Activist publishes 11,000 Wikileaks Twitter direct messages
An activist has published 11,000 direct messages on Twitter between the Wikileaks account and a group of its supporters. The direct messages were published by Emma Best on her own website. Her Twitter account states that she is a journalist on the East Coast. Best has been critical of Wikileaks and has advocated for government transparency. Some of the direct messages were previously published, but this is the first time all of the direct messages have been posted.
The messages show that Wikileaks wanted the GOP to defeat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. "We believe it would be much better for the GOP to win," the Wikileaks account states to a supporter named "Emmy B" in one of the messages from 2015.
Why would they do that?
Clinton: I don't recall joking about droning Julian Assange
Oh.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:54PM (20 children)
They tried to discredit Wikileaks by seeding bogus information, and WL caught and exposed it.
They tried to discredit Wikileaks by making them Russian agents, and WL pointed to a decade of publishing things Russia hated.
They tried to disappear Julian Assange, and he became a martyr. (A neat trick for someone who is still alive.)
Now they'll expose the guts of the organization and hope something sticks. Good luck with that; this organization is teflon.
This smacks of desperation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:23PM
Teflon Julian? And, Teflon Bill? Brothers? That explains a lot. No one can hate each other more than brothers, or brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:43PM
> Now they'll expose the guts of the organization and hope something sticks. Good luck with that; this organization is teflon.
Dig a little. The discussions posted there by Mchael (Emma) Best are from a chat room about Wikileaks, not from Wikileaks itself. They're not even "DM", which would be private. So the headlines there and on most of the other articles are just plain lies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:50PM (14 children)
WL is also majorly responsible for Trump winning. I'm all for toppling corrupt systems but WL needs to be held to its own standard for it to be considered trustworthy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:53PM (8 children)
Nah, we just need more people doing the job with different agendas and preferably some with no agenda but the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:05PM (7 children)
What's great is that you can say that as if it's true and at the same time a solid quarter of country will just go "alex jones and brietbart are enough for me" and thus stupid conspiracy theories will happily dominate the collective discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:26PM (2 children)
Sounds good to me. Let's start up a government agency to make sure all of the truth is told by every outlet and that it's actually true. Now what would we call this ministry...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:52PM (1 child)
Ministry of "at least mighty buzzard will stop posting".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 02 2018, @03:14PM
Noice. +1 for humor.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
You don't need to go all the way to Alex Jones to find conspiracy theories, just turn on CNN.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:14PM
I mean... you're not gonna see me defend CNN, which exists to maximize advertising dollars within box that is pro-forma journalistic best practices, and no intention to actually follow the spirit of such practices with the aim of informing people. With way too much editorial analysis and not nearly enough critical analysis.
But I suspect in this case, sans context, that you're conflating describing details of specific criminal conspiracies based on investigations and evidence produced, with the you know, common definition of conspiracy theories I was using: ascribing to unprovable secret malicious intent actions and events with very plausible and reasonable explanations in the public record. Even the pro-forma garbage practices of CNN limit that to only happening in pointless "both sides" panels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
stupid conspiracy theories? you're a brainwashed slave sucking up to the master.
(Score: 3, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:06PM
Leave my wife out of this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:16PM
It boggles the mind that somebody who seems to support socialism would be unable to see that the reason Trump won was because the DNC ran a profoundly out-of-touch capitalist instead of a progressive.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by schad on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:43PM
Really? Without speaking to the merits of the candidates themselves, I'd put the blame in all these places first:
It's at around this point in the blame-list that I'd start talking about Comey, Wikileaks, the Russians, etc. I just don't think they had much of an effect on the election. We all knew what we'd be getting with Trump or Clinton. I don't think any Trump supporters have been terribly surprised by anything that's happened since his election. It's why Stormy Daniels, pussy-grabbing, Miss America peeping, etc. never got much traction. Everyone already knew that Trump was a slimeball. They voted for him anyway. By the same token, everyone already knew what Clinton was: a cutthroat politician who would say or do whatever it took in order to win, and had little or no care for anything beyond her own personal advancement. What did we learn from the DNC emails? That Clinton had done and said whatever it took in order to win. What did we learn from Comey? That Clinton had little or no care for anything beyond her own personal advancement. Nothing shocking there.
Oh, I'm sure that there were people out there who were naive enough to think that Trump was basically a nice guy who was just misunderstood, and Clinton was secretly a big ol' softie. Well... writing that, I'm not actually sure that there were people that naive. Maybe if you knew literally nothing about either of them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:18PM
How can you possibly know this?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:19PM (1 child)
Hillary was majorly responsible for Trump winning, although FIB Director Comey enjoyed a strong supporting role.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 02 2018, @03:16PM
The funny thing is, Trump's major opponent wasn't Hillary or any Democrat. It was his own mouth. He would have pulled down a near Reagan/Mondale level victory if he'd had any self control to speak of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by exaeta on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:30PM (2 children)
The organization is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene [wikipedia.org]PTFE, not Teflon. Teflon is a brand name and trademark of Chemours. Only PTFE made by Chemours can be called Teflon.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:08AM (1 child)
Hopefully you're speaking tongue-in-cheek. I'll tell you, I love our FABULOUS chemical industry as much as anyone. But the only time I'm giving my tongue a workout like that is in the mouth of a GORGEOUS woman. A 10, somebody on a par with Ivanka. Can we call that teflon? Why not!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:35PM
This is why I can steal your woman any time I like. It's not her mouth that I stick my tongue into!