Assange agenda was always anti-Americanism at expense of everyone else, so he just stayed true to himself. Many of his then liberal supporters were turning a blind eye to this, until it spectacularly bit them in the ass.

when WL policy is "publish everything in the public interest we possibly can" and it looks "unamerican" to the american public, it's a clue that your government is doing some really ugly things.

This is not WL policy. It is "publish everything that harms America or its liberal allies in any way". They published jack on Russia, Belarus, Syria or whatever dictatorship. (Using 'they' charitably here, as we all understand WL is really Assange). They dissed Panama papers (!) because corruption schemes uncovered implicated their now bedfellows.

(Also I am not an American).

What about the "Macron leak"?

I think it's less Assange having a specific pro-Russian agenda and more him rather enjoying the opportunity to make trouble for politicians and Russian affiliates being more than happy to assist him with that. The traditional Russian term for political radicals whose agitation tended to serve their state's agenda despite very different ideals is popularly translated as "useful idiot"

Well, at least in that case, I think the Russian translates more literally to "ineffectual fool".

On a more serious note: did Wikileaks actually release the Macron files? I seem to remember they were only cheerleading it. But if they did, it's probably the nail in the coffin for their reputation, considering it was obvious for even casual observers to see that the dump contained altered documents, and that the leakers only had the intention of derailing the democratic process, willing to misinform people on the way.

Wikileaks didn't release the cache, but they certainly did their best to boost its credibility with tweets like "We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us" (yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data...) and the outstanding "assessment update: several Office files have Cyrillic meta data. Unclear if by design, incompetence, or Slavic employee."

Of course, it's entirely within Wikileaks' remit to process and publicise leaked information regardless of origin and leakers' suspected motives, but even as they asserted their experience in assessing leaked material they seemed far less willing to question what they were reading than everyone else...

> yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data...

You're absolutely right, and in fact all the Macron campaign would need to do is point out a handful of them and it would call in to question the veracity of all of them. Did they do that though, or did they just insinuate that there might be fakes (like the DNC did but couldn't actually back up with evidence).

The few interesting titbits promoted by Macron's opponents (supposed offshore bank accounts, membership of gay mailing lists and an aide's supposed Bitcoin drug orders) have all been quite thoroughly debunked as crude forgeries and documents in the archive even linked to specific Russian security companies by media, security consultants and even pretty radical pro-leak publications like the Intercept. The Macron campaign even shared the phishing emails they'd received.

Wikileaks and their much trumpeted reputation for authenticating stuff's contribution to this was to deny anything they'd looked at was fake (possibly true if they only looked at the banal campaign material) and suggest the Cyrillic headers on attachments might have been evidence that Macron had Slavic employees...

I absolutely understand he coordinates with Russia, just that it wasn't some surprising development. He has a long history cooperating with dictatorships, just that it wasn't objectionable to his then fans. Nothing has changed, except the pro-liberty, pro-privacy, Guy Fawkes mask-wearing crowd is on the receiving end of his treatment now.

What about them?

That wasn't wikileaks.

For the downvoters:

Wikileaks weren't the originator of the Macron leaks. They were put up on pastebin anonymously.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/860577607670276096

Wikileaks investigated them to check the veracity of the contents but they weren't behind the leak or the ones who made it public.

i think assange is a victim of an effective smear campaign, probably organized by the CIA.

He addresses this specific issue in his reddit AMA:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...

It's a fair point - I don't see how ad hominem attacks change the news.

I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda.

But still, parties and a gov that are threatened by their people looking in on them are just asking to be influenced by outside actors anyways, state or not. There's a reason transparency is key.

>I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda

You do realize that Assange signed a commercial tv deal with Russian state propaganda shortly after they threatened his life? This followed his threats to dump 'kompromat' on them (threats which never translated into action), and was later followed through by Assange censoring emails showing Russian banks involvement in Syria, and then later trying to paint the panama papers as a'CIA plot to discredit Putin.' To act like there isn't more than reasonable grounds on which to question Assanges biases is absurd and contrary to actual history.

The CIA plans an intricate effort to smear someone, to assassinate his character, and the best they come up with is "might have had sleep sex which might be quasi-consensual, said he'd wear a condom and didn't"?

That was the best they could come up with for their "smear"?!?

You know, I harbour a lot of anti-American sentiment too (US government that is, the American people seem mostly fine) and I frequently speak up about it.

Does that make me a Russian agent/mouthpiece/troll too?

Do you get paid by Russian state propaganda to censor negative news about Russia and emphasize negative news regarding the United States? If yes, you may be a Russian agent too!

Of course, comrade! From the left's point of view everyone is a Nazi, Fascist, Kremlin puppet. /s

But I am absolutely a 'lefty'.

They have a word for that too now. You're apparently a brocialist.

It is not about being vocal with anti-American sentiment that makes one a Russian agent/mouthpiece/troll.

Conduct and intent have a lot to do with it. Do you use your anti-American sentiment to push a pro-Russian agenda? Do you use inflammatory rhetoric to derail anti-Russian conversations? Do you find yourself repeating pro-Russian propaganda? When you criticize America, is your intent to widen political divides and pit Americans against each other?

If you answered yes to most of the above, it is time to pause and reflect.

The important thing to understand here is that one does not have to be a foreign agent or in the payroll of a foreign government to spread their propaganda. Many people become mouthpieces of various governments unwittingly, usually over a period of time. Then when someone points out their obvious bias, they get genuinely offended.

say he's 100% paid by russia.

ok; fine.

now let's reflect on the fact that it appears that 100% of what he's said has been true.

that is a shocking fact. no less shocking because no mainstream media outlet can even come close.

so what, exactly is the nature of your objection?

because it looks like the epitome of an ad homenim attack, and leaves the substance of everything he's released completely unanswered (and it makes you appear too partisan to see the truth).

Is there any reason for you to believe that Wikileaks is "a mouthpiece of the Kremlin"?

> how did Wikileaks turn from a whistleblower into a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?

Examples are not proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

He hosted a show on Russia Today; he was literally a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.

If seeking a platform makes you a mouthpiece, then ISIS is just a mouthpiece for Twitter.

ISIS aren't employed by Twitter. It's completely different.

Amy Goodman hosts a show on NPR, a U.S. government news station. She is literally a mouthpiece for Trump and the U.S. government.

RT is owned and primarily funded by the Russian government.

NPR receives around 2% of its funding from the US government.

Also, as per Wikipedia:

"Democracy Now Productions, the independent nonprofit organization which produces Democracy Now!, is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations and does not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting or government funding."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!)

You're right. I should give you the benefit of the doubt and make the real argument, which is that if a government provides a platform for you to make commentary, it does not necessarily mean you are a shill for that government; rather it means that the things you want to say, a government is supportive of.

What makes you think that WL is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?

This is the same Washington Post got caught manufacturing stories to generate anti-Russian hysteria:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-...

And that created an McCarthyite blacklist:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...

Of course, the Washington Post isn't really guilty of anything more than slavishly believing what US military officials are saying, who, of course, wouldn't do anything as crass as to try and denounce Assange as an enemy of the people and a puppet of Russia.

Assange had a very personal vendetta with Hillary Clinton, the Kremlin were merely another weapon.

When Assange was studying his PhD in the US (Bill Clinton was president at the time) the funding for his research was suddenly cut by the US Government, and he was never told why.

He's held a grudge against the US Government since then.

Losing your funding is one thing, but Hillary Clinton allegedly requested Julian Assange be killed.

It's unproven one way or the other, here's the Snopes article:

http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

> Hillary Clinton allegedly requested that Julian Assange be killed

Politicians have the weirdest rider lists