Assange: Russian government not the source of WikiLeaks emails

[Dug]

Because there is none really, you're just unwilling to accept that your candidate had dirt that needed to be exposed, and you're unwilling to take responsibility for your loss and rather just blame everything on Russia and wikileaks.

And what do you say to those of us (99.99% of us) that aren't asking for a do over of the election and still want Russia to be held accountable for their actions?

[Strangebrew]

And what do you say to those of us (99.99% of us) that aren't asking for a do over of the election and still want Russia to be held accountable for their actions?

Call me when America is held responsible for their actions.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The leaks they made about the DNC were all verified (and their own fucking fault); you can't just dismiss the entire message because you don't like the messenger.

In that regard, in the Intelligence document released today, the three agencies agrees that the e-mails released are real. I think it's possible to both disagree with Russia meddling within outside affairs while disapproving of the methods used by the DNC (and by extension the GOP) during the elections.

[Dug]

Call me when America is held responsible for their actions.

If another country wants to take a crack at it be my guest. I assume America wouldn't just bend over and take it as no country should.

[Deleted]

Call me when America is held responsible for their actions.

So, a thief that stolen another thief deserves a "free from jail card"?

[Daerio]

No, but you're getting closer. Keep trying. Go one step past Wiki not publishing it.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe everyone is as corrupt as Clinton. If your wildest dreams were true they would have already been printed on the headlines of LibPost. Wikileaks does not have sole control over political leaks.

In fact, the Liberal media has been calling wolf on Republicans for so long they're just out of hot air. Remember the attacks on Ron Paul? Some marginally racist stuff written in a leaflet years ago that Ron Paul supposedly received money from? These are the kind of hardcore "leaks" you're left with when you're crying wolf until you're blue in the face. I'm sorry there just isn't anything equivalent on the other side of the aisle until you guys get some new politicians.

[Strangebrew]

So, a thief that stolen another thief deserves a "free from jail card"?

The thief deserves it as much as the first thief does, as in neither of them.
This isn't what i am arguing for at all in the first place, sorry that you misunderstood my position.

Start by cleaning up your own politics, especially the DNC(This will give you so much power over the RNC, instead of constantly stooping down to their level aswell, wow shocking!)
And start doing as you tell others to do, stop meddling with the politics and affairs of other countries, and maybe then i will actually give you some sympathy.


You can blame Russia for the hacks all you want, i never disagreed with this in the first place.
But you people are pretending America is some hero and Russia is an villain that needs to be defeated like this is some fucking fantasy story, and it's just pure unadultered insanity.
You have done the same shit, if not worse repeatedly.

And pretending Clinton's loss was entirely the e-mail leaks fault is just delusional.




Alternatively, you can just accept that this is such a big issue because you struggle with accepting that Trump won, is there one thing 2016 taught me it's that not siding with Clinton means you are literally satan.

[Deleted]

The thief deserves it as much as the first thief does, as in neither of them.
This isn't what i am arguing for at all in the first place, sorry that you misunderstood my position.

Russia was caught in with their hands inside America's cookie jar. It was called off. The same happened some years ago with NSA and their European spying.

Everything else I don't care, I'm not American nor Russian. My only concern is international diplomacy.

[unbound]

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 - - -



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?

So here is the problem with Assange. If you'll notice that until about 2010, Assange was happy to release incriminating information against Russia and Putin. Then, in 2010, he suddenly stopped despite announcing that he will soon leak material about Putin. That was also the time that Assange was accused of rape. He met with Putin, and, in January 2011, the Kremlin issued Mr. Assange a visa with one Russian official suggesting that he deserved the Nobel Peace Price. Then, in April 2012, with WikiLeaks' funding drying up (under American pressure since Visa and Mastercard stopped accepting donations), there is suddenly a show called "The World Tomorrow" hosted by Julian Assange on Russia Today (which is funded by the Russian government).

This was also around the same time that the FBI opened an investigation into Assange for publishing classified US embassy cables with an Assange associate stating "He views everything through the prism of how he's treated. America and Hillary Clinton have caused him trouble, and Russia never has." Note that when the Panama Papers were leaked showing how billions wound up in shell companies controlled by a Putin crony, Assange suddenly has no information on that (and trots out a tired Soros conspiracy).

So, pre-2010, he made it clear that while one of his goals was to help expose "illegal or immoral" behavior by governments in the West, "Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia". But now, not a single thing on Russia because "It's a bit boring, isn't it?" (and if you believe that, I have some nice bridges for sale in California). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/wo...ge-russia.html

And, currently, he is in an Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange himself requested that his private security detail be provided by the FSB (the successor the KGB). BTW, Putin was a KGB director before the break up of the USSR, and helped form the FSB.

So much for his integrity...

[cubby]

And start doing as you tell others to do, stop meddling with the politics and affairs of other countries, and maybe then i will actually give you some sympathy.

This is the source of your rage, obviously. Something happened to you or you've read shit that has pissed you off beyond belief. And I have sympathy for it - the U.S. should not be meddling in other elections.

But you people are pretending America is some hero and Russia is an villain that needs to be defeated like this is some fucking fantasy story, and it's just pure unadultered insanity.

Very valid point.

And pretending Clinton's loss was entirely the e-mail leaks fault is just delusional.

Still missing the point, but getting there. It wasn't that the leaks caused Clinton's loss entirely, which is ridiculous to even say, much less claim. It's that it pushed some people to the other side because of the leaks. Trump's victory was a very small margin, despite the Electoral count.

Alternatively, you can just accept that this is such a big issue because you struggle with accepting that Trump won, is there one thing 2016 taught me it's that not siding with Clinton means you are literally satan.

Siding with Trump means your Satan - Clinton was just the only other choice, so that point gets mixed up.

[Noxx79]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe everyone is as corrupt as Clinton. If your wildest dreams were true they would have already been printed on the headlines of LibPost. Wikileaks does not have sole control over political leaks.

In fact, the Liberal media has been calling wolf on Republicans for so long they're just out of hot air. Remember the attacks on Ron Paul? Some marginally racist stuff written in a leaflet years ago that Ron Paul supposedly received money from? These are the kind of hardcore "leaks" you're left with when you're crying wolf until you're blue in the face. I'm sorry there just isn't anything equivalent on the other side of the aisle until you guys get some new politicians.

Awww, the toddler republicans have had their precious feelings hurt.
The president mirrors the populace that voted for him:
A whiny, arrogant, hypocritical idiot who can't take criticism.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So here is the problem with Assange. If you'll notice that until about 2010, Assange was happy to release incriminating information against Russia and Putin. Then, in 2010, he suddenly stopped despite announcing that he will soon leak material about Putin. That was also the time that Assange was accused of rape. He met with Putin, and, in January 2011, the Kremlin issued Mr. Assange a visa with one Russian official suggesting that he deserved the Nobel Peace Price. Then, in April 2012, with WikiLeaks' funding drying up (under American pressure since Visa and Mastercard stopped accepting donations), there is suddenly a show called "The World Tomorrow" hosted by Julian Assange on Russia Today (which is funded by the Russian government).

This was also around the same time that the FBI opened an investigation into Assange for publishing classified US embassy cables with an Assange associate stating "He views everything through the prism of how he's treated. America and Hillary Clinton have caused him trouble, and Russia never has." Note that when the Panama Papers were leaked showing how billions wound up in shell companies controlled by a Putin crony, Assange suddenly has no information on that (and trots out a tired Soros conspiracy).

So, pre-2010, he made it clear that while one of his goals was to help expose "illegal or immoral" behavior by governments in the West, "Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia". But now, not a single thing on Russia because "It's a bit boring, isn't it?" (and if you believe that, I have some nice bridges for sale in California). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/wo...ge-russia.html

And, currently, he is in an Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange himself requested that his private security detail be provided by the FSB (the successor the KGB). BTW, Putin was a KGB director before the break up of the USSR, and helped form the FSB.

So much for his integrity...

Smear campaign against Assange are well documented. I would redirect to this very obvious website if you wish to get the right information on what's going on behind the scene: https://justice4assange.com/

This does not change the comment I've made a bit earlier on this thread, but there's a difference between rightful theory and conspiracy theory.

[Strangebrew]

Russia was caught in with their hands inside America's cookie jar. It was called off. The same happened some years ago with NSA and their European spying.

Everything else I don't care, I'm not American nor Russian. My only concern is international diplomacy.

And russia favored a candidate that is willing to hold a dialogue with them, instead of someone who keeps propping up for a war with Russia.
So if international diplomacy is what you want, then you should be welcoming this.


Obviously, we don't know what Trump will do now, and if he decides to rise the aggression towards Russia, i will gladly eat those words.

[Deleted]

And russia favored a candidate that is willing to hold a dialogue with them, instead of someone who keeps propping up for a war with Russia.
So if international diplomacy is what you want, then you should be welcoming this.

No war would happen, M.A.D. makes us certain of it. Same way the Cold War never got "hot".

Obviously, we don't know what Trump will do now, and if he decides to rise the aggression towards Russia, i will gladly eat those words.

And it will, it's how the world works.

[Wells]

Assange came out against illegally leaking government secrets now:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408

[Daerio]

Assange came out against illegally leaking government secrets now:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408

Well, that's not exactly what they're doing, but ok.

[Wells]

Well, that's not exactly what they're doing, but ok.

Yeah, never mind, they're speaking approvingly of the leak right after retweeting claims it was a "witch hunt".

[Daerio]

Yeah, never mind, they're speaking approvingly of the leak right after retweeting claims it was a "witch hunt".

Anyone else is free to click what you linked and figure out what the difference is, or not. The information is literally right at your fingertips to digest or ignore at your leisure.

I think this is the kind of stuff that doesn't make it to honest discussion because nobody can honestly defend this nonsense.

[Wells]

Anyone else is free to click what you linked and figure out what the difference is, or not. The information is literally right at your fingertips to digest or ignore at your leisure.

I think this is the kind of stuff that doesn't make it to honest discussion because nobody can honestly defend this nonsense.

This strikes me as a kind of tedious level of intentionally obtuse behavior.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Assange came out against illegally leaking government secrets now:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408

Ok, you've misunderstood profoundly what happened.

What is a leak? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/leak

noun
1.an unintended hole, crack, or the like, through which liquid, gas, light, etc., enters or escapes:
a leak in the roof.

2.an act or instance of leaking.

3.any means of unintended entrance or escape.

4.Electricity. the loss of current from a conductor, usually resulting from poor insulation.

5.a disclosure of secret, especially official, information, as to the news media, by an unnamed source.

verb (used without object)

6.to let a liquid, gas, light, etc., enter or escape, as through an unintended hole or crack:
The boat leaks.

7.to pass in or out in this manner, as liquid, gas, or light:
gas leaking from a pipe.

8.to become known unintentionally (usually followed by out):
The news leaked out.

9.to disclose secret, especially official, information anonymously, as to the news media:
The official revealed that he had leaked to the press in the hope of saving his own reputation.

verb (used with object)

10.to let (liquid, gas, light, etc.) enter or escape:
This camera leaks light.

11.to allow to become known, as information given out covertly:
to leak the news of the ambassador's visit.

What happened today was not a leak. It was a deliberate transfer of information of classified data to a media organization - namely NBC - for political gain. It wasn't done anonymously, it wasn't done to expose something. It was done to control what data would come out of it.