On December 16th, Julian Assange or one of his assistants reached out to Donald Trump Jr. by direct message on Twitter and asked him to make a request of his father, who was then the president-elect. They knew that Australia wouldn’t go along with it, but could Trump Sr. please suggest that Assange be appointed as the ambassador to the United States? This would send a message to Sweden, Australia and the U.K. to back off their legal cases.
As far as I can tell, this is the only communication WikiLeaks had with Donald Trump Jr. that didn’t directly promote Russia’s interests.
Let’s look at the first communication made via Twitter:
Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?”
There are a host of issues raised by this communication, including legal questions about what laws may have been broken and by whom. But what stands out to me is that WikiLeaks was interested in something that linked Trump to Putin in a negative way. This was the subject that motivated them to make contact, and Donald Trump Jr. was the one who they thought would be the best person to arm with a stolen password.
The next communication came about a month later during the endgame of the campaign. In one sense, WikiLeaks was trolling for a scoop. They wanted to help neutralize a potential October Surprise by getting their hands on Trump’s tax returns themselves before they could be released by an unfriendly source. But, on closer inspection, they primarily wanted the tax returns because it would rectify their reputation for pro-Trump bias and give more weight to the DNC and Podesta-hacked leaks they had been publishing on a rolling basis. Since Russia had procured the emails, this was clearly in Russia’s interest.
“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”
It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”
The Election Day communication also followed this pattern. WikiLeaks is ostensibly a radical transparency organization, not a disinformation center. So, why would they want want to encourage Donald Trump to pursue a campaign to delegitimize the results of an American election based on no facts? This was Russia’s goal, obviously, but there’s no reason it should have been a goal for WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks didn’t write again until Election Day, November 8, 2016. “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do,” WikiLeaks wrote at 6:35pm, when the idea that Clinton would win was still the prevailing conventional wisdom. (As late as 7:00pm that night, FiveThirtyEight, a trusted prognosticator of the election, gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning the presidency.) WikiLeaks insisted that contesting the election results would be good for Trump’s rumored plans to start a media network should he lose the presidency. “The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc.,” WikiLeaks wrote.
The next major communication WikiLeaks had with Donald Trump Jr. came when news broke that he’d had a secret, undisclosed meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian agent who was peddling dirt on Hillary Clinton. WikiLeaks reached out with a plan to help him clean up the mess.
In the winter and spring, WikiLeaks went largely silent, only occasionally sending Trump Jr. links. But on July 11, 2017, three days after The New York Times broke the story about Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer with connections to Russia’s powerful prosecutor general, WikiLeaks got in touch again.
“Hi Don. Sorry to hear about your problems,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We have an idea that may help a little. We are VERY interested in confidentially obtaining and publishing a copy of the email(s) cited in the New York Times today,” citing a reference in the paper to emails Trump Jr had exchanged with Rob Goldstone, a publicist who had helped set up the meeting. “We think this is strongly in your interest,” WikiLeaks went on. It then reprised many of the same arguments it made in trying to convince Trump Jr. to turn over his father’s tax returns, including the argument that Trump’s enemies in the press were using the emails to spin an unfavorable narrative of the meeting. “Us publishing not only deprives them of this ability but is beautifully confounding.”
Once again, the desire to confuse people about WikiLeaks’ true motives and allegiances is front and center here. They know it will “beautifully” confound people if it looks like Wikileaks is doing something to hurt Trump. In the end, Donald Jr. published the emails himself.
The very existence of this correspondence contradicts more than a year of denials from the Trump camp that they were in any kind of direct communication with WikiLeaks, or that they coordinated the release and distribution of the hacked emails. A lot of people are focused on those lies, and understandably so.
But it’s the naked way that WikiLeaks was acting as a Kremlin front that I think is the most important news here. There’s an implied understanding in these messages between the two parties. There’s no sense of caution on the WikiLeaks end that they might be presumptuous about Donald Jr.’s willingness to push the Kremlin line or that Donald Sr. might be offended by the suggestion that he delegitimize the election for Russia’s benefit even though it would clearly hurt his own country. There’s a conspiracists’ bond between them as they discuss the desirability of throwing people off their scent by working together to leak damaging information in a preemptive way (the classic “limited hangout.”)
A limited hangout or partial hangout is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Victor Marchetti, “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”
Admittedly, there’s no direct admission in these communications that the leaked emails were obtained by Russian hackers, nor do they come right out and say that they’re discussing a Russian agenda. But, collectively, these messages are incredibly strong evidence of Wikileaks being a Russian front organization, or at least that they have been so strongly coopted that they might as well be run from Moscow.
The evidence of Russian hacking has been coming in from other sources, including George Papadopoulos, who was informed that Russia had obtained hacked material long before any of it was actually released. What remained a question was whether Wikileaks was a witting or unwitting participant in Russia’s game. In my opinion, these Twitter messages remove any doubt about that. Wikileaks was acting in a way that was completely indistinguishable from how a Russian intelligence agency would act. And they weren’t making any effort to disguise this from the Trump campaign.
This completes the case, in a sense, because it not only connects the dots between Russia and Wikileaks, but it makes clear that the Trump campaign knew how closely the two were working together. The only remaining defense relies on the stupidity and naivety of the Trump team, but they’ve been caught in so many lies now that it will be hard for them to be believed if they try to argue that they just didn’t know who they were dealing with.
Assange was always a giant pro-Putin shitheel but in the early days wikileaks was not just the Julian Assange show. As other members moved on from the organization it became the global right-fascist promoting organization it is today.
I suppose the distinction is of some historical interest, but hardly seems to matter at all in terms of what we’re discussing here.
I suppose. I think it matters that wikileaks wasn’t always the same malign force it is now, at least in the interest of helping former fans of their mission understand what’s changed and why.
The fact that the Bush-Cheney white house went hard after Assange never really made sense to me, except that it had that Dick Cheney vindictive quality.
But now it does make sense – I think our spies have know all along about Assange and the Russians. It’s interesting how spies know all these things, but in order to keep the sources and knowledge deeply hidden, that they will sort of leave things alone most of the time.
I don’t see any evidence that Wikileaks is a Russian front organization, but they certainly appear to be extremely closely allied.
Agreed. Assange hates the American Empire so much he is happy to partner with anyone to oppose it. That explains things pretty well to me.
I don’t know what better evidence you could ask for, realistically.
That evidence was implicit in going after the State Department cables by your standards. But Russia is not the only foreign nation that had an interest in the that.
Well, calling Wikileaks a ‘front’ means they were directly created and controlled by the Russians, right? Being closely aligned with another group doesn’t make you a front. The Republican Party obeys ALEC, but it’s not a front. The Trump administration spreads white supremacy and Nazism, but they’re not a Nazi Party front.
It’s an open question if they’re a Russian front, however.
I just worry that the terminology undermines the message. Wikileaks is pro-Putin, pro-oligarch, pro-nativist, anti-democratic, and meddled in the US election with the overt intention–and tremendously damaging success–of undermining a competent centrist candidate and supporting a racist, misogynist, authoritarian, unqualified, cognitively-questionable, immature greedhead narcissist grotesque. They don’t need to be a ‘front,’ too.
What it means is that WikiLeaks is actively and selectively seeking leaks that will damage Russia’s adversaries and not Russia itself. It means that WikiLeaks has been trolling for leaks that hurt or damage the West for a purpose other than better more transparent governance. It is not what it purports to be, and it hasn’t been for a long time, if not from the beginning.
Actually, no. A front doesn’t have to be created by the entity they are a front for. They only need to be willing to step into that role. Nor do they have to be literally controlled by the sponsor. That isn’t necessary if the front understand their role and is happy to play it. Namely, to act in a cooperative way.
Being an effective front means that you are helping your sponsor while shielding his identity. In a sense, an entity that is already known as having an independent existence is a more effective front.
I mean, when you first heard of Wikileaks, did you think it had anything to do with Russia or the far right ideology they now support? I sure didn’t — and very possibly it didn’t.
Also, I think fronts are by definition much smaller and narrower in their supposed definition than the sponsor. That’s the reason why the Republican Party can’t be called a “front” for ALEC, any more than they are a front for the NRA.
On the other hand, ALEC is certainly a front for a group of oligarchs led by the Koch brothers. And the NRA is a front for the gun and ammo industry.
So Tom Steyer and the Rachel Maddow Show are fronts for the Democratic Party? ACORN was a front? Liberal arts colleges are overwhelmingly Democratic Party fronts? I mean, that’s what Hannity thinks, but he’s wrong. The word indicates an organization with an undisclosed relationship to a sponsor that does literally control its actions. It’s not a metaphor for ‘ally’ or ‘fellow traveler.’
Good point about ‘smaller’ and ‘narrower.’ But ‘smaller and cooperative’ is not enough. Air America was a CIA front: a (secretly) wholly-owned subsidiary. On the other hand, Harvard University has a cozy, cooperative relationship with the CIA, but is an ally not a front.
I worked for ACORN and it was basically a front for the Democrats at least in their election activity, even though they had a purpose in doing that that aligned with their stated mission.
But, no, a front in this sense (of WikiLeaks) is hiding their relationship. That’s why we don’t say ALEC is a front for the GOP. We don’t even really say that about their sponsors. It’s not a secret even if it isn’t advertised.
A candidate running on the Green Party ticket who is secretly getting support from the exact same people secretly supporting Trump with the purpose of electing Trump? That person is a front for Trump. See: Jill Stein.
Getting Democrats to run as Republicans in California’s elections in order to split the right’s support and get two Dems on the general election ballot? That’s a front.
You’re missing the covert aspect. That’s the key element that makes it a front: The public doesn’t see what’s behind it.
Tom Steyer and Rachel Maddow can’t be fronts for the Democratic Party for the simple reason that everybody knows they are Democrats. Same thing for ACORN and liberal arts colleges.
I don’t think many people knew until recently that Wikileaks had anything to do with the Russians. That lack of public knowledge is what made them an effective front. For many people it’s still effective.
Maybe they didn’t, originally, have anything to do with the Russians. So much the better.
Astroturf organizations are fronts by definition. “Independent” research outfits or think tanks whose expertise always happens to help entity X AND are secretly being funded by entity X — are fronts. They appear independent but they’re not.
The Russians might indeed control WikiLeaks at this point — in the sense that WikiLeaks benefits from their (covert) support, and you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. But whether they do or not doesn’t change the effect. You don’t have to literally control an organization if they are happy to do what you want them to do anyway.
I’ve made this point before but the ongoing McCarthyist purge has always seen fit to misinterpret its importance.
It’s this that gives it the character of a limited hang-out.
So when is the next perp walk?
I believe Julian Assange could have changed priorities over time, but his first priority has been to hurt the West, not Hillary Clinton specifically.
Right, and that fits so well with the Russian agenda they’re happy to work together. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks appears (by default, anyway) to be independent. With that degree of cooperation, plus the appearance of independence, they are functioning as a front.
Parallel to the conversation about the relationship of the Trump team and Russia linked Wikileaks is the actual definition of what Wikileaks is.
If Wikileaks is a ‘media outlet’ there is a different and lesser list of legal entanglements that Trump’s crowd faces than if Wikileaks is instead an arm of Russia’s infrastructure of propaganda.
Mike Pompeo has been pretty adamant that Wikileaks is not a ‘media organization or outlet’ which puts Don Jr’s communications and certainly his taking advantage of what they offered well within the definition of conspiracy.
As soon as Trump posted the stolen link & password given to Don Jr a legal line was crossed. There’s a whole bunch of dots that are getting connected now.
I think your case is very weak. What Assange is pushing for is in the interest of wikileaks. It is not actually in the interest of Trump, for the most part, though he has to present it that way since he’s trying to get Trump’s cooperation. He clearly thinks both the Trumps are imbeciles. That just shows that he is not an imbecile himself. He figures if he can get a message directly to Trump, circumventing the political pros, Trump might do something impulsive and stupid. It is easy to see why he might think this. Junior is a way to circumvent the pros.
Let’s look at Occam. The baseline assumption should be that Assange is working in his own interest. That should be assumed under any scenario, not only because Assange does seem assiduously self-interested, but also because only the dearest of saints are indifferent to their own interests anyway (and they are debatable). So if we can explain it in terms of Assange’s own interests, other hypotheses are superfluous.
Attacking putintrump, for example (how formidable a threat is a website that chooses the most obvious possible password?) is in the interest of Trump, and therefore can be a token chit Assange is offering to get more Trump cooperation. He is clearly fishing for info from Trump, so he has reason to get cooperation, and for a fugitive to get in nice with the next President is not a hard motivation to understand. Of course, he clearly was already in nice, but that is not hard to understand either.
Putintrump clearly was no threat to Putin. It only countered Putin’s interest to the extent Putin’s interest was in the election of Trump, which it was, but attributing a second-order interest is a superfluous hypothesis.
As for the tax returns, improving wikileaks’ reputation was clearly in Assange’s interest. It wouldn’t clear Russia of having stolen the emails, which was done independently of wikileaks itsself, and, in any case, this is very easily explicable in Assange’s own interests.
Whose interest it was not in was Donald Trump’s. This is evidence Assange believed – correctly, but with evidently a bit of overestimate – that he was dealing with morons. There is no clean year that Trump can release, because his businesses are almost all multi-year ventures. Any year of his returns will have investigative tendrils fore and aft in time. The only thing in Trump’s interests on the tax returns is for nothing to happen so it becomes a non-story, which is pretty much what occurred. A leaked return on wikileaks would have had the media feasting on whatever was in it for the rest of the election and, if he still won, well beyond. And Russia is only affected to the extent its interests are Trump’s interests.
Telling Trump to contest the election results, especially in the context of Trump’s evident plans to start his own media concern, is something that is probably in Trump’s interest. Like the putintrump thing, this is genuine help, and shows Assange was on Trump’s side, at least when he was talking to Trump. I think he was on Trump’s side period, but I don’t think this dialog proves even that. Could Russia have suggested the idea? Trump had been hinting this for months, so the idea was already in the air. Further, undermining the authority of traditional media helps the credibility of alternative sources like wikileaks. Russia is again a superfluous hypothesis.
Did you break a sweat spinning that fast?
Spin my ass. You have not made one legitimate argument.
Chris Hayes highlights a critical tell.
You write:
And almost the entire U.S./NATO/other allies of the U.S. mass media look like a multinational corporate front organization.
So…nu???
What are you waiting for?
Saints?
Do not hold your breath.
AG
A blast from the past.
Joshua Green, Sasha Issenberg, Bloomberg: Inside the Trump Bunker, With Days to Go
Lots of folks now breaking with Assange and Wikileaks based on this story from inside PutinTrump.org
Buzz Buzenberg, Mother Jones: WikiLeaks Set Off an Attack on Our Trump-Russia Project–Right After Messaging Donald Trump Jr. About It
Wikileaks had an announced doxx attack of putintrump.org and disclosed the press password again. The question is who within the Trump campaign coordinated social media instructions with Wikileaks to spread the doxx attack to Trump supporters. And also, where was Bannon while this was going on?