SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A trove of hacked emails published by WikiLeaks in 2012 excludes records of a €2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a government-owned Russian bank, according to leaked U.S. court documents obtained by the Daily Dot.
The court records, placed under seal by a Manhattan federal court and obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source, show in detail how a group of hacktivists breached the Syrian government's networks on the eve of the country's civil war and extracted emails about major bank transactions the Syrian regime was hurriedly making amid a host of economic sanctions. In the spring of 2012, most of the emails found their way into a WikiLeaks database.
But one set of emails in particular didn't make it into the cache of documents published by WikiLeaks in July 2012 as "The Syria Files," despite the fact that the hackers themselves were ecstatic at their discovery. The correspondence, which WikiLeaks has denied withholding, describes "more than" €2 billion ($2.4 billion, at current exchange rates) moving from the Central Bank of Syria to Russia's VTB Bank.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Dunbal on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:19AM
You think Russian intervention/protection is free?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:48AM
Maybe it didn't start that way, but now the Russians are the ones that feed and protect the piper.
So they call the tune.
When Assange was asked why he never leaks anything about Trump or the Republicans, he answered something like "There is no need because Trump says so many stupid things."
Case closed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:56AM
Sexy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:36PM
Trump is Putin's goatsie.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:58AM
When Assange was asked why he never leaks anything about Trump or the Republicans, he answered something like "There is no need because Trump says so many stupid things."
Actually, the quote [breitbart.com] is "the information they have on Donald Trump is not 'more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day.'"
So, they don't leak on Trump because they don't have anything interesting to leak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:01AM
That's the same thing. They don't leak anything about Trump b/c "it wouldn't add to the discussion".
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:30AM
That's the same thing. They don't leak anything about Trump b/c "it wouldn't be likely to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and tarnish the image of Barack Obama, who Assange hates because he blames them for being stuck in a building with Ecuadorians for years".
There. FTFY.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:15AM
> So, they don't leak on Trump because they don't have anything interesting to leak.
I don't find his reasoning persuasive. They've leaked tons of dullshit in the past. Just because we've all got outrage fatigue from all the bullshit Trump says in public doesn't mean anything less outrageous is automatically less important.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:53AM
Frankly, we've seen an absurd amount of whitewashing on Russia lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was misdirection. Think about it, you get to discredit WikiLeaks and implicate Russia all in one swoop. Who would benefit most by providing information like that? The trust in parts of the US government are at an alltime low and with good reason. ಠ_ಠ
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:01AM
Look on the bright side! At least we can count on anonymous sources to Correct the Record!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bug1 on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:18AM
"obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source"
I wonder if the leaker is part of the same organisation trying to smear wikileaks in the leadup to the US election.
Will be interesting to find out one day if its a legit leak, or completely made up docs.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:10AM
Wikileaks: "Always trust our anonymous sources!"
non-Wikileaks: "Anonymous sources can't be trusted!"
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:14PM
The government usually verifies that the leaks are at least somewhat true after they've been released. With the NSA and DNC email leaks, the government expressed outrage and made statements that seemed to confirm the content was genuine. Has a similar thing happened here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @09:46PM
Given that the Daily Dot is mostly comprised of SJWs, it seems likely.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:07AM
Just like she murdered Vince Foster [wikipedia.org], JFK Jr. [snopes.com], John Ashe [snopes.com], Daniel Fleck [snopes.com], Seth Rich [snopes.com], Victor Thorn [snopes.com] and Shawn Lucas [snopes.com].
And don't forget the several dozen [snopes.com] that Billy boy killed.
They're murderous thugs who kill anyone who gets in their way.
If I were you, I'd be careful what I said Gravis.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:21PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:04PM
And don't forget the several dozen that Billy boy killed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp/ [snopes.com]
Man, you should read that Snopes page! Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I did. Which is why I posted it.
Conspiracy nutters will believe just about anything, from Clinton hit squads to FEMA concentration camps [wikipedia.org] to the faked moon landings [wikipedia.org]. It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday September 12 2016, @02:58AM
There's a conspiracy theorist right here on SoylentNews! [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @10:47PM
I see an attempt to discredit his murder by purposely associating it with all sorts of screwball theories that have far, far, far less justification.
There was a huge motive. There was inconsistency in the "suicide".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @07:22AM
That's how cointelpro stuff works. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-28/cointelpro-techniques-dilution-misdirection-and-control-internet-forum [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:22AM
The following is the fortune at the bottom of the page right now (at least for me):
"We will bury you." -- Nikita Kruschev
I'm leaning toward conspiracy!