Starting off 2017 with a big sigh because of everything.
Particularly, I have my problems with how Wikileaks has developed it’s model in the past few years, especially the “drip drip” nonsense this election which looked and felt political. But I can’t forget that the Wikileaks model of encryption and source protection is massively important and is now being developed much better by peeps like Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, and Scahill.
All that said, I don’t know who is running the Wikileaks twitter, whether it is Assange or a battery of individuals. I also don’t think his tweet in regards to Obama and the media getting info before Trump, or the Hannity interview quite amounts to support for trump.
The “Russia hacking” should have us skeptical too as those stories have been falling apart and the claims -as of yet- are without public evidence –> The Intercept: Washington Post is richly rewarded for false news about Russia threat while public is deceived
Now, lets not all go believe Obama because Trump is full of fertilizer.
I still don’t know enough to make a call. BUT
If they had dumped leaks all at once as soon as they could, upon receiving them, and that was apparent, they would have more of a leg to stand on.
In my head:
Wikileaks has done a lot of good in the world despite the hysteria of 2016. That should not so quickly be forgotten.
However, Wikileaks behavior in 2016 is hugely significant.
The release of the Podesta emails -while important and within the scope of WL’s values to release- was done in a most unusual fashion that seemed to have the goal of hurting HRC and the Democracts as much as possible which deviates greatly from WL’s purported values. “WikiLeaks interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, as a media publisher WikiLeaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.”
I think it is highly unlikely that the Russian government colluded with WL directly.
That is, it is unlikely that Putin’s administration ordered the hack and then made themselves known as the perpetrators to Assange.
Assange does seem to know who gave them the leaks and claims it is non-govt – we don’t know how they got them though – but again WL has a record of being truthful in many regards and so I think it is likely Assange believes what he is saying on Hannity.
Assange abruptly refused to answer to this allegation in the Hannity interview –> dailymail.co.uk article <– which was noteworthy.
It is likely that the intelligence agencies are unsure about the hack as a that is extremely hard to prove. -most people that are computer wiz-bangs are skeptical of the metadata evidence and ip address. -I bounce my IP all over the world too-
Circumstantial evidence is noteworthy, but an indictment of Putin’s administration it does not make.
If the evidence was stronger, I think Obama would have done a whole lot more than ban some Russian diplomats out of the country. With the serious charges his administration is making, Obama should have done a hell of a lot more than push them out calling them spies.
The situation is critical and I’m totally willing to believe that Putin did bad things, laundered it through WL, and that Assange made the most mess out of it he could.
But short of hard evidence, I’m not committed to any conclusions yet other than the mess I saw Assange make. I’m still analyzing.
p.p.s. The shear amount of gerrymandering and voter suppression was more than enough for me to say the whole election was a defrauding of democracy in the first place. –see Ari Berman