Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial'

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Yep, and he basically told us that the source was Seth Rich too. Of course, he might have said that to throw us off the case but if we are going by what he has actually said, he has repeatedly stated that Russia was not the source.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Seth Rich died on the July 10th 2016. The Wikileaks files are dated (inside the .zip files) 7 Dec 2016. Not that it means much but that is months after he was dead.

The files were released on July 22 2016, then a second batch on November 6th.

I don't know where you are getting this December 7th 2016 date - but it is clearly incorrect, all of the DNC emails were released before that date.

Since Assange was already on record as having stated that Russia was not the source of the emails to wiki.

Why would Trump have to promise Assange anything to say what he has already been saying?

Fake news, people.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I don't think Wikileaks held on to the e-mails, doing nothing for more than two weeks, before releasing them. That's one thing notable about Wikileaks, it's use of IT is sophisticated and efficient.

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

Why? They held on to the Podesta emails way longer than 2 weeks after it was announced they had them in their possession.

How did they know Rich leaked the data - well there are many possible answers to that - here are a few

1. He was spotted by another employee acting suspicious or working in an area that was unusual for him, and an investigation was started.

2. He was spotted on video surveillance

3. Wikileaks did something to attempt verifying the validity of the Emails which tipped off the DNC that someone got a hold of them.

originally posted by: toolgal462
Since Assange was already on record as having stated that Russia was not the source of the emails to wiki.

Why would Trump have to promise Assange anything to say what he has already been saying?

Fake news, people.

We will see how fake it is one way or another next Monday.

Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish coordinator of Assange’s team, reiterated his client’s plan to claim that the Trump administration offered him a pardon in return for saying Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 US election campaign

However, Garzón said that testimony and “documentary proof” of the claim would be offered to the court at the full hearing that opens on Monday.

www.theguardian.com...

Why would Trump have to bribe Assange to say what he has already said countless times?

a reply to: bastion
Do you even have any idea what the evidence is, because it clearly seems that many here are a bit confused. The evidence they are speaking of is a written statement by assange's old lawyer, not his current one. That is the evidence that is being allowed, a written statement by a previous attorney. That's it. It's not some bombshell recording or video or something. It's just the statement made by one of the previous attorneys from 2017.

The Senator already clarified what he said. Remember, when you repeat something down the line, the words get changed along the way. So Dana independently said he would ask Trump about a pardon if Mr assange could provide concrete evidence for his claim. The attorney excitedly proclaims "Trump going to pardon you if you can prove it wasn't Russians".
The wording gets mixed up, and as a result the msm and Dems think they got another dead horse they can beat for politics.

Clearly assange was unable to provide anything concrete so he stayed behind bars and the Senator never mentioned it again to either party. But that is all that is meant it is stat d the evidence will be allowed, the written statetis the evidence.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

a reply to: Wardaddy454
Wasn't uk courts part of that Jimmy saville pedo thing?? Didn't they ignore and dismiss claims for years until the information age descended upon the world??

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: m
I don't think Wikileaks held on to the e-mails, doing nothing for more than two weeks, before releasing them. That's one thing notable about Wikileaks, it's use of IT is sophisticated and efficient.

Why not? They knew that releasing them the on eve of the democratic national convention would get them maximum exposure, and they were right.

We know Assange was sitting on the vault 7 trove of CIA documents for months before Their

The CIA documents were "Insurance" documents that the decryption keys would be released for, if the US Authorities attempted anything against Assange.

The encrypted files were made available almost immediately so that they could be downloaded in a distributed manner and that could not be blocked after the fact because they were already distributed and had been downloaded.

It was the decryption keys that were delayed, not the vault files.

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

Hmmm. I wonder?

D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump

June 14, 2016

WASHINGTON — Two groups of Russian hackers, working for competing government intelligence agencies, penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to emails, chats and a trove of opposition research against Donald J. Trump, according to the party and a cybersecurity firm.

The New York Times article from June 14 2016 confirms the DNC did indeed know their server had been compromised.

You’re either piss poor at your own investigative reporting, or you’re a piss poor shill. Either way, the facts surrounding this case contradict your baseless assertions.

Seth Rich died 10th June. The news articles, and therefore the DNC's acknowledgment that they had been hacked, came out 4 days after Seth Rich died, on the 14th June.

Again, you have failed to explain how some alleged assasin sent from the DNC could ever have known if Rich had done as alleged, before his death.

... or how Rich could have given the files to Guccifer2.0 and Wikileaks after he was dead (I suppose you will suggest some automated delayed transfer, which is clutching at straws to support a debunked conspiracy theory).

I'm just trying to be rational about it. Ockam's razor et al.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Wasn't uk courts part of that Jimmy saville pedo thing??

No.

It only came out about Saville after he had died. You can't take a dead man to court.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

Seriously, how would Assange be in a position to actually know for a fact, one way or the other?

My opinion... The Russians knew a Hillary victory was not going to be in the Russian governments interests, so they covertly used wikileaks as a pawn to ensure a Trump victory.

Its as clear as day, to anyone who's not blinded by political ideology,

So a stronger America and NATO is in Russia's best interest? How so?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

You have state run media. If the state wants something reported a certain way, they will. Even if the court ruling is different.

How would you ever know?

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: chr0naut
Seth Rich died on the July 10th 2016. The Wikileaks files are dated (inside the .zip files) 7 Dec 2016. Not that it means much but that is months after he was dead.

The files were released on July 22 2016, then a second batch on November 6th.

I don't know where you are getting this December 7th 2016 date - but it is clearly incorrect, all of the DNC emails were released before that date.

I downloaded several of the files in the archive, unzipped them and observed a date of 7th December. That was where I got the date from.

But it is meaningless, because the dates on files, and metadata, can be changed in various ways. The unchangeable parts of the story, the death of Rich and the release date of the files however, are still apparent and only the most convoluted and unlikely scenarios fit with the idea that Seth Rich was could have been the leaker of the e-mails.

When you take into consideration all the other evidence as well, that it was Russan hackers, the conspiracy theory just doesn't add up.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

You have state run media. If the state wants something reported a certain way, they will. Even if the court ruling is different.

How would you ever know?

Your problem is your are judging British Standards by what you have in The U.S.

That is where you fall down. Anything reported on what takes place in a British Court Of Law has to be 100% ACCURATE.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

You have state run media. If the state wants something reported a certain way, they will. Even if the court ruling is different.

How would you ever know?

Your problem is your are judging British Standards by what you have in The U.S.

That is where you fall down. Anything reported on what takes place in a British Court Of Law has to be 100% ACCURATE.

No, I'm judging British standards based on the concept of liberty and limited government.

100% ACCURATE, according to whom?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

You have state run media. If the state wants something reported a certain way, they will. Even if the court ruling is different.

How would you ever know?

Your problem is your are judging British Standards by what you have in The U.S.

That is where you fall down. Anything reported on what takes place in a British Court Of Law has to be 100% ACCURATE.

No, I'm judging British standards based on the concept of liberty and limited government.

100% ACCURATE, according to whom?

Let me help you.

‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome. Contempt of court includes:
disobeying or ignoring a court order
taking photos or shouting out in court
refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness
publicly commenting on a court case, for example on social media or online news articles

If you’re found to be in contempt of court, you could go to prison for up to 2 years, get a fine, or both.

www.gov.uk...

If a journalist publishes what you call fake news, by doing so he is unfairly influencing a Court Case.

This should answer your question.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: alldaylong

Fake News - Assange repeatedly said that no state actors hacked the DNC - straight from his lips, multiple times.

archive.com

Fake news doesn't come out of a British Court Of Law.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled the evidence admissible in court.

It may do in America but certainly not here in The U.K.

Then you are a gullible fool, if you think they wouldn't lie to you. Ever.

You do realise that if a journalist reports and publishes what you call " fake News " from proceedings in a British Court Of Law, the said journalist will be held in contempt of court. This is a very serious charge so it ain't going to happen.

The only fool on this thread is yourself.

You have state run media. If the state wants something reported a certain way, they will. Even if the court ruling is different.

How would you ever know?

Your problem is your are judging British Standards by what you have in The U.S.

That is where you fall down. Anything reported on what takes place in a British Court Of Law has to be 100% ACCURATE.

No, I'm judging British standards based on the concept of liberty and limited government.

100% ACCURATE, according to whom?

Let me help you.

‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome. Contempt of court includes:
disobeying or ignoring a court order
taking photos or shouting out in court
refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness
publicly commenting on a court case, for example on social media or online news articles

If you’re found to be in contempt of court, you could go to prison for up to 2 years, get a fine, or both.

www.gov.uk...

If a journalist publishes what you call fake news, by doing so he is unfairly influencing a Court Case.

This should answer your question.

That was never in question, I'm just wondering how many court cases have been unfairly influenced by your government.

Especially when it involves someone that routinely releases damning information, on entities such as said government.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: chr0naut

Stone's request for proof Russia hacked DNC
Stone De 123 DOJ Response to MTC CrowdStrike Reports

Official court documents from the Roger Stone trial.

Stone wanted the FBI's proof Russians hacked the DNC server as part of his defense. The rebuttal states the FBI only received '3 redacted draft reports from the DNC' and doesn't have anything at all from their actual servers. Just the 3 CrowdStrike reports...

From the 2nd link:
 

As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.

That's a direct statement from the FBI admitting they never got access to the servers or 'drive images' of them. The FBI and '17 intelligence agencies' all made their judgement from CrowdStrike's 3 redacted draft reports. Not even a full, finished report.

CrowdStrike had superior and proprietary software for data forensics and were employed by the FBI to identify who the hackers may have been. The drive images were given to the FBI by the DNC administrators. If they simply handed them straight to CrowdStrike without retaining backups then it may have been because they had total trust in CrowdStrike.

And what do you imagine they would find on the server that CrowdStrike couldn't? Do you imagine that the Russians left a simple calling card with names and personal addresses?

Here's CrowdStrikes explanation with all the actual technical details that the media leaves out:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - CrowdStrike Blog

And CrowdStrike isn't the only company that had the images and did forensics on the data. Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all analysed the data and concluded that it was a Russian hack.

The conspiracy theory nonsesnse put out by the pro-Republican media and FaceBork pundits is fake news.

Even a redacted report from CrowdStrike clearly identified that the hackers were Russian. SecureWorks and the FBI both identified the IP address of one of the hacks and the fact that it physically came from a Moscow building that also housed exclusively, Russian government agencies.

Did you really just use Crowdstrike's own blog in defense of Crowdstrike?