Assange: Russian government not the source of WikiLeaks emails

[sheggaro]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ks-emails.html

Damning emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman did not come from Russian hackers and the claim is being made to "delegitimize" Donald Trump, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News' Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview.

Hannity sat down with Assange in London's Ecuadorian embassy, where the Australian native has been holed up for five years battling extradition to Sweden on unrelated charges. Part I of the interview is set to air Tuesday night at 10 p.m. on Fox News Channel's "Hannity."

In excerpts released prior to airing, Assange is adamant that the hacked emails his organization released of Clinton official John Podesta did not come from Russia, as the Obama administration has claimed.

“We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party” Assange said.

More than 50,000 emails were released during the 2016 presidential campaign, exposing dubious practices at the Clinton Foundation, top journalists working closely with the Clinton campaign, key Clinton aides speaking derisively of Catholics and a top Democratic National Committee official providing debate questions to Clinton in advance.

Hannity told Fox News' Bill Hemmer "I believe everything (Assange) said," and praised the Internet activist for his commitment to government transparency.

Despite the Obama administration’s claims that Russia was behind cyber-intrusions meant to interfere with the U.S. election – and punitive measures taken against Moscow last week – Assange said nobody associated with the Russian government gave his group the files.


Assange also noted that in recent statements from top administration offices including the FBI and White House, “the word WikiLeaks” was missing, even as the administration expelled Russian diplomats in retaliation for cyberattacks.

“It’s very strange,” he said.


Some Republican critics have questioned what evidence the administration has to back up its Russia allegations, while others have applauded President Obama for moving to penalize Russia – albeit months after the initial hacks.

Asked if he thought Obama was lying to the American people about Russia’s actions, Assange said the president is “acting like a lawyer” with his allegations.

“If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, worked with Russia,” Assange said.

But he said he believes the administration is “trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president.”

Since Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in November, Clinton’s allies have stepped up claims that the WikiLeaks email releases significantly damaged her candidacy – particularly the leak of thousands of emails from Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s account. An earlier release of DNC emails over the summer led to the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Asked if the emails changed the outcome of the election, Assange said:

“Who knows, it’s impossible to tell. But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

So what now?

I mean I never bought it to begin with, but it's good to have confirmation.

[stabetha]

considering the proof was:

Some intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government must be behind it.

The “phishing” techniques of the hackers looks suspiciously like APT 28 and 29 (circumstantially connected to Russian government).

The hackers left the “digital finger prints” of having used Cyrillic keyboards.

wouldn't a government hacker have better tools then some fishing E-mails anyway?

[Krigaren]

If it wasn't Russia, then who was it?

Why isn't Assange telling us?

[sheggaro]

If it wasn't Russia, then who was it?

Why isn't Assange telling us?

Probably because he doesn't want to expose the people who provided him with the emails.

[Theodarzna]

considering the proof was:

wouldn't a government hacker have better tools then some fishing E-mails anyway?

You would think a State actor would do a better job or maybe have done something more intense then release emails confirming the Hillary was the Witch she was widely already suspected of being.

[sheggaro]

Shameful move by Obama.

No, deplorable is the right word.

[Krigaren]

Probably because he doesn't want to expose the people who provided him with the emails.

Ah. So the same reasoning that the CIA won't release more information about the Russian hack.

Interesting that we take the word over Assange with no proof, but folks flip out and call the CIA assessment "lies and speculation".

[Edge-]

You would think a State actor would do a better job or maybe have done something more intense then release emails confirming the Hillary was the Witch she was widely already suspected of being.

Damn, did I miss the email that had the video where she turned someone into a frog?

[stabetha]

You would think a State actor would do a better job or maybe have done something more intense then release emails confirming the Hillary was the Witch she was widely already suspected of being.

and probably be smart enough to know using a cyrillic keyboard would leave digital fingerprints.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn, did I miss the email that had the video where she turned someone into a frog?

"quick someone said something bad about the almighty Hillary, handwave engaged"

[cubby]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ks-emails.html



So what now?

I mean I never bought it to begin with, but it's good to have confirmation.

Really, this is confirmation for you? Keep on chugging the Kool-Aid, it's double-plus-good.

[infinitemeridian]

I guess I'll just take his word for it.

/s

Also, this mythology that has formed on the left (and egged on by the right) about the Omnipotent and Malevolent DNC and the High Priestess of Nominee Selection Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rigging the election to steal the nomination from Bernie, to whom it rightfully belonged, is some truly North Korea-level bullshit.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

If it wasn't Russia, then who was it?

Why isn't Assange telling us?

They never ever comment on who leaks. Why? Because otherwise, Wikileaks lose its credibility as a journalistic entity. Anonymity is exactly what keeps Wikileaks above anything else. If Wikileaks start selling who did what, then not only would nobody risk leaking to them for fear of retribution, but it would also be breaking their code of ethics, thus literally killing what they've worked for since almost a decade ago.

But here's the thing. This time, they've made an exception because of how big the leaks turned out to be. They've done one single exception: They've said something the leaker was not. They never did that before, ever, because even just telling what someone isn't mean that X government can simply refine their research. That's tremendously dangerous of them, but they did so anyway because otherwise people were simply dodging the content of the e-mails.

We know that 1. The hacker/leaker is not Russian and that 2. He/She's not from a state party.

[Zarc]

Yes, because Sean Hannity and Julian Assange has more credibility than the combined US Intelligence Community (that is not only the CIA but all of them, including the FBI). Assange is Putin's bitch these days, clearly, and Hannity is Trump's bitch, and Trump and Putin are in love with eachother. So of course Assange will say this on Sean Hannity's show. This is not information, this is propaganda. Good try though.

Move along.

[Revik]

I don't exactly trust Assange. Without knowing the details of source how would he know if it wasn't given to someone to give to Wikileaks. How would he know the eventual source was Russian or not? Again perhaps the source he got it was creditable but without knowing one cannot be certain.

One rumor is that disgruntled FBI agents leaked the info but I'm afraid that we will not be able to confirm.

One thing I do know is that I am sure Obama put down A LOT of pressure on the various intelligence agencies to come up with an answer.

[THE Bigzoman]

Probably because he doesn't want to expose the people who provided him with the emails.

I'd say he has more to gain by doing so.

Assange would go down in history as the biggest exposer of bullshit ever if he stated who the actual source is + gave definitive proof of it.

Throw your rat under the bus here. The positives from your rep exceed the negatives here.

[Gwiez]

Assange. hahahahahaha. Like his word is worth shit.

[Krigaren]

They never ever comment on who leaks. Why? Because otherwise, Wikileaks lose its credibility as a journalistic entity. Anonymity is exactly what keeps Wikileaks above anything else. If Wikileaks start selling who did what, then not only would nobody risk leaking to them for fear of retribution, but it would also be breaking their code of ethics, thus literally killing what they've worked for since almost a decade ago.

So, it's okay for Assange under the auspices of "journalistic integrity", but if the CIA and the federal government want to be closed-lipped in order to maintain the operational integrity of their methods and possibly of their agents, it's all a lie and a conspiracy.

Okies.

[infinitemeridian]

They never ever comment on who leaks. Why? Because otherwise, Wikileaks lose its credibility as a journalistic entity. Anonymity is exactly what keeps Wikileaks above anything else. If Wikileaks start selling who did what, then not only would nobody risk leaking to them for fear of retribution, but it would also be breaking their code of ethics, thus literally killing what they've worked for since almost a decade ago.

But here's the thing. This time, they've made an exception because of how big the leaks turned out to be. They've done one single exception: They've said something the leaker was not. They never did that before, ever, because even just telling what someone isn't mean that X government can simply refine their research. That's tremendously dangerous of them, but they did so anyway because otherwise people were simply dodging the content of the e-mails.

We know that 1. The hacker/leaker is not Russian and that 2. He/She's not from a state party.

Switch your line of reasoning to the joint conclusion of every security agency and their lack of "proof" that Russia actually hacked the DNC. So we're supposed to just take Assange's word for it, but not the combined assessment's of 17 security agencies?

You trumplestiltskins are truly, truly remarkable people.

[THE Bigzoman]

So, it's okay for Assange under the auspices of "journalistic integrity", but if the CIA and the federal government want to be closed-lipped in order to maintain the operational integrity of their methods and possibly of their agents, it's all a lie and a conspiracy.

Okies.

The federal government and journalistic entities have different obligations and standards to uphold. There's nothing inconsistent about holding different institutions to different standards. It's not the same thing.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So, it's okay for Assange under the auspices of "journalistic integrity", but if the CIA and the federal government want to be closed-lipped in order to maintain the operational integrity of their methods and possibly of their agents, it's all a lie and a conspiracy.

Okies.

Assange met with the leaker personally. He also has a history of integrity related to the information he provides - in fact, anything that comes directly from him has never been identified as a lie. Wikileaks has a 10 year legacy of publishing 100% real and tangible documents.

The CIA, however...

- - - Updated - - -

Switch your line of reasoning to the joint conclusion of every security agency and their lack of "proof" that Russia actually hacked the DNC. So we're supposed to just take Assange's word for it, but not the combined assessment's of 17 security agencies?

You trumplestiltskins are truly, truly remarkable people.

Please, don't be disingenuous.

Those 17 agencies from the US government have no proof. They've recently redacted their official document to remove anything related to Wikileaks, because as the FBI was able to find, there's no link between the Russian government and Wikileaks.

Yet, somehow, those 17 agencies initially claimed there was a link.

By the way, ask yourself: "Would've I trusted these sources had they been claimed by the bush administration?"

I know I wouldn't. In fact I didn't. Did you when they covered the Afghan war?