As Julian Assange enjoys his first weekend of freedom in years, there appeared to be no question in the mind of his wife, Stella, about what the family’s priorities were.
The WikiLeaks co-founder would need time to recover, she told reporters after they were reunited in his native Australia, after a deal with US authorities that allowed him to plead guilty to a single criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified defence documents.
What comes after that is one of the most intriguing questions for anyone familiar with how the site he founded in 2006 utterly changed the nature of whistleblowing. Will it return to its original mission?
James Harkin, the director of the London-based Centre for Investigative Journalism, (said) “In retrospect, it’s striking that everything WikiLeaks published was true – no small feat in the era of “disinformation” – but the tragedy is that much of its energy and ethos has now passed to blowhards and conspiracy theorists. Perhaps, in the light of our tepid new involvements in the Middle East and Ukraine, we need a new WikiLeaks.”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The WikiLeaks co-founder would need time to recover, she told reporters after they were reunited in his native Australia, after a deal with US authorities that allowed him to plead guilty to a single criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified defence documents.
While it remains online – and would-be whistleblowers can theoretically use it to pass on secrets – to all intents and purposes the organisation around it has been repurposed in recent years to campaign for Assange’s freedom.
Assange himself told the Nation magazine in an interview inside Belmarsh prison, London, that it had not been possible to publish leaks due to his imprisonment, surveillance by the US government and funding restrictions.
The kind of cross-border, collaborative investigations into huge tranches of documents that WikiLeaks pioneered and its use of anonymous electronic information drops are now de rigueur – to a large extent passé.”
“In retrospect, it’s striking that everything WikiLeaks published was true – no small feat in the era of “disinformation” – but the tragedy is that much of its energy and ethos has now passed to blowhards and conspiracy theorists.
Before entering the Ecuadorian embassy, he had started hosting interview shows for RT, the Russian state media outlet, in a move that was relatively easier to defend at the time but which now takes on a different hue since the outbreak of the Ukraine war.
The original article contains 847 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I don’t understand why Julian Assange gets any credit for Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, because that should clearly go towards the mainstream media.
So much ink was wasted by the press over Hillary’s nothingburger email scandal. I think it’s something like 50 headlines in the New York Times over a single month?
Not to mention James Coney’s part to play, basically he hates Hillary Clinton so just took any opportunity to sink her election chances. He holds much more blame for Trump’s election than Julian Assange.
I wonder why, out of all the journalists who could be blamed for Trump, Assange gets so much more hate? I suspect a lot of it is because there’s already so much anti Assange propaganda because he damaged the hegemonic interests of the US.
Liberals are unable to cope with their awfulness so their only retort is to blame anyone to the left of them.
I am not in any way going to defend what was done to Julian Assange, because it was abhorrent.
But, based on what he’s done in the past, I’m guessing ‘everything’ will be far more Biden-focused than Trump-focused.
The man has every reason to hate the USA. Helping getting Trump to power would surely be some sweet revenge, since another Trump presidency will be undoubtely be divisive and harmful
That really is not an excuse for his relationship with Russia.
It sounds a lot less like it would be revenge a lot more like it would be marching orders he would be happy to comply with.
You’re rationalizing a 2010 case with a 2016 argument. Your timeline doesn’t check out.
Also blaming Assange for exposing American war-crimes instead of Bush and Obama for committing them and covering them up is ridiculous.
That really is not an excuse for his relationship with Russia.
The enemy of my enemy is a short-term ally, that might be how he thinks, who knows. I have no side in this fight since I’m not a Assange fanboy and I have nothing but contempt for the USA.
Short-term? That article was from 2016.
In 2016 he had already spent years hiding inside an embassy. It’s not that hard to conceive that hatred tends to build over time.
Okay, but you said it was short-term. That is not short-term. And as far as I know, Wikileaks is still very easy on Russia. So how long is this favoritism of his going to last? Why should that be what Wikileaks is about?
Okay, but you said it was short-term. That is not short-term.
It was just a conjecture of how Assange might have thought about. I never said that there really is any link between him and Russia. And it was long ago, when he was still hiding inside Ecuador’s embassy, when the hypothetical link between him and Russia was new.
And as far as I know, Wikileaks is still very easy on Russia. So how long is this favoritism of his going to last?
I doubt he still runs wikileaks. Assange was in jail for years.
Why should that be what Wikileaks is about?
I don’t know and I don’t really care.
It is fair to remember, however, that his biggest bombshells were from the Iraq war, which was a decidedly Republican endeavor. But I do agree that he looked more and more like a Russian asset as time went on.
Those bombshells didn’t end the war.
His leak during the 2016 election changed the course of American history, and was directly coordinated with Russia. That was far more impactful.
To be clear, I think Assange definitely behaves as a russian asset - but democrats will do anything except admit that their candidates are awful. Leaks as mundane as the 2016 ones were capitalised on by Trump, of course - but it still shouldn’t have made a difference, and the race wasn’t as close as it was due to wikileaks.
Trying to motivate an increasingly disengaged and disappointed electorate by being the lesser of two evils simply isn’t good enough - and ‘useful idiots’ like Assange (although acting recklessly and causing damage) aren’t the reason Hillary lost, or that Trump has support.
That’s more a comment on how die-hard committed the political class is to perpetual war than anything else.
Also, while I don’t appreciate Trump being elected… the DNC seems committed to running some of the worst candidates they can find - the fact that there was information that damaging to Clinton that didn’t come out in the primaries is the part we should be mad at.
I think we should still be mad at foreign adversary nations colluding with one of our politcal parties and a not at all impartial “whistleblower” to turn the tide of a presidential election.
The emails themselves were barely relevant at all politically. Out of some 30k of them, 3 were found to be inappropriately controlled. Thats hardly an earth shattering discovery.
The spectacle that Assange, the GOP and Russia manufactured was the issue. It was a coordinated and targeted attack on our democracy, and he deserves to be derided for his outsized part in it.
If I had dirt on someone that speculated about drone killing me, I would have no problem releasing that dirt. WikiLeaks has never had to retract a story or cables because of bad information, even the DNC couldn’t refute the authenticity of the DNC cables.
Except, as you would see in the link I pasted, Wikileaks turned down leaks on the Russian government but smeared Hillary.
“America treated Assange badly” is not an excuse there. You can’t claim it was just hating the U.S. and do you really think that’s how Wikileaks should operate?
Clinton shouldn’t have gone after the people that exposed their corruption.
How does that justify not exposing Russia’s corruption?
You clearly didn’t read the article I pasted.
Maybe read it and come back to me.
Ah, celebrating the freedom of a rapist who escaped charges by playing on his fame.
Fucking wild.
I don’t believe he was convicted of anything as the accusers recanted….
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8
He wasn’t convicted of anything because he fled the fucking country before a trial could be held, and one of the women involved explicitly contradicts and condemns Melzer’s attempt at exonerating Assange
The charges were eventually dropped due to the time passed, not because the victims ‘recanted’.
Fake rape charges dropped by the person claiming it happened.
It’s insane the lies people will tell to defend a rapist. I don’t know why so many people are just fucking alright with rape if it’s ‘their guy’ doing it.
Fact: there was only ever one rape allegation and it was brought by the cops. The alleged victim refused to sign the statement to police and never signed a version which was edited later. All names were then leaked illegally to the tabloid press before JA was questioned. Read Prof Nils Melzer’s well-researched book.
Point out where he was charged with rape. Because if we’re basing an accusation of rape as actual rate then Biden is guilty of the exact same thing. Don’t assume that just because someone is critical of one white old senile piece of shit that they support the other white old senile piece of shit.
Point out where he was charged with rape.
When he fled Sweden, Jesus fucking Christ
It’s not even particularly believable rape apologetics you’re indulging it. Absolutely vile.
I don’t play games with rape apologists, so you’re on your own from here on out.
Can you not even read? Preliminary investigation is not the same thing as charged. If that’s how we are defining charged, then again Biden has been charged with rape
I don’t play games with rape apologists, so you’re on your own from here on out.
Tara Reid has entered the chat.
you’re on your own from here on out.
After saying it two times I doubt you are serious.
A proud moment for the leftwing everywhere. Downplaying rape to defend a russian spy.
He was accused of rape never charged with it. Kind of like Biden was. So if we’re holding that same standard up for assange you need to hold that same standard of rape for Biden
Don’t pull a muscle reaching to defend a Russian asset accused of rape. But I’m curious what your next phase of rape apologia will be.
“It didn’t happen”, “it was only investigated and not charged (because he fled the country)”, and now “well your guy was accused too” are all amazing choices lol, too bad they’re paper thin excuses.
Yeah yeah OJ and Rittenhouse are innocent.
Stop pretending the justice system is infallible.
He’s an Australian hero and all of you salty yanks can get fucked, you persecuted him for exposing your government and he’s finally free.
Enjoy your shitstain. He is your problem now.
It takes surprisingly little for people who claim to support journalists to turn around and hate on a journalist for exposing corruption. The “national security” angle never seems to fail.
Might have to do with him interfering with an election because Russia told him to.
“Domestic” billionaires interfere with our elections far more to the point where it makes what Russia does look like nothing, but you decide to focus on a journalist who exposed information, a fraction of which is information that you think might have helped Russia. I wonder if it’s because of the billionaire-backed media machine telling you to care about this particular instance.
Whataboutism + claim of motivated reasoning.
You buddy need a basic class on logic. It will prevent sad displays such as your last post. Maybe it will make you less likely to support a Russian spy in the future.
Logically we should care more about the ones who have more influence on our elections. If you actually cared about election interference, you’d want to address the primary source of it, i.e. billionaires. Just because Assange revealed information which might have damaged Hillary’s already garbage campaign, doesn’t mean he’s a Russian spy.
That’s nice. Now did he tease more data dumps against Clinton a month before the election yes or no?
Little honesty test. Can you tell the truth?
Assange’s hatred of Hillary existed long before the election. He’s not a Russian spy. Just because goals overlap, doesn’t mean they’re allies. It also doesn’t invalidate all the other insightful leaks he helped publish. You speak of honesty yet ironically frame a question in a dishonest manner.
So he’s still going to be a Russian asset then
I expect this ass to go to prison soon
I just expect he’ll do whatever Papa Putin tells him to do. That or rape someone again.
Careful, some tankies are going to wail about torturous prison experience he went through while having to simultaneously ignore the emaciated Ukrainian POWs
They’ve already started up the rape apologetics.
The Russian SVR hacked both the DNC and RNC. Russia chose to release only the DNC files, to damage Hillary and support Trump. This is established fact per detailed indictments based on a mountain of technical evidence.
So just because what they released was authentic documents does NOT mean they’re some sort of impartial source as they claim here. Julian Assange is and was a Russian asset, he contributed greatly to the damage of American democracy brought on by Trump, and I hope he rots in prison right next to Trump himself and every other traitor and foreign intelligence asset who supports him.
