• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Julian Assange: Wikileaks emails were not from Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310654-assange-some-leaks-may-have-been-russian

On Sean Hannity’s radio show, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that hacked Democratic documents sent to reporters at Gawker and The Hill may have come from Russia. But, he said, he is confident the emails he received did not come from the same source.

The Hill and other outlets received documents from a hacker or hackers calling itself “Guccifer 2.0.” Guccifer 2.0 also posted separate documents on its own site. Assange denied knowing Guccifer 2.0 on Hannity's show Thursday.

“Our source is not the Russian government,” said Assange, later claiming WikiLeaks did not receive its material from any state actor, Russia or otherwise.

While the intelligence community agrees that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic National Campaign Committee, there is dissent over whether the Russians did so with an eye to promoting President-elect Donald Trump or just generally wanting to sow chaos.

Assange has been adamant that Russia did not send the files to his site. In fact, his confirmation that a state actor did not send the hacked emails violates a longstanding WikiLeaks policy of not making any comment about sources.

He did leave the possibility open that Guccifer 2.0’s leaks to the media were a Russian plot.

“Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”

In the Hannity interview, Assange also claimed that WikiLeaks received three pages of information about Trump and the Republican National Convention. It chose not to reprint those documents because they had already been printed elsewhere.

The New York Times reported intelligence officials believe that Russia also hacked the Republican National Committee but chose not to leak those files to prop up the Trump candidacy.

Assange also declined to comment on a Daily Mail report that his confidant Craig Murray flew to the United States to retrieve the documents printed on the site. Murray told the Daily Mail that he met with an intermediary in a wooded area near American University in Washington, D.C., who was handing off the documents on behalf of someone with “legal access” to both the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta emails.

“Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks,” Assange said sternly.

This has been making the rounds today after Assange finally spoke out about the accusations that Wikileaks was being supplied with material by the Russians and that Assange or Wikileaks is in Russian pockets. The truth is quite ironic then; while it's true that "Guccifer 2.0" was a Russian or Russian group who may have acted on Putin's behalf, it's also true that the DNC emails that Wikileaks released were actually from another, non-Russian source.

There is no way to corroborate any of Assange's claims and there may never be, but it would sure be hilarious if it turned out Russia had nothing to do with some of the worst material which suffused the Hillary campaign, including the emails that among other things laid out how they sought to undermine upstart candidate Bernie Sanders, and also the now-infamous "Pied Piper" strategy where they secretly worked with the media to help Donald Trump win the Republican primaries only for it to backfire when they lost to him in the general election.
 

kevin1025

Banned
Jul 17, 2012
12,899
0
0
So his excuse for them possibly not being from Russia is because it looks like, and I'm quoting here, "look too much like the Russians". Huh.
 

kirby_fox

Banned
May 23, 2007
5,095
0
1,125
[REDACTED]
So...if he doesn't know who they're from, how can he say who they're not from?

At this point I'm fully in belief Julian and Wikileaks have political agendas now.
 
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
Does anyone think he'd actually admit it if Putin himself sent the files?

No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.

It would make sense if his Russian handlers are telling him to start throwing up misinformation because the CIA is about to expose him.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
595
Burnaby, BC
No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.

Umm he hates Clinton, Clinton and virtually everyone is holding Russia responsible, he has all the motive in the world to bullshit and say it is not Russia.
 

ELRenoRaven

Member
Feb 24, 2005
21,553
27
1,535
So...if he doesn't know who they're from, how can he say who they're not from?

At this point I'm fully in belief Julian and Wikileaks have political agendas now.

Now? It's been clear as day for a long time they've had an agenda on everything they've done.
 

Slayven

Member
Dec 10, 2004
121,783
7
0
USA
Does Alex Jones still hate him for making him get up at 3 in hte morning to hear him pitch Wikileaks Gold and his book?
 

benjipwns

Banned
Jul 11, 2007
24,402
2,033
1,700
SEAN HANNITY: All right. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will make an appearance before a British judge tomorrow. Now the appearance is related to sexual assault charges that he's facing in Sweden. Now this news comes just as there's word that Assange is apparently not done waging his war against the U.S., at least not yet.

[...]

Revealing their identities, helping us and cooperating with us in our battle against the Taliban. These are real lives that are now in jeopardy and in danger. That was step one.

Then 390,000 other documents were released. Many of them classified documents. And now we have this. What is -- why? Why didn't they go after this guy and why didn't they arrest him? Why didn't they stop this from being published when we had so much time to do it?

[…]

Why can't Obama do something about the WikiLeaks? We got this four months ago. You know, we can stop pirating a music and Hollywood movies, but we can't stop this guy from stealing highly classified documents that puts people's lives at risk?
Do you think they named wikileaks specifically so it sounds dumb when people say "the WikiLeaks" even though it's probably proper?
 
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
It would make sense if his Russian handlers are telling him to start throwing up misinformation because the CIA is about to expose him.

Considering they have been investigating the leaked diplomatic cables from when Clinton was SoS since 2010 or so, it really seems like that if the CIA was planning to expose him or if they had the material needed to do it they would have done so a long time ago now.
 

G0523

Member
Sep 24, 2009
4,451
0
0
34
Cleveland, OH


 
Jun 22, 2012
9,121
9
730
Canada
Considering they have been investigating the leaked diplomatic cables from when Clinton was SoS since 2010 or so, it really seems like that if the CIA was planning to expose him or if they had the material needed to do it they would have done so a long time ago now.

The leaked DNC emails were from 2016.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Jan 2, 2007
39,630
1
0
No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.

It's extremely significant because it destroys his credibility to make a defensive gesture only in this instance when Russia's international reputation is on the line.

"Oh, those other guys definitely had Russian sources, but certainly not us".
 

Chumley

Banned
Jul 18, 2016
7,147
1
0
No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.

Lmao are you for real? It wouldn't make sense?

Wikileaks credibility is gone. In the dumpster. Trump's base and Russia are all Assange has left. Of course he's doubling down on defending them, without them he's broke.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
If someone told me Julian Asange wad going to be on Sean Hannity's show, and have positive favoribilty by Republicans even a year ago, I would've asked them what drugs they were on.

Jesus.
 
Feb 5, 2009
32,302
0
1,125
The funny thing is Sean Hannity has been annoyed that the left aren't accepting the election result, and are instead trying to undermine the President-elect.

Take that in for a moment.
 

Chumley

Banned
Jul 18, 2016
7,147
1
0
It's extremely significant because it destroys his credibility to make a defensive gesture only in this instance when Russia's international reputation is on the line.

"Oh, those other guys definitely had Russian sources, but certainly not us".

It baffles me that anyone believes a word Assange says. He hawked t shirts and mugs at a press conference rumored to have Clinton bombshells in October that never came. He's a pathetic fraud.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
If someone told me Julian Asdangr wad going to be on Sean Hannity's show, and have positive favoribilty by Republicans even a year ago, I would've asked them what drugs they were on.

Jesus.

Being accused of rape got their attention.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Considering they have been investigating the leaked diplomatic cables from when Clinton was SoS since 2010 or so, it really seems like that if the CIA was planning to expose him or if they had the material needed to do it they would have done so a long time ago now.

It's almost like repeated incidents of espionage might reveal additional information and lead to greater understanding of the situation.
 
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
Lmao are you for real? It wouldn't make sense?

Wikileaks credibility is gone. In the dumpster. Trump's base and Russia are all Assange has left. Of course he's doubling down on defending them, without them he's broke.

Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.


They're legitimate because of their Russian sources?

I can't even fathom how you arrived here.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.

They're very obviously a puppet. I honestly didn't think anyone was questioning that at this point.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.

Having a ton of stolen information does not somehow make you more reliable about the source of that stolen information.
 

Chumley

Banned
Jul 18, 2016
7,147
1
0
Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.

Wrong. A small portion of their releases this year were proven to be doctored, and Assange has shown he has clear intent behind what he releases and when. Even if it's 99 percent genuine, the original goal of Wikileaks has been totally obliterated by his vendetta and desperation.

Oh and check their Twitter some time. Straight up Alex Jones quality of tweets right there.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
595
Burnaby, BC
Credibility about what? Everything Wikileaks has released has been regarded as being genuine. The DNC and Podesta emails are genuine. The draft text of the TPP was genuine and easily corroborated by looking at the final text of the agreement. The diplomatic cables are accepted as being genuine. They have the most credibility of any organization releasing secret material today, or which I freely admit there are very few.

They peddled that Podesta and Clinton partook in satanic rituals... that how credible they are.
 
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
Having a ton of stolen information does not somehow make you more reliable about the source of that stolen information.

They're very obviously a puppet. I honestly didn't think anyone was questioning that at this point.

What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

It's possible.

The preponderance of the evidence is against it.

Also, I mean, he's presumptively a rapist, since if he were innocent I suspect he would not hide in an embassy for three years to avoid facing trial. So why would you believe anything he says?
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

"Stay woke, fam."
 

Slayven

Member
Dec 10, 2004
121,783
7
0
USA
What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

I don't think paranoid crazyhead is an upgrade from state puppet
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
While I think it's a bunch of bullshit, I can totally see how the right will believe it wholeheartedly and think them libs just won't accept the truth.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

If they're false he can go face trial in Sweden and finish it. How anyone buys this bullshit about him running away and hiding because the boogeyman will get him is hilarious to me.
 

Remmy2112

Member
Aug 21, 2011
1,036
0
0
The funny thing is Sean Hannity has been annoyed that the left aren't accepting the election result, and are instead trying to undermine the President-elect.

Take that in for a moment.

Because they won. When they are doing it to Obama it is perfectly acceptable because it is true, red-blooded Americans fighting against a socialist dictator coming to take your guns.

Now a true, red-blooded Orangican has been elected and those who oppose him are filthy socialist commies who must be exposed and brought to heel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.