Assange leaked the DNC emails, hacked by Russian-controlled Guccifer 2.0, in weekly bundles as an effort to manipulate news headlines leading up to the November 2016 election.
I thought Assange never said who the source was.
upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/09/18/Assange-lawyer-Trump-offered-pardon-to-reveal-DNC-hack-source/3921600445120/
I can't figure out if you are arguing for- or against- Assange, but just in case people are interpreting it as the against-...
The email leak was exposing corruption in the DNC handling of Bernie Sanders' campaign. Particularly when the corruption being exposed was related to an ongoing election, it is easy to believe Wikileaks just released what they had ASAP without waiting for any particular time.
The emails didn't exist before the election and waiting until later is, from a neutral leakers point of view, kinda silly. It is not at all obvious Wikileaks acted partisanly.
Assange hints that the leaks may be from the DNC itself.
Recall that a DNC insider, Seth Rich, who worked on exposing election fraud during the Democratic party's primaries was murdered several days ago. There are undoubtedly others inside the DNC who are actually upright folks who may be the source of the leaks.
Here is where Julian Assange hints that the DNC itself may be the source of the leaks -- the "egg on their face" bit:
"Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are," Assange told CNN, speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
He basically says "if you knew the source of the leak, you'd be shocked because the people complaining the loudest about the leaks -- the DNC -- are the source. And I'm not going to say "Russia didn't do it" because it would help you narrow the list of potential sources of the hacked DNC info."
"Russia didn't do the hack but 'to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are'."
"And the people making a big fuss about 'the Russians did it!' will have "egg on their face" when they find out the DNC hack was an INSIDE JOB."
“on the program Democracy Now! on July 25 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[52][117] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..." [118]”
And he also did not request any specific answer. Someone at the DNC is trying _really_ hard to get ahead of damaging information about the DNC leak. If Assange reveals the source, and it's in the DNC itself, that would utterly destroy whatever remains of the "Russian collusion" narrative they worked hard to push for the last 3 years. So you can see why all the stops are being pulled here, and why they are trying to discredit Assange ahead of that.
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.
You've lost a lot of the nuance which is part of the complexity. Assange released emails stolen from the DNC and given to him by Russian intelligence. He also made the decision not to publish data from similar attacks on the RNC. By doing so, he either should have known or for sure did know that he was acting in the interest of Russia to interfere in American elections.
>Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers.
>A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”
>But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation.
>A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.
So the offer was made in 2017, meaning after the election, I guess under the probe in to Russian meddling.
It's really confusing then: If he know that he did not use Russia, acquiring that knowledge wouldn't help much since the next election is in 3 years, so it can't be used as a leverage, unless he wanted the information as an insurance to the probe being biased by DNC influence. If he did, why would he want to know the source? The only thing he would want to know if Assange have been contacted by democrat, or if that information were available to begin with.
Sure is a news that asks more question than it answers, and why was it even mentioned in a court in London?
There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party [1] and in a other interview has hinted that the source may be Seth Rich [2], a former DNC staff member that was murdered in Washington DC.
The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer.
Otherwise, it is ineuendo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Com...
reply