14 ms·

Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

151 points by hownottowrite 7y ago

sschueller 7y ago
This makes no sense. Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. From wikipedia [1]: On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[11] from winning the presidency.[12] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.[12] WikiLeaks did not reveal its source. Later Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, claimed that the source of the emails was not Russia.[13] Can we get a transcript from what was said in court? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
- stOneskull 7y ago
  seems it's an easy pardon then
- m0zg 7y ago
  And it doubly makes no sense coming from _his lawyer_. To what end would they jeopardize his freedom by making such statements? I smell fake news.
  - ccaleb 7y ago
    Here's a quote from Rohrabacher after visiting Assange in 2017: “When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him" Is it really that hard to believe?
    - m0zg 7y ago
      That's not what's being "reported" though. What's being reported is that "Trump promised a pardon if Assange says it's not from Russia". Notice how Russia or promise of a pardon does not come up in your Rohrabacher quote (which, BTW, I'd need to verify as well before I believe it). It's like I said "I'll call on Jeff Bezos to give you a million dollars if you vote in this election", without even specifying who I want you to vote for.
      - Bendingo 7y ago
        Good point. Somehow; "tell us who did this" is being reported as; "tell us the Russians did this" This is why the old-media cannot be trusted.
        workaccountone 7y ago
        The article quotes Rohrabacher like I did. You're right it does not say "tell us the Russians did this". It's Assange's lawyer who's filling that part in.
        m0zg 7y ago
        As well as other parts. No promise was made, and no specific answer was requested. That "lawyer" (assuming they even said what's being "reported") is working for the DNC, which is trying really hard to get ahead of some extremely damaging revelation (such as, for example, that someone at the DNC leaked the info, which would completely demolish what remains of the "Russian collusion" narrative they rode on for 3 years). It makes zero sense otherwise for that lawyer to jeopardize Assange's "guaranteed" pardon.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sjg007 7y ago
  His source may not have been Russia but that source may have gotten them from Russia.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Yeah I'm not convinced Assange would recognize or care to look hard enough to figure out if his source was a simple cut out.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? Is everyone in America to be considered a suspected Russian agent now? Because there is a scenario: Assange got the DNC leaks directly from someone in authority in the DNC, itself, knows the person, and knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.)
      - jasonlotito 7y ago
        I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?
        fit2rule 7y ago
        So, everyone in America is a potential Russian agent now? That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        Where did I say I can't fathom that situation for starters? From all indications from the DNC to the US Intelligence community it wasn't someone inside the DNC so absent any information from Assange/Wikileaks I have no reason to believe it's anyone else. Also we know from the War files that Wikileaks doesn't go through the documents provided to remove things like personal names to protect locals who did simple things like working as translators etc. so I'm not too convinced they'd look particular hard at exactly who was sending them the info.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  This administration has shown to be more concerned with optics than court arguments
- nkozyra 7y ago
  I'm not sure that would preclude Trump from making the offer - it's entirely possible he didn't know Assange had done this and/or wanted him to re-amplify the claim. There's also some wonky stuff in the original dispute from Assange and Craig Murray: > Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all. So ... why did they do it then? Seems like there would be an explanation. > “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. They did eventually indict Russians, of course, and Roger Stone's involvement has been a separate news item this week. edit: It is really interesting to see the downvoted comments here, many of which seem to be reasonable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- caconym_ 7y ago
  To be fair, Trump has a history of saying things that don't line up with reality (this is objective, apolitical fact), so it's not a stretch to think he might not have been aware of this. Or he might have wanted a repeat of the same statement in a different forum. Or it might be total bullshit. But given the events of recent days, it's hard to argue that it's not at least consistent.
- booboolayla 7y ago
  Assange hinted that Seth Rich was their source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... Combine that with Bill Binney's analysis that proves the data couldn't have possibly been downloaded over the internet but rather shipped on a USB: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/becdyc/nsa_whistleblower_bill_binney_says_2_sources/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/becdyc/nsa_whist...
  - slg 7y ago
    Ok, so I watched some of that video and there is a comically simple explanation[1] that throws a wrench into Binney's "proof". All he knows is that the files were at one point saved using a FAT filesystem. He doesn't know specifically when that happened and if it was before, during, or after the documents were stolen. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=mwUoE8UecC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=mwUoE8UecC...
  - ccaleb 7y ago
    The Seth Rich thing has been widely debunked multiple times (as I said, and provided evidence for in another comment). The Fox article pushing this has been debunked. Fox is being sued by the family. There is no evidence for this theory.
    - booboolayla 7y ago
      You couldn't possibly provide any evidence because none of the evidence ever reached the public. DNC never allowed FBI to investigate the servers, so all "evidence" you have are claims originating from CrowdStrike, a private company on DNC's payroll known for lies and manipulation.
- datashow 7y ago
  Can we really trust CIA and the "multiple U.S intelligence agencies" on this issue? I have no idea.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    Magic democraticly-elected-sovereign-leader-murdering 8-ball says: "No."
- fit2rule 7y ago
  I think the anti-Assange/anti-Trump clan are trying to get ahead of this story and positioning it as if it were another quid pro quo situation, which is insidious and duplicitous to say the least - because actually there are a lot of political hacks who are headed for deep embarrassment if Assange can demonstrate that, indeed, Russia was not behind the DNC leak which embarrassed Clinton and 'cost her the election'. Trump telling Assange "okay, so .. come out and tell the world that the DNC leaks weren't Russia-sourced and if you can provide evidence that this is true, I will pardon you" is not the same as Trump saying "cover up Russia's involvement in the DNC leak, and I'll pardon you" - but yet, the positioning in mainstream media so far (its only been a few hours) is definitely making it seem like the former. Until we can refer to the sources (you know, "avoid fake news by going to the source"), this should be treated as fake news either way. The hearing hasn't even ramped up yet and we are already knee-deep in Russiagate nonsense already.
  - jasonlotito 7y ago
    Looking at the sources, so far, the White House has already been found out to have lied in it's opening statement about this, and the OP here confused whether the Source was Russia and whether Russia was involved. Sure, need to hear more, but so far, with Rohrabacher admitting to working on this exact thing in 2017, it's more real than fake.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    In what world is this not a quid pro quo and political extortion of Assange? The president should not be involved and withholding a pardon to squeeze out political favors is not acceptable in any form.
    - eldude 7y ago
      Lol. “Withholding a pardon” likes it’s an entitlement and not granting it indicates corruption...
      - paulryanrogers 7y ago
        How about "dangling a pardon to squeeze out the desired response"?
- buckminster 7y ago
  > Can we get a transcript from what was said in court? In English courts transcriptions are prepared by a private company and you have no right to see them. You can ask but if you're not involved in the case they will probably refuse.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  >Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. That's wrong, and is spreading misinformation: - Julian Assange said that his source was not Russian Intelligence. - Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian. It's well known in the cybersecurity industry that the DNC email hacks performed by Guccifer 2.0 were Russian GRU.
  - AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
    > Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian. Julian Assange has also never stated that a "hack" took place to obtain this data.
    - three_seagrass 7y ago
      Which doesn't matter because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
      - AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
        What is this evidence you bring up, and where can we find it? If you have evidence - especially evidence that Assange himself doesn't have - by all means, share it. I am sure this would really help a lot of people understand an issue, about which the cyber-security industry has apparently reached a consensus.
        three_seagrass 7y ago
        Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.
- tree3 7y ago
  > Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. Which is a blatantly false statement.
- doe88 7y ago
  It's quid-pro-quo all over again, whether true or not, it didn't matter, there were only interested by a public statement from Assange.
- nsdfg 7y ago
  This story was broken by a tweet by SBS reporter Ben Lewis: "Julian Assange court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks." https://twitter.com/benlewismedia/status/1230172453185429505 https://twitter.com/benlewismedia/status/1230172453185429505
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    Some extra significance to this, as Ben Lewis yesterday also interviewed two Australian politicians (including a member of the government) who visited Assange and alluded to knowing this was coming, as part of their request for the UK to ignore the US extradition request and return Assange to Australia instead: "There is more the Australian government can do, and I think when we hear some of the stuff that's going to come to light next week, there's more that will be done," Mr Christensen said. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/leave-our-bloke-alone-australian-mps-call-for-government-to-support-julian-assange https://www.sbs.com.au/news/leave-our-bloke-alone-australian...
- nsdfg 7y ago
  Assange would have been asked to provide evidence the Russian government was not the source of DNC emails, and likely to turn over his source.
- crunchatized 7y ago
  It's true, as worded, it doesn't make any sense. What would make sense is that in August 2017, Rohrabacher wanted to strike a deal for actual, solid evidence that would debunk the idea that the Russian government hacked the DNC (and with it, the idea that Trump worked with Russia), rather than just take Assange's word on who the source was and wasn't. Since his goal is to save Trump's reputation, Assange's word isn't enough. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-make-deal-with-assange-to-disprove-russia-claims/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-ma... Of course Trump likely wasn't aware that Rohrabacher was trying to make this kind of deal at the time. Rohrabacher only spoke to Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who could have easily mentally filed their phone conversation directly in the trash, because the Trump administration was already busy secretly drafting up charges against Julian Assange at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-us-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikil...
inscionent 7y ago
"The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher" That old chestnut, again.
- nsdfg 7y ago
  "Dana Rohrabacher has been a great Congressman for his District" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1059317426653933568 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10593174266539335...
falcolas 7y ago
Seems perfectly reasonable. Torture, err, solitary confinement. Interrogate, err, coerce statement, err, offer a pardon in exchange for the statement they want to hear, err, for a truthful and honest statement. Imply that the torture, err, solitary confinement will continue if the honest statement is not made. Yup, all perfectly reasonable. /s
- 8note 7y ago
  it's the American way. tried and tested across all the colonies with the puppet dictators
- crunchatized 7y ago
  Rohrabacher visited Assange in August 2017, when this offer supposedly took place. [1] Assange wasn't placed in solitary confinement, a form of torture, until 2019, after he was arrested by UK authorities. Of course in 2017, he was being arbitrarily detained, [2] which while not torture, was a violation of his human rights, and had been ongoing since the Obama administration with no end in sight. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabacher.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rohrabacher-assange-says-russia-not-behind-dnc-email-leak https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabach... [2] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  You mean the enhanced interrogation for notable individuals? I hear it strengthens your lungs and keeps your skin hydrated, enhances your wakefulness, and provides abundant time for meditation.
_bxg1 7y ago
The level of brazen corruption this administration has been getting away with is absolutely staggering. At least when Nixon did it people had the decency to be upset. There's not even a pretense of integrity any more; this is the new normal. Our democracy is crumbling.
- ryanobjc 7y ago
  "Please dont talk about politics on hackernews" Channeling the site operators a bit for you. Remember that politics is things like "who should win or lose in society?" and "who is even human and deserves civil rights, or the right to vote?" Honestly it always seemed obvious to me that any hacker would see that "civil rights should belong to everyone" and "we should all strive to everyone can win" as not only tautologies but basic moral prerogatives. But I am so so sad to learn here on HN that may not be so. Either that or there is a ton of non-hackers here.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    This is even more basic than that, though. This is about the proper-functioning of a system. I think we can all agree that our democratic system is important and that individuals who undermine it for their own gain are doing something morally wrong. That's not a partisan issue (though somehow, in our current Congress, it has managed to become one).
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > I think we can all agree that our democratic system is important and that individuals who undermine it for their own gain are doing something morally wrong. That's not a partisan issue (though somehow, in our current Congress, it has managed to become one). Absolutely not - current events have shown quite clearly how many people want the system to be rigged, corrupt and brutal provided it does so in their favour. Or even just to promote their own side in the culture war. Breaking the law "to own the libs". Trump enjoys lockstep support in everything he does. The senate republicans support the lawbreaking, and their voters support them.
- 7y ago
ezoe 7y ago
Isn't the whole the struggles and fiascos are about the suspect of him doing rape or not? How could the totally unrelated email leaks be the reason to grant a pardon? This world is more rotten than you can ever imagine.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  > Isn't the whole the struggles and fiascos are about the suspect of him doing rape or not? Nope, those charges were dropped.
  - Traster 7y ago
    Is it the case that some of those charges passed the statute of limitations while Assange was hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy? I think "charges were dropped" is putting it a bit strongly.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      AFAICT Sweden refused to interview and indict Assange as long as he remained in the embassy. If that’s true then IMO “charges were dropped” isn’t putting it a bit strongly. Also AFAIK Swedish prosecutors wanted to drop these charges in 2013, but the UK prosecutors dissuaded them from doing do. Besides, not all of the Swedish charges hit statute of limitations.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - cperciva 7y ago
      I'm not familiar with Swedish law in this area (including whether it even exists -- not all states have statutes of limitations), but it would be quite remarkable to have a statute of limitations which didn't have an exception for fugitives.
      - ryanlol 7y ago
crunchatized 7y ago
> a witness statement by former U.S. Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher who had visited Assange in 2017, saying that he had been sent by the president to offer a pardon. > The pardon would come on the condition that Assange complied with the U.S. by saying that the Russians were not involved in the email leak which hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, Rohrabacher’s statement said. Rohrabacher's witness statement says that he made this offer on Trump's behalf with a condition attached. Rohrabacher's own statement in August 2017 says that Assange met that condition in that same 3 hour meeting: https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabacher.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rohrabacher-assange-says-russia-not-behind-dnc-email-leak https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabach... > Assange, said Rohrabacher, “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.” Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, is the only U.S. congressman to have visited the controversial figure. > The conversation ranged over many topics, said Rohrabacher, including the status of Wikileaks, which Assange maintains is vital to keeping Americans informed on matters hidden by their traditional media. The congressman plans to divulge more of what he found directly to President Trump.
shdh 7y ago
Rohrabacher talked about this in 2017: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-make-deal-with-assange-to-disprove-russia-claims/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-ma...
nsdfg 7y ago
Rohrabacher: "I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him." https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assa... https://web.archive.org/web/20200220001758/https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange https://web.archive.org/web/20200220001758/https://www.rohra...

151 points by hownottowrite 7y ago

This makes no sense. Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. From wikipedia [1]: On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[11] from winning the presidency.[12] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.[12] WikiLeaks did not reveal its source. Later Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, claimed that the source of the emails was not Russia.[13] Can we get a transcript from what was said in court? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...

stOneskull 7y ago
seems it's an easy pardon then
m0zg 7y ago
And it doubly makes no sense coming from _his lawyer_. To what end would they jeopardize his freedom by making such statements? I smell fake news.
- ccaleb 7y ago
  Here's a quote from Rohrabacher after visiting Assange in 2017: “When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him" Is it really that hard to believe?
  - m0zg 7y ago
    That's not what's being "reported" though. What's being reported is that "Trump promised a pardon if Assange says it's not from Russia". Notice how Russia or promise of a pardon does not come up in your Rohrabacher quote (which, BTW, I'd need to verify as well before I believe it). It's like I said "I'll call on Jeff Bezos to give you a million dollars if you vote in this election", without even specifying who I want you to vote for.
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      Good point. Somehow; "tell us who did this" is being reported as; "tell us the Russians did this" This is why the old-media cannot be trusted.
      - workaccountone 7y ago
        The article quotes Rohrabacher like I did. You're right it does not say "tell us the Russians did this". It's Assange's lawyer who's filling that part in.
        m0zg 7y ago
        As well as other parts. No promise was made, and no specific answer was requested. That "lawyer" (assuming they even said what's being "reported") is working for the DNC, which is trying really hard to get ahead of some extremely damaging revelation (such as, for example, that someone at the DNC leaked the info, which would completely demolish what remains of the "Russian collusion" narrative they rode on for 3 years). It makes zero sense otherwise for that lawyer to jeopardize Assange's "guaranteed" pardon.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sjg007 7y ago
His source may not have been Russia but that source may have gotten them from Russia.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Yeah I'm not convinced Assange would recognize or care to look hard enough to figure out if his source was a simple cut out.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? Is everyone in America to be considered a suspected Russian agent now? Because there is a scenario: Assange got the DNC leaks directly from someone in authority in the DNC, itself, knows the person, and knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.)
    - jasonlotito 7y ago
      I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        So, everyone in America is a potential Russian agent now? That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      Where did I say I can't fathom that situation for starters? From all indications from the DNC to the US Intelligence community it wasn't someone inside the DNC so absent any information from Assange/Wikileaks I have no reason to believe it's anyone else. Also we know from the War files that Wikileaks doesn't go through the documents provided to remove things like personal names to protect locals who did simple things like working as translators etc. so I'm not too convinced they'd look particular hard at exactly who was sending them the info.
supercanuck 7y ago
This administration has shown to be more concerned with optics than court arguments
nkozyra 7y ago
I'm not sure that would preclude Trump from making the offer - it's entirely possible he didn't know Assange had done this and/or wanted him to re-amplify the claim. There's also some wonky stuff in the original dispute from Assange and Craig Murray: > Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all. So ... why did they do it then? Seems like there would be an explanation. > “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. They did eventually indict Russians, of course, and Roger Stone's involvement has been a separate news item this week. edit: It is really interesting to see the downvoted comments here, many of which seem to be reasonable.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
caconym_ 7y ago
To be fair, Trump has a history of saying things that don't line up with reality (this is objective, apolitical fact), so it's not a stretch to think he might not have been aware of this. Or he might have wanted a repeat of the same statement in a different forum. Or it might be total bullshit. But given the events of recent days, it's hard to argue that it's not at least consistent.
booboolayla 7y ago
Assange hinted that Seth Rich was their source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... Combine that with Bill Binney's analysis that proves the data couldn't have possibly been downloaded over the internet but rather shipped on a USB: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/becdyc/nsa_whistleblower_bill_binney_says_2_sources/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/becdyc/nsa_whist...
- slg 7y ago
  Ok, so I watched some of that video and there is a comically simple explanation[1] that throws a wrench into Binney's "proof". All he knows is that the files were at one point saved using a FAT filesystem. He doesn't know specifically when that happened and if it was before, during, or after the documents were stolen. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=mwUoE8UecC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=mwUoE8UecC...
- ccaleb 7y ago
  The Seth Rich thing has been widely debunked multiple times (as I said, and provided evidence for in another comment). The Fox article pushing this has been debunked. Fox is being sued by the family. There is no evidence for this theory.
  - booboolayla 7y ago
    You couldn't possibly provide any evidence because none of the evidence ever reached the public. DNC never allowed FBI to investigate the servers, so all "evidence" you have are claims originating from CrowdStrike, a private company on DNC's payroll known for lies and manipulation.
datashow 7y ago
Can we really trust CIA and the "multiple U.S intelligence agencies" on this issue? I have no idea.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Magic democraticly-elected-sovereign-leader-murdering 8-ball says: "No."
fit2rule 7y ago
I think the anti-Assange/anti-Trump clan are trying to get ahead of this story and positioning it as if it were another quid pro quo situation, which is insidious and duplicitous to say the least - because actually there are a lot of political hacks who are headed for deep embarrassment if Assange can demonstrate that, indeed, Russia was not behind the DNC leak which embarrassed Clinton and 'cost her the election'. Trump telling Assange "okay, so .. come out and tell the world that the DNC leaks weren't Russia-sourced and if you can provide evidence that this is true, I will pardon you" is not the same as Trump saying "cover up Russia's involvement in the DNC leak, and I'll pardon you" - but yet, the positioning in mainstream media so far (its only been a few hours) is definitely making it seem like the former. Until we can refer to the sources (you know, "avoid fake news by going to the source"), this should be treated as fake news either way. The hearing hasn't even ramped up yet and we are already knee-deep in Russiagate nonsense already.
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  Looking at the sources, so far, the White House has already been found out to have lied in it's opening statement about this, and the OP here confused whether the Source was Russia and whether Russia was involved. Sure, need to hear more, but so far, with Rohrabacher admitting to working on this exact thing in 2017, it's more real than fake.
- jayd16 7y ago
  In what world is this not a quid pro quo and political extortion of Assange? The president should not be involved and withholding a pardon to squeeze out political favors is not acceptable in any form.
  - eldude 7y ago
    Lol. “Withholding a pardon” likes it’s an entitlement and not granting it indicates corruption...
    - paulryanrogers 7y ago
      How about "dangling a pardon to squeeze out the desired response"?
buckminster 7y ago
> Can we get a transcript from what was said in court? In English courts transcriptions are prepared by a private company and you have no right to see them. You can ask but if you're not involved in the case they will probably refuse.
three_seagrass 7y ago
>Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. That's wrong, and is spreading misinformation: - Julian Assange said that his source was not Russian Intelligence. - Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian. It's well known in the cybersecurity industry that the DNC email hacks performed by Guccifer 2.0 were Russian GRU.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  > Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian. Julian Assange has also never stated that a "hack" took place to obtain this data.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    Which doesn't matter because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    - AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
      What is this evidence you bring up, and where can we find it? If you have evidence - especially evidence that Assange himself doesn't have - by all means, share it. I am sure this would really help a lot of people understand an issue, about which the cyber-security industry has apparently reached a consensus.
      - three_seagrass 7y ago
        Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.
tree3 7y ago
> Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. Which is a blatantly false statement.
doe88 7y ago
It's quid-pro-quo all over again, whether true or not, it didn't matter, there were only interested by a public statement from Assange.
nsdfg 7y ago
This story was broken by a tweet by SBS reporter Ben Lewis: "Julian Assange court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks." https://twitter.com/benlewismedia/status/1230172453185429505 https://twitter.com/benlewismedia/status/1230172453185429505
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  Some extra significance to this, as Ben Lewis yesterday also interviewed two Australian politicians (including a member of the government) who visited Assange and alluded to knowing this was coming, as part of their request for the UK to ignore the US extradition request and return Assange to Australia instead: "There is more the Australian government can do, and I think when we hear some of the stuff that's going to come to light next week, there's more that will be done," Mr Christensen said. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/leave-our-bloke-alone-australian-mps-call-for-government-to-support-julian-assange https://www.sbs.com.au/news/leave-our-bloke-alone-australian...
nsdfg 7y ago
Assange would have been asked to provide evidence the Russian government was not the source of DNC emails, and likely to turn over his source.
crunchatized 7y ago
It's true, as worded, it doesn't make any sense. What would make sense is that in August 2017, Rohrabacher wanted to strike a deal for actual, solid evidence that would debunk the idea that the Russian government hacked the DNC (and with it, the idea that Trump worked with Russia), rather than just take Assange's word on who the source was and wasn't. Since his goal is to save Trump's reputation, Assange's word isn't enough. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-make-deal-with-assange-to-disprove-russia-claims/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-ma... Of course Trump likely wasn't aware that Rohrabacher was trying to make this kind of deal at the time. Rohrabacher only spoke to Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who could have easily mentally filed their phone conversation directly in the trash, because the Trump administration was already busy secretly drafting up charges against Julian Assange at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-us-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikil...

inscionent 7y ago

"The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher" That old chestnut, again.

nsdfg 7y ago
"Dana Rohrabacher has been a great Congressman for his District" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1059317426653933568 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10593174266539335...

falcolas 7y ago

Seems perfectly reasonable. Torture, err, solitary confinement. Interrogate, err, coerce statement, err, offer a pardon in exchange for the statement they want to hear, err, for a truthful and honest statement. Imply that the torture, err, solitary confinement will continue if the honest statement is not made. Yup, all perfectly reasonable. /s

8note 7y ago
it's the American way. tried and tested across all the colonies with the puppet dictators
crunchatized 7y ago
Rohrabacher visited Assange in August 2017, when this offer supposedly took place. [1] Assange wasn't placed in solitary confinement, a form of torture, until 2019, after he was arrested by UK authorities. Of course in 2017, he was being arbitrarily detained, [2] which while not torture, was a violation of his human rights, and had been ongoing since the Obama administration with no end in sight. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabacher.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rohrabacher-assange-says-russia-not-behind-dnc-email-leak https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabach... [2] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
ASalazarMX 7y ago
You mean the enhanced interrogation for notable individuals? I hear it strengthens your lungs and keeps your skin hydrated, enhances your wakefulness, and provides abundant time for meditation.

_bxg1 7y ago

The level of brazen corruption this administration has been getting away with is absolutely staggering. At least when Nixon did it people had the decency to be upset. There's not even a pretense of integrity any more; this is the new normal. Our democracy is crumbling.

ryanobjc 7y ago
"Please dont talk about politics on hackernews" Channeling the site operators a bit for you. Remember that politics is things like "who should win or lose in society?" and "who is even human and deserves civil rights, or the right to vote?" Honestly it always seemed obvious to me that any hacker would see that "civil rights should belong to everyone" and "we should all strive to everyone can win" as not only tautologies but basic moral prerogatives. But I am so so sad to learn here on HN that may not be so. Either that or there is a ton of non-hackers here.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  This is even more basic than that, though. This is about the proper-functioning of a system. I think we can all agree that our democratic system is important and that individuals who undermine it for their own gain are doing something morally wrong. That's not a partisan issue (though somehow, in our current Congress, it has managed to become one).
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > I think we can all agree that our democratic system is important and that individuals who undermine it for their own gain are doing something morally wrong. That's not a partisan issue (though somehow, in our current Congress, it has managed to become one). Absolutely not - current events have shown quite clearly how many people want the system to be rigged, corrupt and brutal provided it does so in their favour. Or even just to promote their own side in the culture war. Breaking the law "to own the libs". Trump enjoys lockstep support in everything he does. The senate republicans support the lawbreaking, and their voters support them.
7y ago

ezoe 7y ago

Isn't the whole the struggles and fiascos are about the suspect of him doing rape or not? How could the totally unrelated email leaks be the reason to grant a pardon? This world is more rotten than you can ever imagine.

ryanlol 7y ago
> Isn't the whole the struggles and fiascos are about the suspect of him doing rape or not? Nope, those charges were dropped.
- Traster 7y ago
  Is it the case that some of those charges passed the statute of limitations while Assange was hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy? I think "charges were dropped" is putting it a bit strongly.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    AFAICT Sweden refused to interview and indict Assange as long as he remained in the embassy. If that’s true then IMO “charges were dropped” isn’t putting it a bit strongly. Also AFAIK Swedish prosecutors wanted to drop these charges in 2013, but the UK prosecutors dissuaded them from doing do. Besides, not all of the Swedish charges hit statute of limitations.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - cperciva 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with Swedish law in this area (including whether it even exists -- not all states have statutes of limitations), but it would be quite remarkable to have a statute of limitations which didn't have an exception for fugitives.
    - ryanlol 7y ago

crunchatized 7y ago

> a witness statement by former U.S. Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher who had visited Assange in 2017, saying that he had been sent by the president to offer a pardon. > The pardon would come on the condition that Assange complied with the U.S. by saying that the Russians were not involved in the email leak which hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, Rohrabacher’s statement said. Rohrabacher's witness statement says that he made this offer on Trump's behalf with a condition attached. Rohrabacher's own statement in August 2017 says that Assange met that condition in that same 3 hour meeting: https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabacher.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rohrabacher-assange-says-russia-not-behind-dnc-email-leak https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabach... > Assange, said Rohrabacher, “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.” Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, is the only U.S. congressman to have visited the controversial figure. > The conversation ranged over many topics, said Rohrabacher, including the status of Wikileaks, which Assange maintains is vital to keeping Americans informed on matters hidden by their traditional media. The congressman plans to divulge more of what he found directly to President Trump.

shdh 7y ago

Rohrabacher talked about this in 2017: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-make-deal-with-assange-to-disprove-russia-claims/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-ma...

nsdfg 7y ago

Rohrabacher: "I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him." https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assa... https://web.archive.org/web/20200220001758/https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange https://web.archive.org/web/20200220001758/https://www.rohra...