Interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange reiterated that his organization did not get any of the documents they leaked on Hillary Clinton’s campaign from any state actor, adding that “our source is not the Russian government and is not a state party.”
Assange said that protection of sources was of vital importance, and that he was loathe to provide any information that might identify them, adding that he didn’t want to say they were within the United States, nor that it was someone within the DNC, or that it was some vendor working for the DNC.
Rather, Assange said the only reason they’d gone so far as to confirm it was not a state actor was an attempt to try to ensure that the information was given the attention it deserved, and that the allegations about the sources were not a distraction.
Noting that the most recent administration report didn’t even mention WikiLeaks by name, Assange said he believes that the attempt is to “conflate our organization with hacking of US voting machines” by saying the Russians “hacked the vote,” adding that the voting machines weren’t hacked in the first place.
Assange went on to say he believed this selective mentioning of WikiLeaks in the course of constructing a narrative was because they “don’t have the evidence,” saying President Obama is “playing games” and speaking like a lawyer on the matter on the issue.
This, he said, was why the reports so often didn’t mention WikiLeaks, that the insinuation of them being involved in a Russian plot couldn’t be substantiated in any way. Rather, the efforts centered on insinuating that such a plot existed while avoiding direct accusations.
He went on to reiterate that everything WikiLeaks has published was “true information,” and while it is impossible to know whether or not it changed the outcome of the election, if it did it would be true information which changed the election. He added it would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to get such information and deliberately withhold it.
Asked whether this was “political,” Assange said that WikiLeaks’ agenda is not party-specific, but that they do have a strong agenda of interest in free information.
This was described as his “philosophical agenda,” saying he believes that the best government is one which is constantly scrutinized and for which factual information on their activities is available.
Assange noted in WikiLeaks’ 10 years there has never been even a serious allegation that any of its information was wrong, and that they’d never outed one of their sources. He also said there was not a single instance of anyone coming to harm on the basis of any of the information leaked
Addressing the question of withholding information to protect people, Assange insisted that WikiLeaks is different from most media outlets in this regard because they make it clear what is being withheld and why, and only temporarily in cases where someone’s safety might be at risk.
Assange insisted that redaction was inherently corrupting, and that a lot of media outlets end up using safety as an excuse for wholesale redaction of information to protect political figures.
On the comments in the editorial cartoon section of GoComics, the same liberals who used to cheer Wikileaks when it exposed Bush’s crimes in Iraq now say “What credibility does Wikileaks have?”
Evidence is not a factor in the political battles these vermin play.
And the ones who said “What credibility does WikiLeaks have?” when bush was exposed now cheer them on.
All you need to know is said in your name. “wars r u.s.”. Don’t hold out any hope in Trump being there for our antiwar side. This is likely nothing more than his vanity being preserved on how he won the pres job.
Granted, it’s serving our purpose short term and the media is keeping it alive. That’s good!
Trump is either going to have to backpedal it or something. The spooks are getting anxious, you can bet on that.
This kind of a situation is usually brought to an end when somebody gets whacked to save your country’s warring agenda. Very dangerous times!
luv from Canada.
WikiLeaks has a good reputation on not being wrong . Sorry I can’t say the same for US intelligence agencies .
Can’t have truth get in the way of the agenda. Nothing is going to cause the corrupt establishment in DC to change it’s tune. Maybe, just maybe, if Trump came out and said outright that he knows or has seen evidence that it wasn’t Russia. Trump should get himself briefed by Wikileaks people not by the corrupt liars from the “intelligence” community.
I was just looking at your comments on Discus Friendly Neighborhood Terrorist… You have a great way of writing… It’s not hateful, but humerous deconstructions of absurd positions, and hateful and bigoted attitudes.. Keep up your good and positively entertaining commentary… Aw.com needs more like you!!
Thanks, much appreciated. I also enjoy your comments and replies.
Trump told congress to get busy on Obama care and tax reform . After congress thought they first wanted to take power away from the ethnics committee . Congress evidently plans on doing a lot of unethical things like usually one party can do when they control all three branches of government . Trump should temporarily move the whole nation to Medicare for every one , Federal employees , congress and all . Until the republicans and democrats can come up with a improved Obama care plan . This a good affordable plan that every body says works good . This would allow employers to hire people with out fear that their insurance costs would be more than they are worth to the company .
Doing away with Obamacare without alternative is moronic and will hand Congress to Democrats in 2 years and the white house in 4.
I am curious how President Trump can get anything done with a corrupt Congress, corrupt Departments, corrupt Services, corrupt Senators, and corrupt Representatives. Presidential decrees have limits. Especially when it comes to budget and spending matters for which Congress has the veto.
He has to clean house of the toxic elements in government and replace those with people who are friendly to his agenda. Other institutions will have to be abolished. I think Trump having a word with the various federal institutions will get lots of people in line.
The Bush/Obama regimes have left plenty of precedent in place for the executive to act unilaterally.
Finally, it’s a matter of exercising authority. Trump won the election with a Congressional majority for his party. He has a mandate and now he has to put it into action. Congress has a perennially abysmal approval rating. The Republican party, as suicidal as it is, should not want Trump turning against them. I think he could make the life of lots of people pretty miserable with a couple of tweets.
Much as I dislike Fox News, it will be at least a little harder for our Government and the mainstream media to ignore this Fox News publication of Wikileaks’ denial of a Russian government source, than they have been doing with similar reports in this and other non-mainstream media. So good for Fox News on this story.
Why? This is not the first time Assange has denied getting the information from the Russians. I can remember at least 2 other times he unequivocally denied them as the source. And Hannity is perhaps one of the least respected of the Fox News banal air personalities.
Given that Fox News is probably the most popular (?) outlet of “news”, any positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange is all to the good. The American right wing is coming to distrust the corporate media as much as the left. Viva Assange!
I’m wondering why no one is asking Assange a question that begs to be asked:
Why did they leak only DNC documents? Surely there must be something “leakable” from the Republican side too. No political party is is totally clean.
This is what makes the whole thing sound a bit fishy I think.
Had they leaked documents from both sides, te whole thing would sound much more credible.
I feel Assange is being used as a political tool with promises of protection against be shipped off to Sweden. And the most likely “protectors” are the Russians.
Ergo, the Russian hacking allegation at least deserves proper investigation instead of categorical dismissal.
RS, Perhaps, first, WikiLeaks received no hacks or leaks from the Trump campaign (they are not a spying organization but publishers) and, second, Russia has no influence on the American satellites U.K. and Sweden regarding Assange.
Tony, its true Russia does not have any influence on US satellites UK and Sweden. But Russia DOES have a lot of influence (and its growing) on Latin American countries and that is one reason (among many others), why Ecuador has taken such a bold stand against the UK, etc by housing Assange.
(Recently, Medvedev hailed Ecuador as one of Russia’s “most important partners in Latin America”)
Interesting. Of course, the Correa administration owed a debt to WikiLeaks over one of its publications that exposed a USA fifth column in that country some years ago.
—–
Why did they leak only DNC documents? Surely there must be something “leakable” from the Republican side too. No political party is is totally clean.
—–
Wikileaks can only leak things that Wikileaks HAS. Do you have any information suggesting that Wikileaks came into possession of damaging information on the GOP/Trump and refrained from leaking it?
Maybe but maybe not, it’s not the issue. It’s not Wikileaks’ agenda to destroy Trump. Wikileaks had obviously bought into destroying Clinton’s chances. And that’s not saying that was a bad thing to do.
The other distinct possibility is that Wikileaks wanted to promote Trump’s chances because Assange bought into Trump’s suggestion of friendly relations with Russia. Which incidentally, I still doubt will go anywhere, for various reasons.
And besides that Thomas, the Russians could have been involved. It would be surprising if they weren’t but come to understand that doesn’t make a lick of difference. None of should be buying into the hate propaganda against the Russians on this when it’s very obvious to both of us that the US has been doing the same thing to the Russians ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Some of us are far above this kind of bullsh-t Thomas, even though the politicians and the American people buy into it. Get it?
Is there some reason people automatically trust Assange’s word?
Anyone recall this?
In October 2010, Assange told a major Moscow newspaper that “The Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia”.[237][238] Assange later clarified: “we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It’s not right to say there’s going to be a particular focus on Russia”.[239]
“Is there some reason people automatically trust Assange’s word?”
It’s not automatic, it’s based on past performance. The next time Wikileaks gets caught lying about the provenance or content of a document will be the first time.
True, but it’s more that Wikileaks in this case is trusted much more than the alternative.
The alternative that has been caught redhanded lying so many times.
That would be, the US, to make it clear to you and the others and not Obama.
Remember! Both parties and probably about 90% of the American people are sold on Putin/Russia hate. Obama can’t be blamed for that can he!
You just can’t seem to keep yourself from making up numbers when real ones are available. The last poll I saw (Rasmussen, IIRC) said that 62% of Americans have a view of Russia that is on the unfavorable side of neutral, and the bulk of that was “somewhat unfavorable,” not “Putin/Russia hate.”
I could be wrong and I hope I am. But I’m certainly not going to trust any poll that has US interests as their first priority. Prove me wrong. Or just wait until the pro-war side wins the hearts and minds. Be that by a diversion of some sort or by a Tonkin incident or by a claimed Russian kill on an american. This is so big that it’s too big to lose for the warmongers.
And something else, you might have some feelings about. Both political sides are pro-war and that which a lot of people are seeing and calling a switching of the priorities of the sides is not that. Both sides are now warmongers, while it used to be mostly the R side. Trump’s pro-war attitude is well documented and that leopard hasn’t changed his stripes. That leaves us the conclusion that his vanity is what’s at stake on how he won the election. Get that?
In any case, just to make it public for those few who are capable of understanding. And of course, who the hell cares “why” he is taking what appears to be an antiwar stance. He just is right now and well better than half your country, as well as your spooks, are shi–ing their pants over it.
The sentiments of Americans who are sympathetic to Trump on Russia is not the same as what your poll reflects on ‘favourability with Russia’. It’s only reflective of supporting Trump at this particular time. This is really very soft support because we both know that Americans just don’t like Russia. And especially so when it’s the lowlife scum of the earth that support Trump. Keep that in mind because it’s going to open up a contradiction in your position if you’re not careful.
luv from Canada.
“The sentiments of Americans who are sympathetic to Trump on Russia is not the same as what your poll reflects on ‘favourability with Russia’. It’s only reflective of supporting Trump at this particular time.”
Actually, Russia’s favorability is lately is down, not up — just not nearly as low as you claim. It wasn’t even as low as you claim it is now during the early Reagan era.
Your complete incorrectness on this matter can’t be written down to you being a Canadian who doesn’t understand Americans. Even a Canadian chauvinist can presumably use a search engine and read numbers.
Oddly, you leave out what happened AFTER Assange said that in October of 2010.
What happened after that is that:
1) Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta announced that it had received a trove of Russian regime documents from Wikileaks and would begin publishing juicy stuff from them in January of 2011.
2) An organization calling itself “Ruleaks” began translating Wikileaks documents that bore on Russia into Russian. The biggest splash they seem to have made was exposing some of Putin’s luxurious lifestyle, e.g. his palatial estate in Praskoveevka.
3) Wikileaks itself published English documents that bore on Gazprom and other Russian state industries.
So yeah, Assange said some stuff on Russia was coming. And then some stuff on Russia came.
You mean, it’s not the first time the US has tried to suggest that Assange got information from the Russians?
But you’re right about Hannity but even so, he did a good job because of his agenda and not any interest in promoting friendly relations with Russia. He’ll go completely rabid and frothing at the mouth on that in the near future.
I had the idea that wiki leaks didn’t have knowledge of who their sources were -by design of their own software architecture.
Unlike the MSM, it is my understanding that wikileaks, at a minimum, determine that the source is in a position to have access to the information increasing the possibility that the information is valid.
Because you can’t get over the idea that it was Putin/Russia? LOL
luv from Canada.
If Assange and Trump are correct then there is only one possible inference namely that all US Intelligence Agencies are utterly incompetent and also stupid to air conclusions which can be so easily shown to be untrue concoctions.
Furthermore, President Trump must step in immediately and clean this Augias stable before it can seriously damage our nation. For openers, the Director CIA must be fired and replaced on January 21.
More like sold out to the NWO cabal of preditors. Everywhere I look I see Murder,
It’s just a fact that people who see colour/race instead of seeing human beings, are saying a lot about themselves. You should learn how to conceal it better and then at least try.
You seem to have something to say and that doesn’t need to be corrupted and negated with that kind of rhetoric. Not all people accept it and so it takes away from your message.
And as well, it should be stomped upon by the moderators on this site. It just doesn’t belong in decent company.
How’s that for a responsible and decent way of dealing with it Thomas?
What world are you living in dieter? Don’t you understand that the US concocts it’s own intelligence to suit it’s own purposes. Accept the well known truth on how they did it for the Iraq war and accept that they are doing the same for Syria and Iran. Only failing in the last two because of Russia’s involvement.
This has absolutely nothing to do with incompetence, the US intelligence agencies are fully as competent as any country’s. This is all about manufactured propaganda in order to justify hate against Russia.
luv from Canada.
It seems that no matter how grossly transparent the lies that our governmental and political organizations disseminate are, their constant repetition by our corporate media seems to convince most of our fellow citizens of their validity. I recall that, in 2003, our corporate media presstitutes became so tired of endlessly repeating “weapons of mass destruction” that they were able to shorten it to WMDs. The ludicrous tale of the hacked Vermont electrical system was trumpeted loudly and repeatedly, the “retraction” was absorbed by few.
December 28, 2016 Election hacks traced back to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security
In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state’s electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political ploy.
http://www.newstarget.com/2016-12-28-election-hacks-traced-back-to-obamas-department-of-homeland-security.html
Assange had interesting things to say about Obama’s accusations. He points out the lawyerese language which uses techniques of suggesting a lot of things without actually saying them. That means it’s always worth scrutinizing what the accusations actually say because that may be much less than what is made of it.
About ‘lawyerly language’, notice that Assange states that the information did not come from a ‘state party’, i.e. offically from a state party as opposed to excluding ‘an individual within the state party’. This does not exclude the possibility that the information came from an individual within a state party such as the DNC, or an individual with allowed access to a state party’s records, e.g., a contractor, acting on their own volition.
Neatly done … and tells us it was at least two of the three possibilities.
” he was loathe to provide any information that might identify them, adding that he didn’t want to say they were within the United States, nor that it was someone within the DNC, or that it was some vendor working for the DNC.”
Well, the words are cautiously chosen, but I see it as a different thing, a different aspect of lawyer speak. There is no intent to deceive, only the intent to avoid disclosing more than absoilutely needed.
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. There is no intent to deceive, the intent is to hint/reveal by the negation of selective inclusion.
Rather like a litotes … an assertion by negation of the contrary, a characteristic of diplomatic-speak.
The negation of selective inclusion is another description of deceiving. Don’t be afraid of acknowledging an agenda. Especially when Wikileaks’ agenda is admirable. This is not something that has to be told to the American people. They are propagandized past the point of being able to understand it. Being truthful on this site is not going to spill any beans so don’t worry about acting like it will.
Also notice that before the election nearly everybody was refusing to acknowledge that they were Trump supporters. Now all those same people are coming out and making it obvious that they supported Trump all along. Not a big deal but funny in a way!
Actually, in this instance it’s likely that Assange did intend to deceive when he said Wikileaks agenda is not party specific. It likely was in this case because destroying Clinton’s chances would likely fall in line with his agenda. That is, if he took Trump seriously on the ‘better relations with Russia’ issue.
Wikileaks has an agenda of course and it’s only acting grownup to be able to acknowledge it.
With both the political parties against friendly relations with the Russians, as well as about 90% of the people, it’s going to take a lot to break through US hate propaganda. If Trump can hang in there then there’s hope. At this point it’s completely immaterial whether Russis did it or not. Everyone should know that the US has been doing the same for years.
luv from Canada.
Wasn’t trump supposed to release his secret hacking information yesterday or today? And Justin was crowing about it? What happened with that? Anyone know?
In 2010 Assange was supposed to release ‘very damaging’ information on Russian government. Then he didn’t do so. Why didn’t he?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/30/moscows-bid-to-blow-up-wikileaks-russians-play-by-different-rules.html
They should elect Assange in Australian Parliament so he may enjoy the immunity from the persecution. It is shame that the public can’t protect this great man.
Thank you dearly, Jason, for saving me from the indignity of having to watch that dreadful gas-bag’s show to get this information. One of my least favorite people interviewing one of my favorites. May you live in interesting times, indeed?
You should have watched it and beared it. There’s no way Jason’s analysis can do it justice.
Not for me and I’m thinking that probably not for you either. The break in the video when Hannity tried to get Assange to go along with his agenda was the most interesting and informative of the whole thing.
luv from Canada.