Assange Hits Back At The Intercept - Claims "Obsessive And Obscenity-Laden" Campaign Against Him

Julian Assange hit back at The Intercept over a February 14 article claiming he backed Donald Trump's presidential campaign in leaked group chats from a disgruntled former WikiLeaks associate who set up the chat room. 

[I]n the fall of 2015, Trump was polling at less than 30 percent among Republican voters, neck-and-neck with neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and Assange spoke freely about why WikiLeaks wanted Clinton and the Democrats to lose the election.

We believe it would be much better for GOP to win,” he typed into a private Twitter direct message group to an assortment of WikiLeaks’ most loyal supporters on Twitter. “Dems+Media+liberals woudl then form a block to reign in their worst qualities,” he wrote. “With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute.” He paused for two minutes before adding, “She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath.” -The Intercept

In a series of rebuttals over Twitter, Assange notes that The Intercept's Micah Lee failed to do basic fact checking, such as noting that the WikiLeaks account has a rotating staff (i.e. anyone could have written the controversial messages), and used "messages from late Oct 2016 when I infamously had no internet access."

Assange also notes Lee's long-standing grudge against the WikiLeaks co-founder, which he called "obsessive" and "obscenity laden." 



Assange, who remains confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London following a failed appeal of his arrest warrant also notes that WikiLeaks cannot confirm the Twitter support group messages, and that there are "dozens of such groups, full of people's freewheeling banter and quips, but even the funniest do not represent editorial policy." 

(as an aside, the judge who upheld Assange's warrant, Emma Arbuthnot, stands accused of being influenced by British authorities and the secret service, while her husband and ex-Conservative MP, Baron James Arbuthnot, is listed as the director of a security company along with the former head of MI6)

The Intercept also stands accused of changing the context of several quotes used in their article:



Assange's defenders, such as journalist Caitlin Johnstone, and Disobedient Media's Elizabeth Vos have come out in force against The Intercept's "disingenuous and sloppy character assassination against the Wikileaks Editor-In-Chief." 

The Ecuadorian embassy in London cut off Julian Assange’s internet access in October of 2016, but the WikiLeaks Twitter account kept posting about leak drops uninterrupted. The embassy’s action made headlines all across mainstream media. It is common knowledge for anyone who was paying attention to WikiLeaks during that time. The Intercept‘s editors are unquestionably aware of this.

They are aware of this, and yet they allowed an article to be published about allegedly leaked Direct Messages on Twitter which continuously, pervasively and fundamentally assumes that the WikiLeaks account is controlled by Assange and Assange only. The account is referred to as “Assange” throughout the entire article. -Caitlin Johnstone


The timing of the article’s publication acted to brutally counter growing support for Assange that arose in the wake of a clearly unjust UK ruling. Essentially, the publication of the smear attempted to deflect attention from the revelation of corruption in the ongoing detention of Assange, and to assassinate his character in the process. -Disobedient Media

So, whether The Intercept is now simply another establishment tool masquerading as a legitimate news outlet, or its editors simply let one of its journalists publish a terribly inaccurate hit piece curiously timed to coincide with Assange's UK court action, Julian Assange's defenders are out in force to set the record straight.


DownWithYogaPants A Sentinel Sat, 02/17/2018 - 00:18 Permalink

We've all evolved. 

Assange is a hero.

Previously there was an article or two about how it appeared Glenn Greenwald had sold out.  Appears they were true.  Wonder how that particular deal goes down.  Was it silver or lead or both?   Appears CIA gets to everyone in the end.  I guess since Pierre Omidyar was involved in moneying up "The Intercept" it was probably mostly silver. I guess I can in some way not blame him too much given how the CIA regularly kills people. They don't play.  However I do have a general disdain for these journalist attention whores. Their personalities must stink like sewer plants. 

In reply to by A Sentinel

verumcuibono DownWithYogaPants Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:59 Permalink

A theory has circulated for quite awhile that suggests Assange is "allowed" or "directed" in a way by perhaps the less evil CIA faction, which has kept him alive. They got to everyone else so Assange is being kept alive and probably being used.

That doesn't mean what is leaked to him isn't real... it is very likely "focused" and maybe even filtered (before it ever reaches him). You don't pull off Level 3 9/11 without also having control over Wikileaks.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

lew1024 verumcuibono Sat, 02/17/2018 - 18:02 Permalink

No, the CIA doesn't control everything, e.g. Snowden.  He made the mistake of trusting news people to do the filtering. The CIA compromised all of those sources.

Maybe not Greenwald, but there certainly have not been any new articles about the NSA's programs from what were said to be 100s of 1000s of files, either, so something happened around Greenwald.

In reply to by verumcuibono

Pew Pew Pew stizazz Mon, 02/19/2018 - 07:11 Permalink

I think a lot of ZH readers are mis-reading something here:  The hit piece was written by Micah F. Lee, not Lee Greenwald.  Greenwood, to the best of my knowledge, is still an honest investigative journalist.  He helped break the Ed Snowden story wide open for public consumption.  I sincerely doubt that Greenwald had anything to do with this expose of Julian Assange.  More likely this Micah F. Lee is a plant from the intelligence community --- which we all know has infiltrated news outlets in order to perpetrate deception on the consumer in attempts to shape public opinion that is aligned with government agendas.


More Pew Pew, Less Q Q

In reply to by stizazz

khnum Fri, 02/16/2018 - 22:19 Permalink

Welcome to the 21st century where the media won't let facts upset a good story but if they do you'll get an academy performance.

Captain Nemo d… Fri, 02/16/2018 - 22:20 Permalink

Enough with the Intercept said ... Assage said ... . Everyone knows the problem. Instead of responding to the Intercept Assange should have released some more damning information on some elite favorite.

Implied Violins Give Me Some Truth Fri, 02/16/2018 - 23:03 Permalink

If I'm right, then he probably doesn't spend much time in that embassy.  In fact...when was the last time he was seen on the balcony?  October 2016?

There are a lot of things about him (and Snowden) that stink to high heaven. 

Why didn't they simply release everything that they had when they had it??  Putting it all out there at once seems like a better strategy than letting it go out piece-meal, hoping they don't get whacked before they get the most juicy bits out there.  Plus getting it all out there is a survival strategy, since if they were killed it would make more people believe their information.

Instead, their information is released piece-meal at exactly the right time, almost like some master maestro is coordinating this whole shit-show.  The whole thing stinks of kabuki theater.

In reply to by Give Me Some Truth

scribe1 Implied Violins Sat, 02/17/2018 - 05:37 Permalink

Not so. Snowden released everything. It was up to the journalists to decide how and when to release information. Not endangering troops is a major consideration. Documents are scrupulously reviewed on that score. Assange releases information only after it has been corroborated. this takes time. Wikileaks is famous for guaranteeing that all released documents are authentic and all information is factual. That is why there is never a flood of documents. 

In reply to by Implied Violins

hutnela scribe1 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 06:18 Permalink

Not only that, but Wikileaks keeps a few juicy ones as an insurance policy on some type of dead hand system. You don't make many friends publishing other peoples secrets, and without a few hard hitting pieces tucked away, whats to stop some of these psycho elite from having some wet works performed on Assange or whoever.

In reply to by scribe1

Implied Violins scribe1 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:15 Permalink

I also believe that Snowden, at least, is definitely a 'limited hang-out'.  And there is this litmus test for both Assange and Snowden: both of them are on record as believing in the government story concerning 9/11.  That alone should give one pause.

As for Snowden...remember when he first came on the scene, he started out in China - then went to Russia.  The two main pillars of the BRICs.

Second, why are he and Assange slowly leaking their information, bit by bit, instead of just dumping it all at once? I know Snowden supposedly passed his info off to Greenwald and Poitras, but why are they slow-rolling it instead of just letting it all out at once? Are they really trying to alert the masses and actually help change the system, or are they going for a 'controlled release' as dictated by someone behind the scenes for some agenda?   And how much of what Snowden has revealed did we not already guess was happening?

Third, why the big hullaballoo about British authorities going to the Guardian newspaper offices and demanding to have access to all their hard drives containing Snowden's information (which they destroyed), while fully knowing that Greenwald/Poitras et. al. are the ones with the info, which they probably already passed on to others?

Fourth, I know that Greenwald got the full TWA treatment at the airport while on his way to Brazil, and US politicians called for his and Snowden's heads - but: he works for Pierre Omidyar, the owner of the Intercept that publishes Snowden's information, who is an American - the man who PAYS Greenwald - who has faced no similar treatment by authorities.  Why is that?  Is it because he helped fund the Ukrainian Oligarchs, so he is 'tight' with Victoria Nuland?  (If you want to read up on that, search for Mark Ames' articles on Omidyar.  It's all in there.)

Fifth, how is it that he and Assange are getting air time seemingly any and every time they have an itch to scratch, while almost every other whistleblower (who hasn't been locked up yet) is basically ignored?

Sixth...the name 'Snowden' itself bothers me.  I doubt it's his real name.  However, there IS a character by that name in the seminal book 'Catch 22', which is really ironic when you think about it: Snowden is revealing government corruption and how they do it via the internet, but his very exposure of this crime is a crime (a 'Catch 22!')- and even though it has been 'exposed', it CONTINUES to happen, only openly, and nothing can be done to stop it...just as nothing could be done to save the Snowden character in 'Catch 22.'  Yes, the elites love their irony, don't they?

I've got a lot more, but I have VERY good reason to suspect anything that 'Snowden' puts out there.  Who benefits?  Could it be the government, because now that the world has been alerted that they are doing this, there has been a very noticeable damping effect on people expressing themselves about their displeasure with government on-line (Ok, not at Zero Hedge...)?  Or, could there *really* be some 'inside force' trying to expose the workings of the government for people to see, so that once the 'evil bastards' are removed, this stuff can be stopped in the name of 'Justice!!' while we all bow to the altar of the BRICs and the new golden Yuan?

Yeah call me cynical.  But I do give Snowden this: he really has awakened a large number of people to government impropriety.  I just pray it actually results in change.

In reply to by scribe1

DownWithYogaPants Implied Violins Sat, 02/17/2018 - 07:19 Permalink

You're not right.  And awfully convenient of you to be so very brave with SOME ONE ELSE'S LIFE.

If you want to make a point by suggesting HUGE gambles why not impress us with YOU TAKING ON THE RISKS.

I try not to use profanity but what you just said had a high cunt factor.  You know where some attractive woman suggests an extremely costly idea as if it is nothing ........cause with attractive women the man always pays every red cent of the cost.

In reply to by Implied Violins

opport.knocks Implied Violins Sat, 02/17/2018 - 08:13 Permalink

"Compromised asset" is more accurate - he definitely caused too much major pain for the DNC, Clinton and Deep State to be considered "controlled".

Assange requires that you read between the lines when he speaks. Recall that shortly after the Pamela Anderson embassy visit (as odd of an event as Dennis Rodman's visits to North Korea) he said that he had to think of others, specifically that "his children did not sign up for this".

Not hard to connect the dots, I believe that they threatened to harm his son if he released certain info. It happens all the time, drug overdose, suicide...

In reply to by Implied Violins

verumcuibono opport.knocks Sat, 02/17/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

WAYYYYY too many oddities and unknowns for anyone to know anything real about Assange. You and I know maybe 20% about what really happens in that covert world. If Assange is still alive, something has kept him alive.  They got to everyone else so I believe Assange is being kept alive and probably being used.

That doesn't mean what is leaked to him isn't real... it is very likely "focused" and maybe even filtered (before it ever reaches him). You don't pull off Level 3 9/11 without also having control over Wikileaks.

In reply to by opport.knocks

lew1024 Implied Violins Sat, 02/17/2018 - 18:09 Permalink

Snowden made a mistake, he trusted journalists to deal with the raw files. They were to do the vetting. Instead, they hid them.

Assange isn't making that mistake, but it opens him to another risk, he could be fooled. One hoax gets past his people, and he loses credibility. His credibility is now 100% accuracy, he is the only publishing organization on the planet which can say that. you know?

They very much want him to lose credibility. So, the reason he doesn't release everything as soon as he gets it, is that he has to vette it. That takes time, but better late than losing credibility.

The only orchestration is that Assange can prioritize things to be checked, and that might be last-minute.

So, no conspiracy theories are needed for any of this, it is the way things work. And I know that, not because I have any inside info, but rather because it is the way they have to work, and work everywhere by such simple methods and have the resulting elementary dynamics.

Get your mind down to the lowest levels, you can understand all this stuff.

In reply to by Implied Violins

RopeADope Fri, 02/16/2018 - 22:28 Permalink

Cavorting with Roger Stone does leave a stench that is hard to get rid of. Not that I don't appreciate why he would risk putting Wikileaks in jeopardy to deny Clinton the presidency after she stated she wanted to kill him.

A Sentinel RopeADope Fri, 02/16/2018 - 23:50 Permalink

Stone is similar to assange. He seemed bitterly unamerican. Now, while I still don’t subscribe to everything he believes, he’s an out of the box (echo chamber) thinker — and that’s extremely important these days.

Most people couldn’t think their way out of a cardboard box, much less the iron cage the msm, mic and big brother data constructs. And that makes them worthless.

In reply to by RopeADope

Beowulf55 A Sentinel Sat, 02/17/2018 - 08:49 Permalink

Stone is similar to assange. He seemed bitterly unamerican. 

So what you are saying is that anyone who exposes the lies and unconstitutional acts is un-american?  You must the one of those Americans who say "it is my country right or wrong" blind sheep followers.  Now that is un-american.  

To me, you are a traitor to the Constitution and a sycophant to the pedo's in Congress.  How does Clintons pussy taste?

Stone, Assange, Snowden, and all those who expose the lies and spread the truth are the true patriots and protectors of the Constitution.

In reply to by A Sentinel