Breaking: Assange Emerges to Confirm Russia Was NOT the Source of DNC/Podesta Leak

a reply to: anonentity

Agree. Sure sounded like him though, but I guess that's easy enough to accomplish, and they might have even had an actor preparing for years..

Why has he not provided the proof of life that everyone's been asking for? Even that findjuilian.com or whatever it was, appears to have been some sort of ruse who's "proof of life" youtube video is gone.

They then said they were satisfied that they alone had been provided with proof of life (which isn't provided).

They also seemed to know about the interview in advance...

There's nothing though to prove that he's alive, except the voice of someone who sounds just like him, and appears to think like him, very authentically, but that's still possible.

He probably fears being shot if he makes that kind of appearance. He's really trapped.

Also, all of the people involved with WikiLeaks, then again, it was always really just him, but any other people who are close - they would all have to be compromised also, to have said - stop bugging us for proof of life.

Nevertheless, it still hasn't been forthcoming as of yet.


As to the telecommunications, it's pretty good now. But why is it that he can make calls from a phone but has no Internet connection? Don't they have Wifi at the Embassy?

If Assange is dead or gone we'll know soon. He must have visits to the embassy from his associates, right?

a reply to: thepixelpusher

All we need is a vid of him holding up a newspaper with the date on it with something that will also place him, by someone who knows him.

You're right, how hard can it be?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork
Anyone aware if Assange regular visits by someone?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Obviously something like this is going on. We still haven't seen Julian just come out and wave from the balcony. If something was going down with regards to the interview, I surmised that Hannity would have had to been in the loop'' So I googled Is Hannity a CIA shill"? I got a page up that said Obrien and Hannity were Cia stooges, with a link to Wikipedia operation mocking bird. So I copied the page to post here...but when I checked the preview after doing it three times all I got was a 404 error. So go figure.

I'm pretty sure if I was him I'd avoid sticking my head out the embassy. Just takes one random sniper to take you out. And I wouldn't put it past people because I grantee that embassy is under servalance because they want to make sure h doesn't sneak off.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Kettu

Hey you cut off a bit.

On Sean Hannity’s radio show, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that hacked Democratic documents sent to reporters at Gawker and The Hill may have come from Russia. But, he said, he is confident the emails he received did not come from the same source.

Ahhhhh, that was purrrrrty!

a reply to: jhn7537

Fake news disinformation campaign, with Podesta and Obama, and Clinton, and the MSM all "leading with the chin", in Podesta's case, pointed at the FBI tp get in line with the "consensus" which could be a trumped up (pun intended) canard or whatever you want to call it, who's aim it is to accomplish a whole host of things, while Julian Assange sits comfortably at the Embassy (without Internet access?) on some new deadman switch key that he only recently created in the midst of these leaks.

He's playing it very VERY cautiously.

I spend my life talking with people on the phone, and if that wasn't Julian Assange I would eat my hat.

The key question that Hannity didn't ask Assange however, was whether BOTH the DNC AND Podesta emails came from the same source. I'd sure like to know that. Changes things, and makes Podesta's attack on the FBI take on new significance, imo.

Imagine if Hillary would of won, it's like living in parallel universes. We would of never heard the term fake news Obama wouldn't dare accuse Russia without evidence. Hell even wikileaks is asking Obama for proof, Jan 20th can't come soon enough this is getting completely out of hand. I'm glad Putin knows the American people aren't his enemy or the world as we know it would be in serious trouble. Though he's got to be getting pretty frustrated at this point, nah I'm pretty sure he sees it as it is. A pathetic desperate attempt by the DNC to continue it's reign. They have to realize they are committing political suicide for future elections, they are putting all their chips on the stupidity of the masses which is backfiring horribly. I have never seen so many people change from democrat to republican over this nonsense.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Of course Rich wasn't the source because if he was, Assange would come right out and say it. If the source has been assassinated,

No JA said he will not reveal his sources either dead nor alive..

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: curme
Assange is one sketchy dude. He said he didn't release anything on Trump because it wasn't "interesting". Who made him the arbitrator of what is interesting or not?

He has definitely picked a horse in this race, and I bet someone picked it for him.

There's too much logic in your post.

It'll never be accepted by the Assange posse.

Did not release stuff on Trump because he has not been given anything to leak on him. Thats what he said himself..

Dont worry Anna I have all the evidence you need here that is was the Russians..

I recognize that. It's written on Hillarys stationary!

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
If Assange is dead or gone we'll know soon. He must have visits to the embassy from his associates, right?

There was a story a while back...
Pamela Anderson used to deliver food to him personally...at the embassy.
There was talk of him getting sick and the discussion morphed into PA gave him the food that made him sick...?


should I dig it up?

This video proves to me that JA is dead. Now they are going to bastardize his legacy, just as they do with all whistleblowers. If Russia did provide a means to hack and ended up exposing this satanic pedo stuff, along with election rigging, then it is more patriotic than the ctrl-left is.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Let's just ignore the sketchy debacle that is Wikleaks communication regarding these two leaks.

You've got Assange/WL offering a $20k reward for information about the murder of Seth Rich. Assange/WL is obviously aware that millions of people were implying from that action that Seth Rich had been the source.

Assange has been more than happy to let people believe that.

Of course Rich wasn't the source because if he was, Assange would come right out and say it. If the source has been assassinated, the math would have changed considerably. The primary reasons for protecting the source (life and liberty) would no longer apply at that point and WL's obligation to make it known in no uncertain terms that the source had been murdered would outweigh lesser concerns like reputation.

Then you've got Craig Murray saying that the he's met the source, that the source is a DC insider and that he discovered the source at the John Adam's Awards held in DC at the end of September. To listen to Murray, he has Assange's confidence (except the whole "discover" thing). That rules out Seth Rich because Seth Rich was murdered in July. Assange doesn't confirm anything Murray says but Wikileaks tweets links to Craig Murray making statements on his website.

Deliberately muddying the water and opportunistically using the murder of Seth Rich to do it?

Another interesting thing is that Assange (and Murray for that matter) seems to be confirmating a single source — "the source" — for both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails. Podesta's email was on gmail. Unless Podesta gave the emails to WL, the Podesta emails are by definition material gained from a hack.

Podesta's emails were obtained from his cell phone that he left in a taxi. Old hat.

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

So the real question, was the leaks good for the country or bad?

I'm sure the leaks would have been moot if those emails didn't have what they had in them...seems no one wants to talk about the real issue of just what was in those emails in the first place. Also, who is to say that both parties didn't have hack attempts on them and only the democrat's one was successful.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Greggers
The CIA and FBI traced the hacks to Russia. They have said so. They have access to our network and can analyze the hack from our end. Assange has access to none of this.

that is true. Assange does have the source that handed him the data. He says it's not from Russia but from inside the US government. Which follows perfectly with some of the earlier reports that were given.

But even if it was Russia, can you explain what was released? Can you explain what sensitive information came out that could have effected the election?

If that information is the Podesta e-mails, then aren't they factually accurate? And if that's the case, what crime was committed here?

I'd honestly love to have someone with integrity discuss this, and you are one of the few on the left.

Does anyone remember when Wikileaks released CIA cables that said if Trump won they would blame it on a Russian Hack months before the election? This was like widely talked about on ATS, it was even front page material.

The podesta emails weren't hacked, they were obtained old hat, John lost his phone in a taxi, this was the source of the Podesta dump. Unless Russia sent an operative in disguise to drive his taxi and somehow slight of hand his phone from the front seat, it has nothing to do with Russia.

We already knew the Russian narrative would be used, and it is being used. When someone tells you "If A->Then B" and then you literally see it happen, if you believe it after being told how it would play out -- you're not using your brain.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

So the real question, was the leaks good for the country or bad?

I'm sure the leaks would have been moot if those emails didn't have what they had in them...seems no one wants to talk about the real issue of just what was in those emails in the first place. Also, who is to say that both parties didn't have hack attempts on them and only the democrat's one was successful.

Well the truth is, it doesn't even matter. This is how the Logic tracks -- they say Russia was behind the hack, and the details within the hack is what swayed the election. The details aren't being refuted. So therefor; Russia influenced the election -- but that's not true. The criminal actions of the DNC are what swayed the election -- it doesn't matter WHO revealed that information. If it was an American hack, would the election "stand" and be deemed acceptable?

It's clear that they are trying to steal the election by using a scape goat, which has absolutely nothing to do with the information in question.

To put it another way -- it honestly matters NONE the source, and only the actual information. They want to throw away an honest election result because they got caught doing illegal stuff that hurt their party's chance of winning that election. If they weren't doing illegal stuff, than the hack would have zero influence.

They are shifting the blame, that's all this is.

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

I have not seen one shred of proof that Russia is behind the hacks. Just because you want something to be true really really bad deos not make it true.

well, why would you believe it?....after all, it's agreed upon by all the American intelligence agencies, and of course, since you are a trump voter, you believe nothing but what comes out of trumps mouth...your butt buddy Putin never lies

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

I have not seen one shred of proof that Russia is behind the hacks. Just because you want something to be true really really bad deos not make it true.

well, why would you believe it?....after all, it's agreed upon by all the American intelligence agencies, and of course, since you are a trump voter, you believe nothing but what comes out of trumps mouth...your butt buddy Putin never lies

Really?

Which agencies and more importantly which employees of those agencies is willing to come forth and say this publicly?

Yeah, I thought so...

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

I have not seen one shred of proof that Russia is behind the hacks. Just because you want something to be true really really bad deos not make it true.

well, why would you believe it?....after all, it's agreed upon by all the American intelligence agencies, and of course, since you are a trump voter, you believe nothing but what comes out of trumps mouth...your butt buddy Putin never lies

What are these "American Intelligence Agencies"?

The CIA and the FBI? First of all, the FBI said Hillary was guilty, but eh -- she's above the law. The CIA's mission statement has been to obfuscate the truth to American Citizens. The CIA brought us mind control experiments used on American Citizens against their will. They also say Russia is behind the hack, but have offered up no actual proof. There is no Data to back the claim.

I'm not a trump voter. I didn't vote because neither potential candidate was worthy IMO. That has nothing to do with what is happening right now. The FBI is not an intelligence agency, they are just Police with a nationwide jurisdiction, they are Federal Police, who actively let powerful criminals skate.



I mean, when a CIA director comes out and says;

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

Can you trust them without proof? Can you trust that same organization if they present proof? I know I couldn't, I'd just think they manufactured it.

Come on. This has nothing to do with believing trump, and everything to do with them not providing evidence. More over, again -- even if they did provide evidence, it still doesn't invalidate the election, because the Hack itself isn't what swayed the election, it was the TRUTHFUL information revealed by the hack that did. So if the DNC wasn't doing criminal things to support their criminal candidate, the hack would have had no effect on their standing in the election.

Now if it was a FAKE hack, and the emails were made up and falsified to ruin the DNC's chances of winning, that would be interfering with the election. Spreading the news that a Candidate is a criminal is patriotic, not voting for that candidate because they are a criminal, is also patriotic. If it was leaked by an American, then they couldn't say it was "Influenced" by a foreign party, but it still wouldn't change anything. The truth is, Podesta lost his phone, and the emails were hacked from his physical phone. This means a majority of the leaked information definitively came from an Amertican source, unless you want to believe Putin sent operatives over to the US to steal Podesta's phone.

Then I think you're just a crazy person if you believe that.

I ask you this -- are we supposed to ignore the crimes we're now privy to because of the leak, because of the leaks source? Do we let the criminals skate? More over -- let them assume the highest military position in the world, knowing that they are criminals? Hillary cannot be president. If Trump is not president, it will be another republican chosen -- and if that happens, it couldn't be any more clear that they stole the election and installed a puppet into presidency.

The bottom line is, the only people interfering with the election is the US Government.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Kettu
Just because Guccifer 2.0 didn't give Wikileaks the emails he takes credit for hacking, doesn't mean Russia's hands are clean.

It's like using a proxy server on the internet to hide your IP address. You use a middleman to hand over the emails.

Russia ------> Guccifer 2.0 ------> shady 3rd party CIA knows works with Russian government ------> Wikileaks

You now have separation between Russia and Wikileaks.

So what if the Russian government with a Russian government email address didn't give Wikileaks the emails? They were orchestrated by Russia.

I have not seen one shred of proof that Russia is behind the hacks. Just because you want something to be true really really bad deos not make it true.

well, why would you believe it?....after all, it's agreed upon by all the American intelligence agencies, and of course, since you are a trump voter, you believe nothing but what comes out of trumps mouth...your butt buddy Putin never lies

Really?

Which agencies and more importantly which employees of those agencies is willing to come forth and say this publicly?

Yeah, I thought so...

look it up...geez...is that so hard for you people. and why would I answer you, you are so far out in bubbleland, that you don't even trust our own government...move to friggin Moscow for all i care, you unpatriotic piece of crap