I thought he was like one of the most important whistleblowers of our time exposing war crimes and shit. Some of you don’t wanna see him live another day, why is that?
“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.”
Because obvious Russian asset is obvious.
Here’s the full story
deleted by creator
russia isn’t reluctant to assassinate people
Look at me, I care about human freedoms so much that my life is more important, so I’ll help Russia to paint a skewed picture instead.
deleted by creator
You are aware that people can disagree with your conclusions without being a shill, right? Seth Rich’s parents would also like you to stop disrespecting his memory by saying he was murdered by the DNC, they even refute he was the DNC email leaker.
deleted by creator
Bill Benny, Trump Qult member, enthusiastically refutes reports that exonerates the DNC of murder. Shocking. You accuse me of taking the government’s word when you’re taking the word of someone with an agenda. I mention Seth’s parents because they have a a vested interest in finding out the truth of what happened to their son and their conclusion is the DNC leaker conspiracy theory is a a load of bullshit.
A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.
deleted by creator
Truthfully it was also articles about them releasing DNC hacks but refusing to do rnc hacks that seemed most obvious to me.
At best they’re extremely partisan at worst they are a Russian asset.
deleted by creator
Yeah, quite a few that opposed Putin just so happen to walk out of windows and poison themselves, one even put cuffs on beat the shit out of himself and gladly ate poison, while locked up
deleted by creator
That’s the last person I was referencing
deleted by creator
Yeah last I heard they had found bruising on his corpse and suspected that he poisoned himself
deleted by creator
He’s . . . not different, that’s why he was referenced
Couldn’t have that in a personality cult
deleted by creator
I guess you would say that if you didn’t understand. Makes sense that you don’t, given that you’ve been sucked into the cult of assange
deleted by creator
He’s using the website as a vehicle to promote his own messiah complex, and idiots like you fall for it because it makes you feel edgy by association.
Give a plausible reason why he didn’t release info about Russia.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Unlike the US who is known to be very tolerant towards its enemies /s
deleted by creator
Although they don’t stand up to or prevent other countries from doing it in any way
deleted by creator
From what I’ve read, it was good at first, then he started cherry picking and only releasing leaks that were convenient for him and aligned with his views.
Who are the ones determining what is “convenient” to Asange and what are their politics? Just because someone will make the accusation does not make it truth.
He’s a leaker. He HAS to be selective. He might not even be getting valid info. He might be getting doctored info that would expose his sources if he leaked it, etc, etc. There is every valid reason he has to not publish something that people ignore when they make such accusations.
Wikileaks is accused of not releasing information that would be harmful to the reputation of Russia.
OK? and that magically makes his other leaks invalid?
I don’t think people are saying the leaks he released are invalid. What they are saying is that him being selective with what he releases is the problem. If it doesn’t align with his political views for example.
Because he didn’t release something (dunno what because that’s never been specified, but he should have pulled something out of his ass, I guess) about the other side, therefore his leaks regarding the DNC make him a Russian asset.
Give your head a shake.
It’s weird how some of you on this comment thread are so hostile. I’m literally just answering OP’s question about why people are hating on Assange. I’m not defending or attacking him myself. Try shaking your own head and read the comments properly first before replying.
Again, and that makes him someone we should ignore and call for the death of?
I understand why people wouldn’t like him as a person. I’m not seeing the connection to OP’s question about him being publically hated to the point where people want him dead.
THAT … is absolutely not at all what you reference. People don’t want him dead for simply avoiding stepping on Russian toes. I’m trying to get you to think about why that is.
OP did something dishonest by making the title and body TOTALLY different, in my opinion.
The title is why are people hating on him. Lots of good answers to that.
The body then switches it to wanting him dead. I don’t think very many people want him dead. I think even the CIA/US Government want him alive and in jail rather than dead.
edit: I also think you were implying that disliking him was the same as disliking the idea of whistleblowers generally or wikileaks specifically, though you seem to have walked that back. It definitely doesn’t, though the fact that wikileaks is cowed by dictators like Putin is definitely a red flag when compared to their stated mission.
I’m not calling for his death, what are you talking about? Only OP implied that and they don’t even say who exactly is calling for it. I literally just replied to your comment saying:
OK? and that magically makes his other leaks invalid?
So yes, that is absolutely what I’m referencing, that people don’t have a problem with the leaks themselves, rather it’s him holding back other leaks that benefit him or do not align with his views that is the problem.
You are replying to people on this comment thread as if we are all OP. How about YOU think why you’re all hotheaded with people simply trying to answer OP’s question.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
I’m literally only asking for clarification.
Everyone is acting like a bias is totally enough to justify asking for the death of someone…
Who called for his death?
I don’t think it makes leaks invalid.
Imagine that I’m the star witness in a trial between my dad and my brother. During the case i share everything i have on my brother, including diaries from me youth, recipets and pictures of every activity we have dine together, and relevant correspondence, but refuse to share any information involving my dad, I’m cleary not a trustworthy source and my testimony will likely be thrown out.
Stop right there.
The wiki leaks ama on reddit openly admitted to selectively releasing to further their own agenda.
and that justifies ignoring leaks and wanting him gone?
Are people ignoring leaks? Calling for Assange’s death? I haven’t seen that.
Yes? What the hell do you think happens when everyone downplays everything negative happening to him? That he gets taken more seriously?
What do you think happens if he gets extradited to the many places that want to throw him in jail or worse? Is his life not forfeit even if it’s wasted in a cell instead of snuffed out on the spot?
Humans are beyond pathetic when it comes to thinking through to the consequences of your actions. Do better.
That’s not ignoring leaks or calling for his death.
Humans are pathetic when it comes to hyperbole. Words have meaning. Do better.
Removed by mod
Because propaganda works.
-
The USA created some thoroughly disproven ‘rape’ charges (it was never a rape charge but that was the media reporting and most people don’t read beyond headlines).
-
Classic painting of him as a traitor. We have ‘evidence’ you can’t see that he works for [insert enemy here]
-
If you go against Russia/China/North Korea/Iran/India, they send a hitman to assassinate you. If you go against US and its allies, they assassinate your character first and you die in an accident in the prison with the camera footage missing.
And this is if you are actually somewhat popular, if not there are a tons of black sites they where they do Russia/China/North Korea/India shit and their populace will deflect how they are more humane like their life depends on it.
Just so you know, this comment reads like you really like Jeffrey Epstein and you think he was set up…
Some people confuse him for Edward Snowden (and vice versa). So he’s got that going for him too.
deleted by creator
*Heroes
From your friendly neighborhood idiot/gman
- An Hero
He’s the reason we got Trump in 2016. He likes to pick and choose which facts to leak and which to keep concealed in order to further his own agenda. Not to mention he gets this information from foreign agents who stole it from our government.
Edward Snowden is far more deserving of recognition for his whistleblowing. He didn’t do it to personally profit from it, just because he knew it was the right thing to do.
More like Assange outright feel into that z-tard hole and never once apologise for it cos he has no conscience.
deleted by creator
One of the things I struggle to understand (maybe I should read more about it) is how US law has jurisdiction to stifle speech outside of US territories.
Like if Romania declared Borat a state secret, would every pirate on that swarm with a seed ratio above 0.00 be subject to extradition?
deleted by creator
The US (and Canada, where I live) has an extradition treaty with Romania.
The US treaty does mention that
…neither Party shall refuse extradition based on the citizenship of the person sought.
But I haven’t read it in detail so that may or may not be relevant (the past I quoted is referring to a particular part of the treaty).
My understand is that typically the threshold for extradition is mutual criminality which I suppose is my answer to how US law applies itself outside US territories (because leaking state secrets is a crime in most countries). So I withdraw my inquiry.
If Romania declared Borat a state secret pirates could perhaps be extradited.
But also note that I don’t think Assange can be charged with treason, because he isn’t American.
deleted by creator
And now I think you’re part of the disinformation campaign. Although people have accused him of leaking information that compromised it an operatives, there should not have been any documents that he leaked that contain such information, which means other people were misclassifying data, and yet we have no evidence that any of them were ever pursued with prosecution. So then the whole claim looks a lot like a big lie.
And if the above argument is too shallow, we could look a little more deeply and ask who the agents are that add to be pulled out of their posts, and also whether foreign governments already knew that those people were agents, on account of the information being available from sources that were not top secret, that had presumably been compromised by some of the other major world spy agencies.
I don’t see how leaking diplomatic cables could be seen as attacking the United States as a country. Certainly it could be seen as undercutting the State Department, because it revealed how anti-democratic the State Department actually is.
People claim “people were put at risk” but two things stand out.
- Since then has anyone died because of the leaks?
- What about the actual crime? Has anyone been procecuted ?
I think the answer to both is negative so its just that letter of law applies to the mighty. This time once again has proved it
It’s unlikely that no one died over the leaks. That alone doesn’t make leaking right or wrong though.
deleted by creator
If anyone should be facing a firing squad for putting people at risk, it would be Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney long before Assange. There are verifiable deaths from those leaks, yet nothing even close to justice has been visited on either of those traitors.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, literally a show on Russian state TV. He got a paycheck from the Russian government. I mean, is it that hard to grasp that this little fact makes the “he’s a russian asset” accusations at least understandable? And I am not saying he is one. I am not that informed about him and Wikileaks to have a strong opinion.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
RT is literally state controlled. It has no independence. It operates in literally the same offices as RIA Novosti.
You are out of your mind if you are trying to claim they are anything other than state TV by any meaningful definition.
deleted by creator
You’re full of it. From the time they were founded, they operated in the same building as RIA Novosti. RT didn’t exist until AFTER the various independent journalists and their associations were ALREADY being rounded up and cast out of Russian society.
They are now and have always been state-controlled. Stop apologizing for dictatorships.
deleted by creator
How much of their funding came from the state? 100%? That’s 100% control.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Hard to imagine more miserable final for ‘world order challenger’ than employee of state-controlled ‘Russia Today’."
-Alexander Lebedev
Even Russian Oligarchs are laughing at how obvious it is.
deleted by creator
1 I’ve seen no evidence Assange is wealthy 2 Sure seems like cozying up to Russia is a decent escape plan when you’re worried about being locked up in the west 3 I never said all his leaks are bs, I rather appreciated what he and Snowden did. I just think he’s a self aggrandizing hypocrite 4 I could easily paint you as a Russian shill but that’d be fucking stupid because I have no evidence beyond “wahhh this guy on the internet has a different read of a situation than meeee”. I’m not sure if you’re an idiot or not, but it seems pretty clear you’re a prick. Bye.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You are replying to every opinion in here that isn’t gargling his pasty white balls. You sound like a cultist tbh.
deleted by creator
Mueller Report PDF download Page 44: 3. Use of WikiLeaks
- In order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks. GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks’s private communication system.
a. WikiLeaks’s Expressed Opposition Toward the Clinton Campaign
WikiLeaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, privately expressed opposition to candidate Clinton well before the first release of stolen documents. In November 2015, Assange wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better for GOP to win . . . Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. . . . With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. . . . She’s a bright, well connected, sadisitic sociopath.”156 In March 2016, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of approximately 30,000 Clinton emails that had been obtained through FOIA litigation.157 While designing the archive, one WikiLeaks member explained the reason for building the archive to another associate: -[W]e want this repository to become “the place” to search for background on hillary’s plotting at the state department during 2009-2013. . . . Firstly because its useful and will annoy Hillary, but secondly because we want to be seen to be a resource/player in the US election, because eit [sic] may en[]courage people to send us even more important leaks.
b. WikiLeaks’s First Contact with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
Shortly after the GRU’s first release of stolen documents through dcleaks.com in June 2016, GRU officers also used the DCLeaks persona to contact WikiLeaks about possible coordination in the future release of stolen emails. On June 14, 2016, @dcleaks_ sent a direct message to @WikiLeaks, noting, “You announced your organization was preparing to publish more Hillary’s emails. We are ready to support you. We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents. Let’s do it together. What do you think about publishing our info at the same moment? Thank you.”159 Investigative Technique Around the same time, WikiLeaks initiated communications with the GRU persona Guccifer 2.0 shortly after it was used to release documents stolen from the DNC. On June 22, 2016, seven days after Guccifer 2.0’s first releases of stolen DNC documents, WikiLeaks used Twitter’s direct message function to contact the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account and suggest that Guccifer 2.0 “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”160 On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
c. The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Materials to WikiLeaks
Both the GRU and WikiLeaks sought to hide their communications, which has limited the Office’s ability to collect all of the communications between them. Thus, although it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks, The Office was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by the GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England. 62 Investigative Technique On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later. Similar communications occurred between WikiLeaks and the GRU-operated persona DCLeaks. On September 15, 2016, @dcleaks wrote to @WikiLeaks, “hi there! I’m from DC Leaks. How could we discuss some submission-related issues? Am trying to reach out to you via your secured chat but getting no response. I’ve got something that might interest you. You won’t be disappointed, I promise.”168 The WikiLeaks account responded, “Hi there,” without further elaboration. The @dcleaks_ account did not respond immediately. The same day, the Twitter account @guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the personas.169 During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.170 An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange’s computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172 The WikiLeaks site also released PDFs and other documents taken from Podesta that were attachments to emails in his account; these documents had a creation date of October 2, 2016, which appears to be the date the attachments were separately staged by WikiLeaks on its site.173 Beginning on September 20, 2016, WikiLeaks and DCLeaks resumed communications in a brief exchange. On September 22, 2016, a DCLeaks email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com sent an email to a WikiLeaks account with the subject “Submission” and the message “Hi from DCLeaks.” The email Investigative Technique contained a PGP-encrypted message with the filename “wiki_mail.txt.gpg.”174 The email, however, bears a number of similarities to the July 14, 2016 email in which GRU officers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to give WikiLeaks access to the archive of DNC files. On September 22, 2016 (the same day of DCLeaks’ email to WikiLeaks), the Twitter account @dcleaks_ sent a single message to @WikiLeaks with the string of characters Investigative Technique The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016. For example, public reporting identified Andrew Müller-Maguhn as a WikiLeaks associate who may have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to WikiLeaks
On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released the first emails stolen from the Podesta email account. In total, WikiLeaks released 33 tranches of stolen emails between October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The releases included private speeches given by Clinton;177 internal communications between Podesta and other high-ranking members of the Clinton Campaign;178 and correspondence related to the Clinton Foundation.179 In total, WikiLeaks released over 50,000 documents stolen from Podesta’s personal email account. The last-in-time email released from Podesta’s account was dated March 21, 2016, two days after Podesta received a spearphishing email sent by the GRU.
d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials
As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks’s claims about the source of material that it posted. Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”180 Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter…that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”181 After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian
What serious person is calling for his death?
That depends on your definition of “serious” … But why are you asking? I mean, Google is your friend here.
Because Assange kicked the DNC’s dog. The Republican’s were going to hate him no matter what because rationality never figured into their “my country, right or wrong” stupidity, but apparently because he released the DNC’s executive corruption and didn’t pull something out of his ass regarding the oTheR SidE, he’s obviously a russian asset.
I found the multiple allegations of rape to be credible. I don’t support rapists.
deleted by creator
the women who had complained about him retracted their complaints and said they were used as part of a political conspiracy against him.
Could you please source this claim?
deleted by creator
after looking into it, it seems only one woman retracted her accusations…
I asked if you could source the claim that the women did this. Now you say only one did, and you still have not provided a source. I read your entire comment and the linked article.
deleted by creator
It’s on you to substantiate your claims.
That which is claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
the evidence “has weakened considerably.
Despite her decision, Persson said in a news conference in Stockholm on Tuesday that she found the account of the alleged victim to be credible.
“I would like to emphasize that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed,” Persson said. She added, “However, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.” The Swedish inquiry’s initial phase extended from 2010 to 2017. Persson said the long delay played a role in her decision, noting the difficulty of extracting reliable accounts from witnesses after such a long delay — particularly in a high-profile case that has been widely covered by the media.
It’s amazing what happens when you read the rest of the article and don’t just pick one out of context quote.
Removed by mod
Yeah, not sorry, I don’t debate people who rabidly support rapists, either.
deleted by creator
He raped 3 women
deleted by creator
Personally? Because being a (white male) whistle blower shouldn’t protect him from facing consequences for his sexual abuses, yet it seems to nonetheless.
Fuck him (though I’ve not said a word about him before this for longer than I can remember, so I don’t know if I fall in to the category of “hating on him”, I just don’t give a shit about him, and definitely don’t think he deserves the halo the public seem to have bestowed on him).
But he didn’t commit any sexual offenses in the US. There’s no reason to extradite him other than for his work as a journalist. I mean I think the guy is a scumbag but that’s an important freedom that the US intelligence services have been trampling for decades. Espionage and journalism are clearly distinct, but our legal system maliciously conflates them.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Australian
funny joke or spelling error?