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

A few things that stuck out to me in the interview:

1. Julian was very careful and concise in his answers.
When asked if his source was the Russian government, he made it clear that it was not coming from any state party. Now that could mean many things in all fairness but he's clear that it didn't come from a Russian government hack.

2. He says to pay close attention to how Obama himself words his responses when asked about Russian hacking.
He says Obama is very careful in his responses as well, responding as a lawyer a using legaleaze or lawyer speak, never actually coming out and saying "It was Russia". He's implying that Obama responds that way so that he may have plausible deniability in the future, if or when he needs it. That tactic is evident in all politicians, they're very sneaky. We hear it from them all the time by sayin "Go back and listen to what I said again, I never said that" when pressed for a definitive answer after an incident is revealed. They're highly trained law school professionals.

3. When asked his thoughts on the collusion and corruption between the media coverage of Hillary Clinton, her, campaign team, the Podesda emails and they're contents; he said something very interesting and again was very careful in his wording.
He made the distinction of different types of corruption, saying that political agenda was an "optimistic assumption" for motivation and it wasn't necessarily money offered but more along the lines "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, you give me information and I'll invite you to my childs christening..or next big party".

At the end he mentions that he himself is prepared to deal with strong opposition from the government but his family didn't sign up for this. To me that implies that hes concerned for his family's saftely including his small children under 10. Is his family confined to that embassy as well? The interview is revealing in a very 'read between the lines way' and I'm going to watch it again.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Bookmark thank you I missed this

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Julian Assange on Sean Hannity - Full Interview - 1/3/17


Sean Hannity travels to London to personally interview Julian Assange (for those who wanted video proof that he was alive, rejoice.).

He reconfirms that it was not the Russians. He also comments on the false narrative mainstream has been putting out. Does this put a nail in the coffin?

♣ Assange addresses the FBI, DHS report on Russian hacking
♣ Assange Re-Confirms: "Our source is not the Russian government"
♣ Julian Assange: Media coverage in America is very dishonest

Wow. I just watched the entire interview.

Everything he says - everything - makes so much sense.

And in 10 years Wikileaks has NEVER lied or been proven wrong.

Ever.

Anyone that makes claims to the contrary are full of sh#t.

If a dog doesn't trust a person, I trust the dog.

If Wikileaks says this is the truth, I trust Wikileaks.

They haven't let me down yet.

I hope they never will. It would be nice to have one solid rock in this universe of crap....

This video does looks very 'green screen' to me. I just watched a video of Assange being interviewed by RT (and no I couldn't give a monkeys who is interviewing him) and the video is crystal clear in comparison.

There's just something not right about this video with Hannity when you compare the two.

I don't know how to link anything on this site so I'll just paste the url for the RT interview www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying the interview didn't take place but, I'm really not sure that Assange and Hannity are in the same room while talking.

originally posted by: blobzilla
This video does looks very 'green screen' to me. I just watched a video of Assange being interviewed by RT (and no I couldn't give a monkeys who is interviewing him) and the video is crystal clear in comparison.

There's just something not right about this video with Hannity when you compare the two.

I don't know how to link anything on this site so I'll just paste the url for the RT interview www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying the interview didn't take place but, I'm really not sure that Assange and Hannity are in the same room while talking.

I think it also needs to be asked, when did the interview take place?

Deepweb sources have indicated that any TV appearances were either conducted prior to the airport shutdown or were completed using CGI.

Why doesn't he come to the window? Snipers?

a reply to: blobzilla

It's a combination of the lighting in the room and then compression of the video. Look at the background behind hanity, his shadow goes over and around the objects in the background.

originally posted by: Tman2135

originally posted by: blobzilla
This video does looks very 'green screen' to me. I just watched a video of Assange being interviewed by RT (and no I couldn't give a monkeys who is interviewing him) and the video is crystal clear in comparison.

There's just something not right about this video with Hannity when you compare the two.

I don't know how to link anything on this site so I'll just paste the url for the RT interview www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying the interview didn't take place but, I'm really not sure that Assange and Hannity are in the same room while talking.

I think it also needs to be asked, when did the interview take place?

Deepweb sources have indicated that any TV appearances were either conducted prior to the airport shutdown or were completed using CGI.

Why doesn't he come to the window? Snipers?

There is a recording of people in a car outside of the embassy apparently handling guns so could very well be.

Assange says a 14-year-old could have hacked Democratic emails as he reveals John Podesta’s password was 'password'

Hahahaha!

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

a reply to: roadgravel

so who do you prefer, Christiane amanpour ?

a reply to: becomingaware

Thank you for posting this. This is a very important set of notes. He was very careful, even at the height of MSM's propaganda he did not reveal his source. (However I would like to know if Seth Rich was the source, then it should be mentioned since his death would open up a whole new set of can of worms.) But you also mentioned something key:

At the end he mentions that he himself is prepared to deal with strong opposition from the government but his family didn't sign up for this. To me that implies that hes concerned for his family's saftely including his small children under 10. Is his family confined to that embassy as well? The interview is revealing in a very 'read between the lines way' and I'm going to watch it again.

Sadly this is the protocol every whistle-blower has to go through. His words do point out to a possible threat.

His Lawyers death (for example) is also a shady one and Julian is very aware of that.

Approximately a month after Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, released a batch of incriminating Hillary Clinton emails, his reputable lawyer, John Jones, was found dead after train impact.

a reply to: blobzilla

... I am now convinced with 100% certainty, that we cannot please everyone, and that it is indeed in itself an impossibility...but I assure you the video is legit...and Assange is not dead/Very much alive...

Thanks for the video, good stuff. I am usually pretty good at reading people's body language and to me he is telling the truth. It is amazing how far Government's will go to silence the truth.

a reply to: loNeNLI

How is this anything like tales from the crypt? The Swedish government dropped the charges, the girls said they were cohersed by police. Even the Swedish prosecutor said he didn't do anything. Oh let's not forget the United Nations, twice, saying that he needs to be released and compensated..

The US does not even have a leg in that battle. They aren't after Julian for espionage or hacking, they are trying to get him on a sexual assault charge, that everyone else has dropped because of the information that was published.

Why doesn't the Obama administration follow the UN recommendations?

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: roadgravel

so who do you prefer, Christiane amanpour ?

How about a less biased party?

originally posted by: blobzilla
This video does looks very 'green screen' to me. I just watched a video of Assange being interviewed by RT (and no I couldn't give a monkeys who is interviewing him) and the video is crystal clear in comparison.

There's just something not right about this video with Hannity when you compare the two.

I don't know how to link anything on this site so I'll just paste the url for the RT interview www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying the interview didn't take place but, I'm really not sure that Assange and Hannity are in the same room while talking.

I agree, I watched the interview a couple of times. Look at the edges of Assange's face it, doesn't look right. I don't think their in the same room. If their not being filmed together, the entire interview is suspect. Is CGI good enough to do the interview with out Assange and fool most of the world?

After relistening to the interview I decided my post was based on my own inaccuracies of what I thought I heard.

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

maybe because JA knows that most of the Mainstream media is biased and so far Sean Hannity has had the open mind?

Just my two cents. Frankly I would be picky as well with who I choose to interview with. Considering most of the left see him as a threat.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I don't put much stock in the MSM and that definitely includes FOX news and fake news reporter Hannity.

The substance of the interview is not Fox news, nor is it Hannity. It's what was exposed about Clinton, Podesta, and the DNC in general through Wikileaks, who exposed it, who tried to spin it, and why.

Wikileaks has a perfect record regarding the veracity of documents they publish and of protecting the identity of their sources. That means something. It means that whistleblowers can trust the organisation, which gives them the confidence to provide true inside information. That makes the information about as reliable as it gets. The head of this organisation, Julian Assange is telling you that Russia is 1000% positively not the source of the leaks, and that a 14-year old could have hacked the DNC servers. THAT is the substance of this interview.

Watch the interview again and try to focus on what the person being interviewed explains in clear english. Then maybe you can come back and try to post a comment that is relative to this thread.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Does this put a nail in the coffin?

Nope, not even close. I predict lots of rhetoric about Assange' being a rapist and CIA insider and down-right liar covering for Putin, very little will be discussed about who gave Wikileaks the info, and flat-out denial that it may have even been a DNC insider (Seth) or CIA or NSA.

No, CNN and MSNBC and other Hillikileaks cheerleaders will continue to claim Russia did it and Assange is a rapist liar.

I have no reason to trust that he says the source was not Putin.

Here's one: Wikileaks is by far the most trustworthy source of inside information, with its perfect record.

Is there anything at all that you do trust? Do you even trust yourself to tell the time in a room full of clocks?

Or do you trust Obama's comments on Putin's involvement, and therefore approve of his sanctions on Russia?

It must be extremely difficult, let alone sad, for you to navigate through life with that kind of mentality.

soulwaxer

a reply to: SoulSurfer

OK. I watched a good portion of the video. As well as my memory serves me, his (Assange) voice rang familiar in tone.
I will accept Hannity and fox as journalist organization...very thin sheet of ice- so don't celebrate-

Only because fox first ran cops episodes way back when- and thanks to reruns we can gauge how law enforcement policy has changed-over the years.
Put it up against D. Abrahms (sorry dude) live-pd crap where we aren't riding with the officers' like we have been for what 20 years now? That show is full of crap- 2 episodes and could not win my favor...(look here monkey).

...I scrolled to where they spoke about the sex crime allegations. Depending on Swedish law...and having been exiled for a number of years...if he had been found guilty, how long would his sentence be--->would Sweden then say he had served his sentence while in exile? How trumped up are the charges? Because I don't know any better...dude should have access to his family---his family should have access to him?

At the start of the sex crime discussion, I sensed a certain anxiety in his demeanor, he held it in while discussing the facts around the case...the state seems to be his accuser...
When he spoke of the injustice occurring to his loved-ones, innocent of any charges or allegations- not being at liberty to raise his family explained the anxiety I initially sensed.

I'll sit on it for a while...
Thanks for the thread.