Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange is making hey on Twitter with the hashtag #BetterNamesForHillarysBook, posting tweet after tweet of book title puns which make fun of the former Secretary of State and her forthcoming book.

Also Read: Hillary Clinton to Release Book About Her Election Loss: 'What Happened'

The hashtag started trending on Twitter after news broke Thursday that Clinton is releasing a new book in September titled, What Happened, which will detail what happened during the 2016 presidential that caused her to lose to Donald Trump.

In the past, for reasons I try to explain, Ive often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net, Clinton writes in the introduction, according to publisher Simon & Schuster. Now Im letting my guard down.

Also Read: That Time Trump Vowed to Be Better on LGBT Rights Than Hillary Clinton (1 Year Ago)

Assange has let his guard down, too, gleaning from events during the campaign to snidely point out reasons why she lost. The Girl With The Goldman Sachs Tattoo harkens to Clintons Wall Street ties. I Dont Recall evokes her Senate hearing concerning her emails oh, and theres this one: Emails, she-mails. Yeah, Assange isnt holding back.

Also Read: James Comey Already Has Potential Job Offer... at WikiLeaks

The snark doesnt stop there. See below for a roundup of Assanges #BetterNamesForHillarysBook posts.

Over the years, Republicans particularly Donald Trump supporters have done a 180 (or a full 360) in their remarks about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. When he leaked on Hillary Clintons campaign in 2016, some Republicans said he was doing America a great service. But now the Trump administration is poised to attempt to convict Assange and WikiLeaks for their leaking activities. Here are fivetimes Trump and his supporters have flipped on the matter.

In 2010, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said this about Assange: He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

In 2016, though, Palin changed her tune. She posted an apology to Assange on Facebook. I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago, she wrote.

Way back when, Fox News host Sean Hannity said what Assange was doing was waging his war on America and called for his arrest. He also said WikiLeaks stealing and publishing classified documents put lives at risk, as Media Matters reported.

When Assange started leaking emails from the Clinton campaign, though, Hannity became very friendly. He even brought the WikiLeaks founder onto his show for an interview, saying America owes you a debt of gratitude.

Back in 2010, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Assange was a terrorist. Information warfare is warfare. Julian Assange is engaged in warfare. Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism.

Once WikiLeaks turned its attention to Clinton, though, Huckabee was ready to discuss Hillary Clintons criminal enterprise, as he called it, on Hannity. He didnt, however, have anything to say about where the leaks came from or whether the leakers should be brought up on treason charges.

Trump had strong words for Wikileaks in 2010. As CNN reported, in an interview with radio host Brian Kilmeade, Trump said of Wikileaks, I think it's disgraceful, I think there should be like death penalty or something.

During the campaign, though, Trumps support for WikiLeaks was hard to miss. He tweeted over and over again about things WikiLeaks documents about the Clinton campaign, and said at one campaign rally in October, WikiLeaks has provided things that are unbelievable.

While Trump repeatedly tweeted about documents released by WikiLeaks aimed at damaging Clinton, he also tweeted it was the dishonest media that claimed he was in agreement with WikiLeaks.

Republicans were fans of WikiLeaks during the election, but now the U.S. is looking to charge members of the organization

Over the years, Republicans particularly Donald Trump supporters have done a 180 (or a full 360) in their remarks about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. When he leaked on Hillary Clintons campaign in 2016, some Republicans said he was doing America a great service. But now the Trump administration is poised to attempt to convict Assange and WikiLeaks for their leaking activities. Here are fivetimes Trump and his supporters have flipped on the matter.

See original here:
Julian Assange Trolls Hillary Clinton With Twitter Trend

Laura Poitrass new documentary, Risk, has all the conspiracy and paranoia you could wish for much of it behind the camera as well as on screen. The latest film from this Oscar-winning filmmaker, billed as a personal and intimate character study of Julian Assange, is arguably more notable for the inside story of its making than it is for any unmasking of the founder of WikiLeaks.

Poitras first unveiled Risk at Cannes in 2016 and critics once again admired as they had with her Oscar-winning study of Edward Snowden, Citizenfour her repeated ability to use the camera as a guerrilla weapon in the war against secretive state culture.

Poitrass surveillance aesthetic is clearly marked in the movie. She lets images of rainy streets linger in the mind; a walk in the woods is suddenly filled with tension; Assange and his mother in a hotel room is littered with paranoid thriller references. All these images are accompanied by inter-titles: WikiLeaks release of classified documents, watchlists, Poitrass apartment being broken into and more that are both menacing in their suggestiveness and opaque at the same time.

But the real significance of Risk is not whats on screen. To the extent that we know Assange at all, revelations appear to be in short supply and little is new or shocking. What is revelatory is how this films exposure of surveillance culture is increasingly tangled up in the agendas of its filmmaker and subject with puzzles and perplexity that can risk clouding viewers judgement that threaten to obscure one of the most important issues of our time: state surveillance of the citizenry on a grand scale.

Two fundamental problems gnaw away at Poitrass expos. One is that the film she showed at the Cannes film festival in 2016 is not the Risk released in the US and UK this spring and summer. Among other things, Poitras recut the film inserting a voiceover that reportedly virtually rewrites her impressions of Assange and is far more critical than the original.

Poitras periodically filmed Assange between 2011 and 2013. She then diverted her attention towards Snowden and made Citizenfour, only returning to Assange in 2015 and finding his manner was new to me. Risk duly records her doubts about the relationship: Its a mystery why he trusts me because I dont think he likes me, she says at one point in the film and its true that Assange had been unhappy with the Cannes version of Risk, despite it being reputedly sympathetic towards him.

Poitras took the film away regardless and layered this new version with more self-absorbed meanderings from Assange and an enhanced focus on the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden that trailed him to London in 2010. A particularly excoriating scene with Helena Kennedy sees the high-profile barrister attempting to mould Assanges public language about the accusations while he keeps insisting it is all part of his accusers ongoing lesbian conspiracy. Whats their lesbian nightclub got to do with the price of fish? Kennedy asks him in arguably the films priceless moment.

The films second problem is that it inhabits the same territory as Alex Gibneys much-praised We Steal Secrets documentary from 2013. Given that so much in Assanges world is built upon shifting sands, its easy to forget Gibneys earlier movie which unlike Risk was dogged by the directors inability to pin Assange down to an interview. But the critical immediacy of We Steal Secrets is fleshed out by commentary from some of WikiLeaks key former personnel, including James Ball and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who Poitras neglects in Risk.

Instead she relies on access to Assanges right-hand spokesperson Sarah Harrison and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson and, most controversially, WikiLeaks tech consultant Jacob Appelbaum. Controversial because Appelbaum is someone Poitras admitted to having had an intimate relationship with. Risks voiceover confesses that they were involved briefly in 2014 which resulted in some questioning Poitrass recollection of the time frame, let alone her objectivity.

Only adding to the subtextual complexities, Appelbaum was then the subject of sexual assault allegations himself in 2016, including by someone Poitras claimed was a friend and Risk feels obliged to dwell upon these contentions. As a result, Poitras loses much of the films main thrust when she indulges in the personal and starts citing Appelbaums questions to her about loyalty and betrayal loyalty to whom and for what, were never told.

If Risks web of entanglement seems suspicious, it results from such total immersion into Assanges world that the film stands accused of not knowing where Poitras impressions of the WikiLeaks organisation should stop and the verifiable details of their actions must take over. Has Poitras been duped into believing the myths surrounding Assange or is she complicit in reassembling those myths for the film? Here is someone who is no longer chronicler but an active participant in the surveillance war. In the last two films, I have become more of a protagonist, she claimed recently, adding that: It is very uncomfortable.

Risk is an intriguing yet frustrating documentary. Poitras tempts us with a gripping finale: Assanges part in Donald Trumps dramatic US presidential election win. But the conclusion seems more fascinated with Poitrass and Assanges falling out over the first version of Risk than it is in WikiLeaks part in Russian collusion with Trump. The films somewhat illusory climax therefore asks considerable questions of the intent of both filmmaker and film.

In this golden age of documentary, Steve Rose recently observed that: Filmmakers start to outnumber potential subjects and the investigative credentials of factual films are surely tested as a result. Poitras, Assange and Risk certainly testify to the age of alternative facts and fake news. But answers to the big questions about surveillance politics only get more difficult when the distinctions between message and messenger become this blurred.

See the original post here:
Risk: Julian Assange film by Laura Poitras blurs the line between ... - The Conversation UK

GETTY

Assanges network says the emails have been verified through its DKIM system.

French investigators said in June they found no traces of a Russian hacking group in the cyberattack on Macrons election campaign.

The thousands of emails were released on Monday as a searchable index.

In total, 71,848 emails, 26,506 attachments and 4,493 unique senders are included in the leak.

However, early on WikiLeaks said it had confirmed the 21,075 emails were sent or received by addresses associated with the campaign.

This is done by checking domain keys used to sign emails.

More than 21,000 were verified while there are 50,773 emails it could not verify.

Getty Images

1 of 10

It is believed that Julian Assange chooses to live in Sweden because the country's media laws are among the world's most protective for journalists

A statement said WikiLeaks believes based on statistical sampling that the overwhelming majority of the remainder are also authentic.

It said: As the emails are often in chains and include portions of each other, it is usually possible to confirm the integrity other emails in the chain as a result of the DKIM verified emails within it.

Macrons camp was attacked with a hack just days before his run-off victory over Marine Le Pen.

Russia was blamed initially.

Head of Frances cybersecurity agency, Guillaume Poupard, has said there is no evidence of Russian interference.

Whistleblower Assange has spent five years holed up in Londons Ecuadorian embassy after originally moving in to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape charges.

These charges have since been dropped but Julian Assange still fears he will be seized if he leaves the embassy and taken to America to face punishment for releasing secret information.

GETTY

WikiLeaks fans will be able to trawl through the emails which reference Brexit hundreds of times and show the Macron camp was keeping a keen eye on everything Marine le Pen did.

In an interesting development, multiple emails go against the French tough line on Brexit.

In a recent chain, Macron's industrial and military adviser said Britain should be kept onside because it is the "most important" military player in Europe.

Another adviser told Macron the EU seemed less appealing without Britain.

More follows...

Follow this link:
Macron's emails RELEASED: WikiLeaks publishes documents and there's 790 mentions of BREXIT - Express.co.uk

Just now released on Showtime, Laura Poitrass Risk, which found its way to theaters in May via upstart distributor Neon, is ina vastly different form than when it premiered last year in Cannes. The documentary traces a thread running counter to the moral certitude heard from our politicians, mostly on the right, about the role of leaks in degrading democracy. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the films primary subject, has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for nearly five years following allegations and, later, charges of sexual assault against two Swedish women. (The rape charge was recently dropped by Swedish prosecutors, although a charge of failing to surrender to a court remains.) Under a cloud of potential extradition to the U.S., Assange continues to deny these allegations, even as the statute of limitations on several of them has passed.

Until WikiLeaks became embroiled in the scandal regarding Russian hacking and interference with the U.S. 2016 election, Assanges public profile seemed to be on the wane, but with the films release and increased pressure by the Trump administration to punish leakers, the ever divisive journalistic and political figure is likely to come under even new scrutiny.

Risks footagewas initially going to be bundled with the Snowden material that made up her Oscar-winning Citizenfour,but eventually Poitras realized that the two threads would be too ungainly if wedded and would have to remain separate projects. Opening in 2011, the films drops us into a scene of Sarah Harrison, Assanges closest WikiLeaks collaborator, calling the U.S. State Department and asking to speak to Hillary Clinton about several secret cables that another entity is poised to release. In scenes of startlingly immediate vrit, Riskdetails the inner workings of WikiLeaks over several years and the personal toll it takes as various international state actors attempt to impose a muzzle on the sites activities.

In my interview with Poitras this past Spring, the filmmaker seemed ambivalent about Assanges role in the ongoing Russian hacking scandal, as well as the possibility of state actors being in cahoots with WikiLeaks to disrupt the U.S. election. The filmmaker suggested she began making Risk in a much different techno-political landscape, one rife with hopeful possibilities in the wake of the Arab Spring and Chelsea Manning for the possibilities of the internet being used as a tool for people to mobilize around democratization and whistleblowing. As the film arrived in theaters, Poitras admitted to finding that same landscape,where nation states marshall the internet for their own obfuscatory, perhaps anti-democratic designs with increasing frequency,terrifying right now.

Poitras acknowledged that the DNCs hacking and Wikileaks involvement in the unveiling of John Podestas emails functions as a third act which sort unfolded after the Cannes screening of course I needed to incorporate it. When I asked her about the most memorable of the new crop Field of Vision shorts Maxim Pozdorovkins Our New President,a hallucinatory found footage mashup of Russian state televisions evolving coverage of Donald Trumps young presidency with bizarre and occasionally chilling messages to the newly elected President from ordinary Russian citizens and bureaucrats Poitras mused, The subtext is this crazy panic about Russia right now, which is maybe [part] based in fact and a lot of it based in people getting spun up in issues.

While Risk has not necessarily grown more critical of Wikileaks in its new incarnation, the private behavior of Assange is viewed with far more scrutiny in the new cut. Poitras was pressured by Assange and his legal team to remove scenes where he discussed the Swedish case before the films premiere in Cannes last year. According to Poitras, the night before the films unveiling at Cannes in 2016, Assange sent her a text message, one she now includes in the film, which read, Your film is a severe threat to my freedom, and I plan to treat it accordingly. After that premiere, which Poitras admits to having doubted should have gone forward at all, some observers suggested the film didnt do enough to address the Swedish allegations. Poitras has doubled down in the new cut, increasing the films focus on Assanges contradictions, vanity, lack of contrition and unwillingness to be forthcoming concerning the Swedish matter.

But, according to Poitras,it was new revelations about another of the films characters that led her to continue working on the movie. Two weeks after the Cannes screening was when allegations about [transparency and privacy activist] Jacob Appelbaum were made online, and thats when I knew I had to go back, Poitras told me. Feeling she had no longer made an honest film, she was prepared to walk away from it entirely, refusing distribution offers unless she was able to get the gender politics within the film right. I dont want to pull punches, but Im not interested in taking anyone down, Poitras said, pausing for a moment, considering her words carefully. Im interested in having productive conversations about these issues.

Poitras reworking of Risk finds the filmmaker personalizing her depiction of the WikiLeaks saga. The new incarnation eschews the chapter-like structure in the Cannes cut for a far more sweepingly linear narrative. She occasionally punctuates this streamlined telling with bits of her own unusually personal narration, both in voiceover and in on screen text, pulled from a production diary she kept while shooting. Revealing her own relationship with Appelbaum and increasing discomfort with how he had treated various associates of his, Risk wades into the controversy of the activists resignation amid sexual misconduct claims from the Tor Project, a software application he helped develop that allows for greater online anonymity in an age of hyper surveillance.

Poitrass feelings of being used and disliked by Assange are plainly yet powerfully described as well, complicating scenes of paranoia and charm she glimpses as he blithely defends his vision of a new, more transparent society in which powerful elites are brought to heel by hackers and internet journalists such as himself. The depictions of Assange, often working with his associate Sarah Harrison both before and after he was granted political asylum from Ecuador, remain much the same as they were before. Poitras explains, in voiceover, how her involvement in the Snowden affair put her at odds with Assange, who wanted to control how the revelations were disseminated.

Still, regardless of how her subject views the finished product, the filmmaker is still willing to cast doubt on the veracity of the Swedish accounts and certainly does not buy into the rhetoric that Assange and Wikileaks are working in favor of Russia or Donald Trump. I cant verify this but I believe that if Julian had Trumps tax returns, he would release them, Poitras told me, flushing a bit as she took on a smile. I mean, look at Julian. What makes you think he would say, Oh, Im going to hold that back?

The question of whether such a revelation today would make any difference I hope more than much of the contemporary documentary filmmaking I have spent my adulthood consuming was one I didnt ask her. Perhaps I was too scared of the answer.

Follow this link:
Laura Poitras Talks Assange, Her Final Version of Risk and Trump's Tax Returns - Filmmaker Magazine

Though the Wikileaks founder is likely best known for his ties to Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and the Hillary Clinton email dump last fall, much of the documentary actually revolves around Assanges response to the sexual assault allegations that have been levied against him. Assange visited Sweden in 2010, and soon afterwards he was accused of two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of lesser-degree rape. In May of this year, the charges were dropped against Assange with authorities claiming they could not expect the Ecuadorian embassy to communicate reliably with Assange.

Since Risk was filmed over the course of six years, the sexual assault case is referenced fairly consistently. At one point, to the chagrin of his lawyer, Assange claims the whole case is actually a feminist-led conspiracy designed to discredit him. He also makes the comment that the case is difficult because, since there are two women, its harder to discredit them. Its truly a bizarre moment that helps to paint Wikileaks organization of hackers as a sexist organization.

See the original post:
The 5 Craziest Moments in Showtime's Julian Assange Documentary, 'Risk' - Decider

Hrm. Interesting indeed.

It would appear that Kurt Eichenwald has removed the word Newsweek from his Twitter bio.

Assange went on:

Could this be why?

From Paste:

The lawsuit was settled amicably and to my satisfaction, Moran toldPaste. After the settlement, the stories were removed, the parties agreed not to speak about the terms of the settlement, so I cant talk to you about what the settlement entails.

When asked how it felt to finally be done with the whole affair, Moran would only say he was relieved.

Our institutions actually do work, he said, a pensive look creeping over his face. I was a young journalist with no power, but the facts were on my side, and the system worked. Our institutions are made to last.

Newsweeks policy apparently kept them from commenting on this particular story.

Wonder what brought all of this on in the first place with Assange:

Oh dude.

Yeah, this will end well. *popcorn*

At least its not tentacle porn this time, Kurt.

Related:

Identity politics FAIL: Lefties attack 3 black women for being successful business owners

Read more:
HRM: Julian Assange notices something interesting about Kurt Eichenwald's Twitter bio - Twitchy

Risk, thedocumentary about Julian Assange by Laura Poitras, is finally going to be shown on Showtime tonight. Poitras filmed Assange for six years. According to Huffington Post, Assange sent a cease-and-desist letter to try to stop the films initial release in May.

Heres the official synopsis for the movie:

In the new world order where a single keystroke can alter history, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is undeterred even as the legal jeopardy he faces threatens to undermine the organization he leads and fracture the movement he inspired. Capturing this story with unprecedented access, Academy Award winning director Laura Poitras finds herself caught between the motives and contradictions of Assange and his inner circle in a documentary portrait of power, betrayal, truth and sacrifice.

Read on below for more details about tonight and how to watch the documentary.

DATE:Tonight, Saturday, July 22, 2017

PREMIEREAIR TIME:9:00 p.m. Eastern/Pacific (8 p.m. Central). The movie may be shorter than you expect. It will air for a little over 90 minutes, ending at 10:35 p.m. Eastern. After the documentary airs, Showtime will immediately show an encore presentation.

TV CHANNEL:Showtime To find what channel Showtimeis on for you,click hereto go to TV Guides listings. Then change the Provider (right under TV Listings) to your local provider. Youll be able to scroll down to see what channel Showtime is on for you.

PREVIEW:Heres the official trailer for Risk by Laura Poitras:

Read more from the original source:
'Risk' Julian Assange Documentary: What Time & Channel Does It ... - Heavy.com

The maximum sentence for beraching bail is 12 months and legal sources said the courts might seek to make an example of him.

But Assange's greatest fear remains the possibility that he could still be extradited to the United States for his role in the publication of leaked classified material on the WikiLeaks website.

Last month, the American Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, said that Assange's arrest remained a priority for his department and if convicted he could be jailed for up to 45-years.

Prosecutors have reportedly been asked to outline possible charges against him and officials in Washington have insisted the case remains ongoing.

Last night the UK Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether the United States had already submitted an arrest warrant for Assange.

Asked if Britain would now support a request to extradite him to the United States, Prime Minister Theresa May said: "We look at extradition requests on a case-by-case basis. In relation to Julian Assange, any decision that is taken about UK action in relation to him were he to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy would be an operational matter for the police."

Outlining the current position a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Westminster Magistrates' Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on June 29 2012.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the Embassy.

"Whilst Mr Assange was wanted on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for an extremely serious offence, the MPS response reflected the serious nature of that crime.

Read the rest here:
Julian Assange emerges on embassy balcony to say he will not ...

Three years after CitizenFour, her revolutionary documentary about Edward Snowden, filmmaker Laura Poitras has turned her attention to another controversial figure whos fought for government transparency: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Poitras explosive new movie, Risk, opened in select theaters in May. The following month, Assange and his organization issued a cease-and-desist letter attempting to stop the release of Poitras film an incongruous move given WikiLeaks creed.

Risk airs Saturday on Showtime, and HuffPost is premiering a trailer that features a new interview with Poitras, filmed less than two weeks ago.

He is brave and self-sacrificing and quite brilliant, and then youll also hear this other part that is egotistical or condescending, Poitras says in the trailer, referring to her experience capturing Assange in the wake of his scandals. They both exist.

Risk airs July 22 at 9 p.m. ET on Showtime.

Read the original:
Julian Assange Tried To Halt His Documentary, But 'Risk' Lives On In This New Trailer - HuffPost

Verified Twitter accounts are impervious to impostors and others who would seek to discredit the accounts owners. But Julian Assange and other well-known government critics are still unverified, leading to speculation that Twitter is purposefully allowing their accounts to remain vulnerable.

In defiance of its own verification policy, Twitter still wont verify Julian Assanges account.

MINNEAPOLIS Despite claiming that it authenticates accounts that are determined to be an account of public interest, Twitter has continuously refused to authenticate the accounts of some well-known public figures, particularly those who push against mainstream and government narratives.

The most well-known victim of Twitters essential weaponization of its account verification policy is Julian Assange, founder of the publishing organization WikiLeaks. Assanges Twitter account, @JulianAssange, has been confirmed by WikiLeaks as his authentic personal account, a fact Twitter itself even acknowledged when it referenced the authentic Assange account in its own writings.

Assange has attempted to have his account verified since last October, but has repeatedly had his authentication request denied, despite Twitters unofficial admission that they know that @JulianAssange is the authentic account. Twitter has refused to issue a public statement as to why Assanges account remains unverified.

While the verified account situation may seem minuscule compared to other issues that Assange currently faces, it has still had negative consequences nonetheless. The lack of verification on Assanges account, in particular, has led to the proliferation of a slew of fake Assange accounts. As journalist Caitlin Johnstone notes, these fake accounts are commonly mistaken by casual social media users as being Assanges real account due to the lack of verification.

Not only that, but some of the fake accounts actively post on popular tweets, claiming to be the real Assange and causing further confusion while also discrediting Assange. Many of those accounts have been reported, but Twitter has not taken any action against them. Not only that, but the lack of verification makes it more difficult for Assange to get his opinions to a wider audience, as the lack of verification makes it difficult for him to amass followers.

While Assange is certainly the most prominent public figure to be repeatedly denied account verification, he is not alone. Former U.S. Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has also spoken out regarding Twitters refusal to verify her account. McKinney is a well-known critic of U.S. imperialism and war propaganda, as well as a prominent voice in the 9/11 Truth Movement. She has over 25,000 Twitter followers.

Twitter has turned its authentication of popular accounts into a weapon, allowing it limit the Twitter presence of those who do not toe the establishment line. Twitter does not treat pundits from MSNBC or Fox News the same way it treats Assange and McKinney, making it clear that this is a politically-biased stance on the part of the social network.

However, this is by no means the first time that Twitter has come under fire for discriminating against popular users over their political leanings. Twitters launch last year of the Twitter Trust and Safety Council came complete with a group known as the Dangerous Speech Project that shares ties with the liberal John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, as well as George Soros Open Society Institute. Not a single conservative-leaning group is found on the council, which includes over 40 member groups.

More here:
Twitter Still Refusing To Verify Accounts For Julian Assange And Other Gov't Critics - Mintpress News (blog)