right after inauguration because of the emoluments clause in the constitution. The NYT comments section is totally the most credible cross-section of liberal leaning folks.

[Edited on January 8, 2017 at 11:45 AM. Reason : I'm not even seeing much liberal click bait related to Obama third term]

1/8/2017 11:43:38 AM

Hypocrisy to the left. Hypocrisy to the right. Hypocrisy all around after the Manning commute.

[Edited on January 17, 2017 at 6:53 PM. Reason : The twittersplaining right now is peak though ]

1/17/2017 6:53:06 PM

wikileaks pretending to care about trump now is hilarious

1/22/2017 8:38:02 PM

Considering Trump called Chelsea Manning a traitor is there any chance he doesn't extradite Assange as soon as he is forced out of the Ecuadorian embassy (which is looking more likely)? I hope Assange is allowed asylum somewhere even though I do feel he became way too one-sided. WL does provide a valuable check on some things.

[Edited on February 10, 2017 at 9:05 AM. Reason : X]

2/10/2017 9:04:46 AM

He became one-sided for a reason... the current state of the DNC was that bad

2/10/2017 9:18:55 AM

^^ fuck assange and fuck manning.

I am sympathetic to Snowden to an extent.

2/10/2017 10:52:53 AM

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/831468455413030912

Julian with the hottest of takes.

2/14/2017 7:46:57 AM

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/830762299107442689

Glenn Greenwald too! The Russia/Putin lapdogs are being exposed big league over this whole Flynn business.

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 8:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2017 8:54:45 AM

Assange hates the corrupt-ass DNC/Media. I love it

2/14/2017 9:26:36 AM

^^
you just proved his point. also that tweet was from two days ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831502788072980483

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831502868054208512

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831483742048886785

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2017 10:28:45 AM

No, the fact that Flynn actually is a "Syn: "Useful idiot, Putin loyalist, Kremlin spy." proves my point. He wouldn't have made that post this morning, life comes at you fast. Those tweets you linked? That's called damage control.

By the way, I wonder how Jill Stein is feeling this morning?



[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2017 10:34:25 AM

I read Greenwald now. Don't always agree but it's always good to get other sides to things.

His tweet you linked is strange. It's tone to me is at odds with his usual take on the usefulness of leaks.

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 10:35 AM. Reason : Maybe he clarified later ]

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 10:35 AM. Reason : Ah, he did. See your edit.]

2/14/2017 10:34:54 AM

He's also been saying that relying on the "deep state" to save us from Trump is naive. Are they trying to help us or is it just a power play? Internal government leaks are important but so is motivation.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/831387979327303680

2/14/2017 10:47:33 AM

That seems like too intelligent of a tweet to come from someone working with TYT

2/14/2017 11:01:28 AM

Cenk and co. have turned into 100% hacks, but there are some great reporters at TYT. Jordan Chariton is another.

2/14/2017 11:03:37 AM

Wasn't the entire argument about the DNC leaks that the motivation and source of the leaks is secondary to the content? I mean it was very uncomfortable reading personal emails but the benefit of clearing up some of HRC's and the DNC's lack of transparency outweighed that.

I actually agree that these types of leaks as a power play is a dangerous place to go. Especially when things are dripped slowly. Narratives can cloud context as we know. But I'm not sure how people can have it both ways.

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM. Reason : Leaks, hacks... Whatever]

2/14/2017 11:04:08 AM

TYT have always been hacks, but it seems a lot of people have started breaking away from their stupidity as the line between "classical liberal" and "progressive" gets drawn.

Quote :

"Wasn't the entire argument about the DNC leaks that the motivation and source of the leaks is secondary to the content? "

Yes, though whenever there is a scandal on the left, the media makes the narrative about the source rather than the content. Whenever there is a scandal on the right, the media makes the narrative about the content. Either way anything exposing corruption is good for America regardless of which political party gets shafted.

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2017 11:06:32 AM

^^
Fair point, but it's not really the same.

With the DNC leaks, there was an effort to discredit them. Then we were told to ignore them because Russia wants to influence our elections. Then CNN said it was illegal for us to read them.

Greenwald, on the other hand, agreed that Flynn should resign based on the information that was leaked (he lied to the VP). We can use the information without praising the source. He's just wants people to be wary of this narrative that the NSA are the good guys now, and not automatically believe any "leak" or "anonymous source".

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2017 11:30:34 AM

Context for the upcoming CIA series, possible meddling in French elections.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

2/16/2017 5:15:02 PM

lol France publically calls out Russia about meddling in their election, and then Wikileaks immediately deflects to the CIA. Could it be any more obvious who they're taking their marching orders from at this point?

2/16/2017 5:45:34 PM

The irony here is the French have a very good intelligence organization. I think the CIA would have a very tough time doing anything in that country. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the future someday.

But yea, Wikileaks is being used by Russia. I'm not sure what Assange's game is or was but whatever he said his intentions were when starting Wikileaks immediately were corrupted by Russia somehow.

2/17/2017 10:31:49 AM

he probably took it pretty personally when they framed him for rape and tried to frame him as a pedophile

2/17/2017 10:33:21 AM

^^
listen to literally any interview with assange and you can see that he believes in what he is doing. the russia crap is a wonderful delegitimization campaign

2/17/2017 12:42:41 PM

I'm sure Alex Jones believes in what he is doing, too

2/17/2017 1:25:28 PM

no one is calling alex jones a russian plant. he's just a lunatic.

if you think assange is an asshole, that's fine, your opinion. but calling him a russian spy is just spreading the newest smear campaign.

2/17/2017 1:44:11 PM

saying that assange has received information and is happy to use it because of his feelings towards the US =/= calling assange a russian spy

2/17/2017 1:48:59 PM

^

2/17/2017 1:50:56 PM

^^

Yea, I wasn't saying he was a spy. I'm saying Russia is taking advantage of his site and how it operates.

2/17/2017 2:00:04 PM

that's not what shrike or cherokee said though.

it's definitely possible some of the leaks are from russian intelligence sources. they have also released many leaks from us intelligence sources.

^
got it

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2017 2:00:28 PM

^they've released leaks from two US intelligence sources of which I'm aware, not "many."

And when I said my statement, I meant two things:
1) Wikileaks itself is being used by Russia
2) When Assange goes out and adamantly professes he didn't get the DNC emails via Russian intelligence (even though we know for certain that's how they got there) then he has been corrupted by Russia. Doesn't mean he's a spy, but it does mean he's a moron.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:02 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 2:02:31 PM

we don't know for certain that he got them from russian intelligence

at the absolute very least russia probably used a cut out person to provide them to assange

2/17/2017 2:05:19 PM

^^
Wikileaks is "used" by anyone who submits leaks to them.

How do you know the DNC emails were from Russian intelligence? I never saw that proven.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2017 2:06:32 PM

We don't know that he got them directly from them for certain. The initial hacks are almost verifiably directed by Russian intelligence but I'm guessing they don't announce themselves as that to Assange and it is likely done through layers of intermediaries.

For what it's worth, I think he became way too cute during our presidential cycle and did some unethical things (quick example is the debate earpiece nonsense where he linked to a nothing email about her using one at the UN) and directly fed hysteria but I don't think when Russia says jump he says "how high."

2/17/2017 2:09:33 PM

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254237/Russia-Hack-Report.pdf

We do know that's how they got them. Assange may have met a "middle-man/cut-out" and so, literally speaking, he personally did not get them from a spy. But we know full well who had the material and the only way they got to Wikileaks is via Russian intelligence.

Quote :

"We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

Quote :

"Public Disclosures of Russian-Collected Data. We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets. Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists. Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June. We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:15 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 2:13:04 PM

Quote :

"relayed"

2/17/2017 2:13:53 PM

^

Plus, I find it hard to believe the people who have a vested interest in delegitimizing Wikileaks, and who also tried to frame Assange as a rapist and a pedophile, without concrete evidence.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2017 2:19:41 PM

^So I don't know anything about the charges pending against him and what now. I can't speak to that. I also can't claim Wikileaks is not legit (that is to say, isn't posting factual information). But it has 100 percent been used by Russia against us. And Assange's staunch "Russia didn't give it to me" stance is 100% bullshit.

I think he may be doing it so he doesn't lose credibility. But everyone knows where that information came from.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:28 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 2:22:42 PM

The UN has called his detention arbitrary.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation

Wikileaks has never released false information.

And there is no concrete proof that any of their leaks are sourced from Russian intelligence.

2/17/2017 2:29:51 PM

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254237/Russia-Hack-Report.pdf

That is as concrete as you're going to get unless classified documents are declassified. And if you're a reasonable person who understands how everything works and understands Russian history and European history, you will conclude this is true.

Quote :

"Wikileaks has never released false information."

Not contesting you here.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:38 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 2:37:45 PM

If you are a reasonable person who understands US intelligence history, you will conclude that this report should not be treated as proof.

2/17/2017 2:45:28 PM

I actually do. We're not as bad as you want to believe.

2/17/2017 2:47:20 PM

It's pretty likely it was Russia. That is certain.

Of course, nothing is 100% but you make the judgments on the best, most sourced information you can.

2/17/2017 2:49:41 PM