Russia, Wikileaks and the Campaign

You can’t invent someone like Julian Assange, Wikileak’s founder/member. No editor would believe your twists and turns of his life plot. But behind this nomadic son of divorced Australian hippies, is a more pragmatic question: is Putin’s security apparatus now controlling Assange and Wikileaks? The evidence seems to clearly suggest so. The toxic triad of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange all revolve around key issues of intelligence and national security. And American intelligence and diplomatic assets have been the frequent targets of Wikileak’s disclosures over the past several years.

And Putin and his allies in Latin America and the radical intellectual left, have been Assange's defenders and protectors. So is Assange a spy and traitor (a tricky question given his Australian nationality), or an award winning journalist? Or an anarchist hacker? Or a paid agitator, in Putin's pocket?

And more than Assange, who's stuck in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, is Wikileaks being driven by Putin's agenda? Because if it is, then any leaked email - say from the fairly recent DCC and DNC hacks - has to be treated with caution. It could be misinformation, slipped into the thousands of authentic emails. But the media has been reluctant or unwilling to be skeptical about explosive revelations in the midst of the most abnormal and unpredictable presidential campaign in decades, if not generations.

Assuming he now pulls the strings at Wikileaks, when did Putin decide to apply classic KGB Active Measures (as the term is known) against the American electoral process? One could argue that American confidence in institutions has been eroding since at least Watergate, and a campaign of carefully timed hacks adds to the crumbling erosion in the confidence that citizens have in their democratic institutions. Do people still believe that they are still very much worth it? Even in the face of angry partisan divisions? The hacks potentially wear down that last stand of principled belief and replace them with a conspiratorial world of rumor and myth. Where anything is possible.

How should the media respond to Wikileaks if indeed they are a Russian agitprop group for all intents and purposes?

How about treating Wikileaks like any other media outlet; with all the collegial, smirking skepticism the media heaps on each other. A glib comment about Assange's Russian TV show. A raised eyebrow about the targets of the data hacks being mostly, but not exclusively, Democrat. Come on guys! Yes, some of that is starting to happen, but there seems to be a certain media paralysis regarding Wikileaks, given that is a shadowy and anonymous group. How about asking who pays their bills? Start there please.

It's fascinating that John Schindler, a former NSA analyst, has been publishing a series of disturbing articles on Russian intelligence and American politics in Observer Media. Which is owned by Jared Kushner. Yes, Trump's son-in-law. Ivanka's hubby. One of Trump's apparently close advisors. Schindler states that Russian intelligence has burrowed deep into the Trump campaign. Presumably through people like Paul Manafort. That's a very harsh indictment, written by someone who is being paid by one's son-in-law. Does that mean that either Schindler gets fired from the Observer? Or Manafort from the campaign? In Trump's world, anything seems possible.

Posted by Keeley at August 16, 2016 7:13 PM
Comment #406869

Kesley, as with any issue/situation the public cannot know, cannot expect to know what’s going on behind closed doors. There is nothing wrong with posing conspiracy theories so long as the theories are well based with pointed questions being asked.

I was a great conspiratist at one time, blogging that the GOP/DEMs aka the establishment/corpocracy are basically one and the same, looking out for the corporations/conglomerates while stiffing the working folks.

Now Bernie and Donald have raced to the top of the heap touting the very same ‘conspiracies’.

the GOP/DEM establishment peddles influence to get well and retain power. The Clinton’s are currently at the top of the feeding chain and we are likely to get an inside look at their operation before election time.

IMO Snowden, Assange and similar are doing a good service by collecting and publishing information from sources like NSA or the Clinton Foundation.

One reason is that this helps to scout out weaknesses in the security system, and,

two, it gives the public some incite into potentially devious activities; corruption, fraud, deception, and in Hillary’s case, misusing communications and putting national security at risk.

Generally, spies have to work long and tedious hours to collect a little information. But, Hillary’s emails were a treasure trove every hour, every day, every month, every year and so on, for the opposition. Like finding a gold mine.

In today’s WaPo I read where some NSA cyberwarfare software tools have been outed. IMO, this is a good thing. Will require that gov’t (a) tighten up security and (b) spend some more billions of dollars to develop new tools, and so on - - -

There are plenty of human spies inside the system but electronic spies can collect more in a second that the humans could collect in a lifetime.

There is some comedy to be found in that Hil says there was no classified info on her server yet the emails released by the DOS to congress are too sensitive for all but a couple of congress folks to see/read, heavily redacted, and must be kept locked away under standard security procedures. I guess that’s funny…

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 17, 2016 8:03 PM
Comment #406878

There is some comedy to be found in that Hil says there was no classified info on her server yet the emails released by the DOS to congress are too sensitive for all but a couple of congress folks to see/read, heavily redacted, and must be kept locked away under standard security procedures. I guess that’s funny…

I find that interesting as well roy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2016 3:42 PM
Comment #406881

Was Obama giving a lying lesson to Hillary that failed miserably?

“The State Department admitted Thursday that the US would not hand over $400 million in cash to Iran until it released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #410407

Zeng Han Jun is the Business Financial Manager of Chan and Partners Consulting Group. He effectively contributes articles about business and back on a week by week premise, in order to impart his insight to the money related buyers.

Posted by: check cashing at November 23, 2016 1:11 PM
Post a comment