"Not Russia." WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Ready to Reveal Proof Russia Didn’t Hack the DNC

[nikcers]

failed

to

deliver



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/


I trust him 1,000,000 times more than I would ever trust anything from you.

I think he was compromised last year- there's a good chance that they are using him to threaten Russia with material compromising to their government. Either that or they are just targeting him, but I think if they were going to target him it would of been last year during the election.

 

[jllundqu]

failed

to

deliver



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/


I trust him 1,000,000 times more than I would ever trust anything from you.

Awwww.... did I hurt your feewings?

Wikileaks is an interesting case. Julian's motives are what I question. Everything he does must be looked at through the lens of someone who is a political prisoner who would do anything to 'be released.' That's all he wants, is his freedom, and he will broker whatever info he can to get it.

Don't take shit so personal.

 

[UWDude]

Awwww.... did I hurt your feewings?

No, sorry. I lololololol'ed because of how devoid of reality your statements here are.

Julian's motives are what I question.

You question everybodies motives, which is not exactly bad, but it certainly does not mean you are right.

Everything he does must be looked at through the lens of someone who is a political prisoner who would do anything to 'be released.' That's all he wants, is his freedom, .

If all he wanted was his freedom, he would have never risked it by becoming the spokesman for wikileaks. Get a grip.

 

[goldenequity]

Charles C. Johnson who set up Assange meeting refuses to cooperate with Senate intelligence probe
http://archive.is/858Tw

"I'm absolutely not" going to cooperate with the committee, Charles C. Johnson said in an interview after returning from London,
where he had set up a meeting this week between Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

"They're going to have to subpoena me and then they'll be sorely disappointed,"

Johnson said he and Rohrabacher came back from their meeting
with a specific proposal:


Grant a preemptive pardon to Assange (who has been under Justice Department investigation for years, although he has never been charged)
and the WikiLeaks founder would, in exchange,
turn over "irrefutable" evidence that he didn't get the Democratic National Committee emails from Russia, but from another source.

Assange wants to have a deal with the president," Johnson said.
"He believes he should be pardoned in the same way that Chelsea Manning was pardoned."
Once Assange turns his evidence over, showing the Russians were not the source of the DNC emails,
then the "president could put the kibosh" on the whole Russia investigation
being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Johnson declined to say what Assange's supposed evidence actually is (though he did say it did not include any documents).
But he insisted he has spoken to unidentified figures in the White House
who have told him the president wants to hear the proposal.

"I know the president is interested in this," he said. "There will be a meeting between Rep. Rohrabacher and President Trump."

A spokesman for Rohrabacher confirmed that Johnson had arranged the meeting between the congressman and Assange.
"My understanding is that there is not yet a concrete proposal,
but that Dana does believe that if Assange does turn over the proof he's promised,
then he deserves a pardon," the spokesman said.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Grant a preemptive pardon to Assange (who has been under Justice Department investigation for years, although he has never been charged)
and the WikiLeaks founder would, in exchange,

turn over "irrefutable" evidence that he didn't get the Democratic National Committee emails from Russia, but from another source.

Does not rule out the possibility that they did come from Russia but were given to Wikileaks by an intermediary who was not a Russian. Assange has made similar statements in the past.

Back in March: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/index.html

"Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no," Assange told anchor Sean Hannity from his quarters at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived under diplomatic protection since 2012.

"He believes he should be pardoned in the same way that Chelsea Manning was pardoned."

Manning wasn't pardoned- according to Assange. He had his sentence commuted. If Manning was actually pardoned, Assange had promised he would turn himself over to the United States. To get the exact same treatment, Assange would have to be tried and sent to US prison and then later have his sentence commuted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...or-us-if-chelsea-manning-pardon-a7551821.html

Mr Assange said last September that he would surrender to US authorities if Ms Manning was pardoned by Barack Obama – something the former President effectively granted in his final days in office by commuting the sentence from 35 years to just over seven years, the majority of which Manning had already served.

 

[acptulsa]

Does not rule out the possibility that they did come from Russia but were given to Wikileaks by an intermediary who was not a Russian. Assange has made similar statements in the past.

Back in March: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/index.html

Back in March. Whatever. Wikileaks has, since then, stated unequivocally that the information came not from surveillance by a foreign power, but was leaked by an insider within the DNC.

You can admit the information was leaked by a DNC insider. Or you can accuse Wikileaks officials of lying when they said a DNC insider leaked the information. But you can't say--at least not with a straight face--that the Russians leaked their surveillance recordings of the DNC to a DNC insider, who then passed them along to Wikileaks.

So you're the new Zippy trainee, eh? Well, you're not in the frying pan any more. Welcome to the fire. Don't worry that you're half-baked. We're here to finish the job.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Back in March. Whatever. Wikileaks has, since then, stated unequivocally that the information came not from surveillance by a foreign power, but was leaked by an insider within the DNC.

You can admit the information was leaked by a DNC insider. Or you can accuse Wikileaks officials of lying when they said a DNC insider leaked the information. But you can't say--at least not with a straight face--that the Russians leaked their surveillance recordings of the DNC to a DNC insider, who then passed them along to Wikileaks.

Link to Assange claiming his source was a DNC insider?

 

[acptulsa]

Link to Assange claiming his source was a DNC insider?

Who claimed Assange personally said that?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Who claimed Assange personally said that?

What about a quote from Wikileaks officials making the claim?

Or you can accuse Wikileaks officials of lying when they said a DNC insider leaked the information.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, truth be known, I don't know how official Murray's position in Wikileaks is. But, as Zippy I seemed to be a Brit, maybe you'll take the Daily Mail's word for it that he's credible to speak for the entity.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4qE2VzVky

If not, there are dozens of other sources for this story for you to choose from. I know you know how to use a search engine...

 

[Zippyjuan]

Daily Mail is a tabloid rag which publishes a lot of unreliable information. They like "click bait" stories.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Daily Mail is a tabloid rag which publishes a lot of unreliable information.

Zippyjuan is a tabloid rag which publishes a lot of unreliable information.

 

[Raginfridus]

At this point, I'm convinced that the best thing for the people of this planet is a world wide EMP. Shut off all electronic forms of communication. This is the only salvation for humans. At that point we'd all have to go outside and talk to our neighbors and realize that they're not bad people.

Do patients need to die, planes fall from the sky, just to learn our neighbors aren't the Klopeks? I need Operation Mayhem to wait just a couple more years, so I can actually prep and get across the Mississippi.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Zippyjuan is a tabloid rag which publishes a lot of unreliable information.

According to Wikileaks: https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/...734602494994/1411888948846213/?type=3&theater

"Julian Assange does not speak through third parties. Only statements issued directly by him or his lawyers can be considered authoritative. "

 

[acptulsa]

Daily Mail is a tabloid rag which publishes a lot of unreliable information. They like "click bait" stories.

The Sun, the Wasington Examiner, the Washington Times, Newsweek and Rupert Murdoch all found that story credible enough to carry. And apparently the FBI lends it some credence too, as all manner of sources from the New York Times down have not only quit the Russia narrative cold turkey, but covered the FBI's renewed investigation into where that information came from.

 

[amartin315]

The Sun, the Wasington Examiner, the Washington Times, Newsweek and Rupert Murdoch all found that story credible enough to carry. And apparently the FBI lends it some credence too, as all manner of sources from the New York Times down have not only quit the Russia narrative cold turkey, but covered the FBI's renewed investigation into where that information came from.

yes, but with proof can we make the russian sanctions go away?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Sun, the Wasington Examiner, the Washington Times, Newsweek and Rupert Murdoch all found that story credible enough to carry. And apparently the FBI lends it some credence too, as all manner of sources from the New York Times down have not only quit the Russia narrative cold turkey, but covered the FBI's renewed investigation into where that information came from.

Sun and Washington Examiner also click bait. Even the Daily Mail noted:

[Murray’s] links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by WikiLeaks since reports surfaced that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

 

[acptulsa]

yes, but with proof can we make the russian sanctions go away?

No. But a billion dollar moneybomb might rent enough K Street lobbyists--and give them enough 'grease'--to do the job...

 

[goldenequity]