It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has Wikileaks been compromised by the Russian Government? The evidence points to YES!

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I've been thinking about writing a thread about this for sometime. While I may not fully agree with Assange, I do believe Wikileaks had done a service to the world through some of their leaks. In the recent years however something about Wikileaks felt off. Evidence has been mounting that Wikileaks has increasingly released and coordinated leaks in favour of one side. I feel that here on ATS the community has created this atmosphere to immediately dismiss any question of Wikileaks being compromised. Evidently there's been a large movement on here in favour of the side these leaks have benefited. In this thread I want to open a serious and honest discussion about the possibility Wikileaks has been compromised.

On October 26th 2010 Wikileaks posted on Twitter WikiLeaks ready to drop bombshell on Russia

The fallout that followed:

November 29th 2010 Russia Today: Russia shrugs off Wikileaks “petty thief”

November 30th 2010 The Daily Beast: Moscow's Bid to Blow Up WikiLeaks

December 1st 2010 The Guardian: Julian Assange says WikiLeaks wants to expose China and Russia as much as US

December 2nd 2010 BBC World: Wikileaks: Russia branded 'mafia state' in cables


Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, described in one cable as having used his position to amass "illicit profits," responded to the revelations in an interview with CNN.

He suggested that WikiLeaks was being manipulated to undermine Russia.

www.bbc.com...

January 11th 2011 Foreign Policy: Russia’s FSB to WikiLeaks: We could destroy you

There were reports that Moscow had sent very serious threats to Wikileaks:


So far Russia has had no official response. But on Wednesday, an official at the Center for Information Security of the FSB, Russia's secret police, gave a warning to WikiLeaks that showed none of the tact of the U.S. reply to the Iraq revelations. "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever," the anonymous official told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.

content.time.com...


So what happened after all this??


January 20th 2011 Russia Today: Julian Assange gets Russian visa

January 25th 2012 The Guardian: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's TV show to be aired on Russian channel

April 6th 2016 The Guardian: WikiLeaks: US Gov't Behind Panama Leaks to Attack Putin

Did Wikileaks get cold feet? There's every indication they did.

Why in Dec 2010 did Medvedev suggest Assange be nominated a Nobel Prize?

And I quote below:


"Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."


Wikileaks told Snowden to stay in Russia?


“I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the United States revoked his passport, stranding him in Russia,” said Sarah Harrison, the WikiLeaks adviser who met the 30-year-old in Hong Kong and accompanied him to Moscow on June 23.

There were already issues with this assertion, primarily that the U.S. revoked Snowden’s passport on June 22, and the unsigned Ecuadorian travel document acquired for Snowden by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — ostensibly for safe passage to Latin America — was void when Snowden landed in Moscow. Consequently, he had no valid travel documents when he landed......

.....WikiLeaks has not explained why it believes Russia was the only place in the world that Snowden could go, but it’s noteworthy that WikiLeaks and the Kremlin share a bizarre alliance.

www.businessinsider.com.au...

Sigurdur Thordarson made a very good point with regards to Wikileaks and where the direction they were heading:


it is strange that WikiLeaks host's an TV Show on Russia Today, which is operated by money from the Russian Federation, and still no files about Russia has been reveled, nor Ecuador or Venezuela,, WL has published information, Some here say that documents revealed by WL showed War Crimes, that it self is partly true, 95% of the data that WikiLeaks has published such as the Iraq and Afghan War logs, Diplomatic Cables don't show anything illegal or wrong doing, the rest 5% maby 1-2 % of that show something that's illegal, the rest might show some wrongdoing, perhaps not illegal,


www.twitlonger.com...

Let me note that Thordarson was once a part of the Wikileaks team and had a falling out with them. He was also sued by Wikileaks in early 2010 for embezzlement of funds. That being said, he makes a rather good observation in the above, one I could not ignore.

More about him below:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now this below I could not stomach. I still hold respect for Snowden and what he's done, what he's risked but I really have to question... Why did Snowden say this when he got asylum? On the Wikileaks website??


Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.


Russia?? Venezuela?? Bastions of freedom? What on earth?!??

The above was posted on the Wikileaks website. I firmly believe Snowden was put in a position where he had no choice but to say the above. It still disturbs the heck out of me.

The evidence above is clear to me. I'm done with their excuses. Credit to TheRootsCrew from Reddit: www.reddit.com...



+6 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Wow ...you should send CNN a link to your thread ...they might even consider hiring you .


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You make assumptions to support assumptions in order for your previous assumptions to make any sense.

You have no evidence to support your claim that Wikileaks was in favor of one candidate over the other. Assange has stated on multiple occasions that he would publish Trump's tax returns in a heart beat, should someone provide him with a copy. If Trump's tax returns were even available at all, they would have been leaked by someone, anyone.

And your good ole boy Sigurdur Thordarson? He's wrong, too. Many documents in the Panama Papers (published by wikileaks) outline how Putin used shell companies that operated as a front for the Kremlin in order to launder illicit money into a swiss bank account.

You can organize your paragraphs and make your OP aesthetically pleasing to the eye, however, that alone will not make the illogical sound logical.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Took the words right out of my mouth!


edit on 3/11/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Wikileaks has near 100% accuracy. I guess if you can't dispute the information, you must resort to attacking the credibility of the messenger.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Wow ...you should send CNN a link to your thread ...they might even consider hiring you .


What makes you think this hasn't already happened?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


You can organize your paragraphs and make your OP aesthetically pleasing to the eye


Thank you.
edit on 11-3-2017 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
its weird how the white house / wikileaks has gone to extraordinary lengths to marginalize, demonize and discredit the CIA, Obama, the news media and the courts

its almost like they are afraid the news will report the CIA found a connection between trump and the russians via an Obama ordered wiretap or surveillance and its headed to the courts

hmmmmm



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I just. I just had to quote this.

I apologize for not making my OP aesthetically pleasing to your eyes.


I was saying that your OP was indeed pleasing to the eye, but that the farcical content within has overshadowed its prettiness.


edit on 3/11/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest


its weird how the white house / wikileaks has gone to extraordinary lengths to marginalize, demonize and discredit the CIA, Obama, the news media and the courts


Nobody has discredited the MSM, Obama, & CIA more than they have themselves.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Ah I jumped the gun ColdWisdom I apologize.

I'm very sensitive about how I structure my OPs.

I appreciate your compliment.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
its weird how the white house / wikileaks has gone to extraordinary lengths to marginalize, demonize and discredit the CIA, Obama, the news media and the courts

its almost like they are afraid the news will report the CIA found a connection between trump and the russians via an Obama ordered wiretap or surveillance and its headed to the courts

hmmmmm


Or maybe, the CIA, MSM and Obama administration deserve to be exposed? Nah, they've never done anything wrong.

Funny watching liberals now defending the CIA! The world really has gone bizarro. It won't be long until liberals are praising Bush.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


You have no evidence to support your claim that Wikileaks


I think the evidence above is clear enough. Take it as you will. I don't foresee converting much people over here.


Assange has stated on multiple occasions that he would publish Trump's tax returns in a heart beat,


I'm sure Assange says that. He says a lot of things. We can quote a great many things from Assange.


Many documents in the Panama Papers (published by wikileaks) outline how Putin used shell companies that operated as a front for the Kremlin in order to launder illicit money into a swiss bank account.


Oh I'm sure he'd give Putin a little stinger here and there. His leaks though have been largely focused against the West. I'm sure WL will try and keep up appearances alittle here and there.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I think the problem is with some of you is that you were convinced that the Democrats in general and Obama in particular could do no wrong. When evidence comes out to contradict your assumptions you want to rationalize it away by discrediting the messenger. Personally I don't trust Assange, but I do think that we should use what he gave us to fix the screwed up state of our gov't.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hangedman13
I think the problem is with some of you is that you were convinced that the Democrats in general and Obama in particular could do no wrong.


What does Wikileaks' ties with Russia have to do with the Democrats and Obama not performing their duties for the people?

There are a tonne of threads on this forum about the Democrats and Obama. The OP is not about this. This is a thread about the Wikileaks being compromised.

I also have no doubt there are people out there who believe the Democrats and Obama can't do any wrong. Just like there are people out there who believe Trump and the GOP can't do any wrong. This isn't the discussion for this.


Personally I don't trust Assange,


I want to highlight this quote right here. Even with you Assange doesn't sit right. Why is that? Why don't you ask yourself why you don't trust him?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I've been thinking about writing a thread about this for sometime. While I may not fully agree with Assange, I do believe Wikileaks had done a service to the world through some of their leaks. In the recent years however something about Wikileaks felt off. Evidence has been mounting that Wikileaks has increasingly released and coordinated leaks in favor of one side.

Just came up with this... the 'one side' remaining nameless:

"I like Wikileaks. However, pssst... they're Russian."



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
McCarthyism is back, and it's even stupider the second time round.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You used the word evidence in your title, but I think you meant speculation.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The original wikileaks release was identified as an Israeli operation by none other than Zbig Brzezinski. Now go listen to what is daughter Mika has to say....



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
McCarthyism is back, and it's even stupider the second time round.

I know, the Red Menace, the Communist threat.

Johnson-- "If we abandon little Vietnam to the communists what do you think will happen to all the other little nations there like Cambodia, Laos, Taiwan and Thailand?

Different day same declared enemy of the 'free world'. Only it all turned out to be lies.

Now they are "russian and chinese", not "commies".

The real threat ongoing to these countries is form the West.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I think the evidence above is clear enough. Take it as you will. I don't foresee converting much people over here.


I fail to see how anything in your OP has demonstrated your presumption that Assange was actively working to undermine HRC, with the specific intention of helping Trump. The only argument that fits is the comparison between the two candidates and what was leaked about them.

So Assange didn't leak anything about Trump. Does that mean he was actively working to conceal any scandalous information he had received about Trump? If the answer is yes, then show me your proof.

You'll remember The New York Times published a copy of Trump's tax returns from 1994. If Trump's most recent tac returns were leakable in any way shape or form, somebody somewhere would have published them if it were TNYT, WaPo, Buzzfeed, CNN, etc.

But speaking of TNYT, did you know that when asked whether or not they would have published Podesta's emails if given the opportunity, they responded with yes? And yet it's Assange to blame for Hillary's failure because obviously Assange was responsible for HRC's behaviors and actions as Secretary of State.


I'm sure Assange says that. He says a lot of things. We can quote a great many things from Assange.


I think you would be more effective in your efforts if you spent more time listening carefully to Assange's own words. Whether you believe the man or not, any critique of the man should come from observations you've made about Assange directly.


Oh I'm sure he'd give Putin a little stinger here and there. His leaks though have been largely focused against the West. I'm sure WL will try and keep up appearances alittle here and there.


Except that nothing about Wikileaks' published history suggests that Assange is curating information to be politically expedient or to serve a partisan agenda.

Assange himself stated that ten years ago when he helped found Wikileaks, he believed that Wikileaks was going to thrive more in the east where communist dictatorships are the norm. In particular, Assange said that he believed he would be receiving more documents to leak from citizens in China and in (North) Korea, due to the level of corruption and totalitarianism that is rampid in their governments.

Much to his surprise, Assange found that eventually he would be leaking more documents from the west, due to the United States' inherent level of corruption and secrecy within DC.

See this TIME interview with Assange:


In a 36-minute interview with TIME (the full audio will be available soon on TIME.com), Assange explained that exposing abuses can lead to positive change in two ways. When abusive organizations are in the public spotlight, "they have one of two choices," he said. The first, he continued, "is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public." The second choice, he said, "is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient." What he left unsaid but clearly implied was that organizations of the second type eventually fail.

And where does the U.S. fall between the two categories? He said, "It's becoming more closed" as a society, and its "relative degree of openness ... probably peaked in about 1978, and has been on the way down, unfortunately, since." That, he said, was a result of, among other things, America's enormous economy, which calibrates power in the U.S. in economic, or as he said, "fiscal," terms. He pointed out that, today, China may be easier to reform than the U.S. "Aspects of the Chinese government, [the] Chinese public-security service, appear to be terrified of free speech, and while one might say that means something awful is happening in the country, I actually think that is a very optimistic sign, because it means that speech can still cause reform and that the power structure is still inherently political as opposed to fiscal. So journalism and writing are capable of achieving change, and that is why Chinese authorities are so scared of it." On the other hand, in the U.S. and much of the West, he said, "the basic elements of society have been so heavily fiscalized through contractual obligations that political change doesn't seem to result in economic change, which in other words means that political change doesn't result in change."




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join