WikiLeaks founder reveals a 'bombshell' about Russian hacking, Kellyanne Conway says

[bcking 3,157]

I'm still confused why people are taking this guy's word as if it must be true? 

 

He is a hacker, a "reporter" and someone's whose entire career and fame is about leaking sensitive information. It's great that he has a 100% success rate in terms of the information he has leaked being true. This is different however. He isn't "leaking information", he is discussing his sources. Why would someone whose career is predicated on having trusted sources who trust him openly admit who is providing him information? Do people actually think if it was the Russians he would have said "Yep it's the Russians. Putin actually called me up". He would lose his credibility in the "leaking" community (if there is one). Why would someone go to him to leak sensitive data if he openly admitted who he was getting his information from?

 

Honestly I think it shouldn't have been even brought up with him. He is not someone we can ask. He released the information, he is going to keep his source a secret. Even if that means outright lying I don't think we have any information about the man to think he wouldn't do that.

 

To me his interview provided zero information. Doesn't help the "Russian hacking" argument, doesn't hurt it. 

 

TL:DR - Being 100% factual in his leaked information does not mean he is going to be 100% factual in who his sources are. He has to keep them a secret or he loses credibility in his field.

[MarkPerry 488]

To me there has been to much press and hoopla made about the Russian hacking.   You know the media they need news to have viewers.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Putin has been financing ASSUAGE since the December 7th 2010 financial blockade by Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard etc against wiki leaks.Even given him a TV show.

julian Assange show RT 

 

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjM0I_H2ajRAhVMGZQKHcm2BJUQFggXMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Ftags%2Fthe-julian-assange-show%2F&usg=AFQjCNHdLx6qpsMV02JjsrfWF4VnnRO-JA&sig2=7Yua-W0qLURBZfuIRujuqA

 

but hey Donny doesn't need Intel briefings coz Don King, Yeezy and ASSUAGE told him everything.

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, MarkPerry said:

To me there has been to much press and hoopla made about the Russian hacking.   You know the media they need news to have viewers.

Don't avoid the question. Why do you inherently trust the man to reveal information about a source? He would be out of business if he admitted who his sourced were. No one would leak information to him.

 

The question was "was Russia involved?". If they were, he couldn't say yes because it would ruin a good thing he has going. So he can either say no or no comment. It was a pointless question for him to try to answer because even if it were true he couldn't tell us that.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

58 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Assange said a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta.  Maybe he is right.  I am not a hacker, and most of these amateur or pro hackers live in the shadows so it is possible.  The real story is that like who shot JFK, there will be years and years of conspiracy stories out there with no way to prove anything.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/04/wikileaks-assange-14-year-old-kid-could-have-hacked-podesta-emails.html

Julian Assange: Media coverage in America is very dishonest

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5269758301001/?#sp=show-clips

[yuna628 9,530]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Assange said a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta.  Maybe he is right.  I am not a hacker, and most of these amateur or pro hackers live in the shadows so it is possible.  The real story is that like who shot JFK, there will be years and years of conspiracy stories out there with no way to prove anything.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/04/wikileaks-assange-14-year-old-kid-could-have-hacked-podesta-emails.html

If you want to be skeptical about the situation, and you certainly have every right to be, there are plenty of good guys in the field who are taking a look at what has been presented so far. None of them really feel a 14 year old pulled it off, but they aren't ready to put all the chips in the basket and point a finger because of a) the risks and b) they'd like to see full evidence to confirm some things that most likely the public will never get to see. And remember the report isn't just about Podesta, but there are other events that have been noted. When I say things the public won't ever get to see, a lot that is in the report is open ended, that I believe we have the capability to know a great deal more than can be released. This has been sort of confirmed all along and additionally this week by Assange's sort of spy rival now, Snowden. He says we have ways of knowing things more definitively, and that we've been aware the Russians have been doing this many many years ago.

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I'm still confused why people are taking this guy's word as if it must be true? 

 

He is a hacker, a "reporter" and someone's whose entire career and fame is about leaking sensitive information. It's great that he has a 100% success rate in terms of the information he has leaked being true. This is different however. He isn't "leaking information", he is discussing his sources. Why would someone whose career is predicated on having trusted sources who trust him openly admit who is providing him information? Do people actually think if it was the Russians he would have said "Yep it's the Russians. Putin actually called me up". He would lose his credibility in the "leaking" community (if there is one). Why would someone go to him to leak sensitive data if he openly admitted who he was getting his information from?

 

Honestly I think it shouldn't have been even brought up with him. He is not someone we can ask. He released the information, he is going to keep his source a secret. Even if that means outright lying I don't think we have any information about the man to think he wouldn't do that.

 

To me his interview provided zero information. Doesn't help the "Russian hacking" argument, doesn't hurt it. 

 

TL:DR - Being 100% factual in his leaked information does not mean he is going to be 100% factual in who his sources are. He has to keep them a secret or he loses credibility in his field.

The fact is Assange has said prior that the failsafe is that he would never know the sources for the information that is dumped into his lap, and that even if he did, that he would never state who the sources were and who the sources weren't. That's all changed now. He has lost any credibility, of being an 'honest criminal'. Furthermore, 100% success rate? For what evidence do we have of 100% success rate? Most of the time it's his word vs governments who are never going to publish what is actually the truth for the protection of their programs and agents. The accuracy of the info is all in what you are apt to believe. Documents can and have been altered, and he offers no guarantee as to their complete validity.

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

Putin has been financing ASSUAGE since the December 7th 2010 financial blockade by Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard etc against wiki leaks.Even given him a TV show.

julian Assange show RT 

 

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjM0I_H2ajRAhVMGZQKHcm2BJUQFggXMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Ftags%2Fthe-julian-assange-show%2F&usg=AFQjCNHdLx6qpsMV02JjsrfWF4VnnRO-JA&sig2=7Yua-W0qLURBZfuIRujuqA

 

but hey Donny doesn't need Intel briefings coz Don King, Yeezy and ASSUAGE told him everything.

And yet we see that no one can be bothered to care about that. The age of unreality.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

20 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

If you want to be skeptical about the situation, and you certainly have every right to be, there are plenty of good guys in the field who are taking a look at what has been presented so far. None of them really feel a 14 year old pulled it off, but they aren't ready to put all the chips in the basket and point a finger because of a) the risks and b) they'd like to see full evidence to confirm some things that most likely the public will never get to see. And remember the report isn't just about Podesta, but there are other events that have been noted. When I say things the public won't ever get to see, a lot that is in the report is open ended, that I believe we have the capability to know a great deal more than can be released. This has been sort of confirmed all along and additionally this week by Assange's sort of spy rival now, Snowden. He says we have ways of knowing things more definitively, and that we've been aware the Russians have been doing this many many years ago.

The fact is Assange has said prior that the failsafe is that he would never know the sources for the information that is dumped into his lap, and that even if he did, that he would never state who the sources were and who the sources weren't. That's all changed now. He has lost any credibility, of being an 'honest criminal'. Furthermore, 100% success rate? For what evidence do we have of 100% success rate? Most of the time it's his word vs governments who are never going to publish what is actually the truth for the protection of their programs and agents. The accuracy of the info is all in what you are apt to believe. Documents can and have been altered, and he offers no guarantee as to their complete validity.

And yet we see that no one can be bothered to care about that. The age of unreality.

 

He should be given a Pulitzer, Nobel and American Freedom award for exposing the corruption in the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  If Wold Blitzer had broken these stories and they were about the RNC and Trump, he would already be given multiple awards and be proclaimed as greater than Woodward and Bernstein and this story bigger than Watergate

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

If you want to be skeptical about the situation, and you certainly have every right to be, there are plenty of good guys in the field who are taking a look at what has been presented so far. None of them really feel a 14 year old pulled it off, but they aren't ready to put all the chips in the basket and point a finger because of a) the risks and b) they'd like to see full evidence to confirm some things that most likely the public will never get to see. And remember the report isn't just about Podesta, but there are other events that have been noted. When I say things the public won't ever get to see, a lot that is in the report is open ended, that I believe we have the capability to know a great deal more than can be released. This has been sort of confirmed all along and additionally this week by Assange's sort of spy rival now, Snowden. He says we have ways of knowing things more definitively, and that we've been aware the Russians have been doing this many many years ago.

The fact is Assange has said prior that the failsafe is that he would never know the sources for the information that is dumped into his lap, and that even if he did, that he would never state who the sources were and who the sources weren't. That's all changed now. He has lost any credibility, of being an 'honest criminal'. Furthermore, 100% success rate? For what evidence do we have of 100% success rate? Most of the time it's his word vs governments who are never going to publish what is actually the truth for the protection of their programs and agents. The accuracy of the info is all in what you are apt to believe. Documents can and have been altered, and he offers no guarantee as to their complete validity.

And yet we see that no one can be bothered to care about that. The age of unreality.

I agree we dont' actually know that he is 100% accurate in all of the information he leaks. My point was mostly just that even if he WAS 100% accurate and truthful with all leaked information, that still doesn't mean we should be trusting him to discuss his sources. No matter who the source is, if he knows, he is of course going to deny it during an interview. If we happened to be right he was never going to say "Oh yep you got it, that is who leaked it". If he snitched on a source his leaks would dry up because no one would want to use him anymore.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I agree we dont' actually know that he is 100% accurate in all of the information he leaks. My point was mostly just that even if he WAS 100% accurate and truthful with all leaked information, that still doesn't mean we should be trusting him to discuss his sources. No matter who the source is, if he knows, he is of course going to deny it during an interview. If we happened to be right he was never going to say "Oh yep you got it, that is who leaked it". If he snitched on a source his leaks would dry up because no one would want to use him anymore.

 

How many years after Watergate did it take for the identity of Deep Throat to come out ? Perhaps Nixon should have just blamed it on the Russians and tried to create more outrage about the identity of the source instead of the actual corruption. That is exactly what Hillary, The DNC and Obummer are doing. Pssst Hoy! look over there, see that 

[Dakine10 5,452]

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

How many years after Watergate did it take for the identity of Deep Throat to come out ? Perhaps Nixon should have just blamed it on the Russians and tried to create more outrage about the identity of the source instead of the actual corruption. That is exactly what Hillary, The DNC and Obummer are doing. Pssst Hoy! look over there, see that 

 

    Why compare this to Watergate? It's a different world nowadays. There was no digital trail to follow for Watergate. This time there is and they are already following it. There would not be sanctions over this if there wasn't. 

 

   Russia got caught. It's about time because they've been doing this for a while now. They're lucky we live in a world where they are only going to face economic sanctions. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

So former equal opp leaker changes in 2010 after rape case and Putin assist.  Numbed to the abuses of the Kremlin and blames US and Clinton for his troubles (FBI opened investigation into Assange for publishing classified US cables in 2010 when HRC was Sec of State). Assange is beholden to Russia.

 

wikileaks? "I think there should be like death penalty or something " (Trump 2010)

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

54 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

 

    Why compare this to Watergate? It's a different world nowadays. There was no digital trail to follow for Watergate. This time there is and they are already following it. There would not be sanctions over this if there wasn't. 

 

   Russia got caught. It's about time because they've been doing this for a while now. They're lucky we live in a world where they are only going to face economic sanctions. 

See its working on you. With absolutely zero evidence the Russians did it, you are more worried about that the the absolute corruption and manipulation  of an election by the DNC. Keep drinking the kool aid 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

How many years after Watergate did it take for the identity of Deep Throat to come out ? Perhaps Nixon should have just blamed it on the Russians and tried to create more outrage about the identity of the source instead of the actual corruption. That is exactly what Hillary, The DNC and Obummer are doing. Pssst Hoy! look over there, see that 

If every intelligence agency all reported that the Russians were involved in Watergate, than maybe it would have been an issue.

 

We aren't talking about Obama pointing a finger. Could every intelligence agency all be in one big conspiracy? Sure, but I think it is more likely that a single man who is a professional hacker/leaker will protect his source and lie if asked who is involved if necessary.

 

I'm also not advocating for avoiding or ignoring what the leaks revealed. Who leaked the info doesn't negate the info itself. I think we can address both simultaneously. We don't need to focus on just one at a time.

Edited January 4, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

If every intelligence agency all reported that the Russians were involved in Watergate, than maybe it would have been an issue.

 

We aren't talking about Obama pointing a finger. Could every intelligence agency all be in one big conspiracy? Sure, but I think it is more likely that a single man who is a professional hacker/leaker will protect his source and lie if asked who is involved if necessary.

 

I'm also not advocating for avoiding or ignoring what the leaks revealed. Who leaked the info doesn't negate the info itself. I think we can address both simultaneously. We don't need to focus on just one at a time.

Please provide me a link to each Agency that Reported this becuse they didn't. Many of the 17 agencies dont even dabble in that kind of intelligence. Did coast Guard and Army intelligence report this ? How about the National Geo-spatial agency ?  How about the Office of Naval intelligence. 

 

The 17 agencies BS is a bright and shining lie

[bcking 3,157]

32 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Please provide me a link to each Agency that Reported this becuse they didn't. Many of the 17 agencies dont even dabble in that kind of intelligence. Did coast Guard and Army intelligence report this ? How about the National Geo-spatial agency ?  How about the Office of Naval intelligence. 

 

The 17 agencies BS is a bright and shining lie

You're probably right. As far as I'm aware the 3 major ones have, not sure about others. Still different from one person accusing the Russians.

 

EDIT: Looking into it a bit it looks like the 17 agencies all endorsed the report, though they all didn't likely independently investigate it, but they all agreed and they were all on the report.

Edited January 4, 2017 by bcking