Breaking: Assange Emerges to Confirm Russia Was NOT the Source of DNC/Podesta Leak

originally posted by: Kettu
Nope:

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.

The Hill

Wow! What a pathetic job of cutting off the most pertinent part of the quote.

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.

Are you folks that desperate & pathetic?

Do you have no shame?!?

Do you have no integrity?!?

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: goou111

I prefer to read the lips when a person speaks to me, this video has no lips.
I prefer to read facial expressions while I'm at it, it helps me feel the words expressed.

Then I can feel when the truth resonates, or fails to resonate within my inner core.

No offense to OP, I'm just saying.

Compare with his past interviews:


Who else would have the annoying "ah" "um's " after every sentence ? I like Julian but i always found this habit annoying about him. But it is Julian , the "um's" proves it. No need for lips.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kettu
Nope:

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.

The Hill

Responses to your post, that Assange says some hacked material is Russian --- are unbelievable.

Not Rose Colored Glasses ---- hopelessly delusional.

There's no discussion on ATS anymore.

Real discussion can *only* take place when all participants are both intellectually and morally honest.

And that lame attempt at "discussion" from Kettu was pathetic and just proves everyone's point.

How do you folks not see that?

Are your blinders surgically implanted in your brains too?

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's interesting to hear Assange when he talks about this because he never acknowledges the fact that "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to have given the material to WL.

Who cares what Guccifer says? Their bonafides and credibility are a complete unknown.

On the other hand, Julian Assange and Wikileaks credibility is ROCK SOLID.

In the 10 years since they have come on the scene, they have *never once" been shown to lie or spread inaccurate information.

Never.

Not once.

Of course I believe right wing Sean Hannity and Assange over the US CIA You people just believe whatever fits what you want to believe. That's why fake news works on the right

a reply to: Kettu

Who the hell cares where Wikileaks got the emails from? The phishing attack that scored them was clearly Russian in origin.

Holy crap!

You clearly just make this stuff up as you go along don't you?

Not only is there *zero* evidence of that, Julian Assange himself said the emails Wikileaks obtained were NOT Russian in origin. Talk about intellectual dishonesty....wow!

Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe it.

There are many members here with whom I disagree on various topics, but for the most part they are intellectually honest, open to facts they may not be aware of and smart people, so I always pay attention to what they say, and we can and do disagree respectfully here from time to time.

theantediluvian, Annee, Introvert & Reldra are a few of those.

You on the other hand go into the "don't waste one second of your time on" bucket after this last post.

And I bet there are many others that feel the same way now too.

Credibility and Integrity are terrible things to waste on ATS where there are an awful lot of very smart and well informed people. As such, they tend to see through this crap fairly quickly.

Why not 'fess up, apologize for the mistake and say you'll try and do better in the future?

If so, I'm willing to chalk it up to an emotional response on your part and move on. If not, you are forever relegated to the "meaningless heap" by me and many others I'll bet.

I mean the above in a friendly and hopefully helpful way...

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Thanks,
but I still stand.

Hannity too cheap to run a camera equipped with a mic?

originally posted by: Greggers
The CIA and FBI traced the hacks to Russia. They have said so. They have access to our network and can analyze the hack from our end. Assange has access to none of this.

that is true. Assange does have the source that handed him the data. He says it's not from Russia but from inside the US government. Which follows perfectly with some of the earlier reports that were given.

But even if it was Russia, can you explain what was released? Can you explain what sensitive information came out that could have effected the election?

If that information is the Podesta e-mails, then aren't they factually accurate? And if that's the case, what crime was committed here?

I'd honestly love to have someone with integrity discuss this, and you are one of the few on the left.

“The original sources of the Podesta emails are Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his correspondents," Assange said in a statement.

He said he was confident that eliminating governments as the source of the leak would not jeopardize the true source of the leaks.

Link

I don't know what article or video is their source. I had not seen material where he stated that source.

The article says he names the source and he believes it won't out the source? Sounds like he said Podesta and a subordinate which is basically outing the source.

Same article

The Associated Press noted that Assange's statement did not eliminate the possibility that the information was passed from Russia to another party who passed it to WikiLeaks.

So the AP hasn't seen the material of Assange stating Poesta and crew.

The whole thing might just be lies and cover ups.

edit:

That first statement is saying he outed a source, blew WL credibility and should have ended he Russian angle.

ALL THE the libs were rooting and cheering assange releasing the iraq files under rep bush they were not happy

now when this guy is releasing something against their guy with a D to their name they want to kill him,
that bunch are hypocritical !

assange is not lying the russians did not hack them.

They got hacked by their own people apparently. The way they railroaded Bernie might have had something do with with someone within their ranks turning on them. Face it the Dem party organizers were corrupt and they need to drain their swamp before running to the White House again.

Satire:

a reply to: goou111

Is it possible that the whole "let's blame the Russians for the hack" is simply an attempt by the globalists to coerce wikileaks/Assange on either giving up who is the source for the leaks, or to allow the globalists to narrow the list of suspects of the leak? Assange/wikileaks doesn't even have to outright give up the leak, but the globalists could have the people behind wikileaks followed to see who they contact to try to catch their leak.

I could be wrong, but if the leak was that man from the DNC that was murdered wouldn't wikileaks have stated so long ago? Wikileaks/Assange seem to be talking as if the leak is still alive, but I could be wrong.

Not to mention, that using this tactic the globalists could "kill two birds with one stone". Meanwhile they can use this to find/narrow the list of suspects for the leaks, at the same time this can also be used to suppress alternative media which the globalists want to get rid of.

I have a problem with groups like Wikileaks and Anonymous. I think they are very susceptible to being manipulated. Wikileaks did a great thing in distributing material leaked by Bradley/Chelsea Manning, in my opinion, particularly the helicopter gunship footage of the killing of the civilians and journalists in Iraq and the machine gunning of the Good Samaritan's van with the kids in it. That kind of thing shouldn't be covered up.

The problem is that I don't think it would be too hard for the FSB to slip material sourced from their own espionage efforts to one of Assange's "trusted" sources in such a way that the source wouldn't really know the true provenance of the material.

Assange's documents should be examined seriously, but I never listen to his personal pronouncements.

a reply to: goou111

I think it's a ploy to get the Intelligence Agencies into alignment, so that they don't fracture and engage in unwanted investigations into certain INTERNAL crimes, by maintaining a focus on a common external enemy/threat.

Then again, once Trump comes in, those heads can be replaced, and the focal point shifted to seek out enemies both foreign AND domestic.

And it appears to be happening at Obama and Clinton's behest with Podesta himself in the works, who's latest op ed piece was an attack on the FBI with the message that they'd better get their # together, fast. He obviously doesn't want them or a faction therein to go "rogue".

But so help them, if it's "fake news" or if WikiLeaks comes out with something new that proves it was NOT the Ruskies, then that would be big trouble for those same intelligence agencies and their activities in generating disinformation and what amounts to a psy-op intended to place constraints on Trump and his incoming investigation (typo, meant to type administration) while at some level providing cover for the content of what was leaked, including Podesta's emails.

To me, it looks like a bid or a gambit by the black hats to defeat the white hats who appear to have been working through the FBI.

originally posted by: curme
Assange is one sketchy dude. He said he didn't release anything on Trump because it wasn't "interesting". Who made him the arbitrator of what is interesting or not?

He has definitely picked a horse in this race, and I bet someone picked it for him.

Did you listen to the interview? I clearly heard him say that he didn't publish because the information was already available to the public. It happens very early in the interview, less than half a minute in.
Nice attempt at smearing but those of us who actually listened to the interview heard what he said---Republican dirt had already been made public, implying that it wasn't worth wasting time/energy on because it wasn't secret.

What he confirmed was that the information did not come to him from any foreign government. Not Russia, not Israel, not Syria.....

People who have worked in cyber security for decades will tell you that in cyberspace the dots don't always connect. Mot of our military security experts go to Israel for big chunks of training. They're considered the experts in hacking into "un-hackable" systems without getting caught. Maybe they liked Trump better than Hillary? Maybe it was some Haitian who was ticked off about the Clinton Foundation's treatment of the Haitians?

The important thing is that we were presented with the truth as written by the denizens of the swamp. That is a very refreshing thing.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Obviously something like this is going on. We still haven't seen Julian just come out and wave from the balcony. If something was going down with regards to the interview, I surmised that Hannity would have had to been in the loop'' So I googled Is Hannity a CIA shill"? I got a page up that said Obrien and Hannity were Cia stooges, with a link to Wikipedia operation mocking bird. So I copied the page to post here...but when I checked the preview after doing it three times all I got was a 404 error. So go figure.

originally posted by: ipsedixit

The problem is that I don't think it would be too hard for the FSB to slip material sourced from their own espionage efforts to one of Assange's "trusted" sources in such a way that the source wouldn't really know the true provenance of the material.

Do you really think so? It's a good spin though to preserve the Russian hacking narrative.

Doesn't anyone remember Assange coming out and speaking with great concern about the murder of Seth Rich?

In my mind, that's the closest he's ever come to naming a source, while at another level trying to protect future sources from a similar fate.

I think that for the shadow government, Assange is the most dangerous man in the world.

What's interesting, I think, is that from this latest batch of leaks, or hacks.., Assange constructed a deadman's key as "insurance" to keep himself alive.

Makes you wonder what he's sitting on.. and what else will come out in due time.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Obviously something like this is going on. We still haven't seen Julian just come out and wave from the balcony.

That thought occurred to me as well. Why can't he do a Skype call?

But if that was an imposter that Hannity interviewed, then man is he ever good.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork


I did notice in the original interview their was one heck of a lot of adds, enough to give a good briefing if things got out of synch. But then it could have all been concocted using Hannitys voice and Julians. If Julian is alive and well again all it takes is a few seconds on the balcony. Remember Julian was phoning from London, and Hannity is supposed to be in the states. Their were no digital delays echoing and other problems that occur with long distance phone calls. In other words it was to perfect.