4 ms·

There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a a

There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party [1] and in a other interview has hinted that the source may be Seth Rich [2], a former DNC staff member that was murdered in Washington DC. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCOy25GdjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCOy25GdjQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

gknoy 10y ago
Attributing the release of such secrets to someone who is already dead seems like it could be a very effective way of hiding one's source. ;)
untog 10y ago
Is Julian Assange a reliable actor in this? He has every motive to deny that Russia are the source of the leaks.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? It doesn't work that way really. Either he is reliable, or not reliable to begin with. I have every reason believe he is, and he has demonstrated that people turn a blind eye on things if it fits their narrative of the world and politics.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? He was never neutral or objective on the subject of Hillary Clinton. And isn't it convenient that despite our knowing of multiple politicians whose private email got hacked, hers is the only one he felt was worthy of publishing... So, yeah, not exactly a "sudden" lack of objectivity on his part. Also it's been demonstrated his followers will turn a blind eye to things that don't fit their narrative.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    You can trust the leak without trusting the leaker. I believe everything wikileaks has leaked has been legit. I also believe they frequently make extremely misleading statements(like the Seth Rich stuff) to push their own goals and I wouldn't doubt for a second that they would lie to push forward their own goals/or mask them.
  - untog 10y ago
    We never needed to trust Assange, because we knew the source of the leaks - Snowden. I trust Snowden, I have never particularly trusted Assange.
openasocket 10y ago
> However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party How would he know? Isn't wikileaks set up so that people can submit data anonymously? Is he claiming that they got the data through different channels? Why would an insider purposefully leak the data in a way that de-anonymized him to Assange and possibly others, instead of using the established channels?
- bertil 10y ago
  Wikileaks offers that possibility, but you can always include self-identifying documents in there. I’m a lot more puzzled by the fact that Assange would say anything about the uploader, even if it is negative. I guess denying it’s the most likely suspect re-rolls the dice in most people’s head.
- droithomme 10y ago
  > How would he know? Not all leaks are submitted through the web forms. Craig Murray has stated that he received some of the leaks in person from a DNC insider during a face to face meeting in Washington, and he couriered those leaks to wikileaks himself. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray...
  - openasocket 10y ago
    Yeah, but why would an insider do that? It just seems like it's exposing him/herself to undue risk for no real benefit.
  - extra88 10y ago
    Huh, I had never heard that, why is that? Does Murray have a credibility problem, has he no evidence for his claim? Assume that any explanation that amounts to suppression by the "liberal media" or the "establishment" will fall on deaf ears. Murray's Wikipedia page is not full of alarm bells, it does mention him appearing on Alex Jones's radio program but to discuss a non-crazy subject.
hackuser 10y ago
> There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said ... Assange's claims are not hard evidence either, nor do I trust him. US intelligence agencies say the Russians were involved and that kind of activity by the Russians is corroborated by intelligence agencies in Europe. The nature of intelligence operations is that, if done correctly, there is no hard evidence unless the perpetrator wants there to be.
staunch 10y ago
> Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party False! He does not answer the question about someone affiliated with Russia handing him the information. He always repeats this carefully worded answer: "our source is not the Russian government and it is not [a] state party." Why so carefully worded -- why can't he say "no one affiliated Russia gave me the data"? Because he knows it came through an intermediary for Russia and wants to be able to lie, but still have a weaselly excuse if he's caught. The fact that he's spent a lot of time spreading the Seth Rich idea is even more suspect. It's a conspiracy theory straight out of the KGB's cold war book. Seth Rich was murdered and his watch was yanked at. He fought back at his attacker(s). "Nothing was stolen!" The professional assassin got into a fight with the victim and then shot him, but forgot to actually steal something? Not very likely.
crucialfelix 10y ago
If Assange knows and has hard evidence that it isn't from any Russian connected source then he could present that and this would do huge damage to the US. So why doesn't he ? If it was really the CIA that hacked the DNC then why would they be so stupid to blame Russia if Assange could so easily falsify that claim ? That's a huge reputation risk. Assange only said that it wasn't the Russian Government themselves. Doesn't rule out it being a team of hackers with connections to Russian IC or even directly to the Kremlin. Or even Russian hackers acting on their own but with the wink wink approval of Putin. Kremlin may even fund groups like startups. Give out money, see what happens. It's like Al Qaeda - they don't need to have an org chart or any explicit communication.

gknoy 10y ago

Attributing the release of such secrets to someone who is already dead seems like it could be a very effective way of hiding one's source. ;)

untog 10y ago

Is Julian Assange a reliable actor in this? He has every motive to deny that Russia are the source of the leaks.

angry-hacker 10y ago
Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? It doesn't work that way really. Either he is reliable, or not reliable to begin with. I have every reason believe he is, and he has demonstrated that people turn a blind eye on things if it fits their narrative of the world and politics.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? He was never neutral or objective on the subject of Hillary Clinton. And isn't it convenient that despite our knowing of multiple politicians whose private email got hacked, hers is the only one he felt was worthy of publishing... So, yeah, not exactly a "sudden" lack of objectivity on his part. Also it's been demonstrated his followers will turn a blind eye to things that don't fit their narrative.
- sanswork 10y ago
  You can trust the leak without trusting the leaker. I believe everything wikileaks has leaked has been legit. I also believe they frequently make extremely misleading statements(like the Seth Rich stuff) to push their own goals and I wouldn't doubt for a second that they would lie to push forward their own goals/or mask them.
- untog 10y ago
  We never needed to trust Assange, because we knew the source of the leaks - Snowden. I trust Snowden, I have never particularly trusted Assange.

openasocket 10y ago

> However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party How would he know? Isn't wikileaks set up so that people can submit data anonymously? Is he claiming that they got the data through different channels? Why would an insider purposefully leak the data in a way that de-anonymized him to Assange and possibly others, instead of using the established channels?

bertil 10y ago
Wikileaks offers that possibility, but you can always include self-identifying documents in there. I’m a lot more puzzled by the fact that Assange would say anything about the uploader, even if it is negative. I guess denying it’s the most likely suspect re-rolls the dice in most people’s head.
droithomme 10y ago
> How would he know? Not all leaks are submitted through the web forms. Craig Murray has stated that he received some of the leaks in person from a DNC insider during a face to face meeting in Washington, and he couriered those leaks to wikileaks himself. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray...
- openasocket 10y ago
  Yeah, but why would an insider do that? It just seems like it's exposing him/herself to undue risk for no real benefit.
- extra88 10y ago
  Huh, I had never heard that, why is that? Does Murray have a credibility problem, has he no evidence for his claim? Assume that any explanation that amounts to suppression by the "liberal media" or the "establishment" will fall on deaf ears. Murray's Wikipedia page is not full of alarm bells, it does mention him appearing on Alex Jones's radio program but to discuss a non-crazy subject.

hackuser 10y ago

> There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said ... Assange's claims are not hard evidence either, nor do I trust him. US intelligence agencies say the Russians were involved and that kind of activity by the Russians is corroborated by intelligence agencies in Europe. The nature of intelligence operations is that, if done correctly, there is no hard evidence unless the perpetrator wants there to be.

staunch 10y ago

> Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party False! He does not answer the question about someone affiliated with Russia handing him the information. He always repeats this carefully worded answer: "our source is not the Russian government and it is not [a] state party." Why so carefully worded -- why can't he say "no one affiliated Russia gave me the data"? Because he knows it came through an intermediary for Russia and wants to be able to lie, but still have a weaselly excuse if he's caught. The fact that he's spent a lot of time spreading the Seth Rich idea is even more suspect. It's a conspiracy theory straight out of the KGB's cold war book. Seth Rich was murdered and his watch was yanked at. He fought back at his attacker(s). "Nothing was stolen!" The professional assassin got into a fight with the victim and then shot him, but forgot to actually steal something? Not very likely.

crucialfelix 10y ago

If Assange knows and has hard evidence that it isn't from any Russian connected source then he could present that and this would do huge damage to the US. So why doesn't he ? If it was really the CIA that hacked the DNC then why would they be so stupid to blame Russia if Assange could so easily falsify that claim ? That's a huge reputation risk. Assange only said that it wasn't the Russian Government themselves. Doesn't rule out it being a team of hackers with connections to Russian IC or even directly to the Kremlin. Or even Russian hackers acting on their own but with the wink wink approval of Putin. Kremlin may even fund groups like startups. Give out money, see what happens. It's like Al Qaeda - they don't need to have an org chart or any explicit communication.