This is a pdf, but worth reading in its entirety regarding the build-up towards the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the issue of weapons of mass destruction in general, and the reporting of The New York Times correspondent Judith Miller in particular.

The question of journalistic integrity goes far beyond Assange.

"Judith Miller, The New York Times, and the Propaganda Model"

[pdfs.semanticscholar.org]

I had to look up his Chagos Islands reference. Talk about some skeevy behavior. Wikileaks revealed the element of basically "weaponizing" turning it into a "marine reserve" so as to prevent any islanders from returning. The link also mentioned the ICJ hearing was set to begin Sep 2018.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

And this.

My guess is that the Russian collusion claims will amount to little (we should know soon). I have no doubt that Trump helped launder money for the Russian mafia (with the knowledge and help of his sons and Kushner), and that Putin is aware of same which certainly would provide some leverage. But a handful of nutty Facebook ads from a little web startup looking for business (memes like, "Vote Trump, or Satan wins" ) is not what derailed Hillary and her massive campaign warchest.

The Hillbots I encounter roll their eyes dismissively anytime the argument/rationale of "both sides" is put forth, most often to justify or minimize some reprehensible behavior by the right. This is quite often valid.

But what is important to me, far beyond any case of "gotcha!," is pointing out the reality of "both sides" lying to us. It is most predictably assessed in terms of the extent of the lies ("Trump lies all the time on things both critical and trivial, whereas lies from the left are not so egregious, and besides are an integral part of the political game" ), in addition to the reaction to them based entirely on if they are by "your team" or not.

To paraphrase Malcolm X, 'I am for truth, no matter who is telling it.' As rationalists especially, so should we all.

Re: Russiagate

[thenation.com]

I have my own issues with Snopes, but they insist the claims of proof of Wikileaks altering published documents are false.

[snopes.com]

Written by former intelligence analysts William Binney and Ray McGovern.

"Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened."

[baltimoresun.com]

"John Pilger: There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’

Julian Assange: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up."

[consortiumnews.com]

"Julian Assange: Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum. Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?

John Pilger: Yes, it’s different.

Julian Assange: The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.

[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States."

"The US sent a “planeload of FBI agents” to Iceland in 2011 to frame WikiLeaks and its co-founder Julian Assange, according to a former Icelandic minister of interior, who refused them any cooperation and asked them to cease their activities.

In June 2011, Obama administration implied to Iceland’s authorities they had knowledge of hackers wanting to destroy software systems in the country, and offered help, then-Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson, said in an interview with the Katoikos publication.

However, Jonasson said he instantly became “suspicious” of the US good intentions, “well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand.”

Later in the summer 2011, the US “sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” Jonasson said."

[eutimes.net]

I consider John Pilger and Chris Hedges both to be journalists of the highest integrity. They each point out the hypocrisy regarding the hand wringing over Jim Acosta, while the MSM is silent about Assange. The charge of being a Russian tool is unfounded, as are the claims the DNC emails are the result of a Russian hack and not a leak. Liberals loved Wikileaks revealing the crimes of Shrubya, but apparently to shine the same spotlight on Team Hillary is verboten. They claimed the emails were doctored, but without providing any originals to show where. They also insisted their servers were hacked by the Russians, but refused to turn them over to the FBI to conduct forensic analysis. The book "Shattered" revealed blaiming the Russians was the spin concocted within 24 hours of their loss by Robby Mook and John Podesta. The rape charges were trumped up by the US intelligence community and have since been dropped.

you have been duped. wikileaks is not a whistleblower, and assange is not an honorable journalist or whistleblower or anything like that. he is a russian tool, he is highly partisan, and his motives are not to tell anything approaching "truth" (he published altered documents as factual) but to give advantage to his favored politicos. he is a criminal. yes the wars are fraudulent. yes governments lie. yes people can be bad. assange lies too, and he lies in favor of the least honest politicos. he is, himself, very, very bad.

g

I have many very mixed feelings about Julian Assange.