Debunking the #Russiagate Smears Against #WikiLeaks

Directly from The Courage Foundation Website read the debunking of the Russiagate smears against WikiLeaks here:
Russiagate Smears Against WikiLeaks

Download PDF version

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have been the subject of numerous false, unfounded smears of connection to the Russian government, particularly in relation to WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of DNC emails. In this brief we recount some of the most pervasive claims and correct the record.

False Claim: Julian Assange’s source is the Russian government

Julian Assange has a long-standing policy never to reveal his sources. However, in this case, he has stated that his source of the 2016 releases was not a state party. Regardless of the source, WikiLeaks will publish what it receives provided the material is verifiable and newsworthy.

False Claim: WikiLeaks knowingly worked with Russian agents to publish the Democratic Party files in 2016

This is not true, and it follows that no evidence has ever been presented in support of this claim. While this claim has appeared in certain media, it has not been made by senior US officials, who have often made key admissions concerning the lack of evidence about the alleged role of WikiLeaks.[1] The Mueller indictment of 2018 accuses “organization 1” (widely believed to refer to WikiLeaks) of receiving from Guccifer 2.0 (which Mueller claims was a Russian front) and then publishing the Democratic Party documents.[2] WikiLeaks itself has made no such claim. Moreover, WikiLeaks was not the initial publisher of materials obtained from the DNC and was one of numerous US and other media organisations which published material allegedly from Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.

Leaks allegedly provided by Guccifer 2.0 were published in at least 11 different media outlets, including the Washington Post, Politico, Buzzfeed and The Intercept. [3]
Leaks allegedly provided by DCLeaks were published in at least 17 different media outlets, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Forbes. [4]
The materials published by WikiLeaks were reprinted and/or covered in at least 23 different media outlets, including the BBC, NBC, ABC, The Guardian, Fox News and USA Today. [5]

Yet only WikiLeaks has been singled out for publishing truthful information that is of public interest.

It is important to realise that the DNC case against WikiLeaks does not allege that Wikileaks had any advance knowledge of the hacking of servers or participated in any way in this or made any use of the materials beyond publishing them. [6] Wikileaks has simply published available materials, like many other media outlets.

To give some more examples, Guccifer 2.0 was in contact with various US media outlets which acknowledge it as the source of its material:

The Intercept, for example, published an article on 9 October 2016 based on emails provided by Guccifer 2.0. [7]
The Smoking Gun published material directly provided to it by Guccifer 2.0 in an article published on 15 June 2016. [8]
Gawker published a document in June 2016 forwarded to it by Guccifer 2.0 – an anti-Trump playbook compiled by the Democratic National Committee. [9]

The Telegraph published a report on 17 June 2016 with a link to a disclosure of a 231-page report on Donald Trump; the article stated that Russian intelligence was being blamed for this hack from Guccifer 2.0. [10] Similarly, Politico reported on Guccifer 2.0, linking to an article on 4 October 2016 in which Guccifer 2.0 reveals the results of its hacking into the Clinton Foundation. The Politico article noted, “Some cybersecurity experts believe Guccifer 2.0 is an invented identity that the Russian government is using to release files it obtains through hacking.” [11]

One of the most notable conduits for Guccifer 2.0 material was The Hill (see below). Neither The Hill nor any other media organisations have been accused by Mueller or the US government even though the evidence against those organisations is far stronger in terms of contacts with, and publishing material from, Guccifer 2.0.

The Hill’s direct sourcing from Guccifer 2.0

The Hill is a top US political website operating out of Washington DC and is widely read among insiders in US policy-making circles. It was in contact with Guccifer 2.0 in 2016 and covered and cited its document releases, sometimes in exclusive leaks, while simultaneously suggesting that it was likely to be run by Russian intelligence.

On 13 July, Guccifer 2.0 released a cache of DNC documents to The Hill. Its article noted:

“The files provided by Guccifer 2.0 to The Hill includes [sic] a folder with a list of objectionable quotes from Palin and an archive of the former Alaska governor’s Twitter account assembled in 2011 — before Palin decided against running for president.” [12]

The article stated that Guccifer 2.0’s “techniques bare the fingerprints of known Russian intelligence hacker groups.” [13]

On 23 August 2016, The Hill cited documents “obtained by Guccifer 2.0 and exclusively leaked to The Hill.” These documents highlighted efforts by Democrats to prevent Mike Parrish from winning the party’s primary for a contested House seat in Pennsylvania. The same article stated, “Guccifer 2.0 is widely believed to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence, which many posit is trying to bolster Donald Trump’s bid for the White House.” [14] The Hill tweeted a link to this article 10 times on 24 August 2016. [15]

On 31August 2016, The Hill reported that Guccifer 2.0 had publicly released documents on the WordPress blog from Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi which, it said, “were a small subset of a larger batch given exclusive to The Hill.” The article stated that US intelligence officials say that “Guccifer 2.0 is a cover identity for previously identified Russian hackers affiliated with the Kremlin.” [16]

On 15 September 2016, an article in The Hill cited “documents from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee leaked to The Hill by the hacker or hackers Guccifer 2.0” [17] The Hill tweeted a link to this article 10 times on 15 and 16 September 2016, stating “Guccifer 2.0 leaks new documents on Dems in key battleground state.” [18] The Hill published this information after it reported that “Guccifer 2.0, who has claimed credit for the DNC hack, is widely thought to be a front for Russian intelligence agencies.” [19]

There are numerous claims about Guccifer 2.0 in the Mueller indictment and US media which have been questioned or debunked by independent analysts. [20]

False Claim: By publishing the 2016 files on the Democrats, Assange and WikiLeaks consciously manipulated the election to help Trump win
WikiLeaks publishes material given to it, regardless of the source. It cannot publish material not given to it. Had it received material on the Trump campaign, it would have published this. Since publishing is what WikiLeaks does, to withhold the publication of information until after the election would have been to have favoured one of the candidates above the public’s right to know. [21]

New York Times editor Dean Baquet said in an interview with the BBC in December 2016 that he would have published the DNC and Podesta emails had his paper obtained them. [22] Even the Mueller indictment does not make any accusations that Russian efforts succeeded in influencing the election results. [23]

False Claim: Assange and WikiLeaks colluded with Trump adviser Roger Stone to help Trump win the election
WikiLeaks has had no contacts with Roger Stone (other than to publicly and privately refute the claim) and has issued several tweets highlighting that Stone was falsely claiming “contacts” or a “backchannel” to WikiLeaks. [24]

False Claim: Assange and WikiLeaks do not criticise Putin or Russia
WikiLeaks has published over 600,000 documented related to Russia[25] and nearly 80,000 files mentioning Putin. [26] In 2017, WikiLeaks released “Spy Files Russia”, a collection of documents on surveillance contractors in Russia, concerning domestic Russian spying. [27] Edward Snowden responded to the publication by tweeting: “@WikiLeaks publishes details on Russia’s increasingly oppressive internet surveillance industry.” [28] WikiLeaks would publish even more material on Russia if whistleblowers provided it with such material.

WikiLeaks also published, in 2012, over two million documents from Syria, a close Russian ally, including on President Bashar al-Assad personally. That data set derives from 680 Syria-related entities or domain names, including those of the Ministries of Presidential Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Information, Transport and Culture. It includes 68,000 emails in Russian. [29]

False Claim: A Russian plan to help Assange escape the embassy
A Guardian story that was published in September 2018 is a fabrication. It headlined: “Russia’s secret plan to help Julian Assange escape from UK”, claiming that “Russian diplomats held secret talks in London last year with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they could help him flee the UK.” [30]

There was no secret plot involving Russia and no desire whatsoever on Julian Assange’s part to go to Moscow. Claims that Julian Assange or his legal team or anyone else acting on his behalf entered into negotiations with Russia, directly or indirectly, are false. As far as they are aware, no one at the Ecuadorian mission in London engaged in such discussions either, at any time.

False Claim: Seeking a diplomatic post in Moscow
In October 2018, the Associated Press published a report claiming to show that Julian Assange was being named by Ecuador as a political counsellor in the Ecuadorian embassy in Moscow. [31] The strong implication in the report was that Assange wanted to go to Moscow.

At no stage has Julian Assange ever sought or wanted to go to Moscow. He was appointed to the UK. Ecuador had unilaterally sought out states which might potentially accept Assange as a diplomat – up to 13 countries were approached. The negotiations and arrangements were undertaken unilaterally, without informing Assange. After Ecuador informed Assange’s lawyers of the possibilities, Assange requested that he be appointed to the UK and was appointed to the UK. Assange did not consider Russia as a possible destination. [32]

False Claim: Assange applied for a Russian visa
In September 2018, another Associated Press article, authored by the same person and widely reproduced in other media, also sought to link Assange to Russia. It published a document claiming to show that Assange applied for a Russian visa in November 2010. [33]

Assange did not apply for such a visa at any time or author the document. [34] The source is convicted document fabricator Sigurdur Thordarson who was sentenced to prison for fabricating documents impersonating Assange, multiple frauds and pedophilia. Thordarson distributed these documents to Scandinavian media outlets years ago and they found them to be untrustworthy. Thordarson volunteered to become an FBI informant for the purpose of conducting entrapment operations on Assange and WikiLeaks.

The British government is in possession of Julian Assange’s passport, which Assange provided upon his arrest in December 2010. There is no Russian visa in his passport: if there had been, the UK authorities would have used this to argue against his bail.

There is a further false claim: that Julian Assange actually obtained a Russian visa in 2011, which was reported by, for example, the New York Times. [35] As noted, Julian Assange’s passport was seized in December 2010. Given that Assange never applied for a visa and the fact that the passport was already in UK custody, the claim is clearly bogus. [36]

False Claim: Assange has ties with the Kremlin
Numerous mainstream media reports refer to Julian Assange’s “ties” [37] or “links” to the “Kremlin.” [38] In fact, Julian Assange has no ties or links to the Russian government. Some media have imputed a connection to Moscow simply because Assange has received at the Ecuadorian embassy a handful of Russian or non-Russian journalists who work in Russian media. [39] These visitors have been among hundreds of people of all political persuasions who visited Assange at the embassy which have often involved giving interviews, and which have included Russian dissidents. [40]

False Claim: Assange received Trump documents but did not publish them
This is false. At the verification stage, preparations to publish Trump-related documents were halted when it became clear the documents had already been made public. This is independently confirmed by the “New York Times of Italy”, La Repubblica, which worked with WikiLeaks on the documents. [41]

What is really going on?
A hostile environment is taking shape to make it easier to secure Assange’s extradition to the US. The false assertions about Assange and Russia have noticeably increased since early 2017. In March 2017, WikiLeaks published the biggest leak in CIA history, Vault 7, [42] after which an intensified multi-layered propaganda and diplomatic effort has been waged against Assange and WikiLeaks.

[1] President Obama said: “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit [for] we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked [sic].” James Clapper, director of national intelligence, said: “The WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there, is not strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don’t have as good insight into that.”



[4] For a list see WikiLeaks legal filing in the DNC case: The full filing is here:

[5] For a list see WikiLeaks legal filing in the DNC case: The full filing is here:

[6] See Wikileaks legal filing in the DNC case:













[19] See article of 13 September 2016:

[20] See, for example,















“Siggi The Hacker” Gets 3 Years In Prison









In addition to the above a wonderful resource to debunking the Russiagate smears is the following legal win for WikiLeaks which you can find here:

WikiLeaks wins motion to dismiss in Democratic National Committee lawsuit in important First Amendment decision

In a historic win for WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief Julian Assange a federal judge in New York dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC documents in 2016. The case sets an important precedent for freedom of the press.

Jennifer Robinson acts for WikiLeaks and worked with US co-counsel Joshua Dratel in responding to the DNC suit and preparing the motion to dismiss. The suit had been served on WikiLeaks by Twitter and raised significant concern for the ability to publish in the context of an election. Numerous free speech organizations supported WikiLeaks’ position in the case, including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The groups submitted a brief in support of dismissing the case on First Amendment grounds.

District Judge John Koeltl emphasized the “newsworthiness” of WikiLeaks’ publishing activities, describing them as “plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

Judge Koeltl importantly emphasized that “Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents.” The Judge also observed that such journalistic collaboration with sources is “common journalistic practice.” That principle is important for investigative journalists who often receive information from whistleblowers.

The Judge drew a comparison to the Pentagon Papers case of 1971, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the New York Times and Washington Post to publish secret documents on the Vietnam War provided by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. In that case the Nixon administration attempted to prevent the newspapers from publishing and threatened them with criminal prosecution.

“If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet,” wrote District Judge John Koeltl.

Judge Koeltl also noted that it is “constitutionally insignificant” whether WikiLeaks knew the published documents were acquired without permission, by hacking, or other means before they were obtained by WikiLeaks. “A person is entitled [to] publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.”

Mr Dratel, counsel for WikiLeaks in this case, said that the dismissal of the DNC lawsuit “reaffirms First Amendment principles that apply to journalists across the board, whether they work for large institutions or small independent operations.”

In 2017, Mike Pompeo (then Director of the CIA and now US Secretary of State), claimed that WikiLeaks was a “hostile non-state intelligence agency” and that Julian Assange should not benefit from First Amendment protections. The decision in the DNC suit demonstrates this is incorrect. This is also relevant in relation to the US attempts to prosecute and extradite Mr Assange.

Ms Robinson said, “Our motion to dismiss asserted long-standing First Amendment principles that protect the media’s ability to publish information in the public interest. This decision affirms that right — and that Wikileaks benefits equally from constitutional protection under the First Amendment.”

The DNC had alleged that there was “circumstantial evidence” that WikiLeaks collaborated with the Trump campaign in WikiLeaks’ publishing activities. The DNC also brought claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and laws protecting trade secrets. The DNC’s arguments were dismissed as “moot or without merit.” The suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the DNC cannot refile.

The case has received widespread media coverage, including here, here and here.

The full judgment can be found here.

Jennifer Robinson

This entry was posted in Assange, WikiLeaks and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply