Has Wikileaks Lost Credibility?

Cover picture by David G Silvers and taken from Wikimedia Commons


By Patrick Brogan


The last US Presidential Election was different, to say the least. This is probably not surprising when the two main candidates were as divisive as they are. One of the sub-plots became the influence of Russia on the elections and this was pushed by the Clinton team and the mainstream media.

The story we are all familiar with now went along the lines of Republican candidate Donald Trump being a stooge of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Most of this story focused on the DNC leaks, or the “Russian hack”, as described in the media. There is a huge difference between the two –a hack and a leak– which we’ll get on to a little further on in the article.

The leak became the story rather than what was in it. The DNC had deliberately sabotaged the Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign. It was as clear as day. To any rational person, this would be a huge story, but this got covered under the narrative of the Russians trying to tarnish Hillary Clinton and Wikileaks, the organisation that made the information public, being a vassal for Russian intelligence services. The only problem; there isn’t a shred of evidence to prove it. However, Wikileaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, have questions regarding their objectivity in the lead up to the election.


Donald Trump Junior and Twitter


As part of the investigation into Russian influence into the last US election and the role Wikileaks may have played in it, Donald Trump Junior disclosed correspondence he had via Twitter with the anti-corruption organisation.

So, what was in it? It was hardly explosive stuff, but it did show that Wikileaks did want Trump to win the election. The interaction between the two goes back to September of last year and Wikileaks initiated it by warning the junior Trump of a website called putintrump.org and who was behind it, Rob Glaser. The younger Donald said he didn’t know who that was but thanked them anyway.

Wikileaks later contacted him again asking the campaign team to comment on Hillary Clinton’s quote of “Can’t we just drone this guy?” in which she was referring to Julian Assange. This is significant for possibly highlighting Assange’s motivation. DTJ said they had already highlighted this quote.




Then, in October, Wikileaks made by their own admission an “unusual” suggestion. They wanted Trump to give them them his tax returns. There was a few different reasons for this. They said it would benefit the Trump campaign if Wikileaks published these rather than the hostile mainstream media, but more shockingly, they said it would help with the “perception of our impartiality”. This is from the organisation that highlights corruption and dodgy dealings behind closed doors? Incredible. The interaction between the two in the Direct Messages on Twitter is very one-sided and can be viewed here.




Why did Julian want Donald to win? He didn’t really, he just wanted Hillary Clinton to lose. This then became a case of my enemy’s enemy is my friend. We already mentioned the animosity Clinton has to towards Assange. Clearly, this is a two-way street, but firstly we have to talk about the DNC leaks themselves.




The real story was the DNC rigging their own election, but this is forgotten about in the “Russia hack” smokescreen propagated by the Clintons. We know this was all lies. Like we discussed back in August of this year, there is no evidence Russia was behind the hack and it was more than likely a leak from a DNC insider who was sick of the corruption and pro-Clinton bias in the party. Added to this, Craig Murray, a longtime contributor of Wikileaks, said that he received the emails on a USB stick from a DNC insider in a park in Washington. Of course, he could be lying but the evidence points to it being an inside job.

Who was this insider? This is hard to answer, but, and this is a bit of a stretch, if it was Seth Rich it may further underline why Julian Assange was loath to see her as the next President. While his name and story are not definite examples of the Clinton body count — which is theory in itself–, there are a number of serious and suspicious elements to his death. I’m not suggesting Hillary Clinton had him killed for leaking emails to Julian Assange, but there is a lot surrounding his death that warrants further inspection. That along with Assange offering a cash reward for information on his death. Maybe he was just stoking fires.




The important thing here is the leaks offer real information and Assange was right to release them. Nobody, even the Clinton team, denied its authenticity or said it was fabricated. And Clinton herself has drawn the ire of many in America, not just Wikileaks. She told a room full of bankers that it is okay to have a public persona for politics but then have another behind closed doors. This hypocrisy is something Wikileaks always goes after. Assange has said real decisions are made behind closed doors. However, it appears he is guilty of this himself in light of his conversation with Trump’s son. How much he discussed with other members of the Trump team we do not know.

But, Clinton is poison though. This is something we covered in the run up to the election. She has a history of lying and callousness. Her reaction to the death of Muammar Gaddafi is very telling. She may have despised him as a dictator, but he was a fellow human being at the end of the day.

"We came, we saw, he died." Such disregard for human life


The corruption of the Clintons goes long and deep and there is too much to get through in this article. However, the video below may give a hint as to why someone like Assange would target her, that along with her dangerous foreign policy. Anyway, just as a taster, have a view of this;



The Credibility of the Media


The media has played a huge role in this. They unquestionably took up the Russia hack theory. They toed the line of the Democrats and the intelligence services. There is good reason for this. Operation Mockingbird was set up by the CIA to control the narrative, mainly through infiltrating the media. While this was denied for years, evidence from Freedom of Information requests have provided evidence this was indeed in action and so too do the JFK Archives which shows even members of Congress were concerned about this.

Not only have they pushed the Russia hack narrative, they do not report on evidence that contradicts this. Wikileaks recently released files on the PETER Service. This is software used by Russian mobile phone companies. This software has been shared with Russian intelligence. The US mainstream media didn’t report on this. Perhaps, this is a way of establishing the perception of impartiality. Also, this highlights how secret services all around the world are using metadata to get evidence on people as pointed out by Edward Snowden. Perhaps the media doesn’t want this getting out because it will upset their CIA handlers.

Look at how the media reacts to Hillary Clinton having dealt with Russians in the same way Donald Trump is accused of. Also, she sold uranium to Russia. Go to the 2:50 mark;

The Darling of the Media


Maybe the media should have focused on real issues regarding Trump if they didn’t want him elected. Pam Bondi, Trump University, links to Jeffrey Epstein. There is plenty of ammunition. We did a piece on this before the elections.




Wikileaks has certainly lost objectivity. That much is clear. Perhaps after Clinton’s drone remark Assange feared for his life. Whether this is justified or not can be debated. Funny enough, they still haven’t lost credibility as the information released appears to be all authentic, even to this day.

Maybe Assange felt Clinton was more worthy of scrutiny than Trump, perhaps this is isn’t his decision to make. He is certainly blinded by his disdain for Clinton. I have heard online commentators say there was more dirt on Clinton available than there was on Trump, but this isn’t true either. His tax returns were never released for one. His dealings with politicians and other shady people were never exposed and many feel that these have not always been totally above board or even legal. Could Assange not get information on these?




Everyone involved in this is only human after all. While it would be easy to say this is all part of a Russian or global conspiracy concocted by the Illuminati, it is untrue and not conducive to looking into what really happened. Assange, praised as a fighter for human rights and freedom by many, is just a man after all, and men make mistakes. So too do woman, and it is time for Hillary Clinton to recognise it was her own mistakes that cost her the election.


Join the debate. Feel free to comment. You can also subscribe to the site and follow us on social media to stay in touch (on occasion, we are funny)

Facebook – Twitter – Instagram – Soundcloud – The Tube of You




Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.