[soundwave106]

I don't think we have any document released yet that describes any full picture.

We do have this statement (and a little more detail inside) in a report by a joint report by the US Intelligence Community (regarding Russian interference with elections):

"We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

Source: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

But that doesn't explain whether Assange is either a "compromised front" for the GRU or someone else, or more a "useful idiot" to Russian intelligence for their goals.

Nonetheless, I will say, at minimum, Wikileaks and Julian Assange can no longer be seen as a neutral player, at minimum. And not a reliable narrator, either. For example, some of their tweets on the Panama Papers, which in theory I would think would be something they would in theory support, were rather strange, and actually stooped into ridiculous conspiracy theory involving USAID and George Soros (eg https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7176700566505308... and https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7174580643249643...). I generally don't treat sources that delve into conspiracy theory with a whole lot of respect...

[dragonwriter]

> the US National Intelligence Agency

It's a joint report by the US Intelligence Community. There is no “US National Intelligence Agency”; the position of Director of National Intelligence was created to specifically split the role of overall head of the intelligence community (the DNI) from the head of a particular agency (the overall head of the IC used to be the Director of the CIA.)

[soundwave106]

Thanks for the clarification, I have corrected the text.

[mrguyorama]

>and actually stooped into ridiculous conspiracy theory involving USAID and George Soros

Just using the "George Soros" dog whistle should disqualify them as a reliable source

[Smithalicious]

George Soros is a billionaire and very prolific political activist. Just mentioning his name does not make a dog whistle, since he legitimately does have a lot of influence. Of course, I do think that people acting as though he controls the world is a dog whistle, but we shouldn't act like he never has a finger in the pie.