13 ms·

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. legisl

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...

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...