Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox
News host Sean Hannity on Jan. 3 that Russia did not provide the
organization with hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
(Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
President-elect
Donald Trump tweeted some praise on Tuesday for a man most Republicans
wanted nothing to do with. He had seen Julian Assange, the founder of
WikiLeaks, defend himself during an hour of friendly, prime-time
questions on Fox News. And he was impressed.
“Julian
Assange said a ‘14-year old could have hacked Podesta,’ ” Trump wrote.
“Why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info.”
It
wasn’t the first time Trump had praised WikiLeaks. During his campaign
for president, Trump had gleefully highlighted emails stolen from the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. By
October, just the mention of WikiLeaks could start a roar of applause at
Trump’s rallies.
Since then, Trump has
continued praising the radical transparency group, harshly criticized by
President Obama and other officials for what they describe as damaging
national security leaks. He has defended its founder, who has lived in
the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since August 2012 to avoid extradition
on a rape allegation in Sweden. And Trump has been in sync with
conservative media, once critical of WikiLeaks, which increasingly
embraces Assange as a hero.
Republicans
have been slow to climb on board. In interviews, members of the
congressional intelligence committees either declined to comment on
WikiLeaks or made it clear that they wanted the organization shut down.
Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange prepares to speak on February 5, 2016 in London
from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy where he continues to seek
asylum following an extradition request from Sweden in 2012. (Carl
Court/Getty Images)
“Julian
Assange is no hero,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) “Someone who
steals property is not bringing transparency — he’s taking information
that’s not his to give.”
In a statement,
Rep. Will Hurd (D-Tex.), a former CIA officer, said that Assange was not
a “credible source” for Trump or anyone else.
“The
same people who condemned Secretary Clinton for making sensitive and
classified information vulnerable by using an unsecure server should be
equally outraged that Assange continues to carelessly leak sensitive
documents,” Hurd said.
On
CNN, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — a Trump critic who has asked for
hearings into possible Russian meddling in the election — urged the
incoming president to look more closely at Assange’s tactics and
motivations, and to take seriously U.S. intelligence estimates that
contradict Assange’s descriptions of the hacks.
“It’s
the Democrats today; it could be the Republican Party tomorrow,” he
said. “None of us should be gleeful when a foreign entity hacks into our
political system to interfere with our elections, and that’s what the
Russians did.”
Increasingly, reactions
like those don’t jibe with the way Assange is portrayed by the sort of
conservative sources that generally give Republicans glowing treatment.
Assange’s interview with Fox News was conducted by Sean Hannity, who
had evolved from a critic to a frequent booster. From Assange’s room in
London, Hannity presented WikiLeaks in its favored terms — as a source
of true, incorruptible journalism, bringing down the political elite.
Hannity, who told Assange last month that he had “done us a favor,” said Tuesday that he believes “every word” Assange says.
“You
exposed a level of corruption that I for 30 years on the radio as a
conservative knew existed, and I was shocked at the level of corruption,
duplicity, dishonesty, manipulation,” Hannity told Assange.
“Knowing what WikiLeaks revealed about the Podesta emails on Clinton
corruption, on pay to play, on Bernie Sanders being cheated, all of this
is revealed. Not a lot of this was covered.”
With
little pushback from Hannity and just as little demand for proof,
Assange denied that Russian hackers had anything to do with its troves
of hacked Democratic emails. With Hannity’s urging, Assange said he was
surprised that “elites” had failed to elect Clinton; he had said, before
the election, that Trump would “not be allowed” to win.
“We
are happy to have credit for exposing the corruption and behavior that
was occurring in that Clinton team and the DNC fixing things against
Bernie Sanders,” Assange said. “We are quite happy to accept that.”
The
Fox interview won other fans: Sarah Palin, who had once compared
Assange to the editor of an al-Qaeda magazine, apologized on Facebook
and credited him with releasing “important information that finally
opened people’s eyes to democrat (sic) candidates and operatives.”
At
less-mainstream news outlets, where Trump’s run and victory were
celebrated, this praise had been echoing for months. The Drudge Report
has linked videos with speculation that Assange has been aided by
government insiders; Alex Jones’s InfoWars, which once criticized
Assange for slow-walking the stolen Clinton campaign documents, is rife
with rumors that Assange has been silenced by the government, and full
of mockery for the Republicans who criticize him.
This
treatment of Assange is a stark departure from what was, until
recently, a near-universal condemnation of the Australian by
conservative pundits and politicians as well as the national security
establishment. Assange has inspired both admiration and hatred —
sometimes by the same individuals — since his anti-secrecy organization
first made global headlines in 2010.
That
was the year that WikiLeaks published thousands of stolen, heavily
classified Pentagon documents that shed light on U.S. actions in the
Iraq War. Most famous were the “Iraq War logs,” which included cockpit
video footage of American helicopter pilots opening fire on two Reuters
journalists after mistaking them for insurgents.
That
same year, WikiLeaks published the first of more than 250,000 pilfered
State Department cables containing sensitive and often candid
assessments of foreign governments and politicians. Obama administration
officials said publicizing the confidential records damaged
relationships with key allies and put diplomats and intelligence
operatives at risk.
Assange, a former
computer programmer and journalist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006, has
defended the organization’s tradition of publishing massive volumes of
unfiltered intelligence, calling the release of confidential material a
necessary antidote against excessive government secrecy.
In
a news release issued on the eve of last year’s U.S. presidential
election, Assange said of his group’s goals: “We publish material given
to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical
importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have
material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.”
The
releases that started in 2010 prompted calls in conservative media for
Assange’s prosecution, or worse. Conservative commentator Jeffrey
Kuhner, in a Washington Times op-ed piece that year, suggested that the
U.S. government should have him assassinated.
“Julian
Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national
security,” Kuhner wrote. “The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless
provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against
America. The administration must take care of the problem — effectively
and permanently.”
On Fox
News, legal experts debated the best legal course against Assange, who
was decried by one guest as a “deeply flawed individual.” A column in
the conservative publication National Review Online questioned why
Assange wasn’t dead already — perhaps “garroted in his hotel.” Trump
himself, in one of his then-frequent calls to Fox, called WikiLeaks
“disgraceful” and added that “there should be like death penalty or
something” for its releases.
Lawmakers
and national security officials were only slightly less harsh. Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) described WikiLeaks’ publication of Pentagon and
State Department documents the “greatest, most damaging security breach
in the history of this country.” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who would
become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, suggested that
WikiLeaks be designated as a terrorist organization.
As
recently as late 2015, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), the chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee, said WikiLeaks’ publication of
classified documents had “certainly helped our primary adversaries” and
inflicted “just enormous” damage to the country. Director of National
Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., who oversees U.S. intelligence
collection, went further, accusing Assange of putting lives at risk,
particularly intelligence operatives working abroad.
Assange’s
most fervent praise in the United States did not come from Democrats.
It came from libertarians. Then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who ran for
president in 1988, 2008 and 2012, asked in a floor speech “which has
resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or
WikiLeaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?”
Assange, who does not often talk about domestic politics, appeared to notice where his defenders were coming from. In
a 2013 discussion, streamed live from the Ecuadoran Embassy, Assange
brushed aside the idea that Democrats or political independents were
capable of reforming the United States.
“The
Republican Party, insofar as how it has coupled together with the war
industry, is not a conservative party at all,” Assange said. “The
libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful
political voice in the U.S. Congress.”
In
the 2016 Republican primaries, the party’s libertarian wing lost badly.
But elements of their ideas, especially Paul’s criticism of the
national security state, were adopted successfully by Trump.
The
rest of the Republican Party has been slower to adopt or adapt. In
2010, as the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee,
then-Rep. Pete Hoekstra had called for decisive action against WikiLeaks
and Assange. In an interview Wednesday, he said it should still be a
goal to “do everything we can, legally, to shut down his networks.”
But
Hoekstra argued that Trump was not praising or egging on Assange’s
publication of hacked material. “I feel bad for John Podesta that he got
his emails hacked,” Hoekstra said. “I’d feel bad if mine were hacked.
The reality in today’s world is that if you’re not extremely careful,
you’re vulnerable.”
Source: Washington post
No comments:
Post a Comment