The focus narrowed
Foreign Policy pointed out in August 2017 that Wikileaks declined to publish material damaging to Russia.
In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.
WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.
…
In the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of potentially damaging emails about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign, information the U.S. intelligence community believes was hacked as part of a Kremlin-directed campaign. Assange’s role in publishing the leaks sparked allegations that he was advancing a Russian-backed agenda.
…
WikiLeaks in its early years published a broad scope of information, including emails belonging to Sarah Palin and Scientologists, phone records of Peruvian politicians, and inside information from surveillance companies. “We don’t have targets,” Assange said at the time.
But by 2016, WikiLeaks had switched course, focusing almost exclusively on Clinton and her campaign.
Just some possibly useful background.
Yeah… the entire campaign was apparently one big puppet show, with Putin’s hand up the backside of almost all the major players.
I’m pro whistle-blowing in general but Wikileaks was problematic from the start. Assange seems to be exactly the same sort of narcissistic bellend that Trump is. Leaking things the public needs to know is one thing, weaponising leaks to achieve a political objective is quite another.
That’s before we even get to rape charges.
I’ve read a few articles over the years quoting people who know Assange. They all said that he is self-centred and unable to even entertain the suggestion that other people might have different ideas on, say, what should be leaked and how or what constitutes consent. Sound familiar?
I would strongly urge frequenters of this excellent site to read psychologist Dr Lissa Johnson’s 5-part take on the Assange case, the first of which can be found at:
https://newmatilda.com/2019/02/19/psychology-getting-julian-assange-part-1-whats-torture-got/
It has links to the rest of her series on the subject.
Via stretches in UK, Swedish and US jails, Assange could now find himself banged-up pretty-well for life. The worst charge against him appears to be that he selectively leaked documents that had come into his possession, and was particularly inclined to embarrass the US as much as he could; as against say Russia, which got off relatively lightly.
DISCLOSURE: I do not support all the causes favoured by Assange and his more fervent supporters like the journalist John Pilger. I supported the US over the Iraq War, for example; although I helped organise street demonstrations against the US war in Vietnam. Nor do I resile from that today.
#2
Agreed, Wikileaks has done good – the cooperation with Chelsea Manning comes to mind – but holy hell is it ever a mixed bag.
Well even that was mishandled by Wikileaks, putting people in unnecessary danger. We need whistle-blowers. People like Ed Snowden showed us how to do it (mostly) right. Wikileaks doesn’t hold itself to the same standard, probably because it seems to exist and act at Assange’s whim and Assange is a terrible person.
On a slightly different but related note, I can’t resist posting this here: https://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/1821/1555007254/randiarrest.jpg
I can’t explain why I find it hilarious, but here we are.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944/2405993322752448/?type=3&theater