‘Julian Assange’s Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was.’, Robert Mackey, The Intercept, Nov. 15, 2017 (by now, 755 food-fight comments)
“The revelation that WikiLeaks secretly offered help to Donald Trump’s campaign, in a series of private Twitter messages sent to the candidate’s son Donald Trump Jr., gave ammunition to the group’s many detractors and also sparked anger from some longtime supporters of the organization and its founder, Julian Assange.
Brown had a visceral reaction to the news, first reported by The Atlantic, that WikiLeaks had been advising the Trump campaign. In a series of tweets and Facebook videos, Brown accused Assange of having compromised “the movement” to expose corporate and government wrongdoing by acting as a covert political operative.”
Now I’ll have to say I’m agnostic as to Brown’s claiming further down that it was solely his support for WikiLeaks, given what information’s at the end of the Guardian link at ‘crowdsourced investigations above , as in:
“Three weeks later, Brown would be in jail. He had posted online a series of videos in which he appeared to issue threats directed at a named FBI agent, whom he accused of harassing his mother, and demanded that his previously seized property be returned. In the videos he looked frazzled, pale and on edge. He concluded with a lengthy tirade, saying he feared drug cartel “assassin squads” were out to get him and warning government officials not to come near his apartment.
“I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come,” he said, looking blankly straight into the camera. “It was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was forty or so – so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian Pharaoh.”
But I digress; it’s really hard not to with this saga…
Brown then explained that he’d always defended WikiLeaks’ having published the DNC emails because it was right for an organization dedicated to transparency to do”…but here’s the kicker he’d added: “working with an authoritarian would-be leader to deceive the public is indefensible and disgusting.”
““Plainly,” he observed with bitterness, “the prospect of a Clinton in the White House was such an unimaginable nightmare scenario that all normal standards of truth and morality became moot and it became necessary to get people like Sebastian Gorka into the White House to establish order.”
I’d also laughed out loud at Maceky’s wind-up:
“It is also worth noting that this offer to help Trump came less than two weeks after The Washington Post had thrown the campaign into crisis, by revealing that the candidate had boasted of sexual assault in comments recorded during the taping of an “Access Hollywood” episode in 2005. The recording caught Trump saying that, “when you’re a star,” you can “do anything” to women, even “grab them by the pussy.” WikiLeaks released its first batch of emails hacked from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, less than an hour after that report was published.”
Ah, yes; the tape that lauched a million pink pussy-hat ships.
Now I’ll try to show some, not all, of the offending DMs (Direct Messages behind the public Tweets, as I understand it) that the Atlantic had ‘obtained’ (leaked) just ahead of Donald Trump, Jr.’ lawyers having turned them over to a Senate investigative body investigating ‘Russian meddling’ in the 2016 election. After a few days of reading this stuff, my eyes are crossed w/ confusion, so apologies if I double up on some.Over the long months from Sept. 20, 2016 to July 2017, Assange, or WikiLeaks, or even a member of the WikiLeaks team, had written many to Trump, who had apparently only ever answered three.
But the Cliffs Notes version is in Julia Ioffe’s title: ‘The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks; The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.’
“The first one was by way of giving Jr. a heads-up on “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch; The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?”
Ioffe: (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)”
The header on Putin Trump includes a hammer and sickle…of course, because it wasn’t just Russians the 17 intel agencies ‘believed’, ‘swore’, ‘assessed’…had hacked the election, but #Putin himself. Zo: from Mother Jones’s Putin-Trump on ‘Russian Expansion:
“Did you know that Putin was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years before he went into politics? Or that Putin likes Trump because Trump is “sensible enough to stay out of the way?” Or even how Trump was totally unaware that Russia had already invaded the Ukraine?”
Jayzus; did you know that Masha Gessen writes for The Intercept? This er…Putin hating proof of hers is there, as well.
Anyhoo, Jr. knew nothing; he’d ask around. Ioffe quoted Jr.’s attorney Alan Futerfas, “Putting aside the question as to why or by whom such documents, provided to Congress under promises of confidentiality,…”, etc. Good leaks, bad leaks, yada, yada.
“On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks wrote again. “Hiya, it’d be great if you guys could comment on/push this story,” WikiLeaks suggested, attaching a quote from then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about wanting to “just drone” WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.
“Already did that earlier today,” Trump Jr. responded an hour-and-a-half later. “It’s amazing what she can get away with.”
Two minutes later, Trump Jr. wrote again, asking, “What’s behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about?” The day before, Roger Stone, an informal advisor to Donald Trump, had tweeted, Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #WikiLeaks. No response, but nine days later ‘the Wikileaks account’ (Ioffe even specified) had DMed him: ““Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us,” WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump’s followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories.”
On Oct. 21 Jr. has Tweeted:
…and yeah, it’s creepy.
But these are the most interesting to librul peeps, as far as I can tell; back to Mackey:
“He (Barrett Brown) was particularly outraged by an Oct. 21, 2016 message, in which Assange had appealed to Trump Jr. to let WikiLeaks publish one or more of his father’s tax returns in order to make his group’s attacks on Hillary Clinton seem less biased. “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” the Assange-controlled @Wikileaks account suggested. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.”
(The ‘Assange Controlled’ link is meant to answer questions that the DM may not have come from Assange, as during some of the time stamps were when he’d had no Internet in the Ecuaorian Embassy, and the use of ‘third person’ in some, first-person plurals in others. From Assange’s ghost-writer?)
Also the DM to Jr.: , and the request that WikiLeaks be allowed to publish some of Sr.’s tax statements ‘to see“In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.”
“WikiLeaks didn’t write again until Election Day, November 8, 2016. “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do”, and” “The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc.,” WikiLeaks wrote.”, which is almost always shorthanded in the media to ‘DO NOT CONCEDE’.
From Ioffe again: “(On December 7, Assange, proclaiming his innocence, had released his testimony in front of London investigators looking into accusations that he had committed alleged sexual assault.) Of course Julia’s too biased to have mentioned that that at justice4assange online:
‘Justice for Assange, Accurate reporting on the one remaining allegation’
“In the interest of accuracy, journalists and the public in general, should note the following facts:
1) Julian Assange has not been charged at any time.
2) Julian Assange was cleared of ’rape’ five and a half years ago:
On 21 August 2010 the Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne stated she “made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape”. On 25 August 2010 she stated that “The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed.” The case was then closed.
The matter was subsequently re-opened with a different prosecutor after the intervention of a senior Swedish politician, Claes Borgstrom, during the heat of Mr Assange’s conflict with the United States.” (the rest is here.) It’s glaring to note how many subtweets are still calling Assange a rapist and a pedophile. But nor had dear Julia taken note of this fukkery:
“‘Signs of U.K. Misconduct in Assange Case’ Dennis Bernstein, consortiumnews.com, Nov. 18, 2017
“A British court proceeding on a freedom of information request regarding how the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dealt with the case of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has revealed that CPS deleted relevant emails from the account of a now-retired CPS lawyer, Paul Close.”
Oh; I may have forgotten to say that Barrett Brown’s been writing at the Intercept since July 16, 2015; I sure hadn’t known that. How many ‘fearless investigative journalists’ are in Pierre’s stable by now?
Interesting stuff via Barrett Brown:
On the left sidebar at the Intercept is ‘What Julian Assange’s War on Hillary Clinton Says About WikiLeaks’, Robert Mackey, Aug. 6, 2016, which first title was apparently ’Accusing WikiLeaks Beside the Point’.
“In recent month, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed has started to look more like the stream of an opposition research firm working mainly to undermine Hillary Clinton than the updates of a non-partisan platform for whistleblowers.” I agree, but: so what? He’s objected to her mega-power alliances for a hella long time. Peek into his ‘Google is not what it seems’ (an excerpt from his Sept. 2014 book ‘When Google Met WikiLeaks’), for instance; even more relevant today than it was then, including as an Imperial propaganda tool, creating algorithms to sideline any leftist, or even progressive websites.
“Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of US power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).48 And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community.”
Brown explained that he had defended WikiLeaks for releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee, “because it was an appropriate thing for a transparency org to do.” But, he added, “working with an authoritarian would-be leader to deceive the public is indefensible and disgusting.”
Re the recent ‘Ain’t it grand that now, because: Trump, liberals love the combined Intelligence Services? Ha, I did love this: Emptywheel’s Nov. 16 ‘The Implicit Threat in Julian Assange’s Ambassador Tweet’ contained this stellar irony:
(With the release of vault 8) “Assange is not offering to release secrets about CIA, but instead weapons leaked or stolen from them. Sure, to the extent the Vault 7 releases haven’t already, that’ll allow others to attribute CIA attacks. But it’ll also devastate the agency and badly undermine US power.”
Only one comment of the 37 made some sport of that contention:
Karl Kolchak says: November 16, 2017 at 8:44 pm
“It’ll ‘devastate’ the CIA? The agency responsible for torture, rendition, assassinations, predator drone strikes on civilians, testing of psychosis-inducing drugs on unsuspecting victims, overthrowing democratic governments and meddling in the affairs and elections of just about every nation on Earth?
If that’s true, Assange is the greatest world hero of the 21st century. And I’m so old I remember when Democrats seriously attempted to disband the CIA as a threat to democracy and didn’t keep cheering them on.”
In fairness, although she’s been smackin’ around Assange and WikiLeaks pretty fiercely lately, she’d written:
“It’s worth remembering, as Emma Best notes, because they’ve been under unrelenting surveillance since 2010, “WikiLeaks *knew* the DMs were being monitored in real time. It was inevitable that this would leak. Simply calling this dumb misses the point and ignores the tradecraft at play.” Assange, from the refusal of inside information to the demand for an Ambassadorship, was staging a show, and we should remember that.”