WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC


7:43 pm - March 1st 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

WikiLeaks have just sent out an extended tweet to respond to the story we published earlier, from Private Eye magazine.

The Tweet says:

Because WikiLeaks has some Jewish staff and enjoys wide spread Jewish support, its staff have frequently been smeared by its opponents, political or competitive, as being agents of the Mossad or of George Soros. These smears are completely false. A good overview of some of the allegations can be here: http://humanityinchaos.com/MediaSpam.html

A Washington intelligence firm was recently exposed as being behind a $2M plan to destroy WikiLeaks reputation and target supportive journalists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html

The intelligence firm was referred by the US Department of Justice.

But smears against WikiLeaks cross the geopolitical spectrum. Ian Hislop, editor of the weekly satirical current affairs magazine Private Eye, recently wrote an article “as much as he could remember”, about an off the record conversation with Julian Assange who complained that a previous article, appearing in Private Eye, was based on falsehoods spread by opponents and calculated to undermine WikiLeaks strong Jewish support.

The problems stem from a November the 1st, 2010 legal dispute with the Guardian, which were trigged by the actions of one particular journalist, David Leigh. Leigh deliberately, and secretly, broke an agreement signed by the Guardian’s editor-in-chief stating that 1. the Guardian was not to publish WikiLeaks cables 2. the Guardian was to keep them confidential. 3. the Guardian was to not store them on an internet connected computer system. Leigh had previously shown himself to be a competent journalist, but secretly broke all elements of the contract.

On being notified that the German news weekly Der Spiegel was writing a book (in German) that would expose this breach, Leigh attempted to cover his actions, first by laundering an distorted version of the events through a friend at Vanity Fair then by writing his own book, which he had published through the Guardian. WikiLeaks has not previously covered this or many other process and reputational issues, due to the opportunity cost of removing writers from our core mission which has never been more important.

Mr. Leigh has since continued to shore up his own power position by spreading malicious libels, targeted at WikiLeaks principle support bases. A brief look through the focus of David Leigh’s Twitter account http://twitter.com/davidleigh3 shows the sort of game in play. Although the damage done to the Guardian’s reputation by these actions is an ongoing concern to many Guardian staff, Mr. Leigh is perceived, by them, wrongly or rightly, to be protected through his marriage to the sister of the editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger.

Assange said “Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has tried to justify one smear with another. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of “scientific journalism” – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world.”

I don’t think Julian Assange can get away that easily. Raising people’s ethnicity or religion in such stories is always viewed with suspicion.

Assange should step away from WikiLeaks and stop doing the much-needed project any more damage.

Update: Wikileaks has sent out another Tweet clarifying their relationship with Israel Shamir

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I almost litcherly can’t believe that Assange is using Hislop’s long and glorious record of defending libel actions to try to prove that PE isn’t to be trusted. He (Assange) really is missing an irony muscle, isn’t he?

Attacking Hislop is a bad idea – it’s unlikely that he lacks or has lost any integrity in publishing the story in PE. Wikileaks/Assange are obviously mightily pissed off, but going after Hislop just isn’t going to help. It’s pretty clear that the villain here is Leigh. He’s respected by the PE, so must have done something to deserve that, but the way he handled assange/wikileaks for the Guardian has, I think, shown him to be a proprietorial and manipulative figure. The story of wikileaks and the guardian has been one of Leigh slowly appropriating the wikileaks story, through a series of deceptions and power plays, so that it may rest in the hands of serious, career journalists like Leigh himself. There is so much obvious resentment there, all directed at Assange and wikileaks, that can only be down to bitter journalists seeing for the first time their own limitations and inadequacies. They didn’t appreciate Assange swanning around telling them what to do, but they weren’t prepared to put aside their own egos for a minute, so they decided to teach him a lesson…
(by the way, this is all complete guesswork, reading between the lines of whatever I’ve come across in public domain)

Thanks for this piece Sunny.

The story has now made the New York Times!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1

Leigh deliberately, and secretly, broke an agreement signed by the Guardian’s editor-in-chief stating that 1. the Guardian was not to publish WikiLeaks cables 2. the Guardian was to keep them confidential. 3. the Guardian was to not store them on an internet connected computer system.

Oh, the irony. Secrecy is indefensible when it comes to diplomacy but must be respected when it comes to St Julian’s book deal. Got that?

That’s pathetic, Sunny.

Assange makes a good point about Hislop’s and Private Eye’s libel cases, clearly Assange is another truth teller like Robert Maxwell and Sonia Sutcliffe.

7. Sunder Katwala

Err, Assange needs better advice.

“In particular, ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting.

Well, those quotation marks are doing quite a bit of work there to construct a denial.

Yet the Private Eye piece does not quote Assange as saying “Jewish conspiracy” as a phrase; rather it is Hislop’s surmise and reading of Assange saying (on Hislop’s account) that Leigh, Rusbridger and Kampfner “are Jewish” (and then that Rusbridger is “sort of Jewish”, as he is related to Leigh, and indeed “forget the Jewish thing” when it seemed not to be a particularly fruitful line of persuasion)..

So the denial required would be more along the lines of “I never referred to Leigh and Kampfner [or Rusbridger] as Jewish” or “Hislop has invented the entire discussion of my adversaries in this matter being Jewish”.

Naturally, most people will believe that Hislop is giving a pretty accurate summary of those points, and it would be entirely unlikely that this is an invention. (Whether the word “conspiracy” was directly used by Assange is not clear from Hislop’s public account. The implication is that it was, but it is not in direct speech).

As far as I can tell, Assange’s defence would be something like

– The Guardian has behaved dishonorably and is now conducting a conspiracy against wikileaks, involving The Guardian and other members of the elite British liberal media [or which various motives are possible … in order to steal the glory; protect their power and status of traditional media, rip off Wikileaks, etc, etc

– it was a mistake to bring into a conversation the irrelevant point that some of those involved are Jewish (or not, as the case may be), and no weight should be placed on this.

– Also that scrutiny of or challenges to Israel Shamir’s involvement with wikileaks are a smear, and there is nothing to answer there
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia

To the extent that Assange had any reputation/credibility, it is very very badly damaged by all of this.

Loser

@Rowan Davies @Ross

Did you know Julian Assange recently signed the libel reform campaign petition? It makes his criticism of Private Eye’s many libel cases look quite farcical.

http://twitter.com/#!/cllr_mikeharris/status/29929118644572161

Also worth mentioning that an ex-wikileaker on twitter has said Assange’s statement about Shamir “is categorically untrue. I speak from firsthand experience”

http://twitter.com/#!/jamesrbuk/status/42706205499592704

“… Shamir received payment from WL, had authorised access to thousands of cables, and has close contact w/ JA.”

http://twitter.com/#!/jamesrbuk/status/42709121698512896

10. james fingleton wild

The article in Private eye does not say Mr Assange said ‘Jewish conspiracy” This remarkable interview was two weeks ago. Ask your self, considering the banal quality of Hislop’s piece, why was this not published earlier? This is a smear campaign, a conspiracy to blacken Mr Assange’s persona. No substance just accusation, supposition and spin doctoring. Would any journalist wait two weeks to put this before the public? It is a hacks convention, a coven of rag men and a MSM conspiracy.

@2
(by the way, this is all complete guesswork, reading between the lines of whatever I’ve come across in public domain)

No shit Sherlock. You should be aware that Nick Davies, the journalist who originally sought out Assange and brought Wikileaks’ stories to the Guardian, refused several months ago to have anything to do with JA because he felt he could no longer be trusted. Your assault on Leigh seems to rest on nothing other than a belief that Assange must be innocent, so one of his enemies must be to blame.

The Guardian didn’t fall out with Assange because he was “telling them what to do”, but because he kept bringing in other news media when (they say) he’d promised not to. And because he threatened legal action when they got their hands on the cable leaks via another source (a disgruntled ex-Wikileaks employee, I believe). Irony is not one of JA’s strong suits.

@9 To be fair, Private Eye is a fortnightly publication, so it’s well within possibility for a piece to take two weeks before it reaches print.

13. Mr S. Pill

@9

Maybe because Private Eye is published fortnightly? Just a thought. I know Assange supporters have trouble understanding simple concepts but please, if you’re going to call conspiracy on this one at least do some basic research…

14. Matthew Parsons

Sy – I fully respect your opinion on this, but I’m certainly not one of the Assange fanboys. He’s a difficult, paranoid character with a sizeable ego of his own, and has been behaving in an apparently self-destructive, ultra-defensive and accusatory way for some time now. However, even if you give David Leigh the benefit of the doubt – he has won the Paul Foot award, and was involved in exposing Trafigura (though not without the help of Wikileaks) – it’s just hard to shake the feeling that Assange doesn’t really deserve the pasting he’s getting. Whatever failings he has as a person and a public figure, he does appear to be driven by altruistic reasons – you only have to watch some of the interviews he gave before late 2010 to see that.
I get the impression that he was also as loathe to get involved with the mainstream media as you say Nick Davies was to become involved with him, but felt he had to in order to provide a level of coverage that so far Wikileaks had failed to generate. All that you can really say for sure, is that as soon as Assange became involved with the Guardian and the NY Times, things went downhill for him pretty fast. That’s not to say there’s any sort of conspiracy, it’s just indicative of the somewhat sad possibility that slickness of personality might be more important to survival in journalism than any measure of morality or substance.

15. Quartz_cycle

So some more tit for tat between the grauniad and wherestheleaks. There are more pressing unanswered elements to the whole wikileaks 2.0 program than this soap opera. Do the guardian have the whole tranche of cables? Even following this story fairly closely I’m still none the wiser.

It is Interesting that assange has been in the uk since the start of the cable fiasco, the pessimistic side to me says it must have something to the wonderful libel laws we have here in the uk. Maybe some journo with understanding of said libel law could write a hypothetical piece of what ways assange could use them to retain his personal brand of authoritarian freedom of information?

For what it is worth I started to take wikileaks as anything but face value in late 2009, about the time all links were taken off the site, donations were asked for and the rhetoric started. When the cables dropped on a Sunday evening and the content was disclosed my immediate thoughts were that it was probably an Israeli intelligence operation and the guardian just got played like suckers. Then my thoughts were it is some group trying to make it look like Israel because it just seemed far too obvious. Now I don’t have any idea really other than it is serving quite a few power factions agendas, who benefits is all I’ve got to guess with at this stage.

I get the impression that he was also as loathe to get involved with the mainstream media as you say Nick Davies was to become involved with him, but felt he had to in order to provide a level of coverage that so far Wikileaks had failed to generate. All that you can really say for sure, is that as soon as Assange became involved with the Guardian and the NY Times, things went downhill for him pretty fast.

Davies wasn’t loth to get involved with him; he was loth to stay involved. He regarded JA’s insistence on bringing in more and more media outlets as a breach of promise.

I don’t like the the kind of people an Assange story seems to bring out. I much prefer the Tory types then these lot, these lot are bloody scary.

Private Eye have just Tweeted this:

“#WikiLeaks PS: The Eye invited a response from Julian Assange on 16 Feb. It finally arrived on 1 March. We went to press on 28 Feb.”

Human nature -especially in this country- also does have a penchant for erecting idols and then burning them at the stake the moment there’s a reversal of fortunes.

And that’s across all walks of life. Whether it’s music, politics, the royal family and football. Don’t we just love to jump on (either) bandwagon?

Three months ago Assange could do no wrong. Now you just can’t get enough of stories piling up about his smelly socks or allegations that he didn’t tip a waiter once.

Claude. Well, that and that some thought that deeming oneself above answering questions relating to an alleged rape was not really on. A sizeable minority always thought that this kinda top trumped the crap tip he gave in Zizzi in 2003 and the state of his undergarment draw.

@20
Although it’s interesting to note how Liberal Conspiracy is taking Hislop’s word over Assange’s. Just like that. By default. Even though all there is to it is Hislop’s word, nowt else.

Or how BBC Panorama last week did a proper hatchet job on him (Assange) as well.
I was never particularly pro-Assange and I’m willing to keep an open mind on the case. But the Panorama thing last week really was a hatchet job. The whole angle was dubious and packed with inaccuracies.

Like I said, three months ago that wouldnt have happened.

Also. You say “some thought that deeming oneself above answering questions relating to an alleged rape was not really on ““.
But he did! He spoke to prosecutors in Sweden last August.

Because, lest we forget (and it has been forgotten), Sweden first charged Assange, then discharged Assange, then charged him again… when? Right at the peak of the most embarrassing WikiLeaks cables.

That’s what seems a tiny bit odd.

22. Mr S. Pill

@21 Claude

Well, LC have published Assange’s reply to the PE allegations in full so it’s not like their taking sides on this one. Personally I think if you think that people are out to get you because they’re all Jews (even though in this case they aren’t!) you are treading some very very thin ice indeed. Assange has clearly lost the plot if he thinks the best way to get a fair hearing is mentioning the ethnicity of his accusers.

@22
If it was true Assange said that, then it would obviously be supremely wrong, unacceptable and demented on his part. If it was true, that is.

It’s just that before lashing out with such strong words and accusations we must bear in mind that the whole edifice is all entirely based on Hislop’s recollection of an old conversation, that’s all I’m saying.

“entirely based on Hislop’s recollection of an old conversation, that’s all I’m saying.”

Plenty of Assange’s fanboys were quite willing to call him an innocent victim of a CIA/lying feminazi plot and smear the women who brought charges without a shred of evidence beyond Assange and his lawyer’s say-so.

So forgive me if I think it a bit late in the day for his cheerleading squad to come over all “due process” on our arses when this was all most of us were asking for from the beginning with respect to the rape allegations. And we asked for this in the face of the abuse we received calling us “useful idiots” for the CIA and far far worse.

Watching such people attempt to scramble to mount the high-horse of due process and eschewing hear-say long after they’ve knifed the poor old nag to death in their desire to protect St Julian is grimly amusing.

25. puss wallgreen

Does anybody seriously believe that Assange rang up Hislop to say that there was a Jewish conspiracy to smear him as an anti-Semite? No, I don’t think so, it makes no sense, does it? And Hsilop is himself careful to ensure that he never directly quotes Assange as alleging a “Jewish conspiracy”. So what we can surmise is that a conversation sparked by Assange’s belief that there was a conspiracy to defame him as an anti-Semite at some point turned to a discussion of the Jewishness of some of Assange’s detractors (in circumstances of which we are entirely unaware, no context is given) before Assange says “let’s drop the Jewish thing” (by which he could mean “let’s drop all these Jewish conspiracy allegations I have been making during a brief phone call I initiated with the specific intention of refuting charges of anti0-Semitism – whoops a daisy” or, and I would humbly suggest more probably “let’s drop this angle of there being a specific campaign to smear me as anti-Jewish and discuss things more generally”). Without knowing the context we are reliant on faith in Hislop’s ability to render an honest account. Is such faith justified? I can only note that this man is an intimate of Nick Cohen’s so frankly I would doubt it.

puss wallgreen,

If indeed we buy your hypothetical reconstruction over the factual (yes, it might be invented facts – but you need proof of that) account of Mr Hislop, perhaps you could explain why your sensible and reasonable defence was not put forward by Mr Assange, rather than the not so good one provided above…

@sparkle – well said. You don’t need to have an opinion on Assange’s innocence or guilt (I don’t) to know that his behaviour over the course of this investigation means that he’s a long way from being any sort of hero. Plenty of us were pointing this out before Christmas, but were told we were delusional patsies.

@Tim – thanks, I didn’t know that he’d signed up to the Libel Reform Campaign. But ha ha… his understanding of English defamation law seems limited to say the least (given his recent Tweeted threat to sue the Guardian for libel).

Wikileaks defence, “some of our best friends are…..” is very weak.

Wikileaks still haven’t fully disown Israel Shamir, the Far Rightist, have they?

29. puss wallgreen

“Wikileaks still haven’t fully disown Israel Shamir, the Far Rightist, have they?”

“Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an ‘agent’ of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual”
That sounds like a fairly comprehensive disowning to me.

DISOWNED as in, “we realise our mistake, we acknowledge that Israel Shamir is an active antisemite and Holocaust denier, we want nothing to do with him, ever”

31. puss wallgreen

# 30 Ah, I see, “disown” not as it is defined by any dictionary but in a sense that you have just made up. To be honest, I think Wikileaks has better things to do than get involved in arcane Trot squabbles with obscure far rightists, though obviously that would not be true of you.

disown

1 : to refuse to acknowledge as one’s own
2
a : to repudiate any connection or identification with
b : to deny the validity or authority of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disown

wikileaks have yet to repudiate their connections with Shamir

33. puss wallgreen

“wikileaks have yet to repudiate their connections with Shamir”
What on earth do you think the quotation I already gave you does? They say quite clearly they have no connections with Shamir.

Why can’t you even acknowledge the photos, the friendly emails between Shamir and Assange? etc

35. puss wallgreen

“It is false that Shamir is ‘an Assange intimate’. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Asssange) twice.”

So you, say, AFTER it being dragged out of you?

And the emails?

I have no idea whether Assange said some, all or none of what’s attributed to him by Hislop. In my multiple interactions with him, I’ve never detected even a smidgen of such sentiments; that doesn’t mean he didn’t say these things: it merely means what it means. But The New York Times also has no idea whether Assange said any of this, yet they categorically announce in their headline — as though it’s a proven fact — that Assange “Complain[ed] of a Jewish Smear Campaign.” Whether that actually happened is very much in dispute…

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/01/assange/index.html

And Assange’s email to Israel Shamir?

40. Michael Leo Lively

Who in the F**k is Hislop? Who in the F**k is Sunny. Except for an occasional passing link, I had no idea who you f**ks were until you hitched your little red wagon to Assange’s super nova. Perhaps none of you really initiated this OP but your actions are really slack.

Meanwhile the NYT picks it up very quickly. Obvious smear technique. Can you say, “reportedly”?

MLL
NPC Intelligence Associates

@40 And, indeed, who the fuck are you?

No one feel tempted to explain away the “Dear Israel/Adam” email from Assange?

43. Michael Leo Lively

@Rowan Davies@40 “And, indeed, who the fuck are you?”

“Out of nowhere, a complete unknown”…, professional.

The myriad propagand techniques defending this vaguely remembered speculation in this “article” & thread were getting to be too much. I count at least four on the side of the speculation. Can you name them?

MLL

@42 Pardon?

By the way: Ian Hislop is the editor of Private Eye, and Sunny Hundal is the editor of Liberal Conspiracy. Pro-tip: there’s this useful site called Google. It may be of use to you as you traverse the internet demanding to know who the fuck people are.

oops, sorry, @43 not @42

Readers might enjoy my latest post on Assange and Shamir.

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/bbcs-panorama-julian-assange-and-israel-shamir/

With video evidence 🙂

Hislop has withdrawn his claims, according to The Guardian – see below. I’m looking forward to the various sites who extensively commented on Hislop’s claims now properly analysing whether this story ever deserved any attention.

What I find surprising about The Guardian’s announcement of Hislop’s withdrawal is that it appears in the sub-heading (where it may be easy to miss), but there is no detail of when or why Hislop withdrew his article. Surely Hislop’s withdrawal deserves at least a tiny fraction of the analysis given to the contents of what was withdrawn… Now _that_ might be real news.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments

John, you should consider some remedial lessons in reading comprehension.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  2. Jonathan Calder

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  3. sunny hundal

    WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published earlier today on Libcon: http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  4. David Meyer

    RT @sunny_hundal: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published earlier today on Libcon: http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  5. Assange goes off deep end – blaming Jews and Guardian in Private Eye | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] 2: WikiLeaks has now responded with an extended tweet. […]

  6. Paul Wood

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  7. Kim Blake

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  8. Thierry Chervel

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks antwortet auf Antisemitismusvorwürfe http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  9. Tony Kennick

    RT @sunny_hundal: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published earlier today on Libcon: http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  10. Karin

    @isobelsverkstad @hans_g http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/01/wikileaks-responds-to-private-eye-story-we-published/

  11. Sunder Katwala

    have commented on @libcon on wikileaks response to Assange's self-destruction act in Private Eye http://bit.ly/gwyF84

  12. Chris Paul

    RT @nextleft: have commented on @libcon on wikileaks response to Assange's self-destruction act in Private Eye http://bit.ly/gwyF84

  13. Sunder Katwala

    Wikileaks statement v.weak. Assange defence: did not use *phrase* "Jewish conspiracy"; nb Hislop did not claim that http://bit.ly/gwyF84

  14. Stuart Cunningham

    WikiLeaks responds to Eye — "malicious liable" again – obv didn't learn lesson from last time — via Lib Conspiracy http://bit.ly/gaXwcB

  15. Nigel Sarbutts

    #Assange fans take note re this: http://bit.ly/gwyF84 RT @arusbridger: Coming to terms with revelation that I am Jewish. And have a sister

  16. Julian Assange, We Hardly Knew Ye | Homebrewed Theology

    […] WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  17. konrad

    Assange Complains of Jewish Smear Campaign [Ravi Somaiya] http://ur1.ca/3datb . See also http://ur1.ca/3datc and http://ur1.ca/3datf .

  18. Michael D. Lockhart

    @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  19. William Gibson

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  20. stephenwesman

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  21. alphaandromedae

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  22. ada vodkar

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  23. tinabrieste

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  24. James Comins

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  25. Kurt Foret

    #trends WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy (RT bitte) http://dld.bz/Qmnz

  26. Mikael Henning

    RT @tolthinkfree: @warrenellis @GreatDismal @davidleigh3 The rest of the story? Or at least a little more… http://j.mp/dGr7RB

  27. WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy | The Daily Conservative

    […] this article: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy Share and […]

  28. vexnews

    Left run out of patience for anti-Semite Julian Assange http://bit.ly/eHfHpc

  29. Jonas Eliasson

    WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/cLXiUSX

  30. Adam Holland

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  31. Assange goes off deep end – blaming Jews and Guardian in Private Eye | Liberal Conspiracy « WorldWright's …

    […] 2: WikiLeaks has now responded with an extended tweet. via […]

  32. Nine99

    RT @libcon: WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story we published http://bit.ly/fnq1JT

  33. ada vodkar

    WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Vi6tgdv via @libcon

  34. Eroding supporters for Wikileaks through PC FUD | Wisdom Dancer

    […] EDIT: Danny Weston has drawn my attention to another classic FUD vector being applied to Assange: purported anti-Semitism in hearsay. […]

  35. digitalcollaboration

    […] WikiLeaks responds to Private Eye story on LC (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  36. WikiLeaks Updates

    #Wikileaks responds to Private Eye story on LC | Liberal Conspiracy http://j.mp/kaQ9L7 #blog





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.