Julian Assange & Sean Hannity Embassy (Video) Interview 1/3/17

a reply to: loveguy

Sweden never sentenced him and the charges were put up by the state not by the woman. It was all a very convenient charade even if you were not aware of this. I also noticed this slight change in him when he started talking about his family, very understandable and something we usually dont stop to think about. This guy gave up his entire life for all of this. It is ridiculous for some people here to call him a schill and a spy or or partisan in anyway, he exposed both and any political party that wikileaks has dealt with and for doing that he has been cooked up in some crappy embassy for 4 years now and still going.

People left and right should be happy that he is there and doing what he is doing whether it is their "side" that gets exposed for their corruption or not.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

I find Julian to be consistent, congruent, thoughtful, committed, integrity-driven and true. I cannot say that about the people who accuse him.

It's nice to see you, Julian, and thank you. I'm sorry about your family's hardship. Thank you, Sean, for bringing us Julian.

A while back, a few or more months ago, maybe it was on Twitter, Julian stated he will not stand at the embassy windows so people can see him. I took that to mean he is concerned about snipers.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Damn straight...go Julian Assange!

a reply to: everyone

Yeah you have a point there, I went back and watched higher rez version on YouTube, and there's even a point where Assange throws a shadow.. so that craps on my thoughts to a degree.

a reply to: SoulSurfer
I'm not sure exactly what you're reading into my post, I just stated that I thought it was green screened, I never mentioned or even implied that I thought he was dead, just that I thought that they might be in different locations.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

I woke up thinking about Julian; his very pale face in my mind. It's obvious the strain of isolation has taken its toll as well as how his family is being effected is wearing on him. At the end of the video there was a break with Sean saying how people could help but the video ended there. I'll have to look for what Julian was asking.

There are people who pay a very high price for truth for the rest of us.

originally posted by: blobzilla
a reply to: SoulSurfer
I'm not sure exactly what you're reading into my post, I just stated that I thought it was green screened, I never mentioned or even implied that I thought he was dead, just that I thought that they might be in different locations.

No worries, I was one of the peeps wanting proof of life so I know how it goes. Good thing you found a higher quality version and saw shadows though. (My Bad, I should have sought a higher quality version before posting this one. Still does somewhat of the job though. (Least for those who knew he was alive already.)

originally posted by: blobzilla
a reply to: everyone

Yeah you have a point there, I went back and watched higher rez version on YouTube, and there's even a point where Assange throws a shadow.. so that craps on my thoughts to a degree.

Isn't it great when we manage to solve things like this on here

originally posted by: roadgravel
I find it interesting that the only "interviews" lately are of Hannity and Assange". Seems quite odd to me.

Assange knows that CNN would have thrown the material through their magic blender in editing before releasing cherry picked snippets of it complimented with their own suggestive comments leading it all in.

I watched "The Interview" too and I couldn't help but notice how the camera panned and the body language / facial expressions when the issue was brought up about the 14 year kid old could hack the password. On both Assange and Hannity. Is this a clue for the source ? Or are they just emphasizing the security is so poor that the hack can be done by a 14yr old kid, with the presumption that a young kid wouldn't have as much experience as a seasoned hack.

Another thing I noted was his mention of the "Service Providers" of the DNC. He also talks of security issues with the tools. Could one of the service providers be the source.

leolady

a reply to: everyone
Yeah, we could do more of it, to be honest

a reply to: SoulSurfer

To media coverage being very dishonest, Sean Hannity is part of that media, even though he wont admit it. So why would I believe anything he said.
Sean also is a yuge militant Trump fanboy, to the point of demonizing any and everyone who does not support Trump. Why would I believe anything he says about the issue. He is yugely biased on this point.

Assange is a career criminal. Like I'd believe a word he'd say! This guy makes a living off of deceit and subterfuge, while pretending to be some Robin Hood who releases hidden truth. He's no hero. He's a snake.

Obama is so transparent you can see Soro's hand up his rear. Why would I believe a word he says. His "Transparency" has led to more lies and deceit.

So the bottom line is, they're all lying to us. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Russia paid Podesta to leak his own emails. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was Hillary doing the hacking either.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Awl man...Assange denied their source of leaked Government information. It must be true! What a total nail in the coffin this is!



So....did Assange tell anyone WHO the source is then....? oh ok...I'll wait.

a reply to: MrPlow

continue waiting, because one thing wikileaks is famous for is never releasing the sources. It could endanger the sources lives. The other thing wikileaks is famous for is for being precise and lazer targetted on the information they do give out.

On the other hand, if the source was Seth Rich, (who was probably murdered) then I see no reason why not to release that info.

But the one thing he DID clarify above all, is that his source was NOT the Russians. And that is what we all really wanted to know.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: MrPlow

continue waiting, because one thing wikileaks is famous for is never releasing the sources. It could endanger the sources lives. The other thing wikileaks is famous for is for being precise and lazer targetted on the information they do give out.

On the other hand, if the source was Seth Rich, (who was probably murdered) then I see no reason why not to release that info.

But the one thing he DID clarify above all, is that his source was NOT the Russians. And that is what we all really wanted to know.

I believe that you honestly believe what you're saying and I wish I could say this in a way that doesn't come off as insulting but....why the F would he give up ANY of his sources?

Do you not see how much more sense it would make for him and Wikileaks to shield their sources? Like, I don't quite understand how that doesn't make sense to you...to not give up your actual sources.

On one hand you're saying it makes total sense to not give up your sources, but then you totally believe him when he says what AREN'T his sources?
Can't you see that that is the same thing?

Or maybe I'm just not reading what you're saying correctly...?

a reply to: arcnaver

Assange is a career criminal.

Got a mugshot with a rapsheet for this guy? I haven't tried to find it myself.

Obama is so transparent you can see Soro's hand up his rear. Why would I believe a word he says. His "Transparency" has led to more lies and deceit.

Obama never once said he was in George's pocket?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Russia paid Podesta to leak his own emails.

Would you be surprised to find out the emails used food-joint lingo so what was being said won't be so blatantly incriminating...if the server ever became compromised?

What kind of incriminating stuff would a potential-band of career criminals try to hide on their own server and not go with one provided by tax-payers? Was the potential-career criminals' private server scrubbed so the evidence is awash?

Ain't it neat that we are rising out of our little mushroom field?
As hard and stinky as it may get to be...the majority are on the side of justice.

Just keep a cool head and let it play out...try to stay on Karma's good side-
You don't want to piss her off...
I know from experience you do want her to smile upon you.

a reply to: leolady

Podesta's password was : Passw0rd

With a zero instead of a O. Any simple "password guesser" script with a "dictionary" plugged in would have found it out in less then a second. Such a dictionary that i mention can contain hundreds of thousands of possible and known passwords. I have never seen a dictionary like that that did not include "password" and variations thereof or things like 1234, 4321, things like that.

There is a reason that 1234 and "password" are usually not allowed and rejected by the program or website where you try to use them. This is probably why he made it "passw0rd".

The message in the interview is just as it seems to be because it is a simple and undeniable fact. Any 14 year old (the suggestion here is a person not to knowledgeable in high level hacking) could have hacked it because its just 1 simple script with 1 dictionary (you really only need one of or a password like that) and that's it, this is why they call people who use this "script kiddies".

Let me for a second assume that you know nothing about hacking. Regardless of that fact i can explain to you within a matter of a couple of minutes how to do this and you will be able to execute it in as much, i can guarantee you that.

originally posted by: MrPlow
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Awl man...Assange denied their source of leaked Government information. It must be true! What a total nail in the coffin this is!



So....did Assange tell anyone WHO the source is then....? oh ok...I'll wait.

Post info that shows where wikileaks posted false information in the past.

a reply to: arcnaver

What makes assange a criminal according to you and how do you see him choosing this life being cooked up in a small house for years as a career?

He is alive.

Phew!

Now if he'd just release whatever he's sitting on or maybe he's waiting... waiting to see how things shake out with the new Administration.

The climate of the public is certainly ready for the next batch of leaks.

Someone should figure out a way to signal to the good guys who are not pleased with everything they've seen to leak NOW in this window, so that when Trump does become President, it will all come out via WikiLeaks.

It's only a betrayal of all corruption, that's not treasonous and if they can get away with it, no one will know.

He must be sitting on a mountain of stuff.

2017 might be the year when the MSM become a laughing stock by the way that they no longer report news, but only offer opinions and try to tell you what to think and what to believe.

I think they'll be proven wrong and wrong again, and if there's corruption to be investigated, Trump has to get on that right away. Therefore it would be in WikiLeaks best interest to leak NOW, so that it doesn't appear to be in any way partisan.

Leak it all now and let the chips fall where they may.. that's what I say. Let justice prevail or the heavens fall (or however that saying goes).

Now's the time.

Otherwise Assange will appear to be playing the Trump administration.