Julian Assange tests 'total transparency' thesis on Clinton campaign

In 2006, Julian Assange posed the question: 'Can total transparency defeat an entrenched group of insiders?' He appears to be testing his thesis on Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

(AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, File)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participates via video link at a news conference Oct. 4, 2016 marking the 10th anniversary of the secrecy-spilling group in Berlin. Assange appears to be testing a hypothesis he first outlined nearly a decade ago. Can total transparency defeat an entrenched group of insiders?

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange first outlined the hypothesis nearly a decade ago: Can total transparency defeat an entrenched group of insiders?

"Consider what would happen," Assange wrote in 2006, if one of America's two major parties had their emails, faxes, campaign briefings, internal polls and donor data all exposed to public scrutiny.

"They would immediately fall into an organizational stupor," he predicted, "and lose to the other."

A decade later, various organs of the Democratic Party have been hacked; several staffers have resigned and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has seen the inner workings of her campaign exposed to the public, including disclosures calling into question her positions on trade and Wall Street and her relationship with the party's left. Many of these emails have been released into the public domain by WikiLeaks.

Some see the leaks as a sign that Assange has thrown his lot in with Republican rival Donald Trump or even with Russia. But others who've followed Assange over the years say he's less interested in who wins high office than in exposing — and wearing down — the gears of political power that grind away behind the scenes.

"He tends not to think about people, he thinks about systems," said Finn Brunton, an assistant professor at New York University who has tracked WikiLeaks for years. "What he wants to do is interfere with the machinery of government regardless of who is in charge."

WikiLeaks' mission was foreshadowed 10 years ago in "Conspiracy as Governance," a six-page essay Assange posted to his now-defunct blog.

In the essay, Assange described authoritarian governments, corporations, terrorist organizations and political parties as "conspiracies" — groups that hoard secret information to win a competitive advantage over the general public. Leaks cut these groups open like a double-edged knife, empowering the public with privileged information while spreading confusion among the conspirators themselves, he said. If leaking were made easy, Assange argued, conspiratorial organizations would be gripped by paranoia, leaving transparent groups to flourish.

When the group published 250,000 US State Department cables in 2010, it helped launch a multimillion dollar quest to unmask insider threats at home while causing problems for US diplomats overseas. The recent leaks have affected the Democratic National Committee in much the same way, with staffers advised to use caution when communicating about sensitive topics.

Clinton supporters say Assange is targeting her out of partisan bias. US intelligence officials believe Russia is behind the hacks to interfere in the U.S. election.

"Wouldn't it be good reading to see internal discussions (about) Trump's taxes?" Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon tweeted recently. "Wikileaks isn't targeting Trump. That tells you something."

It's possible that malicious sources are using WikiLeaks for their own ends, said Lisa Lynch, an associate professor at Drew University who has also followed Assange's career. But she noted that a lifetime far from public service and an aversion to email make Trump a more difficult target.

"If Trump had a political career, he'd be more available for Wikileaking," she said.

Assange did not return messages seeking comment, but he has described allegations that he's in the service of the Kremlin as a conspiracy theory and has denied picking sides in the US electoral contest.

But he's also indicated that he's no Hillary Clinton supporter, as The Christian Science Monitor reported:

Assange has been open about his hope to foil Clinton’s bid for the presidency. In an interview with a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, Assange said he personally opposed Clinton for two reasons: because of her “long history of being a liberal war hawk,” and because she is among those that wants to indict him for the release of diplomatic cables.

“We do see her as a bit of a problem for freedom of the press more generally,” Assange told Mr. Peston on June 12.

The feeling is mutual. Ever since WikiLeaks started to release sensitive diplomatic and political communications, it has posed an internet freedom dilemma for world powers, as Clinton said in a carefully-worded speech as secretary of State in 2011.

“Without security, liberty is fragile,” said Clinton at George Washington University. “Without liberty, security is oppressive.”

Assange has also targeted Republican politicians in the past; in the run-up to the 2008 election his group published the contents of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's inbox. Her reaction at the time anticipated the Democrats' outrage today.

"What kind of a creep would break into a person's files, steal them, read them, then give them to the press to broadcast all over the world to influence a presidential campaign?" Palin wrote in her autobiography, "Going Rogue."

In fact, Assange has long tried to influence presidential campaigns. In 2007, WikiLeaks published a long-suppressed corruption report ahead of Kenya's national elections. It unleashed a wave of anger and, Assange often boasts, swung the vote.

In reality, the publication barely played a role in Kenya, according to Nic Cheesman, an associate professor of African politics at Oxford University. And it's not clear whether the recent WikiLeaks revelations will fare differently. Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls despite the leaks.

Still, Assange appears game to try. Between the DNC emails and the inbox of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's messages, his organization has published 46,000 messages from some of the most powerful people in Democratic politics. More is coming.

When one Twitter user noted that WikiLeaks had not published any of Podesta's emails dating past March 21, WikiLeaks responded.

"Well spotted," it said. "Something to look forward to."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.