Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president of the United States next week, to the delight of 37 percent of the nation, held his first news conference since July on Wednesday. The raucous event in New York was supposed to have been devoted to Trump’s explanation of how he intends to dodge the many and varied conflicts of interest he will face as president, without selling off his businesses and putting his assets in a blind trust.
Instead, the main topic of discussion was the fallout from the explosive and entirely unsubstantiated claims in a private intelligence dossier compiled by a former intelligence agent working for Trump’s political opponents, which was published by Buzzfeed on Tuesday night. Buzzfeed published the dossier after CNN reported that both President Obama and President-elect Trump were briefed last week on the allegations contained in it — chiefly that Trump’s campaign collaborated with the Russian government and that, according to anonymous sources, Russia has compromising personal information about Trump.
Excellent wording in that caption from the BBC pic.twitter.com/7VHqR0CDgQ
— TechnicallyRon (@TechnicallyRon) January 11, 2017
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has had the raw, unverified intelligence since the summer, the Guardian’s Julian Borger reported on Wednesday. Sen. John McCain confirmed that he discussed its contents with FBI Director James Comey last month.
Trump’s fury at the reporting of this material, which he said “was released by, maybe, the intelligence agencies,” dominated the news conference, but in addition to his denial that any of the allegations were true, several other matters of real importance were raised that are worth digesting. Here are some of the most significant moments from Trump’s exchanges with the press, which could resonate even more strongly after he takes office.
Trump Pivots From ‘Yeah, Right’ to ‘So What?’ on Russian Hackers
Throughout his campaign and up until this afternoon, Donald Trump has refused to seriously entertain the possibility that the Russian government hacked Democratic Party emails. Even when presented with intelligence briefings and classified evidence by the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies he will soon command, Trump persisted in deferring to (and retweeting) Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself. The closest Trump ever came to acknowledging the prospect of Kremlin attribution for the online attacks came before the election, when he half-jokingly called on Russia to pilfer messages deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
But in a press conference today at Trump Tower, the president-elect was asked whether he now believes the (almost entirely classified) case against Russia pitched by his spy chiefs. “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” he replied. Amazingly, however, he proceeded to downplay and almost entirely dismiss the email plot in the same breath as he took it seriously:
I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people. And, I can say that you know when, when we lost 22 million names and everything else that was hacked recently, they didn’t make a big deal out of that. That was something that was extraordinary. That was probably China. … We had much hacking going on.
At the end of the press conference, Trump came back to this point with a mix of indifference and bravado:
[Putin] shouldn’t be doing it. He won’t be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I’m leading than when other people have led it. You will see that. Russia will respect our country more. He shouldn’t have done it. I don’t believe that he will be doing it more now.
We have to work something out, but it’s not just Russia. Take a look at what’s happened. You don’t report it the same way; 22 million accounts were hacked in this country by China. And that’s because we have no defense. That’s because we’re run by people that don’t know what they’re doing.
Trump here effortlessly pivots on Russian hacking from saying Yeah, right to So what?, using the vastness and pervasiveness of cyber-warfare as a reason for treating the Democratic National Committee breach as merely one among many. Trump may be right, mathematically, that the DNC attack was one attack among many occurring around the clock. But to give the idea of Russian involvement in an attack on the American election no greater attention than he would any other attack by any other country is only to repeat what Trump had been doing before he said the words: Change the subject.
Off-Stage, Trump Denies Contact With Russian Officials
The presence of a deeply incriminating, completely unverified bombshell dossier on the president-elect loomed large over his press conference, providing him with ample ammunition to derail his own event at will. But the document also provided the media with opportunities to confront Trump with some of the less outlandish allegations — namely, reports that he and his camp have close, toxic ties with both the Russian government and oligarchy. Among the allegations of ominous closeness with Russia, the dossier says that the “Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents” as well as an “exchange of information established in both directions,” part of what the report describes as an “extensive conspiracy” between Trump’s presidential campaign and Vladimir Putin.
When asked by ABC’s Cecelia Vega whether he could “say that no one connected to you or your campaign had any contact with Russia leading up to or during the presidential campaign,” Trump answered only the second part of her question, which pertained to Russia’s role in the DNC hack. Vega later tweeted that Trump answered the question with a “no” only after the broadcast had concluded.
@realDonaldTrump came back and answered my question after the presser. He said no one on his team had any contact with the Russians https://t.co/OGrl9YTonz
— Cecilia Vega (@CeciliaVega) January 11, 2017
Before Trump took the stage, his press secretary, Sean Spicer, attacked reporters for taking seriously the allegations in the dossier that a former foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, had met with Russian officials on behalf of Trump’s campaign. “Carter Page,” Spicer said, “is an individual who the president-elect does not know.”
As Andrew Kirell of the Daily Beast noted, Trump named Page as one of his foreign policy advisers in an interview with the Washington Post editorial board last March.
SPICER: "Carter Page is an individual who the president-elect does not know.”
TRUMP, March 2016: pic.twitter.com/T13tNiI4rf
— Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) January 11, 2017
Trump Mocked Reporter for Asking to See His Tax Returns
Asked by Hallie Jackson of NBC News if he would release his tax returns to prove that he had no financial ties to the Russian government, Trump scoffed at the idea. “Gee, I’ve never heard that,” he said sarcastically. After offering his usual, nonsensical excuse — “I’m not releasing the tax returns because as you know, they’re under audit” — Trump insisted that “the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters.
Trump says he doesn’t think the American public “cares at all” about his unreleased tax returns https://t.co/CH0yKX3OY3
— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 11, 2017
When Jackson followed up, asking, “You don’t think the American public is concerned about it?” Trump replied: “No I don’t think so: I won, I mean, I became president.”
When he then added, “No, I don’t think they care at all,” his comment was cheered by the group of aides and supporters who were in the room for the event. That claque, according to Mike Grynbaum of the New York Times, included Omarosa Manigault, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” who was hired last week to focus on “public engagement” for the Trump White House.
Omarosa & others cheered & applauded at this line https://t.co/2YgXeb8Bjz
— Mike Grynbaum (@grynbaum) January 11, 2017
Leaving aside that Trump was elected president by a minority of the voters — taking just 46.1 percent of the popular vote, millions less than his rival, Hillary Clinton — his claim that no one cares about him concealing his taxes has been consistently contradicted by polling. In surveys conducted after the election, a clear majority of the public has expressed the view that Trump should make his tax returns public, as noted by Emily Guskin of the Washington Post and Richard Auxier of the Tax Policy Center.
Most Americans want Trump to release his tax returns. 60% in a Pew poll, 60% in a CBS poll, both post election.
— Emily Guskin (@EmGusk) January 11, 2017
In new @pewresearch poll, 60% say Donald Trump has a responsibility to release his personal tax returns https://t.co/wtwCfam4Tt pic.twitter.com/SWsFZSCanQ
— Richard C. Auxier (@richardcauxier) January 10, 2017
Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, conducted a less scientific poll on Twitter, urging the public to demonstrate to Trump that voters do, indeed, want to see what, if anything, he may be hiding in his tax returns.
Retweet if you care about @realDonaldTrump's tax returns
— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) January 11, 2017
“You’re Fake News,” Trump Told CNN Reporter
Enraged by CNN’s initial report that he and President Obama had been briefed on the contents of the unverified intelligence dossier — which prompted Buzzfeed to publish the whole document — Trump refused to take a question from the network’s senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. When Acosta persisted, telling the president-elect he should let him ask a question, “since you are attacking our news organization,” Trump said, “I’m not going to give you a question, you are fake news.”
Here's the exchange where CNN's Jim @Acosta tries to ask Trump a question and the President-elect refuses pic.twitter.com/LlwmhPj5w3
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) January 11, 2017
While freezing out CNN for a perfectly reasonable and clearly sourced report (which included none of the salacious details of the dossier), Trump did find time to take questions from conservative outlets that openly supported his candidacy, including One American News Network and Breitbart News. (“Only one seat was saved by a Republican National Committee aide,” Jonathan Lemire of The Associated Press reported, “a front-row spot for a reporter from Breitbart, the conservative news outlet until recently run by Trump senior adviser Steve Bannon.”)
Matt Boyle, the Breitbart reporter Trump called on, helpfully asked the president-elect to expand his attack on the broadcaster he’d just slammed. “With CNN’s decision to publish fake news,” Boyle said, “and all the problems that we’ve seen throughout the media over the course of the election, what reforms do you recommend for this industry here?”
Trump Dodged Question on Russia Sanctions by Mocking Lindsey Graham
Asked by a reporter for his response to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s plan to send him a bill imposing tougher sanctions on Russia for the hacking that helped get him elected, Trump appeared to be genuinely baffled.
Trump mocks Lindsey Graham for not being 1% yet. Wtf does that have to do with anything? And still doesn't answer questions on sanctions! pic.twitter.com/zs8w5dnycx
— Jill F. (@jillferg50) January 11, 2017
“I hadn’t heard Lindsey Graham was going to do that,” Trump said.
Rather than reply to the question, Trump then returned to campaign-trail mode, mocking the South Carolina senator’s poor showing in last year’s Republican primaries. “Lindsey Graham,” Trump said to laughter from his supporters at the side of the stage, “I’ve been competing with him for a long time. He is going to crack that 1 percent barrier one day. I didn’t realize Lindsey Graham’s still at it.”
As the Atlantic’s national correspondent, James Fallows, observed, taunting Graham seemed impolitic for the incoming president, considering the relatively narrow margin his party enjoys in the Senate.
In addition to what this shows about DJT, consider math:
If 3 R Sens peel off from him, everything changes. Graham = one of the needed 3. https://t.co/XRCKUO3Cr4— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) January 11, 2017
Given that Graham, McCain and Marco Rubio — another former rival Trump has mocked mercilessly — have recently called for a tougher U.S. response to suspected Russian meddling, it seems likely that a majority of the Senate is already gearing up to defy him on the issue.
Trump Made a Mockery of His Own Ethics Plan In Closing Joke
In the final moments of the press conference, as Trump labored to close with a joke, he seemed to undermine the idea that turning the operation of his business over to his sons, Uday and Qusay Don Jr. and Eric, would take care of any conflict of interest questions.
Pointing to a huge pile of papers laid out to his right, Trump told the press, “these papers — because I’m not sure that was explained properly — but these papers are all just a piece of the many, many companies that are being put into trust to be run by my two sons.”
Pres.-elect Trump on his sons running his businesses: "If they do a bad job, I'll say 'You're fired.'" https://t.co/eCTKfeWwrw pic.twitter.com/dycmMzTU2i
— ABC News (@ABC) January 11, 2017
“I hope at the end of eight years,” Trump added, “I’ll come back and say, ‘Oh, you did a good job.’ Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say, ‘You’re fired.'”
If the point of the pile of papers was to convince voters that Trump would have no interest in the success of his company during his hiatus as chief maker of American greatness, the gag revealed that he reserves the right to punish his children later if they do not make a bundle during his presidency.
Messrs Mackey and Biddle, I’m disappointed by your “Uday and Qusay” reference. There’s one word for U.S. foreign policy: hypocrisy! Sigh ….. history truly is written by the victors, and what blood thirsty, mean-spirited, sarcastic victors you are!
I agree in the concept of the “echo chamber” being responsible for this gulf in the points of view that divide us, so I’m recurating which news sites I follow.
I’ve relied on The Intercept for accuracy, but what am I supposed to make of the Uday and Qusay comment? With one strikethrough, I went from believing I was reading fact-based journalism to questioning how much else in this article is commentary. I have nothing against commentary, except when it isn’t apparent it is such. This is information I need to choose which news sources I spend time on, because, really, there are only so many hours in the day.
The Intercept is a valuable resource, whichever, but I need to ask you all this honest question: Have I been mistaken in thinking The Intercept is objective?
“Have I been mistaken in thinking The Intercept is objective?”
Short answer: Yes. This is a position that I and many other readers here appreciate.
Commentary, per se, isn’t a deal-breaker, but as many commenters noted below, any commentary should have some rationale behind it that is explicitly explained by the author(s) as to why they make a particular claim. In this case, many readers felt this was not done, especially with regard to Mackey and Biddle’s views on the credibility of Julian Assange.
By not explaining their position, Mackey and Biddle think what they’ve written is self-evident, and leave us to determine for ourselves what they mean.
This indicates that, at the very least, they don’t understand that readers aren’t understanding their position and how they arrived at it or, bizarrely, that they simply don’t care – which is a very hard to understand position for someone trying to communicate via their writing – especially if they are professional writers.
Hardly a something that engenders trust among their readers.
Speaking of trust in journalism (and why it’s been lacking) in this short video, New York University Professor of Journalism Jay Rosen explains how journalism as a whole has fallen into the trap of thinking that objectivity (the “view from nowhere”) offers readers better, more trustworthy coverage than it could by attempting to remove a reporters personal perspective from what is being reported on.
You’ll note that, unlike Mackey and Biddle, Rosen explains explicitly (all on his own, without haranguing from the peanut gallery) exactly how he arrived at this position.
Where is the poll asking Americans if they want to go to war with Russia, which so many on the left seem eager to do? Why is it okay for the U.S. to meddle in other countries, but when another nation allegedly, supposedly, maybe meddles in our own it’s considered an act of war? Russia didn’t give us Trump.
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/video/2017/01/12/chuck_todd_slams_buzzfeed_editor_for_unverified_trump_story.html
I’m quite surprised at the tone of this article – especially given Greenwalds recent ultra-professional rebuff of the BBC anchor on the subject of the Dossier. Mackey and Biddle seem to hold a certain belief that this dossier is credible in its content and deserving of a status that Greenwald clearly doesn’t share. I understand that a good news organization encompasses many perspectives, however a near editorial tone in this article seems more appropriate for the New York Times or Washington post, relief from which is the reason I turn to The Intercept in the first place.
How about going after the angle that the DNC hack was an inside job. Who was the young DNC staffers with access to it all who was shot and killed in the early-morning hours of some early summer morning en route from hir girlfriend’s house to his house in a tony upscale, crime free part of Dee Cee Northwest? Sounds like an assassination to me. But it COULD have been a drug deal gone bad. Yep. On his way home. COULD have been a drug deal gone bad … or random street crime … or …
WHAT THE UCK DOES THIS MEAN? That Intercept has just kivvered its own liver? Assange, SNowden and Greenwald are about the only credible people on the planet today, besides me, and if Assange has no credibility by Intercept standards, then Intercept has lost its own credibility, especially these two unwiped assholes mackey and biddle.
RE: “Even when presented with intelligence briefings and classified evidence by the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies he will soon command, Trump persisted in DEFERRING TO (AND RETWEETING) JULIAN ASSANGE, PERHAPS THE ONLY RELEVANT PARTY WITH LESS CREDIBILITY AT PRESENT THAN HIMSELF.
Now that I got that off my chest, let’s deal with the DNC hacking. Can anyone in the media provide any credible evidence as to who hacked the DNC? You can’t. I remind you that the DNC did not even permit law enforcement (FBI) to examine its systems and information to assist in an investigation. So, the injured party clammed up and did not assist getting to the bottom of this, which is often a complicated and lengthy investigation. What does that tell you? Have you asked the DNC to cooperate fully with an open to the media investigation as to who hacked them?
And, BTW, given how shoddy security was at the DNC, why only one hacker? Maybe there were dozens, including the Russians, maybe. Who knows. You don’t, that is for darn sure. All you are doing is choosing to believe who and what you want to believe.
I remain,
Proudly Unaffiliated
Sadly, there is no proof of Russian hacking of the DNC or Hillary’s servers while there is plenty of proof of Hillary’s, Podesta’s and DNC’s reckless, irresponsible ineptitude and incompetence in protecting their data.
Call Putin all the names you want but I am sure that if he caught his foreign minister setting up a kitchen email server to host sensitive government communication, he’d fire him on the spot, probably throw him in prison for the rest of his miserable life or worse. What do we do? We ALMOST elected such an imbecile as our next president.
As for WHY did Wikileaks only received ‘hacked’ content from the DNC and Hillary’s campaign? Is it because ‘Putin’ was targeting them or is it because maybe the Trump campaign was not as stupid as Hillary’s when it came to data protection? Nahhhhh… everybody knows that P@ssw0rd (Podesta’s password for his Gmail account) is totally impossible to guess and only a skilled Russian hacker who reports directly to Putin would have cracked such a thing.
What all media needs to realize is that this Golden Showergate fiasco has massively damaged all of you. You can point fingers at Buzzfeed or CNN or others and think you are above the fray but America, who elected President Trump, views y’all as fake, agenda-driven “news.”
I hope that part of draining the DC swamp is eliminating the white house press room/facilities and never letting these spoiled, compromised brats (that CNN joker represents all of you) ever attend another President Trump press conference. America not only does not trust you but we think that you do not deserve to be in President Trump’s presence.
Donald? Is that you?
It’s just like one of the Golden (Showers) Yam’s supporters to think he never should be bothered with annoying questions about his behavior, his views, his politics, his presumptions, or his utter and complete lack of morals and awareness. I can’t wait to see him get pushed off that tall, TALL pedestal he’s imagined for himself and go splat.
In the meantime, I would recommend you go read the Constitution, obviously for the first time. Donald can’t be bothered, that’s for sure. He’s going to put his hand on a BuyBull and swear to ‘defend and protect’ something he’s never, in his long and larcenous life, read.
Rather than ridicule the rationally challenged responses of “some”, or once again take an exception with the unsubstantiated derogatory statement about Mr. Assange by Mr. Mackey and Mr. Biddle, I will, once again, gently remind the “some” of some facts about this site.
To the “some”… you are either aware of your diversions, or you are not. In the latter case, don’t bother reading the rest – the state of compound ignorance is a blissful place and you should stay happy there.
For the aware, please note that conflation, whataboutery, and sophistry is immediately recognizable by most here. Take your show to a place where the audience’s critical thinking scores are commensurate with your skills. You will be happy there.
My apologies for the snarky remarks,
Doug Salzmann
I’ll take this challenge.
Count the inaccuracies in the following except from Assange’s interview with La Repubblica.
1, Hillary Clinton and her associates weren’t responsible for trying or torturing Chelsea Manning. The US military was solely responsible. Blaming Clinton “and the network around her” for Manning’s imprisonment and torture is like blaming the Chicago Bears for Chicago’s police misconduct.
One has nothing to do with the other except in the most tenuous and abstract ways. I suppose you can maybe blame Obama for not pardoning Manning, but that still leaves Hillary Clinton out of the equation. Assange’s weaselly phrase intending guilt by association — “the network around her” — leaves little doubt that Assange not only knows his accusation of HRC is tenuous but that he’s willing to play with scissors to make a jigsaw puzzle piece fit when it doesn’t belong.
So that’s one (1).
Two is almost laughable.
2. “According to our publication ,,, ” is much like Trump divesting himself of his businesses by giving them to his sons to run. Sure, we get there’s a literal difference, but truly it is a difference without a distinction. Assange might as well say, “According to me. …”
So that’s two (2).
3. and 4. “.. Hillary Clinton was the chief proponent and the architect of the war against Libya.” This is flat out wrong unless by “architect” and “proponent” you mean NATO and the ICC.
From Wikipedia:
Furthermore there was no “war against Libya.” There was a NATO intervention on the side of the anti-Gaddafi forces which, IIRC, were supported by defectors from Gaddafi’s military because of the atrocities committed by Gaddafi’s military.
So that’s three (3) and four (4).
5. “This war ended up producing the refugee crisis in Europe, changing the political colour of Europe…”
Again, from Wikipedia. (You should try google.)
The “refugee crisis in Europe” didn’t even begin until 2015. I don’t know how HRC could have caused it by orchestrating an intervention in the first Libyan Civil War (2011) where most refugees fled to Tunisia rather than Europe. I cannot even imagine how this changed “the political colour of Europe …” This isn’t just an inaccuracy, it’s a wild-eyed accusation made entirely for political purposes.
So that’s five (5) and … who knows how to count this blatantly political diatribe that ends dismissing Donald Trump as “a separate question.”
And it’s only one paragraph from among several. Want to talk about the “vibrant” Russia media culture where Putin opponents can be killed for saying the wrong thing?
Assange’s intervention in the US election destroyed his personal credibility and that of Wikileaks. The Republicans and the Russians should be complimented for their almost perfect subversion of an offending irritant. Google, um, “press freedom in Russia” if you want to dispute this.
Even after he releases himself from “prison” he will surely morph into a pathetic footnote to the incipient fascist regime in America.
In short, you interpret Assange’s statements however you like. He obviously means the “network around” Clinton is what you might call the Deep State or the network of US foreign policy planners, who are interventionists and security state defenders like her. It’s also well known that Clinton pushed for war in Libya, whereas Obama was more cautious. See “The Libya Gamble” (NYT).
You can put a black hood over your head, scream “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” and sprinkle your Trumpglitter™ like Tinkerbell but the facts remain.
NATO’s military assistance on behalf of the anti-Gadaffi faction was not a “war.” There was no invasion, no ground troops, no occupation, no puppet government, and no attempt to install a pro-US government. It was not a war as, say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a war.
Clinton did not prosecute Manning and she did not torture Manning or order the prosecution and torture of Manning.
Libyan refugees did not cause the European refugee crisis.
These are not interpretations.
These are facts.
Assange used Wikileaks to intervene and to effect the outcome of the US election. We cannot know what the result would have been had that intervention not taken place.
However we can make an assessment of Assange’s credibility. Lies do not become truthful because you support the goals of liar.
“NATO’s military assistance on behalf of the anti-Gadaffi faction was not a “war.” ”
What were you saying about truth … Hillary’s emails are the slug-trail of her slimy past.
I think the slime you imagine was splashed about after revisionists intentionally misconstrued and misrepresented a single email.
This is my point. When people have a political agenda, they twist facts to reach unwarranted and often untruthful conclusions. This destroys their credibility.
Read your citation again:
The Nato intervention, after a UN resolution, took place in March of 2011. The Civil War, revolution, whatever (but entirely internal) started a month earlier. The email in question was written in April after the intervention and it concerned itself with Sarkozy’s political issues in France and how to stop Gaddafi from paying mercenaries with 7 billion in gold.
So you cite a source reporting on another source reporting on an email written two months after the start of the rebellion, one month after NATO’s intervention, and dealing primary will unclassified information gathered by Sidney Blumenthal and written with the intent of informing Clinton of what amounts to local gossip.
But rather than reading my characterization of the email, or rather than reading that of “journalist and freethinker” Jay Syrmopoulos who refers to Clinton as Killary in at least one article I found, and instead of relying upon Syrmopoulos’ source convicted hacktivist and Assange associate Jeremy Hammond (check his Wikipedia page) who wrote:
(Thus directly contradicting Assange’s claim that Clinton was the architect of the NATO intervention …)
Why not just read the email in question?
Draw your own conclusions:
Grand banking conspiracy or officious gossip-mongering?
It took me about five minutes to root this out and about a half an hour to write this response.
You should feel a little foolish having wasted your time and mine trying to “slime” Clinton like this — but who knows? Maybe you’re proud of your efforts.
tl:dr
Of course not.
John Podesta should have picked a stronger password than ‘password.’ It’s like they wanted to be hacked. Don’t blame Wikileaks (or whoever) for distributing real data the Democrats were too stupid and lazy to protect.
Hey guy, can you see any further than the tip of your nose? Yes, I understand that ‘complexity’ and ‘consequences’ are hard to grasp by some and you may be one of them. Or… maybe you are just on a mission to support statism and those driving us or rather pushing us into a world where there is less freedom, less spontaneity, more conformity and a lot more obedience.
And, yes, Hillary was involved in Libya. How do we know? Let’s quote her: we came, we saw, he died [cackle] Hillary said after Gaddafi died by bayonet rectal probing.
And, as you must be aware, our beloved CIA was quite active transporting Libyan arms and ammo to Syria which babushka Hillary wanted very much disintegrated. How do we know? At the time, she made this totally idiotic statement, ordering Assad to leave the country to a destination of his choice and guaranteeing his safety – a lie, of course but she’s much dumber than that. While recklessly setting up her kitchen mail server she was also cooking this imbecilic suggestion of ‘us’ imposing a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria, a sovereign country, at a time when Russia, a very major nuclear power was flying there at the invite of Syria’s legitimate government.
How did us triggering and then fueling the Syrian disaster – which was very much a Hillary/Obama initiative – lead to refugees flooding into Europe a few years later? Hmmm… no, they can’t be related because nobody is allowed to see beyond the tip of their noses or consider cause-to-effect relationship.
To close, of course Assange is correct even in the paragraphs that you quoted and, of course, even if his statements were not your liking, it would be his opinion vs. yours. And while I agree that your credibility may not be as low as that of Makey and boyfriend, it’s very much down there.
As Mr. Trump would say/tweet… Sad!
You speak of metaphorical blindness. Your response reminds me of guy with a cracked windshield who can’t afford to replace it. He puts duct tape over the cracks hoping to hold his windshield together.
I”m sorry but you have to replace it. The more you try to fix your windshield with duct tape, the more it stops serving its specific purpose.
If Hillary Clinton/Obama (the “statists” of the “Deep State”) are powerful enough to manipulate Libya and Syria, how did they lose the election to a blundering, blustering buffoon like Donald Trump?
HRC cannot be both omnipotent and impotent. She cannot be both diabolical and clueless. She cannot both convince the UN, NATO, and various individual European nations and yet have no clue of the consequences of her malignant plans. She cannot be both a butcher queen and a Machiavellian prince.
Your windshield is cracked. You tape ensures it won’t get fixed (because, hey, it works). Eventually you’re going to have to figure out that your fix not only isn’t permanent (i.e., Trump) it is worse than before.
So I’ll give you two alternatives.
1. Clinton is a completely clueless idiot who succeeded (became SoS) because she’s in league Deep State which, itself, couldn’t even beat a clown like Donald Trump.
Or…
2. Julian Assange bears a grudge towards those he blames for his “imprisonment.”
I don’t care which you choose, but I think you’ll find your ability to see the road improves if you choose wisely.
If Hillary Clinton/Obama (the “statists” of the “Deep State”) are powerful enough to manipulate Libya and Syria, how did they lose the election to a blundering, blustering buffoon like Donald Trump?
I am sure you know the answer. In the case of Libya, all they had to do was manipulate the French and other do drop lots of bombs. Then… she came, she saw and, to her great satisfaction, Gaddafi ended up with a long, rusty knife in his tush and the wealthiest country of all Africa was turned into something close to Hell or Earth.
For Syria… a few anti-tank weapons here, a little bombing there, some terrorist training… there you go.
Are you suggesting that OUR electoral process is somewhat similar to dropping bombs on Syria or sodomizing Gadaffi? And, I wouldn’t say that Clinton/Obama were exactly ‘successful’ in Libya and Syria, unless their metric for success was ‘incredible levels of destruction’ and causing for millions to cross into Europe and create havoc there. Oh, and Brexit too.
Again, too much tape on your windshield makes it impossible for you to see the road in front of you.
But thankfully for you, I’m here to help.
First, this email in question was sent after the bombing. Therefore it cannot possibly have motivated or “manipulate[d] the French and others” into bombing Libyan government forces.
Furthermore, the entire tone of the email was informative In other words, SB says, “This is what I know two months after the Arab Spring rebellion in Libya.” If, as the article nuf provides implies, why would anyone plot something that had already occurred and then explain the details of that plot as if the main participant of the plot knew nothing about it?
Do you see the flaws in your reasoning — the duct tape on your windshield?
But it’s not enough to stop here. Your following leap is truly astonishing. It’s as if you can’t even see the cliff you’re about to zoom off. None of this has fucksquat to do with killing Gadaffi. None of it!
Clinton’s callous gloating isn’t even relevant to the original imaginary plot or to the subsequent sequence of events. How Gadaffi was killed is equally irrelevant; if he’d been strangled by a giant sea monster or vanished in a puff of smoke, what does this have to do with an article about an article about an email offered to demonstrate Julian Assange’s credibility?
May I answer my rhetorical question for you?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
No. I am not suggesting that. Are you trying to claim your vehicle laying smashed in a ravine is still operable?
I’m saying (yet again): If you impute supreme power or knowledge to someone or something, then that supreme power should extend beyond a specific and immediately set of conditions — the presence of which supports your immediate and specific agenda. A coincidence? I doubt it.
For instance, if the omnipotent security state desperately wants Hillary Clinton as president, why didn’t it act more in her interest?
NSA can steal a tax return. There are plenty of outtakes from The Apprentice available. The golden shower report recently circulated was known about as early as last July. Why would it emerge after the election? Even Assange, Comey and presumably their soulmate Inspector Clouseau can all figure out that inculpating information should precede rather than follow an election.
Yet this sinister Deep State can’t even get the sequence of its machinations in a proper order?
What’s wrong with them?
Okay guy, you keep living in whatever alternative reality you constructed for yourself and your Hillary cult. I don’t believe anyone other than your fellow cultists care. Will you be able to make converts here by endorsing Makey and boyfriend calling Assange names? I seriously doubt it. And if you do, who cares? Prepare yourself for at least 8 years of gnashing teeth so prey that the competition that follows Trump ending Obamacare results in some good and affordable dental plans because you are going to need one.
Whatever you say.
I’m tired of repeating myself.
I’m sure the sun will dawn brighter and the birds will chirp more cheerfully in Trumptopia.
And when it all goes to shit, you will always have reality to blame.
Julian Assange has less credibility than Donald Trump? He’s the one who knows the source!
Note the multitude of flags and the visuals.
Trump won the visuals.
The visuals are key – the man is a Fascist. Wake up.
And with that, the authors erode their own credibility…again.
I’m all for having a POV, but when challenged in good faith, as the authors have been in this and previous articles by commenters here, they need to step up and explain themselves better.
Is this speaking of Assange’s credibility in the authors eyes? If so, explain that.
Is this speaking of Assange’s credibility in the eyes of main stream media? If so, explain that.
Is this speaking of Assange’s credibility in the eyes of the intelligence community? Trump? Obama? Colonel Sanders? If so, explain that.
I’m not hanging on some ideological bent that prevents me from seeing that Assange is human and therefore has issues – but being a professional reporter, writer or editor (you know, the relevant party’s we’re talking about here) doesn’t give you a pass on making unsubstantiated and unexplained assertions that seriously undermine any message that you may have been trying to help your readers understand – even just a little bit better – than they did before they read this.
AS Soon as ass ange posts anything critical of isreal i will think about giving him credibility…but still wont be convinced he isnt an agent of the state.
Assange and Russia’s Dance with the Devil | New Eastern Outlook
Whether Assange (of me, or you) is an agent of the state isn’t the question. The question is is whether the information that Assange/Wikileaks is providing via the leaked documents (that someone else provided) is accurate.
Thus far, everything that’s been published by Assange has been.
At issue with this article is the unexplained assertion by its authors that Assange is somehow less credible than Trump.
Given the fact that, irrespective of the motives of either in saying what they say, Trump clearly is and has been less credible, in that almost nothing be says has been consistent, accurate or truthful.
Edit: “(*or me, or you)
Really? How exactly did you come to that determination? The guy has dedicated his life to bringing out the truth about government lies and cover-ups to the extent that he is now under a self-imposed house arrest for fear of US retaliation.
To ANY extent you rely on ANY Wikileaks information, you are a hypocrite . If you post one item or piece of information that was only known by way of Wikileaks, you are giving him credibility.
I think every commenter here should dig up your articles and find where you have used Wikileaks information and point out your hypocrisy.
A good article reminding everyone the clear hypocritical and sophomoric behavior of Trump. He’s just an Internet troll. I hope everyone trolls him throughout his entire presidency.
I’m truly surprised at how hyper-sensitive people are in the comments though. So much outrage because of an aside on Assange? And then immediate calls for the authors to be sacked? You people should take a look in the mirror because you sound exactly like Trump and his supporters. Somebody says something that ruffles your feathers and you start screaming for your safe-spaces and censorship. It’s really a reflection of how self-centered and ignorant people have become, and how well the fear-machine keeps you scared and stupid. The Internet is a perfect mirror for our society.
Ridiculous. I think I speak for most readers: We demand to know how The Intercept allowed this through.
Julian Assange is one of the most credible people in politics, with Wikileaks having a 100% track record on document vetting. He’s certainly much more credible than the IC.
“[Assange] is certainly much more credible than the IC.”
It is as if Biddle is taking a cheap shot at a rival high-school cheerleader … (Bob only does tweets)
Biddle and Bob could only dream of having Assange’s credibility or intellect.
As for the editor allowing the smear; she may have inserted it. She certainly rewards the smear, and others, with continued employment.
You don’t know that 37% of the country will be delighted. Many of those probably think of Trump as just the lesser-evil compared to Clinton, not that they are delighted about Trump.
This article is not useful. It is a curated collection of comments made by the President Elects detractors. The references to meaningless polls, the stats on voters, the underlying contempt for voters and the electoral college. Useless. Why did you publish this?
Somebody should be on record opposing this fascist regime.
Also it’s fun to annoy the party of bigots and bigotry and their quisling supporters.
They deserve nothing less than my most sincere and everlasting contempt.
While the extent to which the national-chauvinist United Snakes electorate is worthy of contempt is a matter for reasonable debate, contempt for the Electoral College, an institution that left slaveholders in control of the Presidency from 1789 until 1861, and has consistently given disproportionate power to white, rural voters, should be a given.
I don’t really get it. On one hand TI publishes stuff from Greenwald denouncing “fake news”, defending people like Assange, debunking the ridiculous propaganda about russian ‘hacking’, etc.
On the other hand TI publishes the very same criminal propaganda that Greenwald takes the trouble to debunk? What the hell?
This is doubly crazy since Greenwald happens to be the TI’s founder and and supposedly has some sort of control over ‘editorial policy’?
well, greenwald has always been opposed to censorship. could be in the interest of the vaunted free market of ideas, though i’m not sure how useful it is to include propaganda in our free market.
Trump did a masterful job at the press conference. I thought CNN acosta’s head was gonna explode, look for a lot of journalists to have nervous breakdowns the next 8 years:)
except for the fact that the orange pretender has ALREADY had a nervous breakdown.
Donald Trump won 30 of the 50 States in this election. He won by a landslide. News organizations like CNN have the gall to call him out for not representing the entire country when as a news organization, they have a responsibility to represent the entire country. Why is it they only represent liberals in their reporting? TI seems to fall in the same category. Just sayin’!
And you sir fall in the same category of people who have zero clue about anything and use english that you have learned in high school to make inane points. Look up landslide in the dictionary before you use it willy nilly.
^This neutered blob is mad the next president ISN’T going to be a drunken sociopath with a gash between the legs.
If TI’s commenters are getting riled up for this article’s unkind words towards Assange, I hope they didn’t peruse the Julian Assange AMA a couple days back. They might have a stroke.
FROM BELOW: Assange is “An asshole whose professional credibility remains wholly intact” and like “justsomeguy” that’s also my favorite kind (of asshole).
Mona…
1. Why do Biddle and Mackey disparage Julian to the point of equating Assange with Donald even while Trump himself is ripping the MSM
new one Biddle and Mackey can only benefit from professionally?
2. Why do you consider Assange an asshole? Is it his zero redaction record dumps, an arrogance to skill ratio thing or his occasional channeling of Sibel Edmonds or Cryptomes “dump the rest of the Snowden docs last week what wrong with you Glenn and Pierre” argument.
It seems like Julians role or general significance in 2017 is set to expand quite possible exponentially give his current political position especially if Wikileaks has the stellar year he predicted a short time ago.
Glenn can appear to be quite the proficient asshole when hes extemporaneously dismantling an opponents position or credibility on the fly but really he does so poetically even whimsically with that trademark flourish underscoring the frequent applause lines.
In fact if you find yourself on the wrong end of Glenns’ vitriol it pretty much means you haven’t read the article, your clarity and logic meter is busted or on loan to the MSM or you’re a bit to comfortable “functioning” (making decisions) in evidence free environments. Glenn does refer to Biddle an Mackey as fellow journalist “colleagues” it it your impression he viewed Assange and Wikileaks as fellow journalists after Chelsea Mannings doc dump?
It seems in this litigious society and with this PEOTUS being likely the most litigious person to ever be elected that someone or group couldn’t sue this MFer to show his tax returns for the good of the country. I have a hard time believing with all the controversy swirling around his entanglements a lawsuit wouldn’t be in the cards. Someone explain to me why didn’t this happen?
Perhaps it’s frivolous of me given the grave circumstances of a Trump Presidency, but I wanted to acknowledge how awesome your screen name is.
The funny thing is that PEOTUS happens to be correct when he states that the voters did not care about his tax returns or cared less than the reporters.
The PEOTUS does NOT have to show his tax returns or his medical records for that matter to anyone. Most candidates do release their tax returns BEFORE election because they believe that not doing so may hurt them at the polls. Well, DT did not release his tax returns and he got elected and that’s that. He has no incentive to release them now because… why should he? He won.
Fake news abuse? Apparently, Hackey and Diddle were Buzzed when they wrote this.
Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself.
Ah… the modesty… lol
Clearly you did not place yourself on that credibility scale of ‘relevant parties’.
I can’t…even…- just, ugh.
A Russian ambassador has been assassinated. Russian planes have been brought down. America is threatening to strike or punish or sanction Russia. We now have troops on Russia’s with Poland and the Russians view it as a direct threat.
Think about it for a moment. The country with the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world has determined that our actions are a direct threat to their national interest, possibly their survival.
Something to ponder.
First, how is Julian Assange a “relevant party” given the only thing he’s done is release true information about one former American political candidate. That you don’ t like that he did so or believe that it had an effect on the outcome of the election [which you haven’t proved, and can’t with polling] does not make him “relevant” to the accusations being leveled at Trump.
Second, there are actually two guys with less credibility than Trump and neither of their names is Assange.
They are the two guys that don’t understand the definition of “credibility”.
The two guys that have never disproved a single document released by Wikileaks (i.e. therefore being a function of Assange’s “credibility”) while choosing to believe all manner of allegations and assertions (anonymous and otherwise) without any documentable verifiable proof on a wide variety of topics from who is responsible for the “hack/leak” to any number of other topics I’m happy to list.
They are the two guys that when confronted directly with an opportunity to come up with “proof” or “evidence” for their “beliefs”–flail wildly with words like “likely” [based on zero evidence or proof] or “probably” [means “certainty” in their worldview] and where the “intelligence agencies” that gave us monumental lies from Iraq’s WMD to the Vietnam War to . . . [and again I could provide a list so long of documented verifiable CIA/FBI lies, propaganda, crimes . . . (both domestic and foreign) that it would turn your stomach.]
And yet those two gullible hyper-partisan chumps choose to believe them anyway, and lash out at someone like Assange with more evidence free “beliefs” and accusations about his “credibility”, which is incredibly ironic.
Those two guys are named Sam Biddle and Robert Mackey.
Seriously, you guys are embarrassing yourselves, destroying any reputation you may have had or will have as “journalists”, and embarrassing The Intercept.
I’m all for different points of view, but you childish inability to refrain from attacking Assange personally, and his credibility without proof or evidence for your beliefs, and your willingness to believe anonymous shit peddled from the biggest cabal of demonstrable liars on the planet is seriously pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
rrheard,
I appreciate you batting so much cleanup keeping the board safer and less time consuming for rational actors on a timeline.
Why (rrheard) does Glenn let them (Biddle, Mackey, Lee etc) continue denigrating Julian or downplaying Wikileaks while Glenn continues giving credit where credit is due on the talking head circuit. It seems clear to me that Julians catbird seat pretty damn close to the 50 yard line while Mackey and Biddles are clear up in the nosebleed section.
Any thoughts on how select staff minimizing Assanges evolving roles or general significance over time serves to advance Firstlooks legitimacy inside the PropOrNot MSM beltway media bubble?
It was a British former intelligence agent. Some Brits–especially British intelligence–are notoriously Russophobic.
Or was it a hoax from chan4 ?
He got burned and went into hiding.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/12/509493584/ex-spy-who-reportedly-assembled-trump-dossier-appears-to-be-in-hiding
Thank you for writing the following early in your article:
“Trump persisted in deferring to (and retweeting) Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself. ”
It’s a great way to signal to your readers that your article is not worth reading.
As a favor to your readers, perhaps you could put a note at the top that reads something like, “I am in the tank for the corporate Democrats.”
Thanks!
Buzzfeed-worthy nonsense. Greenwald…time to clean house.
Indeed. I come to the intercept to get away from this nonsense. It’s a shame that this sentence muddied and otherwise mostly-reasonable critique of Trump’s word salad of a press conference.
Yes another fine example of wackey Mackey hackery sung to the the tune of Biddle’s fiddle diddle. While correctly pointing out that Trump was put into the unenviable position where he felt compelled to speak to the publication of “entirely unsubstantiated claims in a private intelligence dossier compiled by a former intelligence agent working for Trump’s political opponents,” Mr MacGiddle engages in exactly the same type of character assassination of Julian Assange. As these unsubstantiated criticisms of Assange have now formed a pattern, one is left wondering if such attacks are being launched for the benefit of Mr Omidyar’s abiding animus for Julian Assange. Could it be that Mr. Omydar is abusing his first amendment privilege in attempting to use his brand of yellow journalism to piss down Julian’s back? Enquiring minds want to know!!
Please can Sam Biddle. He is really discrediting The Intercept as a home for serious journalism.
Sam Biddle again?
Jeezus K Rist. Why on Earth did The Intercept hire this hack? I started reading the article without looking to see who the author was, but guessed it by paragraph five. Fact-free gossip and innuendo anyone?
Biddle was perfect for Gawker. He is – or should be – an absolute embarrassment to every credible journalist here.
I hate Donald Trump, but you two sound like you were crying with those people at Clinton’s “victory” party election night. The “popular vote” mantra is especially funny when you break down they almost all came from Cali. Boo hoo hooooooooo. The guys an imbecile, but you two fapping over unverified “intelligence” reports that are already being debunked is not journalism. Well, neither is this op-ed “I’m going to show you on this doll where Trump hurt me” piece, either. And I hate Donald Trump.
New journalistic tactic. Repeating unsubstantiated allegations by saying they are unsubstantiated.
I know and the word “Benghazi” is nowhere in sight. Amazing.
How much lower can the intercept sink?
Cheap shots like “Trump persisted in deferring to (and retweeting) Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself.” deserve to be responded in kind.
Along the lines of “Despite their penchant for playing with each others’ pink bits, Mackay & Biddle still prioritize sucking Soros’ dick above all else”.
How can a man such as Julian Assange who has never been shown to have deceived in his career of publishing more than 100, 000 documents have his intergrity called into question by a pair of neolib hacks whose careers at Ma Jones were a litany of fake dem party sourced ‘news’? Where are the ‘aluminum tubes’ Biddle You know the ones you wrote were proof Iraq (oops sorry Saddam Hussein – gotta remember how much these hacks love to reduce an entire society with a culture going back 5000 years, down to one fellow in a black hat twirling his moustache) anyway what happened Biddle? are we just meant to forget the role you and yer equally mendacious offsider Mackay played in selling the credulous on non-existant weapons of mass destruction just because Soros told you to.
Anyway that’s it for me TI has blown whatever credibility it had afaiac – the web is full of honest reporters attempting to cut through the wall of fakery with truth, I’m off to one of their sites.
Trying to read TI whilst simultaneously holding my nose and choking back the small vomits which reading such egregiously manipulative tripe incites, has simply become too tiresome.
Nice hit piece. Any relevance of which is largely based in opinion.
Popular vote? Tax returns? Polls? Heh. Standard fare from Democrat media outlets. Try something original.
Is this some kind of “good cop / bad cop” news organization; greenwald plays the real journalist and you guys toe the mainstream media line.
No one believes that Russia hacked anything and changed anything with our election. Hillary is as corrupt as any local sex offender registry member, she used a charity as a slush fund for bribes, ran child trafficking rings, took money from foreign countries such as china and saudia arabia to the tune of hundreds of millions, had a different opinion in private than what she spewed in public, literally has billions in an off-shore Columbian accounts called “fondos acceso” translated “accessible funds”. Totally untrustworthy, corrupt as fk, but yet everyone’s splitting hairs pushing this “gulf war” type narrative that “DA RUSSIANS” yet no one from the clin’ un machine nor anyone that gave up their “pa$$w0rd” (pedo podestas <– intentionally plural) to their email deny any of it, all anyone is fixated on is "DA RUSSIANS" let's go to war with "DA RUSSIANS".
This is all a ruse to try and invalidate Trump's win and the collective weaponized mainstream media as well as horribly evil C i a to push the US into war for the "globalists" NWO agenda, but guess what, Trump's a real man, he's no slouch or push-over and most of the country see through your BS reporting. You're only lucky Drudge links to you, otherwise you die (metaphorically) like the rest of the discredited fake news media.
I can’t tell how much of this post is a joke, but the mere fact that you claim that Hillary ran “child trafficking rings” tells me that you’re more interested in tabloid, conspiracy “journalism” (which is far more egregious than anything posted in this article) than learning things about the world that run contrary to your aggressive superstitions that everybody who loathes The Donald must be pawns and shills for Clinton. You’ll get no argument from me that Hillary is corrupt, but almost the entirety of this post is risible because it sounds delusional.
This is the best they could come up with? This is the work of halfwits, not deep state agents.
I spent a while trying to get at some of the Buzzfeed-censored text on that dossier, but I lack the skill. You can see that some of the ink transferred from (I think) the front of each page to the back of the page before it, and then some of that is visible from the scanning process. In places you can read it plain as day, but it’s not so clear on the earlier blacked-out parts. The weird thing is, the LATER blacked-out parts were done physically and transferred, but the earlier ones are electronic black boxes instead.
With every journalist playing censoring intelligence agency, I’d like to have a little success trying to spy on their operations. There must be people who know the best way to extract the top quality image from the PDF and process it by the best possible means to get this stuff. (And no, I Toadally Don’t Give A Damn what noble ethics principles are behind all that black ink, because all it looks like to me is that every year they have twice as much “ethics” as the last, even routine TV shows are becoming all blur and tease, and before long there won’t be anything left un-blacked-out at all, and the journalists will just be CIA folks on vacation waving and saying pabluminous things to the worshipful penitents seeking intelligence absolution) So if someone has an idea, sing out!
If the dossier that Buzzfeed posted was any different than the actual one, it would have triggered a hue and cry from various quarters. As that didn’t happen, we know it’s the same.
Biddle and Bob team up for another gem.
Let me guess; Hackey got the tweets …
and Biddle shanked Assange.
Mission. Accomplished.
This is the bit that I really liked:
“… to his sons, Uday and Qusay..” Jokes like this tell us all we need to know about the people who tell them, say what you like about Saddam’s two sons but (a) they were murdered in a campaign that was shameful and illegal, a criminal war and act of folly which also included the (yuk-yuk) deaths of a million or so others in a war that is still claiming victims daily thirteen years later, some in the bombs in Baghdad others in the cancer wards where deformed babies are dying and then there is the unintended (but widely predicted) consequence called ISIS.
(b) It was a war supported by the worst elements of the Democratic Party and almost unanimously endorsed by the media.
(c) These frat boy scribblers- precisely the sort of people who brought us wars in Iraq, Libya , Syria and Ukraine and are now trolling for one against Russia- are the clinching argument for a draft without deferments for College Boys.
a) I listened to the press conference ‘live’ and confess that I was thinking to myself…. hmmmm what were the names of Gaddafi’s sons…. No, those are Saddam’s sons… George & Jeb, Bush Sr’s sons…. JFK & Bobby…. Makes Jr & Eric look like pussycats. Why do fathers insist that sons go into the family biz?
b & c) “Thus as it ever was…..”
TI has the non-partisan speaking-truth-to-power Greenwald while also employing a few establishmentarian tools and partisan hacks.
A question: When has WikiLeaks revelations proven to be false?
Simple question, simple answer.
Assange’s “Collateral Murders” video– which he admited on the Colbert Report was a blatant misrepresentation of what actually happened. Was happy to see Stephen Colbert punk him out in a rare display of geniune emotionalism from Stephen.
Yeah, that stuck out to me too – the claim that Assange lacks credibility… says who? How did he lose his “credibility”? Because the CIA insists, over and again, that the Russians gave him the leaks? Why would I believe the CIA when there are so very many people who had better reason and easier access to those emails?
This has been going on a long time, Virginia. No one is saying that what Assange published wasn’t true. Everyone recognizes that the Democratic Party is a corrupt bunch of liars. It’s that Julian Assange attempted to influence the election by publishing information specifically designed and timed to undermine Hillary Clinton. That was Assange’s goal. As Naomi Klein said in an interview conducted by Greenwald after the election:
“……..This is why I say I’m nervous. I’m not comfortable with anybody wielding this much power [Assange]……I am not comfortable when it’s states, but I’m also not comfortable when it’s individuals or institutions. I don’t like people making decisions based on vendettas because the message it sends is: “If you cross me, this could happen to you.” That’s a menacing message to send. …….” – my insert in brackets
I don’t think Assange’s release of the emails was simply about a vendetta, but was certainly politically motivated as well. Mackey writes (“What Julian Assange’s War on Hillary Clinton Says About WikiLeaks”; August 6, 2016):
“…….IN RECENT MONTHS, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed has started to look more like the stream of an opposition research firm working mainly to undermine Hillary Clinton than the updates of a non-partisan platform for whistleblowers…….”
Julian Assange writes in his mission statement (also from Mackey’s article):
“………..Assange wrote, “let us consider two closely balanced and broadly conspiratorial power groupings, the US Democratic and Republican parties.” He continued, “Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence — let alone the computer systems which manage their subscribers, donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail campaigns? They would immediately fall into an organisational stupor and lose to the other.”……….”
Of course, Assange is denying he tried to influence the election because he understands that this WOULD undermine his credibility. It’s too late for that though. Assange also has a close affiliation with RT. Did Assange know the source of the “leak”? I suspect he knows a lot more than he will ever admit……
So here is a genuine question for any of the folks that are seemingly upset that Julian Assange tried to influence our election:
How do you feel about political advertising?
We live in a country that has determined (whether we all agree or not) that it is everyone’s right to spend pretty much as much money as they like to say whatever they please about an issue or a candidate in our election process. Money, time, and such are freely and openly donated so that candidates can pursue their campaigns. Our entire election system is based on people trying to influence the election results — to get us to vote for a particular candidate, for whatever office.
Granted, we have a reasonable hope that the money and influence comes from American citizens, so I understand that there might be a reasonable argument that the problem is that Assange isn’t a citizen.
I concede that point willingly, but I’m not sure it changes the fact that Assange or Wikileaks released information, the truth of which has not been called into question. Only the source and timing are criticized. Meanwhile, Americans spend time and money filling the airwaves with half-truths, bias, and out-and-out fabrications, and Assange is the person we have a problem with? I don’t understand that.
Help me see your point of view.
There is nothing to help with. You need to do the research on Assange – his political motivations. There is plenty out there on the internet. For example Assange denied he tried to influence the election:
“……“This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election,” he wrote in a 1,000 word statement posted as Americans streamed to the polls on Election Day. “The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers … Publishing is what we do”………”
The timing of the release just indicates he is lying of course. Trust me when I say I am absolutely not a supporter of HRC. I really cannot stand her (or Trump for that matter).
Thanks.
My first visit to the Intercept so impressed me (Greenwald’s masterful dissection of WaPo’s journalistic chicanery) that I put you on my bookmarks bar. On the first visit! Craftsmanship. Intelligence. Polish. How refreshing, I thought. I need to check these guys out more often.
This is my second visit.
“Trump persisted in deferring to (and retweeting) Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself.”
Boo. Hiss.
There isn’t a single paragraph in the whole article that rises much above the level of the HuffPo commentariat.
You are hanging by a thread.
Mr. Mackey and Mr. Biddle
“……..Even when presented with intelligence briefings and classified evidence by the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies he will soon command, Trump persisted in deferring to (and retweeting) Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself………..”
I certainly agree with that statement – especially concerning Assange. Additionally, Trump’s sudden conversion to agreeing that Russia hacked the DNC suggest that the unpublished intelligence is more convincing. Trump is a chronic liar which has no effect on his supporters – and likely never will. Although you will be able to make a good living exposing his lies, it will get rather boring after a short while – and you both will never get a day off.
I look forward to your reporting on Trump’s policies once he begins his first term. He promises to make some big changes in US foreign and domestic policies – and he has no real fear of the establishment. For those who want change, Trump will be the most likely President in recent memory to make significant changes in US policies. All Presidents talk change, but few really turn the rudder very much. That could be good or bad (and probably both).
Trump’s “sudden conversion” occurred long after his full briefing. It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the quality of the “evidence”.
Sam
No one hates to admit they are wrong quite like Trump – and it has only been five days since he was briefed. Then Trump downplayed the Russian hack – as was mentioned by the authors of this article. One possibility is that the quality of the evidence presented to him did convince him. The CIA may have also threatened to kill him. Regardless, there already is plenty of evidence to strongly suspect that Russia was behind the DNC hack.
Thanks.
If Trump had been ‘convinced by the quality of the evidence’ he would have done his flip, reverse, flip, reverse, flip and claim he was the guy responsible for the evidence existing thing.
His hedged flipping after it became clear that the low information people on both sides (his target audience and support base) were firmly in the believe camp, right along with his rivals and opponents follows a different path. After all, he has nothing to gain from trying to appeal to the high information (people who demand real evidence, real action, workable plans, and don’t find rhetoric and scapegoating appealing) people.
Richard
“………After all, he has nothing to gain from trying to appeal to the high information (people who demand real evidence, real action, workable plans, and don’t find rhetoric and scapegoating appealing) people………”
I wonder who that might be. Hmmmm, the alt-left maybe? In reality, the low information people – presumably the “deplorables” – don’t believe that Russia had anything to do with hacking the DNC. See the “new” Republican Party, for example – Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. They used to hate Assange and WikiLeaks, and of course, Chelsea Manning. My how things have changed! The Democrats for obvious reasons (now) hate Assange.
Finally, there is enough evidence to suggest (but not prove) that Russia was behind the DNC hack. I have high confidence in that assessment.
Thanks.
Sam Biddle & Robert Mackey — JESUS FUCKING CHRIST Hillary LOST. W-T-F! YOUR reality is wrong. Go back to Mother Jones as Glenn Greenwald is the only one holding this web portal together these days.
I just drive past a house with a huge Trump sign in their yard and a huge confederate flag waving. The confederate states lost, get over it.
What a moronic non sequitur.
Ever hear the expression–one swallow does not a summer make?
No. His comment was moronic. And your unnecessary.
It’s a valid story and conclusion. Is GG not allowed to employ commentators that have different views? The Intercept is no different than any media source out there. You cling to the ones that support your opinion and deride those that don’t.
“Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself”
That’s where I stopped reading. What’s wrong with Assange’s credibility? I am unaware of any major falsehoods being intentionally or sloppily published by wikileaks. However he has considerably powerful enemies.
The lack of evidence otherwise still leaves us internal leaks, simple phising, and sources within the US federal government as the most probable causes.
Furthermore, if it is the intent of Putin to expose US politicians’ secrets on what they really think and do, well that’s not really a big deal either. That is after all the job of the media. If the media, the big corporate media especially, did their job these things would still get out in one form or another.
Biddle & Mackey: You belong in the Mainstream Media, NOT on a site generally known as brutally honest and accurate.
Amen!
GG had to put up with hackery at the Guardian and Salon, poor guy. I thought that when TI came into existence that finally he would be shed of foolish and disingenuous colleagues and a publication with partisan slant. Apparently not.
“Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself”
Do you know something the rest of us don’t about Assange’s credibility? If so that’s a big scoop you’ve got there which deserves an article of its own.
“……..Do you know something the rest of us don’t about Assange’s credibility?……”
Obviously.
Would you or the authors care to enlighten us?
For some reason, the current story being told in every article that can possibly shoehorn a reference to Assange in, attacks Assange with nothing to back it up. I don’t know why. But, it seems everywhere.
The DNC stuff posted to wikileaks has never been proven false. I don’t follow wikileaks enough to know if they ever retract content due to some
fundamental failure.
I certainly don’t get the widespread personal attacks on Assange.
Shhh, that’s too much logic and sound reasoning for this leftist media outlet, they don’t use things like facts get in the way of them towing the line with the rest of the dead lamestream media outlets.
There’s a reason why the media outlets are pushing really hard to try and cast Assange as a pedophile as well as others that tell the truth as pedophiles, because they can’t refute the facts, so they just try and program the unwashed masses to have aversion and fall in line with their 1984 style propaganda. Besides drudgereport.com, infowars.com and breitbart.com I also recommend David Seaman on youtube, very good journalist, just watch some of his stuff and you’ll detox from this leftist propaganda soon enough.
kill the messenger. deflect blame for clinton’s loss from democrat insiders.
I see the Intercept is now taking swipes at Julian Assange for scooping them on the DNC leaked e-mails, and parroting the lies about Russia hacking Clinton, Podesta, and the DNC, in spite of there being no evidence whatsoever to substantiate them. Sorry, but as much as I loathe Drumpf, I destest otherwise good news reporters jumping on the CIA-FBI-Clinton-Obama-blame-Russia bandwagon.
To be fair, Mr Assange is not a hacker, he is a proveyor of hackers.
In this instance, it was ‘trumpery’ which was effective.
not sure there’s much point reporting or engaging with trump? he’s a liar and fantasist, what more is there to know? plus his mouthing off is generally designed to divert attention from what’s really going on.
The uday and qusay strikethrough joke — hilarious. Trumps oldest sons are just like mass-murdering rapists who tortured people daily. Nice one.
Also, the last sentence of the second section (“pivots”) is masterful. But to give that idea that Mackey and Biddle’s involvement in American (that’s right, covering two continents, folks) crack gang attacks no more attention than than they give any other gang violence is to to do the same thing they did before I wrote this: Start you engines!
What is this douche news site?
Never heard of it. Seems to be overflowing with sewage-gagging hatred against Trump. Snowflakes, pansies, idiots, or just Ashenazis … maybe all of these at once. Disgusting.
‘When asked by ABC’s Cecelia Vega whether he could “say that no one connected to you or your campaign had any contact with Russia leading up to or during the presidential campaign,” ‘
What a stupid question. Did Clinton or anyone in her campaign have any contact with the United Kingdom? Did Jeb Bush or anyone in his campaign have any contact with Laos? Did Bernie Sanders or anyone in his campaign have any contact with Canada?
So what, indeed. Such useless questions are being asked because there’s a complete lack of evidence of nefarious collusion, so instead an attempt is being made to amass a bunch of irrelevancies (such as what RT publishes) in the place of actual evidence.
Well, quite.
you two are a disgrace to modern journalism, and Julian Assange has 10x more credibility in his left pinky than you two have in your whole bodies.
The headline was intriguing, so I clicked on the link. Then I saw the “Robert Mackey” byline and my heart sank.
> Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself
says two pimples on assange’s ass
I am a bit surprised at the tender regard the two of you hold for Graham, Rubio, and McCain. How touching!
This is some poor reporting, well below your usual standards.
“half-jokingly called on Russia to pilfer messages”
You saw that as half-joking?
Sad.
Repeating Doug Salszmann to the two authors: “Cite one (1) piece of credible evidence indicating that Assange and WikiLeaks are other than eminently credible.”
Julian Assange is an asshole. An asshole whose professional credibility remains wholly intact. Certainly if the metrics are that everything Wikileaks has ever published is authentic.
“An asshole whose professional credibility remains wholly intact. ”
That’s my favorite kind!
Excellent article, Mr. Greenwald.
D’oh! Wrong attribution!
Mona – you fucking liberal carpet muncher – go back to Mother Jones. No one here gives a fuck what you say.
mother jones takes the same line mackey does. mona does not.
This was another article that I just stopped reading because Assange was gratuitously maligned without a shred of supporting clarification. I can appreciate different perspectives and do not usually stop reading a piece because I disagree with a claim, however, the digs at Assange are baffling and appear petty to me.
Why does Pacey from Dawson’s Creek have it in for Assange?
DT handled the obnoxious rude unprofessional CNN jerk very professionally and presidentially. I would have done the same, no anger, just matter of factly. I also would have added, Be a real reporter and go find out who murdered Seth Rich, why, who was behind it and the whole nine yards. Go. Get busy.
hold on, i also would have negotiated a deal – Get the information on that murder to my satisfaction, no loose ends, it all adds up, and i will give you a 1 hour exclusive interview.
yeah.
Trump handled him the way any bully handles criticism. I’ve seen this sort of behaviour far too often on the playground and, frankly, in a future US president, it’s an embarrassment to the entire nation.
I only wish a group of the other journalists present would have stood with the CNN man, and not allowed Trump to treat him so disgracefully. From a position of power, shouting down a question is more than rude — it’s a form of abuse.
You two, Bob and Sam, are increasingly, pathetically, ridiculously partisan — and either unapologetically dishonest or the most misinformed pair on the beat.
Cite one (1) piece of credible evidence indicating that Assange and WikiLeaks are other than eminently credible.
I challenge you.
I’ll take this challenge.
Count the inaccuracies in the following except from Assange’s interview with La Repubblica.
1, Hillary Clinton and her associates weren’t responsible for trying or torturing Chelsea Manning. The US military was solely responsible. Blaming Clinton “and the network around her” for Manning’s imprisonment and torture is like blaming the Chicago Bears for Chicago’s police misconduct.
One has nothing to do with the other except in the most tenuous and abstract ways. I suppose you can maybe blame Obama for not pardoning Manning, but that still leaves Hillary Clinton out of the equation. Assange’s weaselly phrase intending guilt by association — “the network around her” — leaves little doubt that Assange not only knows his accusation of HRC is tenuous but that he’s willing to play with scissors to make a jigsaw puzzle piece fit when it doesn’t belong.
So that’s one (1).
Two is almost laughable.
2. “According to our publication ,,, ” is much like Trump divesting himself of his businesses by giving them to his sons to run. Sure, we get there’s a literal difference, but truly it is a difference without a distinction. Assange might as well say, “According to me. …”
So that’s two (2).
3. and 4. “.. Hillary Clinton was the chief proponent and the architect of the war against Libya.” This is flat out wrong unless by “architect” and “proponent” you mean NATO and the ICC.
From Wikipedia:
Furthermore there was no “war against Libya.” There was a NATO intervention on the side of the anti-Gaddafi forces which, IIRC, were supported by defectors from Gaddafi’s military because of the atrocities committed by Gaddafi’s military.
So that’s three (3) and four (4).
5. “This war ended up producing the refugee crisis in Europe, changing the political colour of Europe…”
Again, from Wikipedia. (You should try google.)
The “refugee crisis in Europe” didn’t even begin until 2015. I don’t know how HRC could have caused it by orchestrating an intervention in the first Libyan Civil War (2011) where most refugees fled to Tunisia rather than Europe. I cannot even imagine how this changed “the political colour of Europe …” This isn’t just an inaccuracy, it’s a wild-eyed accusation made entirely for political purposes.
So that’s five (5) and … who knows how to count this blatantly political diatribe that ends dismissing Donald Trump as “a separate question.”
And it’s only one paragraph from among several. Want to talk about the “vibrant” Russia media culture where Putin opponents can be killed for saying the wrong thing?
Assange’s intervention in the US election destroyed his personal credibility and that of Wikileaks. The Republicans and the Russians should be complimented for their almost perfect subversion of an offending irritant. Google, um, “press freedom in Russia” if you want to dispute this.
Even after he releases himself from “prison” he will surely morph into a pathetic footnote to the incipient fascist regime in America.
The writers of this article parrot the Democrat Party line down to the last comma and period. The DNC couldn’t have written it better.
As far as the spurious “Julian Assange, perhaps the only relevant party with less credibility at present than himself” claim, that’s utter nonsense. Assange is highly credible, far more so than the authors of this hit piece.
My party probably did write it for them, much to its shame. How do they find the time for it, as they plan for the mother of all meat grinders for our kids on the borders of Russia?
Sam, you’ve been rightly skeptical of the unclassified reports on the Russian influence operations during the election, as little more than circumstantial evidence and innuendo were published. However, even Trump found the classified info to be strong enough to overcome his vested interest in keeping the culprit an open question.
Does Trump admitting the Russians were behind it change your skepticism at all?
Uh oh. This isn’t going to sit well with the TI punditocracy!
All you can do is laugh. Trump is such a buffoon. And the cheer squad at the press conference is just the icing on the cake.
To Trump, everything is transactional and measured in wealth.
PS: I enjoyed the Uday and Qusay joke :)
this laughable “dossier” is not evidence. where is the evidence.
My comment had nothing to do with the dossier…
“Even when presented with intelligence briefings and classified evidence by the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies he will soon command,”
so what is this referring to?
That was the intelligence collected and presented by the U.S. government.
A 2-page synopsis of the dossier was included because officials wanted Obama, Trump and the Gang of 8 to be aware that this unsubstantiated document was floating around.
but that evidence is extremely thin at best. the dossier was equally thin. until there is real evidence that can be evaluated by people knowledgeable in the field, this is just reiterating the propaganda.
It really burns you that Assange is revealing the truth about your Queen through Wikileaks. Face it, dude, she lost and was dumped in the dustbin of history while Assange and Wikileaks are still around. It’s time to get over your lust for HRC and move on with your life.
The /r/The_Donald toilet is overflowing, better get out the masks.
so if nobody believed assange, how did he win the election for putin?
A buffoon indeed, but what else is on offer? What have we become?
I’m WAY LEFT, but I chuckled at the jab at old Lindsey.
Am I supposed to revere the old MF? He’s to laugh, unless you’re a Lindsey supporter – he’s got plenty of dough, and he’s happy to be just another Soros toy boy. From Mother Jones, now apparently BFF with the Deep State:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/john-kasich-george-soros-fund-managers-donations
“He is going to crack that 1 percent barrier one day. I didn’t realize Lindsey Graham’s still at it.”
Trump is referring to 1% of the vote. Lindsay never amounted to much in the public’s mind.
Trump answered the question with a “no”
You mean “yes”? (double negative)
The “you are fake news” comment came from Trump after Acosta repeatedly shouted questions over another reporter who had been called on. Trump never raised his voice but simply repeated several times to Acosta that he had called on someone else.
A CNN article, today, explicitly lies in claiming Trump “shouted” over Acosta. Never happened. (Thus more fake news from the fake news network who object to being accused of promoting fake news.)
Why Acosta wasn’t escorted out remains a mystery after a similar disruptive grandstanding attempt by Jorge Ramos of Univision last year which (rightly) earned him a time-out.
There were reportedly 250 reporters in the room. CNN presumably believes it can muscle its way into dominating a press conference because of its widely respected and prestigious reputation as a fair-minded, objective news organization.
Maybe not.
Trump: The US had been hacked by everybody, including Russia/China!
http://bit.ly/2iGRIeu
The US hacks every country on Earth and every country on Earth hacks the US. That should be no surprise to anybody that’s been awake any time during the past 20 or 30 years.
Yes, and we taxpayers pay god-knows-what in black budgets to amass so much useless information.
Happily, Mormons now do it for 24/7 do it for half the cost in the NSA’s shiny new Kaaba – including facebook photos of our grandkids’ birthdays celebrations. Golden showers must have their odd knickers in a real twist!
Money well spent – make a wish!
Yes, and we taxpayers pay god-knows-what in black budgets to amass so much useless information.
Happily, Mormons now do it for 24/7 do it for half the cost in the NSA’s shiny new Kaaba – including facebook photos of our grandkids’ birthdays celebrations. Golden showers must have their odd knickers in a real twist!
Money well spent – make a wish!
Yes, and we taxpayers pay god-knows-what in black budgets to amass so much useless information.
Happily, Mormons now do it for 24/7 do it for half the cost in the NSA’s shiny new Kaaba – including facebook photos of our grandkids’ birthdays celebrations. Golden showers must have their odd knickers in a real twist!
Money well spent – make a wish!