Assange: Russian government not the source of WikiLeaks emails

[Aggrophobic]

I think you still fail to grasp the essential thing here. Sweden wants him prosecuted for laughable reasons, and will not guarantee that they won't send him to the US as soon as they get their hands on him.

Yes, and thats fine. He agreed to the laws the sec he walked over the border.

[Incredibale]

The FBI Never Asked For Access To Hacked Computer Servers

...

Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

The FBI has instead relied on computer forensics from a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike, which first determined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infiltrated by Russia-linked hackers, the U.S. intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

“CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official said, adding they were confident Russia was behind the widespread hacks.

The FBI declined to comment.

“Beginning at the time the intrusion was discovered by the DNC, the DNC cooperated fully with the FBI and its investigation, providing access to all of the information uncovered by CrowdStrike — without any limits,” said Walker, whose emails were stolen and subsequently distributed throughout the cyberattack.

It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice when the bureau investigates the cyberattacks against private entities by state actors, like when the Sony Corporation was hacked by North Korea in 2014.

BuzzFeed News spoke to three cybersecurity companies who have worked on major breaches in the last 15 months, who said that it was “par for the course” for the FBI to do their own forensic research into the hacks. None wanted to comment on the record on another cybersecurity company’s work, or the work being done by a national security agency.

...

LOL. The FBI simply rubberstamped a statement without independent verification. No doubt the "17" intelligence agencies have done likewise.

The cybersecurity firms' (one of which, Crowdstrike, was contracted by the DNC) statements have been found wanting and the Joint Analysis Report has been rightly shot down for lack of substantiation.

Craig Murray says he met the leaker (probably Seth Rich) in person to obtain the documents.

Again, these accusations are a political hit job without evidence.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The FBI Never Asked For Access To Hacked Computer Servers



LOL. The FBI simply rubberstamped a statement without independent verification. No doubt the "17" intelligence agencies have done likewise.

The cybersecurity firms' (one of which, Crowdstrike, was contracted by the DNC) statements have been found wanting and the Joint Analysis Report has been rightly shot down for lack of substantiation.

Craig Murray says he met the leaker (probably Seth Rich) in person to obtain the documents.

Again, these accusations are a political hit job without evidence.

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't believe Seth Rich was the leak. Him being found dead feels way too scripted and it is my belief that Wikileaks/Murray would've openly said so if that was the case. No reason to withhold the truth if your whistleblower's dead.

[Forogil]

I know it may come as a surprise, but Wikileaks does not depend on Assange ever since he's been locked behind the embassy's. Remember, he was cut from the world for months when he had his internet connexion severed. He has a team that will continue the work, no matter what, regardless of Assange.

Yes, they have understaffed team that don't sanitize the documents before publishing.

And his internet connection was cut less than three months ago.

And what I said is what I said, not what you say I said.

No, you claimed that without WikiLeaks we wouldn't have had the information about NSA.

[Incredibale]

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't believe Seth Rich was the leak. Him being found dead feels way too scripted and it is my belief that Wikileaks/Murray would've openly said so if that was the case. No reason to withhold the truth if your whistleblower's dead.

http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-se...linton-emails/

As Buzzfeed reported:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange floated the possibility on Tuesday that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was an informant for the organization.

“Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks,” Assange said in an interview to be aired Tuesday on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

Seth Rich, a DNC employee who did voter outreach, was shot to death last month early in the morning in Washington, D.C. The case is unsolved and police have speculated it was an attempted robbery.

On Reddit, Rich’s death has become the source of theories about whether he was involved in the leaks of emails and files from the Democratic National Committee last month. US intelligence officials have linked the leak to a Russian hack, though there has been no official conclusion on the matter.

“I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange added, when asked what he was alleging. “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

Asked by interviewer Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal why he would speculate about someone being shot, Assange said it showed “our sources face serious risks.”

This was coupled by a tweet from WikiLeaks offering a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s murderer.

Vague hinting coupled with the offered reward says a whole lot. I strongly believe it was Rich and I believe he was murdered as revenge for the leaks.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes, they have understaffed team that don't sanitize the documents before publishing.

And his internet connection was cut less than three months ago.


No, you claimed that without WikiLeaks we wouldn't have had the information about NSA.

They're not understaffed. Not sure where you have this idea, but they have servers in several countries, with dedicated lawyers in each of them. They also have a social media team.

They do not sanitize the documents because that's their ethic. This is one of the biggest reason why Wikileaks is reliable; no edition of documents, just raw information. It's the job of the people to filter through them. That's what a democracy should be, in any case, not being drip-fed information by official agencies.

And yes, it is my belief that without Wikileaks, the act of whistleblowing would never have taken the proportion it did. But we'll never know now, will we?

- - - Updated - - -

http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-se...linton-emails/



Vague hinting coupled with the offered reward says a whole lot. I strongly believe it was Rich and I believe he was murdered as revenge for the leaks.

They stated a lot of time that they had more than a single informant. Perhaps they have reasons to withhold the information in that particular case - I can't say I see it, but then again I am not part of Wikileaks. However, that would seem odd, considering they've hinted at a year that will make 2016 feel ridiculously minimal.

[Felya]

Vague hinting coupled with the offered reward says a whole lot. I strongly believe it was Rich and I believe he was murdered as revenge for the leaks.

Now you only need a create a reason to kill anyone over any leaks, by showing what was in them to kill over. Fuck evidance, you have hints and rewards...

- - - Updated - - -

They stated a lot of time that they had more than a single informant. Perhaps they have reasons to withhold the information in that particular case - I can't say I see it, but then again I am not part of Wikileaks. However, that would seem odd, considering they've hinted at a year that will make 2016 feel ridiculously minimal.

You are arguing with someone using your own tact. This should be a fun conversation to watch...

[Incredibale]

Now you only need a create a reason to kill anyone over any leaks, by showing what was in them to kill over. Fuck evidance, you have hints and rewards...

You guys don't give a flying ass about evidence and you keep getting blown the fuck out every time the government says something on the matter. What is this shit, now? LOL.

[slitheroutfromtherocks]

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.

You left wing partisan hacks are truly, truly remarkable people. It's quite hilarious watching the left start claiming Assange is now just a bullshit artist because he did what he has done for a decades but this time you didn't like it. I suggest removing your head from your ass. Just goes to show how scummy people are on both the left and right you're the same bags of shit just stacked on different sides.

[Felya]

You guys don't give a flying ass about evidence and you keep getting blown the fuck out every time the government says something on the matter. What is this shit, now? LOL.

Can you relax and try posting the same without cursing? Otherwise, it seems like you are being belligerent, because you don't want to provide any evidance... which would be strange, considering it also seems like you are somehow blaming me for it... strange...

Please respond to BloodElf4Life, I want to see the argument.

[Bighud44]

The issue with the "hacks" were more that a foreign power tried to intervene and also the fact that most people are gullible low information buffoons who didn't bother to fact check anything related to the emails.

This is where the issue of actual fake news really has some merit. There were an assload of popular conservative news sources that were flooding Facebook and getting immense exposure that even the creator of them came out after the election and said they were all fake. But they were used to spin, twist, and manufacture stories that people bought into.

The DNC emails had basically nothing in them. But that didn't stop "news" sources like Youngconz and Realamericanpatriots and other bullshit that flooded Facebook from turning it into some sort of proof that Hillary was literally colluding with Satan for election powers.

The contents of them weren't enough to sway people. But the existence of them made a really easy point to build from when doctoring and manufacturing ludicrous stories that many low information voters bought into. Some of the most popular fake news on Facebook had millions of followers that people really believed in.

edit: Note that I'm not using fake news as a "oh they just disagree with me so it must be fake." No. I'm talking about news services that were all over social media that were eventually shut down due to being linked to Russian propaganda campaigns, or the ones I mentioned that were just two used by a bunch of 20 something Macedonian guys that admitted after the election to making up bullshit because it generated a ton of money for them in their poor country.

Obviously you didnt read any of the emails or your just like most liberals you look passed it and dont really care because you believe your candidate is above everything, including law. The emails showed a complete disdain for the American people, contempt for the primary process, and overall hatred for anyone not like them. But move on, nothing to see here.

Guess you still believe Clintons first responses on her email server. "I never sent nor received classified material on my server""There is no classified material on my server". Yeah right....

[unfilteredJW]

You are arguing with someone using your own tact. This should be a fun conversation to watch...

Shh. Just let it happen.

[cubby]

First of all: I'm not defending Trump. The man is a menace.

Second: Your point comes over as rather... biased.

To answer your question: If I was a head of state, and my intelligence services would apperantly waste their time with some wild goose chase, I'd do just that, yes. However, his 'blasting' happened befor they said they'd actually publish some proof, no? Let's just wait and see what happens on... monday? I think it was monday where the info supposedly goes public.

Lol, at least your not biased. Just keep chugging the MAGA kool-aid until we all drown in the bullshit.

Do you even see your hypocrisy?

[Mormolyce]

LOL got anymore of them Twitter links, then act as though they come from wikileaks.org?

Uh, are you honestly denying that was an actual wikileaks tweet?

And psssst... it's not the first time:

"He said that I and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear WikiLeaks," Hislop writes. "The piece was an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations, he said angrily, and he knew perfectly well who had written it. He then named a Fleet Street hack who had nothing to do with it."

Hislop adds that Assange went on to claim that Private Eye was "part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'".

"I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was 'sort of Jewish' because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law)," writes Hislop.

"When I doubted whether his Jewish conspiracy would stand up against the facts, Assange suddenly conceded the point. 'Forget the Jewish thing'."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...iracy-comments

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-polit...dian-wikileaks

[Incredibale]

Can you relax and try posting the same without cursing? Otherwise, it seems like you are being belligerent, because you don't want to provide any evidance... which would be strange, considering it also seems like you are somehow blaming me for it... strange...

Please respond to BloodElf4Life, I want to see the argument.

What the hell are you even talking about? Is your brain fried?

[Mormolyce]

You left wing partisan hacks are truly, truly remarkable people. It's quite hilarious watching the left start claiming Assange is now just a bullshit artist because he did what he has done for a decades but this time you didn't like it. I suggest removing your head from your ass. Just goes to show how scummy people are on both the left and right you're the same bags of shit just stacked on different sides.

Left wing partisan hacks like the Republican Speaker of the House?

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) declared Wednesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a “sycophant for Russia.”

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01...nt-for-russia/

[Deleted]

Yes, and thats fine. He agreed to the laws the sec he walked over the border.

No that is not fine, are you insane?

How can you support this when even the women in question denies being raped?

And once again, you fail to ignore that the swedish government refuses to guarantee that he won't get extradited and refuses to question him in London. This is what is essential to this whole situation.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Uh, are you honestly denying that was an actual wikileaks tweet?

And psssst... it's not the first time:


https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...iracy-comments

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-polit...dian-wikileaks

Hearsay is evidence now? If that is so, I heard that pizzagate is true! Am I doing it right?

PS: I don't even have an inch of belief on pizzagate.

And what do you not understand between the fact that Wikileaks twitter and wikileaks.org are managed by two different teams?

I'm ashamed that you use this picture

What the hell are you even talking about? Is your brain fried?

I think something broke. Seriously, I don't get what Felya tried to mean. Are we in some kind of argument or something? If that's so, I wasn't aware of it.

[Mormolyce]

And what do you not understand between the fact that Wikileaks twitter and wikileaks.org are managed by two different teams?

Oh so you're saying that it's a different team in wikileaks.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Oh so you're saying that it's a different team in wikileaks.

Two independant teams. They do not communicate together and are managed by entirely different groups. Twitter managers are prone to making mistakes. It happened, more than once. Hence why the Twitter is only relevant to get only a part of the picture -- ultimately, anything that is not directly from an authority figure at Wikileaks (Read: Not limited to Assange) does not come from Wikileaks. It comes from an individual.

Likewise, a store clerk does not speak for the company when he/she says a personal opinion. Same goes for several medias, who often state "This is an opinion piece, the views shared by its author are not the views shared by X".