Wiki-Leaks and Julian Assange are Blasted by CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

So, do we know where Assange went by now then ? Cos last we heard he had ,,, gone

He can't have just popped out for ,,, pizza , the Equa-doors are locked !

a reply to: ZIPMATT

I don't think Julian Assange has faced a foe as sinister as the American CIA before. He's probably #1 priority on the CIA "hit" list now. Ahead of all the evil dictators of the world. That's too bad.

I thiiinnk..he is the most cute person.

well ok. that was lame.

Why does Wikileaks never target Russia or China? Clearly Wikileaks is an anti-American organization. I'm not saying what they report isn't true, I just wish they would reveal the same type of stuff on other countries besides the US. Their sole goal is to harm the US, not report the truth.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

If they were hostile to US interests, they wouldn't have published the Syria files.
Since the goal of the US is clearly to overthrow Assad :



They publish what they have, and what they published has never been proved to be a forgery. On the contrary, as with the above example, it is even 'confirmed' thanks to FBI publications.

a reply to: carewemust

Assange replyed to Pompeo statement :

modus operandi very smart.

a reply to: SargonThrall
Perhaps the question you should be asking is why hasn't wikileaks leaked anything about the corruption and dirty dealings in the Russian government and by Russian organizations yet...

Plenty to publish about that. Perhaps that doesn't draw in enough viewer figures.

a reply to: whereislogic

Because Russia has better enforced his security considerations while the US has been focused on offensive operations ( articulated around 'framing the Russians' as recent releases shown ).

Across the federal government, about 90 percent of all spending on cyber programs is dedicated to offensive efforts, including penetrating the computer systems of adversaries, listening to communications and developing the means to disable or degrade infrastructure, senior intelligence officials told Reuters.

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal would put about $1.5 billion into cyber-security defense at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Private industry and the military also spend money to protect themselves.

But the secret part of the U.S. intelligence budget alone totaled about $50 billion annually as of 2013, documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden show. Just 8 percent of that figure went toward “enhanced cyber security,” while 72 percent was dedicated to collecting strategic intelligence and fighting violent extremism.

Departing NSA Deputy Director Rick Ledgett confirmed in an interview that 90 percent of government cyber spending was on offensive efforts and agreed it was lopsided.

SOURCE : Reuters

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Other websites that are not very favourable to the Russian government don't seem to have the same problem in exposing everything they don't like about the Russian system of governance or particular individuals within that system such as Putin. Not that there are many, but there are some. Of course that would be talking about websites made by people who have some interest to focus on Russia in that manner in particular.

Of course, there's no obligation for wikileaks to start catering to a different crowd in order to avoid having to be suspected of avoiding too much negativity in the direction of who could be some major contributors to the success of wikileaks and its founder (both in popularity+content and financial situation).

a reply to: whereislogic

If wikileaks ever gets its hands on something Russian, it better be explosive, if it is only about the color of wallpaper in the Kremlin's toilet, this will be deemed of no interest.

As I said earlier, Wikileaks leaked a lot of stuff about Syria but nothing embarassing or confirming the current anti-Assad MSM narative thus, something not worth insisting on.
It was also exactly the same approach that defined the coverage of the 'Panama Papers' by the MSM last year : look guys Putin is impacted ! Putin ? Really ? Himself ? No ... actually some of his friends ... But Putin knows them ! Thus Putin know people who could be in trouble ... bla bla bla ... The clear objective of the MSM was to go for some Putin bashing, result : nothing to see here. But it didn't prevent the propaganda machine to illustrate their articles with pictures of Putin despite his non-involment just in order to frame him.

In the MSM, the PR managment is much more important than the accuracy of the reporting.
For some, there is no interest to leak something that is not likely to trigger a proper scandal.
The main reason why publications targeting American individuals are so damaging, is because of the content of those leaks.
At some point it will be critical to focus on the leaked content rather than on those reporting the leaks.