Assange denies influencing election: yeah, right

Politico reports that Julian Assange has denied trying to influence the outcome of the US election.

The email jar must be just about empty, and crumbs are all over Assanges face. Plus jam. Plus egg.

Assange denies WikiLeaks trying to influence election outcome

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday defended the group’s decision to post troves of Democratic documents during the height of the election season, saying a moral imperative drove them to do so.

“This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election,” he wrote in a 1,000 word statement posted as Americans streamed to the polls on Election Day. “The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers … Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.”

Yeah, right.

There may be public interest in illegally hacked emails.

But drip feeding them throughout the last months of the US campaign is clearly aimed at influencing the election, and using the election to get attention.

If it was important enough and justified to make emails public they would have been made public when they were available, not drip fed through the campaign.

Assange and Wikileaks have lost a lot of credibility and support through this exercise. He has made himself no better than his target, Hillary Clinton, and no better than the person he may enable, Donald Trump.

If Trump wins I expect a lot more disappointment will be directed at Assange in particular.

Power corrupts, and WikiLeaks has been absolutely been corrupted in trying to manipulate the US election.

Leave a comment

18 Comments

  1. Klik Bate

     /  9th November 2016

    [Don’t go there here. Serious accusations with pathetic ‘evidence’ posted here may just be deleted, you have been warned enough already. PG]

    Reply
    • Klik Bate

       /  9th November 2016

      To be fair PG, I certainly didn’t ‘invent’ the situation. It was simply to bring to the groups attention what millions of other people were posting on twitter. In my opinion, it simply backed up once again the conclusions drawn in your commentary with relation to the credibility of Wiki Leaks .

      Reply
      • I don’t want Your NZ to devolve into a repeater of alt-dirt.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  9th November 2016

          To be fair, there’s dirt on both sides for the divide. Are you saying MSM dirt is ok but not alt dirt?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  9th November 2016

            Some of the alt-dirt is pretty muddy when you try to figure out whether the lumps are really there.

            Reply
  2. There’s a real prima facie case re MM, I haven’t mentioned the instagram photo or the timing of the first email here before.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  9th November 2016

      Jesus. What have I missed? Has Mickey Mouse suddenly scurrilously featured in this wikileaks emails saga as well now? 😕

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  9th November 2016

        (I don’t know who MM is either)

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  9th November 2016

          There are other possible candidates too Maureen, now I think about it. Marilyn Manson, Mike McRoberts, Mr Man, Mighty Mouse, Marilyn Monroe. Given it’s Uggers who’s mentioned theses initials odds are probably good it’s Monroe, but until more information is revealed by ‘reliable sources’, it could be any MM. 😳

          Reply
        • She was famous back in the day.

          Reply
    • Gezza

       /  9th November 2016

      How come nobody ever wants talk about this Uggers?

      Reply
      • The chins and noses are different. Also if you read their back stories it makes no sense for them to be the same.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  9th November 2016

          Cover stories. Actors. You of all people should know how it’s all organised, and by who.

          Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  9th November 2016

    But on a more serious note, I agree with your post, PG. Assange said he wasn’t trying to influence the election. Fark me sideways (metaphorically speaking). Pull the other one Julian.

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  9th November 2016

      If it’s good enough for the Huffington Post, it should be good enough for Wikileaks. If you’re going to have bias, you need balanced bias (IMO).
      Ha, I laughed at a tweet KDC made the other day “2016 – the year hackers became journalists, and journalists became hacks”.
      I’m not a fan, but couldn’t help but agree.

      Reply
  4. In a semi-related story…

    A Kiwi is claiming asylum in Russia.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1611/S00102/new-zealand-journalist-seeks-temporary-asylum-in-russia.htm

    She is claiming in back channels to be Rawshark and Whaledump aka The Kiwi “Snowden”.

    Presented without comment.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  9th November 2016

      Suzie Dawson – Another try-hard, self-promoting internet warrior thinking she is so important that spy agencies are chasing her across the world……….her recent ‘documentary’ (https://vimeo.com/181517859) spells out her self-delusion for all to see.

      Reply
      • She’s on the Wikileaks community team and she has some pull with Assange, actually.

        I really doubt she was almost killed by our Intel agencies though as she claims.

        “Another”? Tell us how you really feel PDB 😂😂😂

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s