And I also thought Putin was paying the bills anyway these days.
That's what one half of the media are telling you. Have you noticed how the other half (as well as the ostensibly independent Wikileaks themselves) are also parroting a different story in unison?
What's the evidence for any of these 2 polarised views? Have you seen any evidence, or are you just blindly repeating what you heard from one bias?
This is a really weird story. I can't believe Wikileaks is still using a centralised service considering their own history of shutdowns as if they expected Coinbase to be any different to Paypal.
It is a weird story, that's a fact.
Wikileaks are just 1 of several significant organisations well known on the world stage that don't seem to get called out by the media for being so strangely inept. It's very difficult to believe that they're essentially an independent intelligence agency that are incapable of conducting very basic due diligence about financial institutions they deal with. They should by now understand the finance industry even if they didn't in 2010/11 (the last time Wikileaks had their fingers burned, which led to them Bitcoin adoption in the first place).
And this implies something else; I was led to believe that Wikileaks was based in Iceland. How did their Coinbase account help them in that region? I'm pretty sure there is no BTC exchange handling Icelandic Kroner. How can they possibly ever get any money from their Coinbase account to fund the actual organisation in Iceland?