It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Rosinitiate
JA *is* WikiLeaks. He has unilateral control over everything that WikiLeaks does. It's assumed in the article that JA was behind the wheel of the WL account (how many people have control over the WL twitter account aside from Assange? 1 or 2 others?).
the @WikiLeaks account is run by a rotating staff as has been repeatedly stated over the years: twitter.com... …
- basic fact checking would have shown this. another example: the article uses messages from late Oct 2016 when I infamously had no internet access.
They don’t reveal anything new about WikiLeaks’ relationship with the Trump campaign, although they are consistent with the group’s public statements casting doubt on claims by former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone that he had advanced knowledge of the group’s anti-Clinton leaks. The chats don’t illuminate any connections with the Russian government or tell us anything about the identity of the source who provided WikiLeaks with emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
In some of the published messages, Assange can be seen laying out a rationale for his preference for a GOP candidate over Hillary to these lower level "boosters."
In other messages, Assange paints Russia as a victim of the US with "minor imperialistic goals in its near abroad."
originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: theantediluvian
Assange seems to be more like Machiavelli than a true exponent of freedom and transparency.
A very conniving dangerous fellow.
Wikileaks is NOT only Julian Assange as many people seem to believe. He is the founder of the publishing organisation but Wikileaks has in fact more than one hundred other staff accross the Americas, Africa, Eurasia and the Asia Pacific. I can not link to the Wikileaks site (ffs, ATS) but anyone can go there and click the button that says "About" to learn a thing or two.
Also this tweet from Julian Assange regarding the hit job from the Intercept, is enlightening:
- the editorial propriety of letting Micah F Lee, of all people, instrumentalize the Intercept to further his obsessive, obscenity laden campaign against WikiLeaks must be questioned. Lee was formally behind cutting off WikiLeaks' US tax deductible donations.
- after I wrote to the FPF board last year on that serious subject, Lee has become hysterical. The conflict of interest is obvious. Such a story should have been given to someone else. By failing to do so the story's credibility has been marred.
Julian had promised that the basis under which the Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel had agreed to collaborate was that there was redactions to be made before publication. And Julian had obviously agreed on that. And then he had made interviews with all the three papers, where in these interviews he was describing the harm-minimization process that this material was going through.
But that was all an illusion, because there was no harm-minimization process. He hadn't cared about setting it up, and he hadn't cared about telling anyone else that he needed someone to take care of this. So he gave this promise, but he never told anyone that this work actually had to be done.
So five days before the publication -- the publication day was a Monday, and on the Wednesday before that, I was sitting at lunch with the reporters from Spiegel, and they had asked me how that process was going.
Yes. That was at this time, around the time, that is when he started to behave irresponsibly and when he also made clear that you might have a different view, but he doesn't care very much about your views, and it's either his way or the highway, or however you would want to put that, you know.
So it had changed from a small team that was working as a team to him having set up whatever agreements in the U.K. that he didn't share with anyone. He wouldn't tell anyone in WikiLeaks what the agreements precisely were, who was actually involved, what kind of other people he was working with in Sweden or the U.K., and I don't know all of that.
And it just really got abusive, to a point where if you criticized it, he started to threaten people. And he was saying that, I don't know, leadership should not be challenged in times of crisis, and all sorts of really just unacceptable stuff like this, especially in times of crisis, where leadership has to be challenged.
It was just so wrong, you know. It developed in a direction where I and others had become part of something that we didn't understand anymore. And if you're speaking about these publications, then that's just something that doesn't feel too good if you don't understand that publication.
What’s often underestimated is his gift for bull#. Assange can, and does, routinely tell obvious lies: WikiLeaks has deep and involved procedures; WikiLeaks was founded by a group of 12 activists, primarily from China; Israel Shamir never had cables; we have received information that [insert name of WikiLeaks critic] has ties to US intelligence.
originally posted by: Gothmog
You still searching for anything , no matter how much of a stretch of the imagination , that may show Hillary Clinton is anything other than Hillary Clinton ?
Give it up..