• 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.
Apr 6, 2016
1,491
2
355
He also claimed Clinton and Podesta were complicit in a child sex ring ran out of a D.C. pizza restaurant. Fuck what this guy says.

Multiple people are saying this, but where did he or wikileaks say that?

I know that Alex Jones and other far right sights took the Podesta emails and pushed Pizzagate, but I don't remember Assange himself doing so?
 
Dec 11, 2012
4,940
2
0
No one is trying to hear that they're not from Russia. I think they were leaked from inside but it doesn't even matter. We got to see the rotten inner-workings of the Clinton campaign and DNC. So long as there wasn't outright vote hacking (which I doubt), I don't see what's so wrong about transparency and learning what happened behind the scenes.

I think people are just moreso mad that Hilldog lost and coping with those sour grapes is better when it came be directing vitriol to Russia. So let's just let people have that.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Apr 24, 2008
29,643
1
1,040
There are no false rape charges because there's no rape charge - and the girl in question does not think she was raped, has no interest in participating in these proceedings and never did participate. Swedish government are abusing her for their own ends and it's not pretty.

Anyone calling him a rapist is making a fool of himself.

His charges are pending. Sweden's justice system is slightly different than most western countries, and requires a formal final interview before charges are filed. As soon as that interview occurs he is going to be charged. Multiple courts have ruled this to be the case, hence why they approved the arrest warrant and granted extradition so he could face those charges and the resulting trial.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Jun 4, 2007
11,892
0
1,265
Sweden
You might also remember that the Egyptian case triggered a massive national scandal. It's not something the government would want repeated. It's also massively different: it was during the heyday of the post-9/11 hysteria and was likewise for terrorist charges which made the decision legal, although extremely controversial and against the spirit of of the law.

Extraditing Assange on espionage charges would be extremely illegal. We don't extradite people accused of political crimes and we would also need approval from the UK High Court as well to consider extraditing Assange for anything. It's not happening.

Assange is either a paranoid nutjob or a he's using this conspiracy theory to escape justice. Possibly both.

I know you're Swedish so you should really know better. No, those extraditions were not legal. Yet they happened. The PM even admitted the only reason they did it was because of massive pressure from the US government. These aren't things in contention by anyone.

And i already said that i do think the case is way too public for the Swedish government to fold. But no one sane would stake their own life on it. Much easier to stake other peoples life on it, especially if it's someone you don't like.
 

nomster

Member
Dec 11, 2007
2,745
0
0
"So amateur they couldn't possibly be us." What perfect cover to do whatever you want. Moron conspiracy theorists will immediately jump to "false flag!" Rather than look at the simplest, obvious explanation.
 

Herr Schwarz

Banned
Nov 6, 2016
2,639
0
0
UK
No, it really isn't.

You need to stop idolising wikileaks.

They are paid state actors.

Whether they are paid state actors is irrelevant to me. What would be relevant is whether the information state actors or otherwise are providing is true. If it's made up crap then, yeah that's lame.

But if it's all true and those are real leaks then why not. Govt got its hands up every member of the public collective asses when it comes to data access. We get a brief peak up the DNCs skirt and we're crying now?

This maybe idealistic but I'm an advocate of information freedom that goes both ways. Full transparency, excluding the military and secret branches of data and info.

Means fuck ups like this can't even begin to happen.
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
Whether they are paid state actors is irrelevant to me. What would be relevant is whether the information state actors or otherwise are providing is true. If it's made up crap then, yeah that's lame.

But if it's all true and those are real leaks then why not. Govt got its hands up every member of the public collective asses when it comes to data access. We get a brief peak up the DNCs skirt and we're crying now?

This maybe idealistic but I'm an advocate of information freedom that goes both ways. Full transparency, excluding the military and secret branches of data and info.

Means fuck ups like this can't even begin to happen.

So you're willing to overlook the source of the information because of what it contained? Lol.
 

Herr Schwarz

Banned
Nov 6, 2016
2,639
0
0
UK
So you're willing to overlook the source of the information because of what it contained? Lol.

Yes. Like I said, I can watch news on Fox whilst also realising they are right wing shills. I watched the . debates on fox for example.

If the info is pure then it its all good. What people fear is the spin.
 

chadskin

Member
May 27, 2013
13,086
3
0
Perhaps Assange can explain how WikiLeaks ended up with 90GB of documents from the German parliament's investigative committee into the NSA spying scandal, documents German intelligence have concluded with 'high plausibility' were obtained during a hack of the German parliament by the Russian group Fancy Bear in 2014-2015.

Did that come from someone within the DNC, too?
 

Pedrito

Member
Jul 25, 2012
2,568
1
0
Whether they are paid state actors is irrelevant to me. What would be relevant is whether the information state actors or otherwise are providing is true. If it's made up crap then, yeah that's lame.

But if it's all true and those are real leaks then why not. Govt got its hands up every member of the public collective asses when it comes to data access. We get a brief peak up the DNCs skirt and we're crying now?

This maybe idealistic but I'm an advocate of information freedom that goes both ways. Full transparency, excluding the military and secret branches of data and info.

Means fuck ups like this can't even begin to happen.

The problem with wikileaks is that they have shown many times that they're not an impartial actor on the sideline that will leak stuff for the sake of openess and information freedom. Even a quick glance at their twitter account shows that they're biased, smug and vindicative. How can you trust them to not cherry-pick what they leak to try to influence public opinion in a specific way?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Sep 5, 2004
66,964
8
1,590
Arakeen
They're very obviously a puppet. I honestly didn't think anyone was questioning that at this point.

you know what kind of people are questioning it. same kind flooding every gaf thread with little used accounts now suddenly obsessesd with the fact that these reports "aren't unanimous" and "cant be trusted" and "wheres the receipts?"
 

Herr Schwarz

Banned
Nov 6, 2016
2,639
0
0
UK
The problem with wikileaks is that they have shown many times that they're not an impartial actor on the sideline that will leak stuff for the sake of openess and information freedom. Even a quick glance at their twitter account shows that they're biased, smug and vindicative. How can you trust them to not cherry-pick what they leak to try to influence public opinion in a specific way?

bias, smug? vindictive? I thought we were talking about wikileaks, not fox news! heyooo
 

Nivash

Member
Nov 13, 2013
3,212
5
0
I know you're Swedish so you should really know better. No, those extraditions were not legal. Yet they happened. The PM even admitted the only reason they did it was because of massive pressure from the US government. These aren't things in contention by anyone.

And i already said that i do think the case is way too public for the Swedish government to fold. But no one sane would stake their own life on it. Much easier to stake other peoples life on it, especially if it's someone you don't like.

They were technically legal. The government insisted that they had solid assurances from Egypt that they wouldn't be tortured, which is obviously laughable but still within the bounds of law.

The government and its ministers received severe criticism for their actions but no one was charged with any crime. This would not be the case if we extradite Assange for espionage, that would be a breach of the treaty and law - which specifically forbids extradition for political crimes - that's simply not something you can work yourself around.

I'm not the only saying this, legal experts agree. Here's one:

http://palwrange.blogspot.se/2016/09/assange-igen.html?m=1

That post comes with the bonus of pointing out that Assange's risk of getting extradited doesn't increase if he leaves for Sweden. It's even greater in the UK, or arguably in most countries in the world, since the Swedish extradition treaty is unusually strict. Unless he plans to hide in that embassy for the rest of the his life, the risk won't go away. There's absolutely no defensible reason for him to keep avoiding to stand trial.
 

Karl2177

Member
Jul 3, 2010
9,341
0
695
Let's say they aren't from Russia. Then where are they from? For a dude about transparency, he's being pretty opaque.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Sep 5, 2004
66,964
8
1,590
Arakeen
To bitch about it would make me a raging hypocrite, being a US citizen. You know, glass houses and all that. If that's what even really happened to begin with (I never take "officials say" word for anything).

You realize that you've painted yourself into a corner where there is no valid information whatsoever. You discount the intelligence community absolutely, yet lap up whatever Wikileaks puts out. Where do you get your analysis from, or do you handle that personally?
 

Slurpy2k20

Member
May 5, 2006
4,384
1,578
1,600
Yeah, because as we've seen Assange is a stand-up guy, completely objective, and wouldn't lie his ass off. Oh, and good for him that he's on Hannity's show. Hannity would consider him a traitor worthy of being hanged, except for the fact that he fucked over Hillary and helped his BFF win.
 

Foggy

Member
Dec 9, 2013
10,215
0
0
Russia gets painted as a great danger to the world, but how many countries have they invaded and wars have they started in the last 20 years? Now compare that to the great US? It's no fucking comparison. Don't give me this bullshit.

Amazing
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
To bitch about it would make me a raging hypocrite, being a US citizen. You know, glass houses and all that. If that's what even really happened to begin with (I never take "officials say" word for anything).

So I suppose it would also be hypocritical for US citizens to get upset if they were drone striked? WTF kind of argument is this? It's not hypocritical to disagree with actions your country have done while being upset about what another country has done to yours. Jesus Christ.
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
You realize that you've painted yourself into a corner where there is no valid information whatsoever. You discount the intelligence community absolutely, yet lap up whatever Wikileaks puts out. Where do you get your analysis from, or do you handle that personally?

Who needs sources when you have feelings?
 

Psychoward

Banned
Aug 17, 2011
22,257
1
0
So I suppose it would also be hypocritical for US citizens to get upset if they were drone striked? WTF kind of argument is this? It's not hypocritical to disagree with actions your country have done while being upset about what another country has done to yours. Jesus Christ.

and this, lmfao

just because you're a U.S. citizen doesn't mean you support all U.S. interventions
 

The Albatross

Member
Apr 15, 2010
25,110
2
965
Well, I know we're all saying "surejan" and jlaw-okay.gif and stuff, but the CIA information that NBC News broke yesterday and reported by NPR said the same thing.

According to the NBC News story from early yesterday morning, Wikileaks got their information from independent hackers within Russia. And then the Russian government got involved in promoting the information and creating disinformation. And then again Putin, allegedly, became personally involved. But those initial leaks were not by "The Russians," but by "Russians," as the person who broke the story from NBC News put it on Morning Edition (NPR) yesterday.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/50565...nvolved-in-u-s-election-hack-nbc-news-reports

ARKIN: Well, I can also say that the intelligence community asked us not to name how we knew this or what our sources were. So they're not happy with the fact that we did this report last night on NBC. But I think that the line of reasoning, of understanding what happened here - information was stolen first. Then, the Russians decide to, if you will, weaponize that information against the United States to undermine the United States.

This would seem to corroborate what Assange is saying, and this is from the editorial team who broke the story. So, Assange is (likely) technically right: the leaks did not come from "The Russians" but from "Russians" and it was "the Russians" (Putin & the Kremlin) who weaponoized the information to undermine US elections.

But of course we all know that being "technically" right is the best kind of being right."
 

Ozigizo

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,727
1
0
Well, I know we're all saying "surejan" and jlaw-okay.gif and stuff, but the CIA information that NBC News broke yesterday and reported by NPR said the same thing.

According to the NBC News story from early yesterday morning, Wikileaks got their information from independent hackers within Russia. And then the Russian government got involved in promoting the information and creating disinformation. And then again Putin, allegedly, became personally involved. But those initial leaks were not by "The Russians," but by "Russians," as the person who broke the story from NBC News put it on Morning Edition (NPR) yesterday.

Guccifer 2.0 is not an independent source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
 

The Albatross

Member
Apr 15, 2010
25,110
2
965
Guccifer 2.0 is not an independent source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

Yes, Assange says this in the OP, but the leaks that Assange said did not come from the Russian government, the NBC News story that broke yesterday morning that we're basing virtually all of our knowledge about this on, say the same thing.

I updated my post w/ the interview with the editorial head of NBC News.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 8, 2006
50,641
0
0
Julian Assange as a guest on Sean Hannity's radio show. What a fucking turnaround from like 5 years ago, when Hannity and the GOP were calling for this guy to be hanged.
 

The Albatross

Member
Apr 15, 2010
25,110
2
965
Julian Assange as a guest on Sean Hannity's radio show. What a fucking turnaround from like 5 years ago, when Hannity and the GOP were calling for this guy to be hanged.

I thought the exact same thing when I saw the headline. The contradiction and about face is stunning, but embarrassingly, not surprising at all.

It's utterly amazing the flip that the left and right have done on Assange. Worth noting that 5 years ago, here. Assange would have been heralded as an international hero with few people arguing otherwise.
 

BobbyRobby

Member
Jun 6, 2004
5,282
0
0
www.warren-wilson.edu
You realize that you've painted yourself into a corner where there is no valid information whatsoever. You discount the intelligence community absolutely, yet lap up whatever Wikileaks puts out. Where do you get your analysis from, or do you handle that personally?

Do you distrust the FBI absolutely? Aren't they part of the intelligence community? You seem to have chosen to believe the CIA's word the FBI, which I don't have a problem with. Just don't jump down someone else's throat for being skeptical.

I don't follow their behavior on social media, but the wikileaks are true, dude. It would be cool if even a fraction of the energy spent excoriating users who want transparency was spent on taking the DNC to task for their wrongdoings. This doesn't make me hopeful that the left has learned their lesson at all.

I'm hoping the Bernie fraction of the party and others who care about transparency turn things around in the coming years so a strong candidate will be fielded against Trump.

And check my post history, dude. I've been praising wikileaks since the beginning, so I'm not a Russian spy/propagandist as you like to pop in and claim everyone is.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Jul 23, 2010
30,991
13
720
www.metal-archives.com
Not that I'm aware of.

The wikileaks twitter did link to a reddit thread that had accusations in the replies though.
Ugh jesus.
They did peddle Podesta/Clinton partake in satanic rituals via Spirit Cooking
That too? I thought these were just crazy redditors, not directly from Assange/Wikileaks. Holy shit :\

You just proved you don't know what you are talking about with that sentence. Bradley Manning is not facing the death penalty.
Any particular reason why you're dead-naming/misgendering Chelsea Manning?

The democratically elected leader of Ukraine, Yanukovych, was on the verge of signing a multi-billion dollar energy deal with Russia. The West didn't like this so backed an illegal military coup to oust him, and hence the war and death again.
Uh-huh...
Research it.
Okay.
*researches*
Hey, looks like you are full of shit!

What, don't believe me? Well, prove me wrong.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
1
0
I don't follow their behavior on social media, but the wikileaks are true, dude. It would be cool if even a fraction of the energy spent excoriating users who want transparency was spent on taking the DNC to task for their wrongdoings. This doesn't make me hopeful that the left has learned their lesson at all.

Oh look, another poster who fell for the trap Russia created.

I will ask for receipts, and will be roundly ignored.

Why is it so many BernieBros are OK with Russia meddling in the Election?
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
OK, I'll play along...

So Assange is a Russian puppet.

Wikileaks has shed light on a ton of shit that needs to have light shed on it. The DNC/Podesta emails were real. Everything else they have released has checked out.

So I ask you, at the end of the day, what difference does it actually make if Russia is behind him? So because the info came from Russia we shouldn't care about Gitmo procedures, murder of Iraqi civilians by our millitary, TPP, etc? Is that what you all are saying?

As for influencing the election - newsflash - our government has done that to other countries. I'm not happy about it but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now as to what I actually think on this topic...

On the one hand - we have the CIA saying it was Russia - the same CIA that lied to us about WMD, lied about torture, killing civilians, and a bunch of other shit. And on the other hand we have Assange/Wikileaks - who has been exposing the CIA and other government agencies for their lies. Add to that the fact that no one, to my knowledge, has been able to discredit anything released by Wikileaks up to this point. This is after 10 years and tens of thousands of leaks. Based on that, at this point, I'm inclined to believe him. The simplest explanation is that the leak came from within the DNC itself.

I thought the exact same thing when I saw the headline. The contradiction and about face is stunning, but embarrassingly, not surprising at all.

It's utterly amazing the flip that the left and right have done on Assange. Worth noting that 5 years ago, here. Assange would have been heralded as an international hero with few people arguing otherwise.

yup
 

C.Mongler

Member
Feb 16, 2016
823
1
0
Washington, D.C.
Well if the Trump cucks are going to scream that the CIA is lying until they provide proof and that Pizzagate is real until it can be proven otherwise, gonna need you to prove it wasn't Russia there, Assange.
 

chadskin

Member
May 27, 2013
13,086
3
0
Do you actually know about what happened here?

The democratically elected leader of Ukraine, Yanukovych, was on the verge of signing a multi-billion dollar energy deal with Russia. The West didn't like this so backed an illegal military coup to oust him, and hence the war and death again. Research it.

The West, or specifically, the US and it allies, didn't like the idea of Ukraine having closer ties to Russia so he had to go.

Takes some guts to ask people if they know what happened in Ukraine, only to go on and propagate this hilarious revisionist history. Embrace the post-facts world, folks, it's here to stay.
 

Voras

Member
Jul 21, 2015
483
0
330
Man with clear, proven bias against Hillary and the DNC makes baseless claims without evidence to back them up. What a shocker.

Assange hasn't had any credibility for a long time.
 

Pedrito

Member
Jul 25, 2012
2,568
1
0
OK, I'll play along...

So Assange is a Russian puppet.

Wikileaks has shed light on a ton of shit that needs to have light shed on it. The DNC/Podesta emails were real. Everything else they have released has checked out.

So I ask you, at the end of the day, what difference does it actually make if Russia is behind him? So because the info came from Russia we shouldn't care about Gitmo procedures, murder of Iraqi civilians by our millitary, TPP, etc? Is that what you all are saying?

Not really. I think what most are saying it that wikileaks, at best, isn't an impartial actor leaking stuff purely for a sake of transparency and freedom of information. They clearly have an agenda.

The stuff they leak is real (as far as we know), but the effect of those leaks are often worse than the benefits. Like not redacting sensitive informations. Or let's take the DNC/Podesta emails. Almost all of it was benign stuff but the average person will just see the headline "DNC hacked emails..." and will think there's a huge scandal going on. It went on for weeks/months...

As for influencing the election - newsflash - our government has done that to other countries. I'm not happy about it but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As far as I know, no one in this tread has influenced foreign elections so they're free to be pissed.

On the one hand - we have the CIA saying it was Russia - the same CIA that lied to us about WMD, lied about torture, killing civilians, and a bunch of other shit. And on the other hand we have Assange/Wikileaks - who has been exposing the CIA and other government agencies for their lies. Add to that the fact that no one, to my knowledge, has been able to discredit anything released by Wikileaks up to this point. This is after 10 years and tens of thousands of leaks. Based on that, at this point, I'm inclined to believe him. The simplest explanation is that the leak came from within the DNC itself.

Is it really the simplest explanation? So what is it? A false flag or a Bernie-or-buster sabotaging the party?

Again, the fact that the documents they're leaking are real is irrelevant to the question of the origin of those documents and the goal of the leak.
 

qcf x2

Member
Oct 23, 2005
7,167
1
0
Miami
OK, I'll play along...

So Assange is a Russian puppet.

Wikileaks has shed light on a ton of shit that needs to have light shed on it. The DNC/Podesta emails were real. Everything else they have released has checked out.

So I ask you, at the end of the day, what difference does it actually make if Russia is behind him? So because the info came from Russia we shouldn't care about Gitmo procedures, murder of Iraqi civilians by our millitary, TPP, etc? Is that what you all are saying?

As for influencing the election - newsflash - our government has done that to other countries. I'm not happy about it but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now as to what I actually think on this topic...

On the one hand - we have the CIA saying it was Russia - the same CIA that lied to us about WMD, lied about torture, killing civilians, and a bunch of other shit. And on the other hand we have Assange/Wikileaks - who has been exposing the CIA and other government agencies for their lies. Add to that the fact that no one, to my knowledge, has been able to discredit anything released by Wikileaks up to this point. This is after 10 years and tens of thousands of leaks. Based on that, at this point, I'm inclined to believe him. The simplest explanation is that the leak came from within the DNC itself.



yup

Russia is the most convenient boogeyman ever and the "WMD" of late 2016. Let's talk about the why the DNC lost the el---HEY LOOK OVER THERE, aren't you scared of Russia? No? Please be afraid.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
Aug 17, 2007
1,781
0
0
Iceland
Russia is the most convenient boogeyman ever and the "WMD" of late 2016. Let's talk about the why the DNC lost the el---HEY LOOK OVER THERE, aren't you scared of Russia? No? Please be afraid.

Can we blame Russia on Brexit yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.