Julian Assange: In the summer of 2016, when WikiLeaks released documents from the US Democratic Party that appeared to have been leaked by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange reportedly rejected the release of Russian government documents, according to chat messages ) from the source that provided him with the archives.
Below are correlations, from various actions by Julian Assange through WikiLeaks. I'm not voicing my personal opinion, but I found the Foreign article Policy extremely interesting. Anyway, it gives food for thought, but also for questioning stereotypes.
WikiLeaks refused to publish a wide range of documents, (at least 68 gigabytes of data) coming from the Russian Ministry of Interior, according to the few logs of the conversations it has at its disposal the Foreign Policy.
The logs, which were provided to FP, included the discussion only on the side of WikiLeaks.
“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects comments that have already been published elsewhere or are likely to be considered trivial. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission because of its country of origin," the organization said in a statement message on Twitter when contacted by FP about the unreleased Russian documents.
(The account is widely believed to be run only by Julian Assange, the group's founder, but in a message to FP, the organization said it was maintained by "staff".)
2014, the with the BBC and other news agencies reported leaked documents, which revealed details of the involvement of Russian military and intelligence services in Ukraine. However, the information reported by this hack was less than half of the data Assange received from 2016, and never published.
"We sent some leaks to WikiLeaks, including a Russian hack. "The documents would expose Russian activities and show that WikiLeaks is not controlled by Russian security services," the source told FP.
"Many WikiLeaks employees and volunteers or their families have suffered from Russian corruption and cruelty. So we were sure that Wikileaks would release them. "Assange was giving one excuse after another."
The Russian documents were finally released online elsewhere, but almost no one paid attention.
In the months leading up to the 2016 US presidential election, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of "devastating" emails from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton Clinton. The information, according to US intelligence services, came from a hacking campaign directed by the Kremlin. allegations that he is promoting a Russian-backed agenda. Julian Assange's role then in publishing the leaks sparked many allegations that he was promoting a Russian-backed agenda.
2010, Julian Assange pledged to publish documents from any institution resisting supervision.
WikiLeaks published a wide range of information such as Sarah Palin's and Scientologists' emails, Peru civilian telephone records, and confidential information from surveillance companies.
"We have no goals", he said Assange at that time.
But until 2016, WikiLeaks seems to have changed, focusing almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
Approached later this year by an American security company, who was asking for Russian documents, WikiLeaks made it back.
"Are there any elections? "We do nothing but after the election, unless it is something fast or election-related." "We do not have the resources."
Anything unrelated to the election will be "differentiating," writes WikiLeaks.
"WikiLeaks plans postings to maximize readership and readership," WikiLeaks wrote in a Twitter message to FP.
"During distractions from major media events, such as the Olympics or high-profile elections, independent publications are sometimes delayed until the distraction is gone, but they are never rejected."
WikiLeaks's relationship with Russia has started quite contradictory.
In October of 2010, Assange and WikiLeaks advertise a mass leak documents that will expose the Kremlin and say they will work with a Russian news site to publish the documents.
"We will publish these documents soon," he promised.
"The Russians are going to find out a lot of interesting facts about their country," said WikiLeaks spokeswoman Kristinn Hrafnsson at the time.
In November of 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing the documents. It came from the leak of Chelsea Manning, and included talks of talks by US diplomats around the world, including Russia.
WikiLeaks collaborated with the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, but only a few stories from almost a quarter of a million records from the US Embassy in Moscow were published. The Novoya Gazeta paid a certain amount of money to have exclusive access to the documents, according to John Helmer, a foreign correspondent in Moscow who writes for the Business Insider.
WikiLeaks has reported that there has never been any financial benefit from working with Novaya Gazeta, which did not respond to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, Assange's position in Russia has evolved. Assange 2012 made his own show on RT news network funded by the Kremlin and in the same year produced episodes for the network, where he interviewed opposition supporters such as Noam Chomsky and the so-called "cypherpunks".
Questions for Assange's links to Russia arose last year when Daily Dot reported that WikiLeaks failed to publish documents revealing a 2 transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian bank owned by 2012.
Details of these documents appear in a leak of court records published by Daily Dot.
A spokesman for WikiLeaks he told the Daily Dot that they posted all the messages without concealing something, and continuing to mention that Daily Dot actually supported Hillary Clinton.
The publication of Foreign Policy continues to describe many other examples of moments that Assange has decided to ignore material that has been sent to him and points to his shadowy connections with Russia.
Assange is a journalist, and certainly a unique journalist. However, we should not forget that he is just a journalist. He makes editorial decisions and can make a mistake. The criticisms he receives from the international press are quite controversial.
But last time there are a lot of things that do not flatter him more and more often. Let's say the Gizmodo which says harshly:
“In other words, he's an asshole.”
