A striking piece in the NYT suggests its former partnership with Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange has well and truly foundered. At this rate, he may be in the Ecuadorian Embassy for a very long time.
Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release — and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency.
Mr. Assange’s remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all the drama of the discord that the disclosures have sown among supporters of Bernie Sanders — and of the unproven speculation that the Russian government provided the hacked data to WikiLeaks in order to help Donald J. Trump — the disclosures are also the latest chapter in the long-running tale of Mr. Assange’s battles with the Obama administration.
In the interview, Mr. Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” which he pronounced “great.” He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.
At one point, Mr. Peston said: “Plainly, what you are saying, what you are publishing, hurts Hillary Clinton. Would you prefer Trump to be president?”
For more on Mr. Assange, listen to this recent, somewhat tiresome interview on Democracy Now!
Julian Assange needs a bolt-hole. He’s been living in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for five years. Well, that residence has made been possible by Hugo Chavez’s ally Rafael Correia, current leader of Ecuador. But Correia’s attempt to change the Ecuadorean constitution to allow a third term was voted down. His time is on the wane. The kakistocratic left in Latin America is declining, and not too long from now, Assange is going to need a new place to hide out. This is a good time to make a new friend, and doing Russia’s bidding on these emails is a great way to do it. He and Snowden can be roomies.
I don’t think he has played his hand very wisely. Certainly not in this case.
…that he is avoiding a charge of rape rather than anything related to his work. That provokes two questions: Why is Ecuador protecting him? Does he really fear Swedish justice?
Additionally, is there any insight as to his motive for these latest leaks? At least with the official secrets he could try a noble claim of people’s right to know, but with the DNC it just sounds like he wants to stir up trouble and enjoy the schaudenfraude.
. . it sounds like they’re just trying to stir up trouble.
Truth is an absolute defense. No one has disputed the truth of what Wikileaks released.
As far as the timing is concerned, the DNC could have released these documents at any time. Why didn’t they?
… here any ‘truth’ is being used in relative offense, which is a distinctly different, and rather more smelly, kettle of fish.
Well then, let me be the one to point out that the injured party, one Senator B. Sanders, with full knowledge of the ‘truth’ of the Wikileaks went ahead an endorsed Secretary Clinton. So without weighing on the ‘truth’ of the documents I’ll dispute the import of them. If Sen Sanders can get over them with all deliberate speed, you and I can as well…
I can get over the content of the leaks. In fact, I think it’s wrong to demand that the DNC be neutral. If the insiders were tilting the playing field because they really thought that one candidate would be stronger, it doesn’t bother me much.
What does bother me is Bob Neer’s slimy attack on the messenger, including his taunting of a political prisoner. And his equally slimy attempt to distant himself from the thread of ad hominem attacks his post initiated.
Every once in a while on this blog someone solemnly implores us to get the big money out of elections. But when Wikileaks reveals evidence of big money’s corrupting influence, people change the subject.
Can I see all the emails you’ve sent and received lately, just because I’m curious? You have nothing to hide, right? DIDN’T THINK SO!
Make up your mind. Is it the release itself you object to, or just the timing?
If it’s the timing, the DNC had control of the timing. The DNC is a quasi-public entity, and they should be transparent.
It’s you Christopher, who made an issue about the timing. Assange, I think correctly, pointed out that all this talk about motives, and who was behind the leak was a distraction from the actual information.
…but I would have objected regardless. The DNC is absolutely not a quasi-public entity. They receive no taxpayer funding. They had no reason to think these emails would be released so if you are suggesting that they had an opportunity to get out in front of the story you are giving them an awful lot of credit in the clairvoyance department.
The heat of the primaries would have been worse.
I really don’t think we can credibly believe a word of what he said. He leaked this at the optimal time to embarrass the DNC and Clinton campaign. Doing so in the primary could’ve resulted in a Sanders victory which wouldn’t have benefited Trump as much as having this as fodder for the general election and having a great convention overshadowed by this division at the same time his shitshow got a logic defying poll bounce. So this was all planned the way they wanted it to be.
I agree there wouldn’t be smoke or fire if the DNC hadn’t shot it’s impartiality in the foot with this own goal. But I refuse to make common cause with the enemies of the United States who are using this information for their own purposes.
Mr Assange is an ALLEGED rapist. The charges against him are weak indeed, and were only brought after extreme pressure from US authorities.
I don’t know what role, if any, Mr. Putin played in this release — I leave that to security experts.
We can leave the rape allegations out of it. And he did sabotage US diplomacy and security. I am surprised you disagree with Sec. Clinton about that conclusion. I am actually looking forward to her having a slightly ballsier foreign policy than President Obama on Syria and Ukraine and cracking the whip on these asshole leakers abroad.
Sweden is a free country. He can avail himself to all the legal protocols they provide. Rape sounds like a rather weak charge to just be used as an excuse.
My recollection is that the US very much wanted Mr. Assange in custody in Sweden, so that the US could then force Sweden to extradite him to the US.
If you examine the history, you’ll see that Sweden has in fact dragged its heels about ALL the charges against Mr. Assange. The original complainant is on record multiple times saying that she only wanted an STD test and did not want to press charges.
The allegation that Mr. Assange is a “rapist” is unsupported by the facts or history of the case.
…a non-citizen who did not commit crimes on it’s soil? In other words, does the US even have jurisdiction? If it does, then he should come here and have his day in court post haste. He is being a coward.
The US is the most powerful nation in the world. The US made it crystal clear, from the President on down, that it wanted Mr. Assange to be returned and prosecuted. I’ll let you attempt to decipher Swedish policy yourself — I’m confident that Mr. Assange had and has competent legal counsel and that his decisions reflect the guidance of that counsel. I’m also confident that if Mr. Assange was in Swedish custody, and US authorities twisted arms as the US has clearly stated it will, then Mr. Assange will end up in US custody.
In my view, your eagerness to disparage him is both naive and misplaced.
I’m certainly no expert, but the allegations seem pretty credible to me. They’re detailed and specific. Furthermore, there are two women involved.
Wikileaks raises larger issues, so I’m fine with putting charges aside for discussion purposes. But I don’t think we can dismiss the charges easily. Think if he were an American celebrity (make it one you dislike): how would you view the allegations then?
The women involved, according to numerous other sources, did not want to press charges. In the link you cited, “Miss A” continued to entertain Mr. Assange in her flat for a week after the incident:
The clear reluctance of Swedish authorities to pursue the charges in the several years since all this is alleged to have happened suggests that they, too, have doubts about the charges. It is worth remembering that these charges were initially dismissed, and only resurfaced after the US showed interest in Mr. Assange for other reasons.
The primary issue of contention with Mr. Assange seems to be whether or not he used a condom, or whether or not the condom was intact by the end of the event, rather than any question of consent. I’m not sure any of these allegations would even rise to the standard of “rape” were they brought in the US.
To me, it is blazingly obvious that the rape charges were a pretext for the US to somehow get Mr. Assange into custody so that US authorities could pursue the various other allegations against him. In my view, we should wait until the rape charges are explored in court before assuming they are true. I also think that wait is likely to be forever, because all of the indications are that none of the players (except the US) wants the rape prosecution to proceed.
I like to think that I am reluctant to assume guilt about ANY rape allegation until the evidence is presented in court, regardless of who is involved in the case.
…then we should attempt to extradite and try him. If his lawyer is counseling him to avoid our justice that sounds extremely unethical and if licensed here grounds for disbarment. I’m all for innocent until proven guilty whether on this or the alleged rape, but have no patience whatsoever for being a fugitive from justice.
The “crime” he is charged with in Sweden is not, to my knowledge, illegal in the US. Any extradition by the US would NOT be to pursue prosecution for the rape charges that began this discussion. It is not clear whether or not he broke any Swedish law in his actions. The game is the legal version of bait-and-switch — get him into Swedish custody on trumped-up rape charges (even the Swedish government has made it clear they have no appetite for pursuing these), then strong-arm Swedish authorities to allow Mr. Assange to be transferred to the US where he can face abuse similar to that being done to Chelsea Manning (see below).
Of course he seeks to avoid our “justice” regarding the government’s reaction to his disclosures, that’s why he (and Edward Snowden) fled in the first place.
We see now that military authorities are threatening to bring charges against Chelsea Manning because of her suicide attempt (emphasis mine):
Let’s just do an instant replay on that last bit …
The punitive tactics that have been employed against her include stripping her naked in her cell on a nightly basis, extended solitary confinement and denial of medical necessities like eyeglasses.
This abuse and torture has been widely publicized for YEARS. I don’t see how you can be aware of this and still bleat about “our justice”.
Our “justice” in this case is the justice of the medieval torture chamber. You, and we, should be ashamed.
. . . which they do, or assassinate him, which they also do.
In fact, the US government assassinates not only non-citizens, but citizens.
The rape charge is suspiciously convenient as a way to silence a free agent (though I have more faith in the justice system of Sweden than most other countries). Ecuador, like Venezuela, needs a great enemy to justify its revolution, and needs to take safe measures to flip off that great enemy. Hence the asylum for Assange.
At one point, I think Assange had priorities. Now, however, he’s holed up in a building for five years, surrounded by sycophants of his own choosing. I think he’s lost perspective and decided what’s good for Julian is good for the world. And what Julian needs over the next three years is someplace to go once Ecuador stops giving him refuge. If that means doing the bidding of a despot, so be it.
… seems to be the word(s) of the day.
Snowden leaked classified documents based on an apparent personal conviction that the NSA was engaging in unconstitutional espionage against American citizens. Now we learn that Assange leaks documents in order to influence American political campaigns. There seems to be a critical difference in their motivations.
I’m confused by this. The whole idea of a leak is that it’s anonymous, because the source would lose their job if exposed.
Assange is basically saying it’s OK for me to keep secrets, but not the DNC. Those emails were private communications that were never acted upon. I for one would respect a moral crusade on the principles of transparency if one practices what he preaches.
Would you leak something if he didn’t?
. . .because “experts” say so, and it’s reported in the NYT. And the response from Bob Neer and Sabutai is to titter about Assange and Snowden.
The more things change . . .
My post is about the interesting fact that Assange said on 12 June that he has these documents. The speculation is why he chose the start of the DNC convention to leak them. WMDs, “experts” and Putin is a different subject.
Assange’s answer:
Perhaps Assange doesn’t understand US politics as much as he thinks. If Obama or Clinton wanted him in jail, he’d likely be in jail.
…I think he’s more likely to crack down on Assange than Clinton is. Plus this clearly shows that he is a bigger threat to our security than Clinton’s private server UNLESS that’s the server which was hacked and thus the ultimate source of the cables. If the latter proves correct all heck will break lose!
why would Trump be more likely than Clinton to crack down on Assange given that what Assange did was intended to benefit Trump’s campaign? Moreover, Tump has just invited Putin to hack Clinton’s emails, so he clearly doesn’t care about our national security.
…that Clinton is weak on security and Trump is tough. Trump is so much stronger and will defeat all of our enemies by snapping his fingers and applying just the right amount of torture – just ask him!
I guess there is a consistent strand in Trump’s vision which is Jacksonian. Stay out of great power politics, wage total war when you are attacked and be brutal to the enemy, and an element of a white welfare state secured on the backs of brown labor. Very consistent with Andrew Jackson. The biggest difference being that even Jackson rejected white supremacists when the threatened the greater good of the country, he excoriated his own veep John Calhoun in visceral terms to his face, something Trump has yet to do with David Duke.
Wikileaks was supposed to be about an open internet and expose private information, instead it turning into an attack site. There was always going to be information that you are not going to want exposed, that’s different when you don’t have an agenda.
The open internet idea of wikileaks is gone.
I don’t think Assange gets to wear the same white hat that Snowden does. Snowden, at significant personal risk, exposed an abuse of which he was aware, as a matter of conscience.
Assange acts as a filter for people who wish to expose information, choosing which such information is and is not exposed, apparently based on his own personal agenda.
Also, the fact that the DNC emails were newsworthy doesn’t mean that anyone should be pleased with what looks suspiciously like Russian interference in the US election.
DWS should’ve been fired long ago for incompetence regardless of her role in the DNC issue, and while I strongly disagree with those who think the DNC revelations are much ado about nothing, I am far more concerned and angrier that Russian intelligence hacked into one of our major political parties to mess with our elections.
This guy should be sharing a cell with Bill Cosby, not Snowden. And wiki leaks has destabilized the Middle East and endangered diplomats abroad. The amount of blood on their hands is higher than anything they accuse Hillary of doing.
… that if Obama or Clinton wanted to punish him, they’d make him wade through thousands of emails between two dozen or so wanna-be Dem ratfuckers and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Of course he’d be bitter after that….
The horror.
You think Obama or Clinton would raid an embassy in the UK to arrest Assange?
Um… no. That would be insane. The embassy isn’t even on US soil, and much as the UK considers us an important ally… they’re not going to raid an embassy on their soil because Obama or Clinton asked them to.
That said, the UK has made it clear that if Assange left the premises of the embassy, that he’d be arrested, though. Hence the stalemate.
If the Ecuadorian embassy in London had a garage, I think Assange would probably be on a beach in South America by now.
Embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the respective country, so raiding one would be like invading the country itself.
but it’s fuzzier than you may think, and I didn’t want to get into that fuzziness when it wasn’t important to the broader point.
The fuzziness: any government could revoke the invitation for a country to have an embassy.
So, for example, the UK could revoke Ecuador’s rights to have the embassy, at which point it would no longer be “Ecuadorian soil” and then the UK could raid it, if Ecuador didn’t leave.
It’s not going to happen, though.
And the point remains: So long as Ecuador welcomes Assange into its embassy, there’s not a damn thing the US government could do to have Assange arrested… even if they wanted it really, really bad.
At the end of the day, the leak served the public interest, and Democrats, centrists, and idealist Republicans will be happy to continue to support Hillary over Trump the Terrible.
I am more interested in having a functioning, honest DNC than of having Assange thrown into the dungeon. Each time the veil is pulled from the uses and misuses of money in American politics a bit, that’s a good thing.
Read this before bashing Assange further:
DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign, by Matt Taibbi (July 25, 2016)
Money raised purportedly by Hillary for down ballot Democrat races was not used for the stated purpose, and was actually turned around to fund Hillary’s campaign – with full collusion by the DNC, which acted as Clinton’s political action committee during the primary.
The more you look at how national parties function – Democrat and Republican – they have a very thin a thin veneer of respectability and lawyering, but don’t dare to scratch that surface, you will not like what you find.
Assange and his friends in Russian intelligence are the same as the Watergate burgers only more successful at getting their information out and they are cooperating with a foreign government rather than the opposition party’s President. I don’t know which is worse, but they are both clearly illegal actions that violate the right to privacy and arguably impede on the First Amendment rights of the Democratic National Committee to assemble
freely and practice politics without state interference.
That said, what they revealed is deeply disturbing and should result in substantial changes to DNC personnel and conduct going forward. Reince has presided over a shit show, but no one can accuse him of putting the thumb on the scales against Trump. There are many conservatives who wish he did and many Republicans pointing out that our super delegates and DNC coordination make our process less democratic than theirs. I agree with porcupine and others who point out that even if they got stuck with a lousy nominee, at least their process was more fair and democratic than ours. Reince was impartial, our side was not. The fact that the results wouldn’t have changed makes this even worse, it was unnecessary and now hurts the general election and unity at the worst possible time. That’s all on the DNC for making the mistake, though the timing was clearly a July surprise to help Putin’s preferred candidate.
J, it’s not even the DNC making any mistakes… It is how the system works:
DNC makes arrangement for fundraising with Clinton behind Sanders’ back. The fundraising is arranged to make it appear as Clinton is raising funds for down party races. Big pocket donors open big pockets happily because they’re told that’s where the money goes.
Then, Clinton turns around and moves the money minutes after being deposited in state party coffers back into her coffers.
Sanders campaign manager gets wind of it and calls it ‘money laundering’, asking the DNC to leave the money in state party coffers. The DNC bristles and sets up to respond to Sanders through national media channels, trying to find a state official to speak in support of the laundering…
Hilarity ensues, because an unknown state official had been spilling the beans on this to the journalists, off the record. The DNC has a mole in one of the state organizations, and they don’t want to give the media slot by mistake to the mole…
Dishonesty under the cover of privacy and 1st amendment rights. Sure, no laws are broken, but only because the system is arranged to work.
Without the DNC, Clinton would have had great difficulty raising funds to beat Sanders in the primary. Clinton could not get enough small campaign contributions to keep up with Sanders. Big donors would not give her money without assurance that the vast majority of the donation went to down ballot Democrats. So, the DNC rides to Clinton’s rescue.
I am starting to get the idea that Sanders would have won the primary, had the DNC to not played fund raising favorites.
She crushed him with African Americans and there was nothing the Sanders campaign to do to change that, her relationships with them went back decades and his not at all. She won by millions of votes and he actually outspent her in every primary.
What the DNC did was wrong, and possibly illegal if the money links are proven. Even if not illegal it violated it’s own internal constitution. How we found out about it was probably illegal and definitely the work of a foreign intelligence service. We can be angry about these things simultaneously. The DNC did put its thumbs on the scales which is wrong, and entirely unneeded as far as the final results are concerned. But it is far more disconcerting that a foreign intelligence agency is putting it’s thumb on the scales for a candidate who would do it’s bidding in Eastern Europe. Just as the Manchurian Candidate predicted in 1962, and just as Sinclair Lewis predicted in the 30s, the foreign autocrat would come wrapped in an American flag and pretending to be a patriot.
Here is another good one from Wikileaks:
The DNC was collecting 24 names of big donors, most of them Clinton and none Sanders supporters – for federal boards and commissions.
“Last call for boards and commissions” !
It is the Democratic National Committee, not the Neutral National Committee. I’m not sure why it is simply accepted that they were supposed to be neutral arbiter in a campaign between a Democrat and someone who was not a Democrat, but joined yesterday.
There is no asterisk for independent social democrats who choose to run in the Democratic primary. That is such a bogus line of attack against Bernie anyway, particularly coming from a fellow independent like you and also because the alternative was Bernie running third party which everyone supporting Hillary would be up in arms about. He ran expecting fair treatment and has withdrawn and endorsed the nominee like he pledged to do. He did not hold the DNC hostage with pledges to bounce like Trump did. Bernie acted honorably, the DNC acted dishonorably in a way that will unfairly in my view discredit Hillary Clinton.
The way I define that term it would seem to preclude having another job, such as US Rep., though I understand there is plenty of precedent.
She repeatedly put her own political interests above the party. Whether it was sparing her Republican friends in the FL delegation from strong Democratic contenders or voting against the President on Iran to maintain her fundraising from AIPAC. Howard Dean never did something similar, neither did Terry McAuliffe to his credit.
…are “Watergate burgers” served with ketchup?:) (check your first line above)
I only ask if the collusion were legal, but as with Bill Clinton’s perjury charges, even if technically accurate, I’m too upset about the way we came to find out because these emails, like his affair with Lewinsky, never should have seen the light of day to begin with.
That said, these emails could result in a Watergate-sized scandal, not over DNC staff not being able to keep their biases to themselves, but the prospect that Russia is meddling in our elections with the encouragement of one of our nominees.
And I have many. I do wonder if Warren Burger went for a Watergate burger from time to time…
it’s indisputably disturbing if Russia is using a supposed “pro-transparency” group for the express purpose of influencing the American election. It is doubly so if the “leak” was the product of illegal cyber-warfare by a foreign government.
Whatever you think of the DNC’s corruption, or Wasserman Schultz’s incompetence, there’s no way around it: Russia’s use of cyber-warfare to influence the election is a very, very disturbing development.
Yup, Russia was probably involved… Just as they were in offering asylum to Snowden.
Welcome to the new, interconnected world, where there’s no need for a third rate burglary at a Washington hotel to dig up dirt on your political opponents.
Will it influence the election?… I doubt it. Will it help reform fund raising practices in the Democratic party, to make it difficult for big-money donors to hand pick candidates?… Let’s hope so.
In the meanwhile, Trump calls on Russia and China to release all they have… but has not synced with his VP Mike Pence, who is calling on the FBI to get to the bottom of this.
But I disagree that Wasserman Schulz was incompetent. She did precisely what she was supposed to do. Her only ‘mistake’ was that she got caught.
…for saying Russia was PROBABLY involved. The rest desperately refer to this as established fact in an effort to distract from the content of the emails…
Ooooh!! Look over THERE!!! Something SHINY!!!
The Guardian in Britain was reporting an entirely different hacker might be responsible, and they aren’t big Trump supporters.
BTW – the candidate I supported and even voted for in the primary was Carly Fiorina – who talked about how non-fatal terrorism and modern warfare wasn’t boots on the ground, but protecting our social and financial infrastructure from hacking and disabling. But, of course, the latest news network polls found her unworthy to participate in the debates (and it was too damn CONFUSING to have more than one vagina in the race).
The links between Trump and Putin are just too numerous. And the sad fact is, Putin has been getting praised from a lot of conservatives for awhile as a “strong, muscular leader” and a “fighter against Islamism”.
In reality, I agree with Romney, as I was on the record agreeing with in 2012 btw, that they remain our #1 geopolitical threat. ISIL is the greater security threat, but they are not threatening the territorial sovereignty of the US and its allies the same way Russia is. And unfortunately Trump is even more naive than Obama was in 2009 or Bush was in 2004 that they could cut a deal or stare into this guys soul. I know a lot of Republicans from college voting for Hillary over this stuff.
that there’s a lot more to this story, and that we can’t jump to conclusions. But consider the various elements we know so far: (1) the emails were the result of a hack, (2) the FBI has specifically stated that the hack bears the hallmarks Russian intelligence agencies, (3) other cyber-security firms have come to similar conclusions, including that it is highly unlikely to have been done by a single Romanian hacker (as the Guardian editorial suggests), and (4) Russia is already strongly suspected both of cyber-warfare and of attempts to influence elections (for example, in France and Hungary).
If this adds up to a Russian cyber-warfare hack to influence the election — and this is still to be determined, though the evidence for it is building — then surely you’d agree that it is unwarranted to minimize this story as merely an attempt to “distract from the content of the emails.”
Instead, you’re talking about the start of a new Cold War with Russia, and a considerable amount of international destabilization. That’s what I mean by this being very, very disturbing.
When Russia puts American lawmakers on their payroll and pays for their overseas junkets, I’ll worry about the Russians influencing the American government.
Consider that Paul Manafront, Trump’s campaign manager was taking payments from Putin’s apparatchik in Ukraine, and that Trump’s debt is largely held in Russian banks and you do have collusion. Now out in the open wher Trump is unprecedentedly asking for foreign intelligence services to spy on a domestic political opponent. That is unheard of, and if nothing he said disqualified him from this high office in the past, that statement should. At least Henry Wallace was a moron who didn’t realize his party had been hijacked by Soviet agents, Trump is openly asking for their assistance.
So no, that is far more threatening to our republic than a few emails and campaign finance irregularities form the DNC. Your hatred of Clinton and your passion for Bernie is blinding you to Moscow’s interference in our election and the real danger it poses to the entire country.
that last week, he said that the US would not honor NATO treaty obligations in eastern Europe, and cheered the UK Brexit vote because it threatened the EU, thus signalling a potential change in the two most important pillars of US security policy for the last 70 years (and, in the process, taking a giant steaming dump on the legacy of President Reagan).
Trump wants to concede the Cold War victory 25 years later, because Putin flatters his ego.
It’s unfortunately Hillary Clinton isn’t bothering to make it so, she really could pull a Reagan 84′ campaign and hit him for raising taxes astronomically on consumer goods with his VAT and tariff and being soft on Russia. Far more resonant with swing voters than glass ceilings, BLM, or even TPP.
I suppose they are trying not to alienate the Bernie holdouts, and talk like that hurts their fee-fees.
But at this point, I wish the approach to these people would be to call them out for the childish, petulant, objectively stupid people that they are; these perpetual college freshmen with their tape and their fart-ins.
I guess that’s too Bill and not Hillary.
Obama did a great job, so did Biden. Kaine’s speech was a bit of a did to me, but it was sandwiched between two great ones. I think the argument has been masterfully framed by Obama, and I think it brings along most folks. Already 90% of Bernie supporters say they will vote for Hillary pre-convention which is pretty high.
He has attracted far more independent left of center voices and voters to the party than he has repelled. The ones refusing to play ball are likely blue states or weren’t gonna go her way anyway, and that’s fine. Now it’s about reaching out to appalled Republicans and independents. And I think the security and taxation stuff is quite potent.
Where the hell did you come up with that? For the record I’m voting for Clinton (although out of respect for her choice for Veep, I will wrestle with my conscience the night before the election.) On this blog, I’ve defended her much more often than I’ve criticized her. And I have no passion for Bernie, and never expressed any on this blog.
So where did you come up with this stuff? Did you pull it out of the same orifice that produced your other grandiose pronouncements about Assange, Snowden, Manning, Wikileaks, and the entire Middle East?
It’s really disturbing on this site that so many “progressives” are so quick to resort to the crudest kind of red-baiting– on the slimmest evidence and for the narrowest intra-partisan advantage.
And while I have your attention, Jcon, you’re not the only one on this blog who’s had a security clearance. You can use it to get coffee for 99 cents at Cumberland Farms.
Like JC above, I also thought Romney was correct. I gave my reasons for supporting Carly. And while I can never prove it, in 1992 I wrote a piece about how we were contemplating merrily spending the ‘peace dividend’ when Arab terrorists with nuclear suitcase bombs could replace the Cold War and that the defeat of the Soviet Union didn’t mean there were no threats in the world.
But that is separate from the media coverage and push back. I have heard more about Ted Cruz’s dad’s underwear than the actual content of the DNC emails.
As far as progressives go, I have on my Sardonic Face. When Assange was exposing DOD documents, corporate misdoings, etc., he was a heroic freedom fighter. Now, he is a Russian spy with personal motives to hurt Hilary. Truth is Truth, kids. You are either for or against transparency, not only using it as an excuse to embarrass people you don’t like. As a paid member of EFF, I am pro transparency, even while I worry about national security. Overall, the risk is worth the reward.
…I certainly think it is possible to favor greater transparency from the government doing the people’s business while not appreciating breaches of privacy of non-government actors. I completely reject your assertion that you have to be for or against in all cases, except someone doing what Assange is doing should apply the same standards to himself.
Instability is the enemy of human progress. Destabilization in the name of transparency isn’t a good trade off, especially since his leaks nearly sabotaged the Iran deal and definitely lead to purges in North Korea of the remaining pro-diplomacy factions. It also indirectly helped create ISIL by toppling the Egyptian, Syrian, Libyan, and Tunisian regimes. It had a chilling effect on the freedom of diplomats to speak freely amongst themselves which is essential to foreign policy making and international deal making. And now it is allowing itself to be a pawn of the Russian regime in interfering with an American presidential election. None of this is a good thing.
I have a different view. We live in a secrecy-infused era, and neither political party, nor the donor class have an interest in shedding a bit of light on the machinations happening behind the scenes – when political money is raised, when donors are offered seats on federal boards on commissions, and when influence is peddled.
That’s why it is good to have a bit of visibility into the proceeds. A bit of sunlight, as disinfectant.
If Wikileaks did not exist, someone would have to invent it.
Its where sensitive diplomacy is conducted. Manning and Assaunge just unleashed a ton of cables without any care for the consequences it would have on endangering diplomats lives, and endangering deals in the works. You need secrecy to conduct a good deal.
The Iran nuclear deal or even the TPP which I oppose, needed the diplomats to come together and honestly hash out their views without a filter and without their governments or people nitpicking every step of the way. Then you get a fully negotiated treaty you can vote up or down on. Otherwise, you are effectively crowdsourcing a line item treaty veto which is a lousy way to conduct foreign policy.
Yep, you need secrecy, but what’s also needed is a way to keep tabs on what the National-Security state is doing. Else, there is no check on them – and it is a known fact that anti-terror methods have evolved during the Obama years as a result of exposure to indignant public opinion. (References: Guantanamo closure blocked by Congress, drone war allowed to go on as a ‘leave no trace’ alternative to having to incarcerate presumed terrorists.)
The National Security state would be happy to keep everything secret, forever – just as Disney would be happy to keep the Mickey Mouse copyright forever.
Until governance of National Security is figured out, we have to rely on Snowdens, Mannings and Assanges – there’s no other working alternative.
Incidentally, we are in the middle of a huge uptick of terror activities in Europe. But nobody talks about it, presumably because advisors to the big-party candidates are loath to open another contentious topic of conversation during their election.
Yet, if during the presidential campaign National Security reform is not discussed, then when does the indigent have a chance to weigh in democratically on the matter?…
They should be providing the check, as long as they don’t waste time on emails and Benghazi.
Their track record in Congress is not good on that, and when elected, the right honorables are rarely if at all asked of their whereabouts in the said committee.
Snowden? yes. Chelsea Manning? Yes, again.
Assange? No. Just an opportunist.
Snowden did the right thing for the wrong reasons, Manning did the wrong thing for the right reasons, and Assange is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. That’s my judgment as the only person on this blog to have had access to classified material and a current security clearance.
Snowden actually exposed an illegal program as a byproduct of his personal vendetta against his co workers and the NSA which was about to fire him. He has basked in the adulation while hiding out in a geopolitical rival’s capital with the protection of their intelligence services. If he really thought what he did was to protect the Constitution he should come back and face the charges like a man. Ellsburg did and was vindicated by the courts and history.
Manning released a ton of raw diplomatic cables without filtering them to protect the diplomats involved which lead to purges of the North Korean diplomatic corps as well as the Iranian diplomatic corps and endangered CIA operatives and foreign service workers overseas. It also jeopardized the Iran deal. But she did so with the right intentions, I will give her that. And she doesn’t deserve the mistreatment she has been given in prison.
And Assange is just a nihilist who wants to cause chaos across the world and draw attention to himself, while he cowardly avoids facing charges from his own government for sexual assault with the assistance of a regime that is both anti-American and anti-democratic. And know he is openly working with Russian intelligence agents to illegally influence the US elections.
Assange is an imperfect man – no, he is not working openly with Russian intelligence, this is not borne by the evidence. It is possible that intelligence services are using him as an outlet – saves them the time to have to work with traditional news organizations.
And then gave the info to Julian, not the other way around. So yes, he is using Russian intelligence to gain access to hidden documents that he is spreading in the name of ‘transparency’. That’s totally different from using a whistleblower on the inside or even hacking the goods himself. So yes he is being used by them and is apparently ok with that.
And what, really, has Russia to gain if Trump is elected? If anything, they have much to lose. The guy would be a loose cannon standing on top of a bundle of nukes. He could turn on a whim and create more headaches for Putin in a single day than Hillary in an entire year.
The narrative of Putin meddling in to promote his pal based on Trump’s business ties is shaky.
1. A friend and ally in the White House, less likely to oppose or even deplore Russian military aggression in Chechnya, Croatia, Ukraine.
2. A US president who openly wonders whether the US should bother with NATO, thus exposing Poland and the Baltics to Russian pressure. They could defy Putin because what could he do? They like all of Europe are under the NATO defensive umbrella. Now they think- maybe the NATO umbrella is worthless, and maybe we better do what Putin tells us. And poof: satellite state. This has been an objective of Russian foreign policy since Stalin.
3. A US president who cheers for the demise of the EU, which along with NATO has been the bedrock of US policy in Europe post WWII, intended to prevent another European war which would inevitably draw in the USA.
Putin has always been quite clear that he wishes to establish a neo-Soviet empire. Trump is the guy who would stand aside and say, please, Vlad, go right ahead.
Actually, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quite a number of headaches for Putin from 2008 to 2012. She sanctioned some of his cronies. She pushed for the Libyan intervention to which Putin was opposed. And the 2011 protests after the Parliamentary elections was highlighted by Secretary Clinton as specifically “neither free nor fair” and there was apparent State department involvement with the agitators. Animosity between the two goes beyond the personal and into Clinton’s refusal to back down from her assessments or her actions against Russian when at State. Putin doesn’t like her on both a personal and professional level.
Trump is a wild card, to be sure, but he’s mostly just clueless. Putin knows a thing or two about how to sow and to reap the benefits of chaos himself and how to take advantage of it. He has a better chance at advantage with Trump than with Clinton, especially since Clinton has already demonstrated that she will not back down to Putin.
They say that you are only as strong as your strongest opponent. Domestically speaking, Hillary Clinton (as well as Barack Obama) has been cursed with ridiculously weak opponents. I think her time at State is where we can truly measure her strength, and her strongest opponent at state was Vladimir Putin.
… since it’s (likely) utter nonsense that you are the only such person on this blog fitting that description. Some people with security clearance are rather more discrete than you.
about what Snowden ought to do “like a man”:
:p
That and the dead certainly you claim about Snowden’s motives. Did you know him that well?
Even my own relatively safe brushes with civil disobedience have taught me to be humble about “knowing” what other people ought to do in terms of risking arrest and incarceration. About asserting moral certainty about that.
Your security clearance does not cut it, frankly. But get back to us once you have put yourself in a comparable position, with comparable stakes.
It’s fine to have security clearance; I would not ding anybody for that.My sympathy to John on this.
Rather than asking for Assange to be holed up in a dungeon, maybe it’s time to realize that we have a far better candidate for that position:
I mean Donald Trump himself, the mad billionaire who throughout his happy life could do whatever he damn pleased, all consequence be damned. And now, Trump is running for President, and can trash not just a business, or a casino, but an entire country.
I think it is unsafe to assume we’ll even have running electricity and water if this individual gets to be elected President.
His collusion to ask Russia and China to release Secretary of State email indicates that he’s liable to be impeached by Congress the first few weeks in office, if he plans to keep it up.
But probably necessary.
forget all that Russian conspiracy stuff. But Assange had opened a new front on Trump, it’s his financing deals with foreign countries. Assange had now put Trump on the defense on real estate financing that he received over the past 10 years. Most major UB banks refuse to make deals with him since Trump stiffed him with bad deals (even though that’s kind of funny).
So where is he getting him money from? Today more pointed questions to Trump on the influx of Russian money financing his deals which he had been evasive in answering.
You know what happens when you don’t answer the question, people start digging and the story continues. So we can that Assange for that.
If he paid interest on loans to foreign banks, and if he received income from foreign sources, both would be on his federal tax returns. Mr. Trump has already been in hot water for his relationship with organized crime. The Russian Mafia might be a major player here.
It will be interesting indeed to see just how deeply his ties to Russian sources go — especially if those sources are closely tied to the Russian Mafia.
And the AEI, to their credit, is actively investigating this. I could even see that think tank openly go for Hillary over this, which would literally be the political equivalent of pigs flying. Kristol said he might vote for her.
pulling back the curtain on Trump’s investors would be a good thing to see. Even better getting Trump on the defensive and making him look weak.
Help! Who stiffed whom?
Which were financed by those Wall St. banks, they no longer have any interest in taking on “Donald risk“. Probably the reason he’s going after Wall St., they want nothing to do with him. Trump is the bottom feed amongst bottom feeders.
Foreign investors. here is a good article. Trump is still doing some deals which require significant amount of capital like the SoHo project noted in the article.
This is what I would like to press to continue to dig into. This is the stuff that make Trump backpedal and feel uneasy.
So thanks Julian!