৫ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২৪
A NYT article I'd be more interested in reading if my search of the page had turned up one name — Donna Brazile.
১৭ জুন, ২০২২
"Julian did nothing wrong. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher and he is being punished for doing his job."
"It was in [U.K. home secretary] Priti Patel’s power to do the right thing. Instead she will for ever be remembered as an accomplice of the United States in its agenda to turn investigative journalism into a criminal enterprise."
Says a statement from WikiLeaks, quoted in "Julian Assange’s extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary/Appeal likely after Priti Patel gives green light to extradition of WikiLeaks co-founder" (The Guardian).
৫ মে, ২০২২
"Leaks can serve a really important role in helping to correct government malfeasance, to encourage government to be careful about what it does in secret and to preserve democratic processes."
Said Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, author of "Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11," quoted in The Washington Post on December 6, 2012, in a column titled "Why we don’t need another law against intelligence leaks" (by Leonard Downie Jr.).
And here's a CNN piece by Princeton history professor Julian Zelizer, "Why Washington is leaking like a sieve," published May 31, 2017:
৪ জানুয়ারী, ২০২১
"Julian Assange cannot be lawfully extradited to the US to face charges over WikiLeaks because of his mental health and suicide risk..."
His obsession with computers, and his compulsion to keep moving, both seemed to have origins in his restless early years. So too, perhaps, did the rumblings from others that Assange was somewhere on the autism spectrum. Assange would himself joke, when asked if he was autistic: "Aren't all men?" His dry sense of humour made him attractive — perhaps too attractive — to women. And there was his high analytical intelligence....
If you think that's just a joke, here's a Reason article from 2007: "Could It Be that All Men Are a Bit Autistic?"
৭ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২০
"But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is 'believable' or 'seems like it could be true.'"
Writes Glenn Greenwald in "Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite/Outlets claiming to have 'confirmed' Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term" (The Intercept). The "ludicrously and laughably false" CNN report was that "during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. had received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers containing the DNC emails."
If Rumormonger tells a story to Newspaper1 and then Rumormonger tells the story to Newspaper2, Newspaper2 can't say that it is confirming the story! It can only confirm that Rumormonger is mongering that story. There's no more confirmation than if Newspaper1 and Newspaper2 were on a conference call with Rumormonger and heard the story simultaneously.
১১ এপ্রিল, ২০১৯
Assange arrested.
BREAKING: #Assange removed from embassy - video pic.twitter.com/qsHy7ZVPg5
— Ruptly (@Ruptly) April 11, 2019
According to the NYT article about the arrest, Ecuador's President Lenín Moreno said Assange would no longer be sheltered because of "his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols." Ecuador had protected Assange since 2012.
২৭ ফেব্রুয়ারী, ২০১৯
"I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience."
From the PDF of Michael Cohen's opening statement to the House Oversight Committee.
You can watch the action live here.
১৭ জানুয়ারী, ২০১৮
Trump's "Fake News Awards."
1) The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claiming markets would ‘never’ recover from Trump presidency
2) ABC News' Brian Ross’ bungled report on former national security adviser Michael Flynn
3) CNN report that the Trump campaign had early access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks
4) TIME report that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office
5) The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel tweeting that Trump’s December rally in Pensacola, Florida, wasn’t packed with supporters
6) CNN’s video suggesting Trump overfed fish during visit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
7) CNN’s retracted report claiming Anthony Scaramucci-Russia ties
8) Newsweek report that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake Trump’s hand
9) CNN report that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim he was told he was not under investigation
10) The New York Times report that the Trump administration had hidden a climate-change report
11) In Trump’s words, "‘RUSSIA COLLUSION!’ Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!”
৭ জানুয়ারী, ২০১৮
There's a lot of envy about all the money Michael Wolff is making off his dubious book...
What a crazy lying, cheating, stealing world we live in.
Stay honest. Stay virtuous. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
So much leaking! Have you ever seen so much leaking?
Wikileaks. Bannon leaks. Including tears.
১০ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১৭
"How did CNN end up aggressively hyping such a spectacularly false story? They refuse to say."
Glenn Greenwald, at The Intercept, "The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened."
৯ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১৭
"The media's Russia probe meltdown: 3 screw-ups in one week."
The misses
Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.
Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."
WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.
১৮ নভেম্বর, ২০১৭
"Wikileaks used to be a champion of (seemingly) what they're absolutely not helping with right now."
It's short but complicated, confusing but it hangs together. It's about Wikileaks, but it's kind of about everything in politics, isn't it?
Think of all the individuals and organizations who seemed to be a champion of something you cared about who are absolutely not helping with right now.
৭ নভেম্বর, ২০১৭
Donna Brazile's new book reignites suspicions about the murder of Seth Rich.
The police were there within minutes, and Seth was still alive and talking when they arrived, but he died later that morning at the hospital.That seems at first glance like an uncomplicated acceptance of the idea that Rich was killed in an attempted robbery, but my lawyerly eye notices the unclarity. What did Rich say to the police? He "was alive and talking," but did he say this was a robbery attempt or something else? The police later said it was a robbery attempt, but why did they say that? Did they say that because the now-dead man knew or believed that? He was shot in the back. Can you picture an attempted robbery that leaves the victim shot in the back? Doesn't a robber confront you to your face and use the gun to threaten you into giving him money?
And we see that Brazile doesn't seem to accept that it was simply a robbery. On pages pp. xviii-xix, describing her first phone call with Hillary Clinton after the election, Brazile writes:
I had taken all the hits. Hearing [Hillary's] voice was the first moment I understood how tired I was of taking it. What about the Russians? They had tried to destroy us. Was she going to help? I wanted to file a lawsuit. We needed to sue those sons of bitches for what they did to us. I knew the campaign had over $3 million set aside in a legal fund. Could she help me get this lawsuit started? And don’t forget the murder of Seth Rich, I told her. Did she want to contribute to Seth’s reward fund? We still hadn’t found the person responsible for the tragic murder of this bright young DNC staffer.Brazile is interested in getting her hands on Hillary's money, and she purports to need it to solve 2 mysteries, but it's interesting that she leaps directly from wanting to go after the Russians to finding "the person responsible" for killing Seth Rich. If Donna Brazile really believed that Seth Rich was killed by a common street robber, would she really have brought up the murder in this phone call with Hillary and demanded that campaign money be used to offer a reward? If it were a common robber, he'd have melted back into the population of Washington, D.C. long ago. Why would you think a reward would pull anything in?
Later, at pages 148-149, Brazile talks about the Assange interview (on August 9, 2016) that sparked theories that Rich was assassinated.
On the tape I saw of the interview... [h]e dropped his smirk and said, “Our sources take risks.” Assange was implying that Seth was a source for WikiLeaks! When the interviewer pressed him on his relationship with Seth, Assange left it vague, responding, “We do not comment on our sources. We have to understand how high the stakes are in this case.”She doesn't say how she knew. She just drops that into a description of an encounter with Bernie Sanders. Sanders showed concern about Rich and asked about his family, and Brazile talked about going to visit the family "and help them plan the memorial and scholarship fund."
I had been saddened by the crazy conspiracy theories that ignited on Twitter and Reddit. They wounded Seth’s family. I knew this accusation was not true.
The story devolves into praise for Sanders. He's "no-nonsense... always very grateful to people who tell him the truth." And he sent his regards to the Seth Rich family. So Bernie's listening to the story is used to bolster the truth of the story. He likes people who tell the truth, and Brazile talked to him about the murder, so what she's telling us now must be true. And Bernie's a good man who cared about Rich's family, so we ought to be good and care only about the feelings of Seth Rich's family. That packaging of the Seth Rich mystery makes me suspicious.
Brazile also writes about fear that she might be a target of violence. At page 180:
As I was preparing to fly to Las Vegas for the last debate, Julie, Patrice, and Anne took me aside. They were worried about me traveling alone. The attacks on me had become so frequent and so vicious that they preferred that I have someone along who would watch out for me. What they did not know was how I had been cautioning my family that they should be extra careful now. Our name, Brazile, was distinctive, and it would have been easy for my many sisters and brothers and their children to become the target of some crazed person out to harm me. Several of my siblings said they wanted to come stay with me just until Election Night to make sure I was safe, but I told them no. All I could think about was Seth Rich. Had he been killed by someone who had it out for the Democrats? Likely not, but we still didn’t know.But you told Bernie you knew! Or, I mean, you told us that you told Bernie you knew. Why did you call the conspiracy theories "crazy" when you yourself were — in real life — afraid that someone might be coming after you?
If they came after me like that, I didn’t want anyone else to get hurt. This became a very heated conversation. I wanted to maintain my autonomy and not to cause anyone harm, but my colleagues were genuinely concerned for my well-being. Anne mentioned several people who had agreed to escort me, but I instructed her to thank those people and reaffirm that I would travel alone.If they came after me like that.... Like what?!
ADDED: I looked up more details in the L.A. Times:
When police got to the scene, they found Rich had been shot multiple times, and his credit cards, wallet and watch were still on him. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital. Police ruled his death a homicide — an attempted robbery turned deadly. But questions loomed.It's possible that Rich was confronted and he resisted and was trying to get away when he was shot. The shooter might have chosen to flee at that point rather than to search the body for something to steal.
"There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything," Rich's mother, Mary, told NBC shortly after his death.
That's how you add it up to robbery.
A reason not to see assassination is that there was a struggle. An assassin would have come up from behind and delivered the kind of shot that would not have given him an opportunity to struggle and would not have left him in any condition to speak to the police before dying.
Brazile's book left out details that made me less suspicious of the "attempted robbery" theory. So I'm a little suspicious about why she did that!
১৬ অক্টোবর, ২০১৭
"There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares..."
Tweets Julian Assange after taking this hit from Clinton:
.@HillaryClinton says @JulianAssange is a "tool of Russian intelligence". Watch the interview tonight on #4Corners. pic.twitter.com/htY89d7GVe
— 4corners (@4corners) October 15, 2017
৩১ জুলাই, ২০১৭
"Ann, I finally found the Department of Homeland Security statement that has given so much wind to the press Russia Collusion business."
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.Dante continues:
Some of my concerns is the use of the word "Believe", which I usually associate with what is not in evidence.It's simply amazing that an assertion this weak has become a fact that must be taken as true. I'd ask who benefits from shutting that door?
Also, it is amazing the FBI would concur with this statement, since the FBI has no access to the hacked server.
Also, I'm not certain about the flow of references, either. Does "These Thefts" refer to "methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts" or is it referring to "alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0"?
If it is referring to "alleged" hacked, doesn't that weaken the entire message?
Finally, what is "these activities"? Does it include "hacking the DNC servers?"
I am having a hard time understanding that message. I know the way the way it is meant to be interpreted, but is that what is in fact stated?
The part that seems the most absurd is the assumption "based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." When was it ever established that private hackers can't do things on a big scope and wouldn't target what is sensitive? And what exactly was so big about what was done here? Why are "senior-most officials" so special when it comes to computer hacking?
We're told what happened in this case is like what happened in other cases because the same "methods and motivations" are present. Even if we assume the "methods and motivations" are so special that they indicate a unique source, did we know in those prior cases who the unique source was?
This statement has been used to impose an indisputable fact on us, but it's so weak on its face. A lot of people must really want that fact to be true. Why — of all whose reputation was bundled into the creation of this fact — has no one come forward to cast doubt on it or pick it apart? The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why.
১২ জুন, ২০১৭
"Why are you giving such coverage to a traitor who divulged secret military documents? As a retired military officer, I am outraged he was even pardoned."
Second highest-rated:
Manning still doesn't seem to have the slightest clue as to the impact of her stealing of this classified material. When she's drinking her Starbucks,* does she ever think about the Afghan villagers, for example, whose life she put in danger by her disclosures? Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for her for her time in prison.Third:
Chelsea Manning was a traitor to the United States. It's not just that she leaked classified documents by the hundreds of thousands. It was that she was totally indiscriminate in doing so, taking no care to redact names to protect people's lives, and including tens of thousands of State Department documents which had nothing to do with the Iraq War but simply because she happened to get her hands on them. (That said, as a former Foreign Service Officer, I think the documents put what the State Department does in a pretty good light for the public, even if their release did cause us some problems.)And fourth, the kicker:
She was rightfully sentenced to a very long jail term, then pardoned by Barrack Obama in his 11th hour exit which, alas, was hardly less dignified by this pardon than Bill Clinton's pardon of a couple high-contributor convicted felons (Mark Rich comes to mind).
I saw a TV interview with her. And its ALL ABOUT ME: first Chelsea's private moral code which led to her betrayal of our country. And then, asking that the US taxpayers while she was in jail pay to help her change sexual identity from boy to girl. Fine if she wishes that, but not on my nickel, thank you.
That we coddle and pardon such a person is a true signal of moral collapse and a refusal to set a standard (and yes, standards are tough) that members of our society obey if they are to be true to each other.
She may be free from jail, but hopefully she will never be free of the social stigma of her deed.
Glad the New York Times was not around 250 years ago, or you would be braying about "Benedict Arnold: Misunderstood Patriot."______________________
* The article does in fact begin with Manning going to Starbucks. The chosen drink is, we're told, a white-chocolate mocha.
২০ মে, ২০১৭
“While today is an important victory and an important vindication, the road is far from over, the proper war is just commencing."
Said Julian Assange, quoted in The Guardian.
On what happens next, Assange signalled that he would remain inside the embassy for the time being, and that he was seeking dialogue with British and US officials...What are the "extremely threatening remarks"? Here's another Guardian piece, "Trump and Assange's friendship may come to a quick halt as US charges loom/The president and WikiLeaks founder were partners not more than four months ago, but now the US may charge him for publishing classified material":
... The UK refuses to confirm or deny at this stage whether a US extradition warrant is in the UK territory. While there have been extremely threatening remarks made [in the US]. I’m always happy to engage in a dialogue with the Department of Justice about what has occurred.
A threat by the Donald Trump administration last month to imprison WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might, from Assange’s perspective, seem ungrateful.Why should Trump act grateful? He needs to look independent, not like he was in collusion or encouraging the law-breaking. Bursting out with "I love Wikileaks" at a rally may show how little Trump thought in terms of law, but it's not taking a legal position, just exulting at something that was producing a result that was helping him.
It was WikiLeaks that published a steady drip of awkward emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman in the run-up to the November election. It was WikiLeaks that exposed plotting inside the Democratic National Committee to ruin the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And it was WikiLeaks that Trump associates such as Roger Stone touted as the force that would finish off Clinton.
“I love WikiLeaks,” Trump himself said at a Pennsylvania rally a month before the election, brandishing a printout of a Clinton campaign email, to cheers from the crowd.
১৬ মে, ২০১৭
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks..."
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report -- generated within 96 hours after DNC staffer Seth Rich's murder -- detailing the contents Rich’s computer said he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time....ADDED: I was surprised, writing this, to see I already had a tag for Seth Rich. I used it once before, on August 10, 2016: "Assange — seemingly bound by the Wikileaks rule against revealing sources — seems to say that the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was a source."
The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.
On July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party officials conspired to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont from becoming the party’s presidential nominee....
২৫ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১৬
How does Julian Assange feel about the impending Trump presidency...
If the question is how I personally feel about the situation, I am mixed: Hillary Clinton and the network around her imprisoned one of our alleged sources for 35 years, Chelsea Manning, tortured her according to the United Nations, in order to implicate me personally. According to our publications Hillary Clinton was the chief proponent and the architect of the war against Libya. It is clear that she pursued this war as a staging effort for her Presidential bid. It wasn't even a war for an ideological purpose. This war ended up producing the refugee crisis in Europe, changing the political colour of Europe, killing more than 40,000 people within a year in Libya, while the arms from Libya went to Mali and other places, boosting or causing civil wars, including the Syrian catastrophe. If someone and their network behave like that, then there are consequences. Internal and external opponents are generated. Now there is a separate question on what Donald Trump means.So, what does he think Trump means?
Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."