From
liberal beacon to a prop for Trump: what has happened to WikiLeaks?
A
series of hacked emails appear designed to aid Donald Trump fight
back against Hillary Clinton, while raising questions about Russian
involvement
David Smith
Friday 14 October
2016 08.24 BST
How did WikiLeaks go
from darling of the liberal left and scourge of American imperialism
to apparent tool of Donald Trump’s divisive, incendiary
presidential campaign?
Thursday brought
another WikiLeaks dump of nearly 2,000 emails hacked from the Hillary
Clinton campaign, allegedly by Russians. As usual, they were
inside-the-beltway gossip rather than game-changing: the campaign
tried to push back the Illinois primary, believing it would make life
harder for moderate Republicans.
That has not stopped
Trump trying to make hay from the leaked emails and deflect attention
from allegations of sexual harassment against him. “Very little
pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by
WikiLeaks,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “So dishonest! Rigged
system!”
Clinton’s speeches
to Wall Street banks were apparently revealed in an email dump last
Friday, just minutes after the release of a video in which Trump was
caught boasting about groping women – timing that many felt was
more than just chance. This follows a hack in July designed to
embarrass Clinton on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.
Robert Mackey of The
Intercept website wrote in August: “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.”
The seeming alliance
between Trump and WikiLeaks is an astonishing role reversal. In 2010
it was lauded by transparency campaigners for releasing, in
cooperation with publications including the Guardian, more than a
quarter of a million classified cables from US embassies around the
world. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange became a hero to many.
At the time,
Republican politicians expressed outrage at WikiLeaks, but now some
are seizing on its revelations as potential salvation for Trump’s
ailing candidacy. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, took part
in a media conference call about an email that purportedly showed
Clinton campaign mocking Catholics.
Conversely, liberal
activists have expressed dismay at the hack of Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta’s email account and the calculated timing of
the release. Neil Sroka, spokesperson for the pressure group
Democracy for America, said: “There is a huge difference between
risotto recipes in John Podesta’s emails and the Pentagon Papers.
The news value of these Podesta emails is fairly limited and the
activist value is even less.”
Sroka added:
“WikiLeaks is like the internet. It can be a force for good or a
force for bad. Right now it is propping up a candidate running the
most hateful campaign in modern times.”
Last week US
intelligence officials blamed Russia for previous hacks. It is not
yet known whether Podesta’s emails were hacked by the Russians, but
US officials say the attack fits the same pattern. Russian president
Vladimir Putin has denied the allegation.
Clinton campaign
manager Robby Mook told reporters on Thursday: “The Department of
Homeland Security took the unprecedented step of saying ... beyond
any doubt that this hack and then the leaking of the emails was
perpetrated by the Russian government for the purpose of intervening
in the election and trying to affect the outcome in favor of Donald
Trump. This is getting closer and closer to the Trump campaign
itself.”
All of which raises
the question: do Assange, Putin and Trump form a triangle? Are they
in communication with each other or merely exploiting a coincidence
of interests?
Trump has praised
Putin and numerous links with Russia have emerged this year. But on
Wednesday he denied any business interests beyond staging Miss
Universe there. He has contradicted earlier statements about knowing
Putin.
Assange was asked by
Democracy Now earlier this year whether he prefers Clinton or Trump.
“You’re asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?” he
replied. Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks editor, has said it would
publish documents damaging to Trump if it had them. “It’s not
that we’re choosing publications to pick a certain line,” she
told Bloomberg.
'I'm a gentleman':
Trump menaces Clinton with imposing presence and brash insults
Read more
But some observers
argue that Assange’s war on Clinton is personal: she was secretary
of state at the time of the diplomatic cables leak. Her perceived
secrecy and hawkish foreign policy represents the antithesis of his
anti-US imperialist worldview. The capricious, nihilistic,
non-ideological Trump might seem like a kindred spirit by comparison.
Alina Polyakova,
deputy director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council think
tank in Washington, said: “My impression of Julian Assange is that
he sees US hegemony in the international world order as the biggest
problem facing us today. In his attempt to bring ‘transparency’,
he ends up siding with the very regimes that deny transparency and
human rights. That’s the irony of my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
She added: “I
think the Russian government is in fact using WikiLeaks: the
connection seems pretty clear to me. Is the Trump campaign tied to
WikiLeaks? That’s hard to say but I would be surprised if there’s
no coordination.”
Russia has
uncomfortable associations for WikiLeaks. In 2010 its point man
there, Israel Shamir, was exposed as an antisemite and Holocaust
denier. A website, israelshamir.com, carries numerous articles, one
of which comments: “Ms Clinton decided to blame her spectacular
lack of success on Putin, as well. If she were honest, she’d admit
that she is unpopular, even among her own milieu.”
In an email, Shamir
denied that Assange is coordinating with Russia. “The problem is
that incredible revelations of emails are totally suppressed by the
Clintonesque media,” he wrote. “Instead of discussing Clinton’s
hate to ordinary Americans, Clinton’s order to assassinate Assange
etc, you discuss whether Russians are involved. Shame!”
Assange remains
holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in London after claiming asylum,
where he’s been for four years. Two women in Sweden have accused
him of rape and other sexual offences, which he denies, citing a
wider conspiracy. Assange has expressed fears that, if extradited to
Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he
thinks he could face the death penalty.
A former associate
of Assange, who did not wish to be named, noted that there will be
presidential elections in Ecuador in 2017 and the current leader,
Rafael Correa, has stated that he will stand aside after 10 years in
office. This could make Assange feel uncertain about his future
protection.
“I believe he is
basically hoping that Trump will be lenient on him,” the former
associate said. “It’s about Julian Assange. I feel he’s just
desperate and it’s a shame.”
The site has lost
its halo in the eyes of what it used to be its core constituency, the
ex-colleague added. “All the lefties were WikiLeaks softies. Now
they are getting a different perspective. It’s obvious Julian
Assange has lost his ability to be neutral.”
But others who know
Assange defend him. Vaughan Smith, a journalist and former army
officer who allowed the WikiLeaks founder to stay at his UK home for
more than a year, said in a text message: “I don’t believe for a
minute that Julian is liaising with Moscow.
“His whole thing
is that he’s not supposed to know the identity of his sources, who
leave material anonymously to protect themselves. He checks that it’s
genuine and puts out as much of it as he can. That’s his compact
with whistleblowers. As for Clinton and Trump? He hasn’t expressed
a preference to me.”
And some Democratic
voters have declined to criticise the leaks, which appear to show how
the Clinton campaign worked to defeat Bernie Sanders in the primary
elections. Dave Handy, a political organiser and Sanders supporter
who will now vote for Clinton, said: “I wouldn’t say I’m glad
but they’re doing a necessary thing.
“Even if it’s a
ploy, it’s the truth. No one has denied this.”
He added: “The
Democratic party and the Clinton campaign have colluded for the last
two years to make sure she becomes the nominee and to make sure she
becomes president. As someone who will vote for her, we can only pray
this is not how she runs her administration.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário