Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 20 2017, @05:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the couldn't-have-done-it-without-Shiva-Ayyadurai dept.

The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks

The Atlantic writes:

The transparency organization asked the president's son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia's ambassador to the United States.

[...] The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.'s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president's son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.'s cooperation. WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump's tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election as rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States.

Its a quite long, but interesting article.

Kushner Failed to Hand Over Emails

Senators: Kushner Didn't Disclose Emails On WikiLeaks, 'Russian Overture'

Senior White House adviser and son-in-law to the president Jared Kushner failed to hand over to Senate investigators emails concerning contacts with WikiLeaks and a "Russian backdoor overture," according to a letter sent by two senior lawmakers.

The letter, released Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and its ranking Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, says Kushner failed to turn over "September 2016 email communications to Mr. Kushner concerning WikiLeaks" and other emails pertaining to a "Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite."


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 20 2017, @06:50PM (7 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday November 20 2017, @06:50PM (#599328) Journal

    Equal-Opportunity-Leaker my ass!

    And there goes the last bit of credibility WikiLeaks had...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Monday November 20 2017, @08:56PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @08:56PM (#599389) Journal

    Equal-Opportunity-Leaker my ass!

    Ughhh. Diarrhoea incontinence... nasty stuff... why did you feel the compulsion to mention your affliction here, though? (grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 20 2017, @10:13PM (5 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 20 2017, @10:13PM (#599420)

    And there goes the last bit of credibility WikiLeaks had...

    No, it isn't:
    1. Wikileaks, like all other sources of information, offer an incomplete view of reality. They will, intentionally or unintentionally, omit things. And that means that if you're relying on just them, you're going to miss all kinds of important things. The idea that Julian Assange (or somebody else involved with Wikileaks who hasn't been caught yet) attempted to solicit information from and/or cut deals with Donald Trump Jr does not in any way change whether the things they've published were true. A source that is biased as all get-out is not necessarily wrong.

    2. Nothing in these communications suggests that Wikileaks had information about Trump or some other public figure that they intentionally held back from releasing, which is what you would need to demonstrate if you were going to challenge the claim about "equal-opportunity leaker".

    3. So far, all we have are excerpts picked by the journalist who got their hands on them, rather than the entire text of the communications so we could judge for ourselves what's in them. That's one thing I appreciate about Wikileaks: They give you the raw data, not just their interpretation of the raw data.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @01:54AM (3 children)

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @01:54AM (#599479)

      I dunno. Wikileaks does not seem to be awfully damn impartial. Then we could remember how doggedly Assange kept attacking Hillary. I remember a Real Time with Bill Marr where they had Assange up on a sat connection. He was all but frothing at the mouth about Hillary and how he would blow her corruption wide open.

      Wikileaks conducted a campaign against a single Presidential candidate during an election. Trump is dirty as fuck... until he releases all of his taxes and PROVES that he has no conflicts of interest. I hope they make background checks and a full financial investigation into ever candidate that makes it to the end of the primaries. If you want to be President, then be prepared to be under a spotlight.

      Not seeing Wikileaks fight very hard against Trump at all. The best case scenario here is that Assange hates Hillary's guts, and became obsessed with one side of the issue.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 1) by nsa on Tuesday November 21 2017, @02:27AM

      by nsa (206) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @02:27AM (#599490)

      A source that is biased as all get-out is not necessarily wrong.

      And in this case specifically as in many others generally, it is a good idea to investigate the relevance of the genesis of that bias... "Can't we drone him?" (in the context of those who were recently unabashedly availing themselves of the age old JudgeJuryAndExecutioner role in society)