Seeing as it was just patched together from other releases with Russian disinfo laced in between - it should have been removed a long time ago. Look up who submitted it to Wikileaks: Guccifer 2.0... who turned out to be a Russian agent (aka Fancy Bear).

Go look at Guccifer 2.0's Wikipedia page, or the US intelligence senate hearing that confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election. All this info is put there.

Assange thought it was win favor with Trump and maybe get him a pardon. Went as far as to continue to attribute the "leak" to staffer Seth Rich, even after Rich's death in a botched burgulary.

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I've never bought this spin.

Certainly Russia had a hand in getting the leaks to Wikileaks, and certainly because they had an obvious vested interest in the US electing Putin's sycophant Trump.

But I've never seen or heard of any specific evidence that any of it was "disinformation" - just the repeated unsubstantiated claim that it was. It appears to be exactly what it looks like - a detailed record of the DNC's overtly fraudulent maneuvering to torpedo the Sanders campaign in order to ensure the nomination of Clinton, or more precisely, to torpedo the campaign of a sincere progressive who would likely threaten the ongoing flow of big donor soft money in order to ensure the nomination of a transparently corrupt neo-lib who could be counted upon to serve establishment interests and keep the soft money flowing. And notably, early on that was how the DNC treated it themselves, even going so far as to issue a public apology to the Sanders campaign "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."

So what it actually all boils down to was that the DNC really was acting in a manner contrary to the public good, driven by their own greed and corruption, and the fact that Russia had a hand in exposing that in order to serve their own interests doesn't alter that fact.

No matter how one slices it, the bulk of the blame for the whole thing rests squarely on the DNC. Yes - it served Russian interests to reveal the information, but had the DNC simply been operating in a legitimate, honest and neutral way, instead of self-servingly and dishonestly, there would've been nothing to reveal.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It's Russia's fault that the DNC was caught. Clearly Russia is to blame for the DNC's corruption.

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's pretty much what it seems to amount to.

All of the focus has been astroturfed onto the fact that the leaks came from Russian sources, and away from the content of the leaks. The clear (though of course unstated) implication is that the wrong isn't the DNC's corruption, but Russia's self-serving exposure of that corruption.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

What DNC corruption exactly are you referring to?

The corruption of the electronic was done by Russia and the RNC accepting and not reporting foreign election interference. As per:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Is this a bit

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 4 months ago

The idea that Trump was Putin's sycophant flies in the face of the fact no US president ever authorized weapons to Ukraine until Trump did, and that is directly against the interests of Russia. Yes, Trump then played politics with those weapons for corrupt reasons, but the idea that Trump just did whatever was best for Putin is just simply untrue. Obama explicitly said that sending weapons to Ukraine would provoke Russia, but Trump had no issues with it.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

[+] DarkCloud@lemmy.world -12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"had the DNC simply been operating in a legitimate..."

Sorry, are you under the impression that the DNC has to choose a particular candidate? They don't. That stuff is internal party politics. There's no US law governing who they choose. That's how party politics works.

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm fully aware that the DNC is under no legal mandate to operate legitimately or honestly.

And that's rather obviously entirely irrelevant.

In point of fact, if the legal standing of their actions is the only thing that matters, as you imply, then the entire notion that Russia willfully acted to harm them collapses. How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

If, on the other hand, we stick with the way that things have been presented by the DNC itself - that Russia willfully acted to bring them harm - then rather obviously even they are taking the position that the legal status of their actions is irrelevant.

Go ahead and pick either one - I don't care. Either there was nothing wrong with their actions, in which case they could not be harmed by having the details of their actions leaked, or they were harmed by the the leak of the details of their actions, in which case their actions were self-evidently judged to be wrong, and the legal standing of them is irrelevant.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

So you're arguing that misinformation is fair if a campaign has done anything that can be remotely described as damaging (and you refuse to say what they did that was so damaging).

How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

By including disinformation? It's a pretty basic concepts, by lying.

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I'm not sure why so many people are reacting like this to my comments. The Republican Senate Committee was able to accept there was a Russian disinfo campaign, not sure why Lemmy thinks that's all fine and dandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election.

[–] ralphio@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Assange thought it was win favor with Trump and maybe get him a pardon.

??? The emails were leaked before any charges were filed. The Trump admin filed the charges. Ultimately the Biden admin cut him a deal. Obama or other democrats didn't seem to want to charge him.

Seeing as it was just patched together from other releases with Russian disinfo laced in between - it should have been removed a long time ago.

Could you show what specifically was fake?

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

Could you show what specifically was fake?

I'm not an intelligence agent, so no, I can't tell you what was and wasn't faked. You would have to look into the various reports and intelligence findings yourself for that info.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The charges against Assange were made in 2012.

[–] ralphio@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Those were the Sweden rape charges and that was actually 2010. He went to the embassy in 2012. The Trump admin charged him under the Espionage Act in 2018.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is a comment from someone who has no idea what DKIM is.

Those emails were cryptographically proven to be sent from that email server.

Saying anything else proves you are ignorant of the technology and trying to provide cover for emails that were proven to come from the DNC servers at a mathematical level.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I never said anything about the technical details. I said the majority of the content was made up from information already released.

But yeah sure buddy, I'm sure the Senate Intelligence Committee got it wrong /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Maybe do basic research before you go after someone for something they didn't discuss. That way you won't be left looking like an idiot.

There was Russian interference whether you want to believe it or not. I'll let you go back to your qanon discussion group now.