world

WikiLeaks founder Assange says Russia hacking report was political document

23 Comments
By DEB RIECHMANN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

They are amateurish and are hardly worthy of the high professional standards of top intelligence agencies

Ain't that the truth.

But does it matter, Hillary supporters will of course claim that Assange is in on the big Russian conspiracy.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@bbush But does it matter, Hillary supporters will of course claim that Assange is in on the big Russian conspiracy.

Curious if you have any PROOF that Assange and the Russians were NOT in on this in some way. Are TASS and Nashia your sources?

Ain't that the truth.

Do you really mean 'that matches my opinion'. As you know opinion and truth don't always directly equate.

I think Assange has done good things, but I also think he's another self-serving individual who's no more trustworthy than those he's trying to expose. What's going on reminds me of spy vs spy vs spy in Mad Magazine. The difference is this is real.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

if you have any PROOF that Assange and the Russians were NOT in on this in some way

Ever heard about "innocent until proven guilty" concept? Then do YOU have ANY proof that Russians and Assange were in on this?

no more trustworthy than those he's trying to expose

Exellent description of the US intelligence with its hacking report.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Asakaze"Ever heard about "innocent until proven guilty" concept? Then do YOU have ANY proof that Russians and Assange were in on this?"

They believe in fairy tales of American folks being taken by Alien Visitors from Flying Saucers without ANY proof. LOL.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I have yet to see any proof of Russian involvement. I tend to believe Assange in this case, especially considering that Clapper had previously lied under oath when asked: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" ,

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I have yet to see any proof of Russian involvement.

I'm assuming you have yet to see the briefings from the intelligence agencies to the president as well. So your lack of having seen anything can hardly be considered exhaustive knowledge.

I tend to believe Assange in this case

Assange may very well be telling what he believes to be the truth, and may very well be incorrect about that truth. He's stuck in an embassy, he's not out there dealing with things first hand.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Do we even care what he says or thinks anymore? he has been out of circulation so long he is no longer relevant.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Interesting how the fringe right GOP has suddenly fallen in love with Assange. At the start of this decade Newt Gingrich called him an "enemy combatant". Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity derided the Obama administration for not dealing with Assange as a terrorist.

Putin, who was previously Lex Luthor, is now part of the Super Friends team.

One reason. These guys like Trump. Because they know he's a chump. And Trump doesn't like anyone suggesting that he's a massively unpopular president elect who doesn't know what he's doing. Why else would he avoid Q&A face time? Because the press is so unfair? Deal with it. Grow a pair a get off Twitter.

The GOP is going to have to get serious about forging a future that doesn't just revolve around whatever it is that makes the Donald happy, which seems to change from day to day. Case in point: Trump himself once called for WikiLeaks to receive the death penalty.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I'm assuming you have yet to see the briefings from the intelligence agencies to the president as well. So your lack of having seen anything can hardly be considered exhaustive knowledge.

That's right, just like I did not see the intelligence briefings regarding Saddam's WMDs, and we all know how that turned out.

He's stuck in an embassy, he's not out there dealing with things first hand.

he has been out of circulation so long he is no longer relevant.

Yeah, except that the hacked E-mails were handed over to Wikileaks; how much more first hand do you expect?

Seems they are making a big deal about Russia because to distract people from focusing on the actual content of the E-mails, which showed massive corruption. I am pretty sure the E-mails were leaked from inside the DNC.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That's right, just like I did not see the intelligence briefings regarding Saddam's WMDs, and we all know how that turned out.

I agree that the WMD thing was a travesty. But it has nothing to do with the fact that while you haven't seen the so called evidence, it does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

Yeah, except that the hacked E-mails were handed over to Wikileaks; how much more first hand do you expect?

If someone gave the evidence to someone else who gave the evidence who gave it to Wikileaks, it's not first-hand.

So I expect more than just being the recipient, I expect the recipient to have received them from the person who actually hacked them.

Seems they are making a big deal about Russia because to distract people from focusing on the actual content of the E-mails, which showed massive corruption.

Why would they need to - the election is over, Trump won, and even if it can be fully ascertained that Russia was the hackers, that's not going to suddenly make Trump not president. Unless something comes out to show Trump himself influenced the election in an illegal manner, he will be president. So there is no need to distract from it. However, if a foreign government has actively used hacking to influence the election, it would be something that any government should be concerned about, and not just along party lines.

So contrary to your claim, I'd suggest that you are using the contents of the emails to distract people from looking into the situation as it may show that a foreign government hacked the emails.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I don't think I can "trust" a man who is hiding in a foreign embassy because of a rape charge. If he was innocent he'd be trying to prove his innocence but no, he's just hiding out till the Swedish courts run out of time, which has already happened on the molestation charge.

Lets see 17 intelligence agencies, some foreign agencies or a lying sexual molester...no not Trump, Assange, which one should we believe?

Or do I believe a man who read Mein Kampf and thought Hitler was a very smart man, it was his favorite book. Ivana once said he kept a copy next to his bed. A man who believes that Putin a man who stole his fortune and doesn't allow his countrymen to have basic human rights? Ask yourself why Trump needed to have his supporters believe that MSM was all liars, so that when they reported the stupid, idiot things he does the Trumpetts all start shouting "fake news".

Now who should I believe...

Never thought I'd see America in such a pathetic state in my lifetime.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't think I can "trust" a man who is hiding in a foreign embassy because of a rape charge. If he was innocent he'd be trying to prove his innocence but no, he's just hiding out till the Swedish courts run out of time, which has already happened on the molestation charge.

That depends - he is of the opinion (and I'm inclined to agree) that he went to defend himself against that charge, he'd be extradited to the US where they want him for treason - possibly without even having the opportunity to defend himself on the rape charges.

If the Swedes really want him to go to Sweden to defend himself, they should provide a guarantee of non-extradition to the US.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I agree that the WMD thing was a travesty. But it has nothing to do with the fact that while you haven't seen the so called evidence, it does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

Indeed, it is possible that these known liars are now finally telling the truth. But I would rather wait for evidence, any evidence, that Russia was involved. They have lied too many times for me to blindly believe them.

But regardless, I think we should all focus on the contents of these hacked E-mails, since nobody is denying their validity.

Lets see 17 intelligence agencies...

Yeah, I have heard about these 17 intelligence agencies, as if they all independently came to the same conclusion. But it's just one guy, yes, the same Clapper who lied under oath, he oversees these 17 intelligence agencies, and he says that the Russians were involved (but provides no evidence).

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'll take Assange's word over current U.S. government agencies' word at this point.

Oh my! -

WIKILEAKS PROVES NSA, CIA WORKING FOR OBAMA: Press Conference Exposes ODNI Report :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiggIoKRrvw

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Just get this over with:

Assange to just provide a little bit of proof (but not enough to identify the source, if they even could - WikiLeaks is designed so that even WikiLeaks itself won't know the true source (i.e not 3rd party) if the true source wants to remain unknown)

Right now, no side is providing any good proofs

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Curious if you have any PROOF that Assange and the Russians were NOT in on this in some way.

Is that not a bit like asking for proof of the non-existence of invisible three-headed monsters?

Hillary supporters will of course claim that Assange is in on the big Russian conspiracy

True. And Trump supporters will claim the opposite. It's best not to believe anyone who shows enthusiastic support for any politician. Always vote, but vote reluctantly!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unfortunately for the 'The Intel is Settled' crowd, the NYT is now less than enthusiastic, and the NSA is less than confident.

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertcharles/2017/01/08/russia-did-not-throw-americas-election-n2268354

Russia Did NOT Throw America’s Election - Jan 08, 2017

... But frankly, this “Russia did it” story is wearing thin. So thin, that even the New York Times wrote this weekend: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: Hard evidence to back up the [intelligence] agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” adding: “That is a significant omission.” ... So, what should Americans note? Hard proof is still missing. The otherwise agitating New York Times admits this public report just combines old news with weak inferences: “The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises … from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James R. Clapper Jr., that he would ‘push the envelope’ to try to make more information public.” Nada. ...

... the National Security Agency (NSA), the obvious “go-to” on any foreign intrusion of an American email server, states it has less confidence in the public report’s conclusions than does CIA. That is curious. It almost seems a negative proof. If NSA cannot be “highly confident,” what right do others have to evince such high confidence? ...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How dumb Julian Assange was? Who the hell he thinks Russians will give him hacked document by themselves? Russian was not as dumb as Julian Assange rape charged. Russian has used him and he was licking Donald Trump's feet for mercy on him.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Chop Chop: Russian has used him

A British ex-ambassador has said he was given the DNC Papers from someone who was given them by a DNC insider who had legal access to them. Not from Russian hacking.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Well our conspiracy mongers certainly believe Assange. Obviously our Kremlin contributers love him and I'm sure they at least appreciate the irony of the American idiots agreeing with them. I'm trying to understand why Independent Republicans would cosy up to a creepy fella that hates the US but I guess since these posters are now Trump Republicans® , that actually suits them perfectly.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"British ex-ambassador"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dems loved Assange when he was embarrassing GW Bush and going after his war on terror. Now, not so much.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How about you Trump Republicans, Mr Wolf?

https://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/u-s-rejects-diplomatic-asylum-for-assange

Heh, both you and "serrano" seemed pretty anti-Assange. Until you weren't.

Me personally I find it nothing short of treason supporting this creep because the Trump Lord says so!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites