No, Assange did not lie.
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/comey-confirms-assange-did-no... "This may explain, in part, why the Dems refused to turn over their server to the FBI for analysis. Perhaps, as Assange stated, an insider, was involved. This is not to say the Russians weren't also involved in hacking Podesta or the DNC, but the question is, who gave the emails to WikiLeaks. We do know that 3 IT guys, who were later arrested after being accused of unauthorized access to Congressional computers including Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Could they have been the source of the emails being sent to WikiLeaks? Stranger and stranger. http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/e...it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security... BOMBSHELL=> Comey to Congress: Russians DID NOT Give Podesta’s Emails to WikiLeaks FBI Director James Comey testified in front of Congress on Monday. While the mainstream media (MSM) focused on his statements indicating that the FBI is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 US election, the highlight of Comey’s testimony was ignored. Comey mentioned that the FBI is investigating the leaks of secret information to the press and he told the House Intelligence Committee the investigation is still underway and he would be unable to discuss matters linked to the investigation. However, the most important piece of information that Comey disclosed to Congress was that the Russians did not provide WikiLeaks HIllary’s campaign manager John Podesta’s emails. Comey said something interesting today that nobody’s picked up on yet because they’re so distracted by this other stuff, which I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the Russians, and Comey said no. The entire case that Democrats make that ‘Russia stole the election from Hillary’ is based on the premise that Russia supplied Podesta’s emails to WikiLeaks which then somehow led to Hillary’s defeat. Anyone who was halfway interested in the election in the fall of 2016 knows that this is a big lie in so many ways, but specifically because the MSM totally ignored WikiLeak’s dump of Podesta emails before the election. The MSM did not share Podesta’s emails before the election and now the head of the FBI just announced that the Russians did not give these emails to WikiLeaks. This confirms what WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in November – that his group did not get emails related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign from a “state actor.” The crazy conspiracy that the ‘Russians prevented Hillary Clinton from winning the 2016 election’ is coming apart at the seams. Clearly, she was just a horrible candidate. 1 WVPATX, Yesterday at 10:21 AM Last edited: Yesterday at 10:27 AM [end of quote]
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 05:57:46AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/comey-confirms-assange-did-no...
"This may explain, in part, why the Dems refused to turn over their server to the FBI for analysis. Perhaps, as Assange stated, an insider, was involved. This is not to say the Russians weren't also involved in hacking Podesta or the DNC, but the question is, who gave the emails to WikiLeaks. We do know that 3 IT guys, who were later arrested after being accused of??unauthorized access to Congressional computers including Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Could they have been the source of the emails being sent to WikiLeaks? Stranger and stranger.??
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/e...it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security...
BOMBSHELL=> Comey to Congress: Russians DID NOT Give Podesta???s Emails to WikiLeaks
FBI Director James Comey testified in front of Congress on Monday. While the mainstream media (MSM) focused on his statements indicating that the FBI is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 US election, the highlight of Comey???s testimony was ignored.
Comey mentioned that the FBI is investigating the leaks of secret information to the press and he told the House Intelligence Committee the investigation is still underway and he would be unable to discuss matters linked to the investigation.
However, the most important piece of information that Comey disclosed to Congress was that the Russians did not provide WikiLeaks HIllary???s campaign manager John Podesta???s emails.
Comey said something interesting today that nobody???s picked up on yet because they???re so distracted by this other stuff, which I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the Russians, and Comey said no.
Just curious, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious - how does Comey know where Wikileaks got its info? I didn't realize he was on wikileaks staff which, if true, would actually be the most important piece of info to come out of this hearing so far... :P For that matter, how does wikileaks really know where they got their info? A state actor is not going to come out and say "hey im from the FSB, Putin loves you! - here is some more shit.." Furthermore, why should we believe anything a career liar like Comey says? And please don't take my statements as some sort of defense of the democrats or Hillary or Podesta or anything like that... I think they are all a bunch of fucking crooks.
The entire case that Democrats make that ???Russia stole the election from Hillary??? is based on the premise that Russia supplied??Podesta???s emails to WikiLeaks??which then somehow led to Hillary???s defeat.
Anyone who was halfway interested in the election in the fall of 2016 knows that this is a big lie in so many ways, but specifically because the MSM totally ignored WikiLeak???s dump of Podesta emails before the election.
The MSM did not share Podesta???s emails before the election and now the head of the FBI just announced that the Russians did not give these emails to WikiLeaks.
This confirms what WikiLeaks founder??Julian Assange said in November????? that his group did not get emails related to Hillary Clinton???s campaign from a ???state actor.???
The crazy conspiracy that the ???Russians prevented Hillary Clinton from winning the 2016 election??? is coming apart at the seams. Clearly, she was just a horrible candidate.?? 1??WVPATX,??Yesterday at 10:21 AM??Last edited:??Yesterday at 10:27 AM [end of quote]
-- John
On 03/22/2017 07:19 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 05:57:46AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/comey-confirms-assange-did-no...
<SNIP>
However, the most important piece of information that Comey disclosed to Congress was that the Russians did not provide WikiLeaks HIllary???s campaign manager John Podesta???s emails.
Comey said something interesting today that nobody???s picked up on yet because they???re so distracted by this other stuff, which I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the Russians, and Comey said no.
Just curious, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious - how does Comey know where Wikileaks got its info? I didn't realize he was on wikileaks staff which, if true, would actually be the most important piece of info to come out of this hearing so far... :P
OMG! WikiLeaks and Putin are Americunt plots! I've been so blind :0
For that matter, how does wikileaks really know where they got their info? A state actor is not going to come out and say "hey im from the FSB, Putin loves you! - here is some more shit.."
No fucking clue, obviously.
Furthermore, why should we believe anything a career liar like Comey says?
Maybe better to believe the opposite. But then, that's too simple. Still, no.
And please don't take my statements as some sort of defense of the democrats or Hillary or Podesta or anything like that... I think they are all a bunch of fucking crooks.
It's a selection thing. Only crooks ever become successful politicians. <SNIP>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/22/2017 09:19 AM, John Newman wrote:
Comey said something interesting today that nobody???s picked up on yet because they???re so distracted by this other stuff, which I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the Russians, and Comey said no.
Just curious, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious - how does Comey know where Wikileaks got its info? I didn't realize he was on wikileaks staff which, if true, would actually be the most important piece of info to come out of this hearing so far... :P
Perhaps "no" was shorthand for, "The widely repeated assertion that Russia penetrated the DNC's mail servers and gave their contents to Wikileaks is an obvious lie." Why obvious? The Russian Hacking claim was first made in an October, 2016 press release from DHS that attributes it to "the USIC." No less an Independent Security Authority than Bruce Schneier has asserted that the public was not told about Russian Hacking until /after/ the election, in support of his position that the story was not intended to affect U.S. election results. How deep does this bullshit go? "All the way down" apparently. Since there is no such agency or department as "the United States Intelligence Community," that means the content of the initial press release is not attributable to any auditable process or responsible party. Worse, it does not actually say "Russia did it." Instead it says that the leak was consistent with Russia's motives and methods. That's all it actually says, but it says that in a context where an uncritical reader can have no doubt that it said "Russia did it and we have proof." The rest of the press release is a lengthy statement assuring us that Russia, despite its digital superpowers, can not alter the actual election results. A second, post-election press release makes more detailed assertions, and presents graphics depicting information about "hacking groups," already available to the public, to support the belief that "we know all the details about how Russia did it." Nothing connects these completely generic diagrams to the DNC servers - but "seeing is believing" and plenty of people do believe. A third and even more lengthy and elaborate press release falsely calls itself a declassified intelligence report. I say "falsely" because it bears no classification or distribution markings, no declassification notice, and no redaction markings. This very jargon-dense fake intelligence report reiterates previously made assertions in Hollywood style spook-speak obviously calculated to confuse and impress a naive audience. We are consistently told that the red hot smoking gun evidence that proves Russia Did It can not be released to the public because it is Top Secret. Presumably, releasing any evidence at all would compromise sensitive methods and sources. But... News flash: When you tell the opposition what you know and when you knew it, you have already compromised your sensitive sources and methods. Meanwhile, when an intelligence service creates a 100% convincing impression that it is waging political warfare against its domestic audience through Big Lie propaganda, the resulting loss of confidence and prestige does more damage to The National Security than the release of /one/ fragment of evidence in support of the propaganda narrative could possibly do. There's an old political slogan used by resistance movements: "The whole world is watching." We can update that today: "The whole world is laughing." And not just at the illiterate buffon in the Oval Office: The NeoLiberal DNC and its partisans at CIA are equally laughable thanks to their grim determination to keep pushing their favorite Big Lie narrative, as if there was no other grounds to demonize the illiterate buffoon's Administration.
For that matter, how does wikileaks really know where they got their info? A state actor is not going to come out and say "hey im from the FSB, Putin loves you! - here is some more shit.."
That's dangerously close to the classic propaganda technique called Argument From Ignorance: "Your failure to prove me wrong, proves me right." Not quite that, but dangerously close. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJY0p5aAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqM8sH/AyVAWscW3zlCYleM/BXnj85 5su6VOKRYkpWrNp2zUyD9D800xIBtYUOTz5gjrhqmLyZOSOB2fGxmFM/Onv2H1gU Ewc2BQMZgXy5Uqtat3K0iMCo0cvANvKpFUhHdltQxRi0oaAyot1B51TCLXYCLnuM hjJyP/0lNfAMfA2Ulci/072FaAuzQcfRZwNK1xqBMLeee1y2fWFi1X2x8nYNGkZV thf1dGDcS+CRTnsTet+2sXhE1LNIDdqQkpjsBkUDmXfDz1Tqa0lZ1gBo4JdH4HBq 0rOik2ruBjURozBcojjzVOxF4SHaqz3vH/vOOjVz/Iok0iNULaPw8a4LluwdveE= =eg/6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:55:06AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 03/22/2017 09:19 AM, John Newman wrote:
Comey said something interesting today that nobody???s picked up on yet because they???re so distracted by this other stuff, which I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the Russians, and Comey said no.
Just curious, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious - how does Comey know where Wikileaks got its info? I didn't realize he was on wikileaks staff which, if true, would actually be the most important piece of info to come out of this hearing so far... :P
Perhaps "no" was shorthand for, "The widely repeated assertion that Russia penetrated the DNC's mail servers and gave their contents to Wikileaks is an obvious lie."
Why obvious?
The Russian Hacking claim was first made in an October, 2016 press release from DHS that attributes it to "the USIC." No less an Independent Security Authority than Bruce Schneier has asserted that the public was not told about Russian Hacking until /after/ the election, in support of his position that the story was not intended to affect U.S. election results. How deep does this bullshit go? "All the way down" apparently.
Since there is no such agency or department as "the United States Intelligence Community," that means the content of the initial press release is not attributable to any auditable process or responsible party. Worse, it does not actually say "Russia did it." Instead it says that the leak was consistent with Russia's motives and methods. That's all it actually says, but it says that in a context where an uncritical reader can have no doubt that it said "Russia did it and we have proof." The rest of the press release is a lengthy statement assuring us that Russia, despite its digital superpowers, can not alter the actual election results.
A second, post-election press release makes more detailed assertions, and presents graphics depicting information about "hacking groups," already available to the public, to support the belief that "we know all the details about how Russia did it." Nothing connects these completely generic diagrams to the DNC servers - but "seeing is believing" and plenty of people do believe.
A third and even more lengthy and elaborate press release falsely calls itself a declassified intelligence report. I say "falsely" because it bears no classification or distribution markings, no declassification notice, and no redaction markings. This very jargon-dense fake intelligence report reiterates previously made assertions in Hollywood style spook-speak obviously calculated to confuse and impress a naive audience.
We are consistently told that the red hot smoking gun evidence that proves Russia Did It can not be released to the public because it is Top Secret. Presumably, releasing any evidence at all would compromise sensitive methods and sources. But... News flash: When you tell the opposition what you know and when you knew it, you have already compromised your sensitive sources and methods. Meanwhile, when an intelligence service creates a 100% convincing impression that it is waging political warfare against its domestic audience through Big Lie propaganda, the resulting loss of confidence and prestige does more damage to The National Security than the release of /one/ fragment of evidence in support of the propaganda narrative could possibly do.
There's an old political slogan used by resistance movements: "The whole world is watching." We can update that today: "The whole world is laughing." And not just at the illiterate buffon in the Oval Office: The NeoLiberal DNC and its partisans at CIA are equally laughable thanks to their grim determination to keep pushing their favorite Big Lie narrative, as if there was no other grounds to demonize the illiterate buffoon's Administration.
I watched the relevant bit of testimony and what Comey actually said, in answer to the question regarding wikileaks being supplied by Russian intelligence, was something like "we assessed the Russians used some kind of cut-out" (I'm paraphrasing from the 52-second clip I just watched). Which doesn't mean shit to me, for reasons I stated earlier. I don't feel compelled to believe him, nor do I feel compelled to believe he actually knows for any certainty. Sure, he /may/, but data to back up that conclusion has not been released... as you've stated, the Russian attribution for the DNC hacks (as publically stated) is so thin as to be a fucking joke. Perhaps there is some data from NSA sources they don't want to reveal that makes them more confident of attribution, or perhaps its just a Big Lie. Or perhaps its some toxic mix :P
For that matter, how does wikileaks really know where they got their info? A state actor is not going to come out and say "hey im from the FSB, Putin loves you! - here is some more shit.."
That's dangerously close to the classic propaganda technique called Argument From Ignorance: "Your failure to prove me wrong, proves me right." Not quite that, but dangerously close.
Sure, except I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing out how murky all this stuff is... and, really, I could give a fuck where wikileaks gets its info, so long as its accurate. Which, to my knowledge, they've always been careful about, and have yet to screw up :P John
It'd be fucking hilarious if all this political shit circling around DC escalates someone or some entity ends up ordering NSA to release its voice tapes on whoever, or someone leaks them. (Of course from its exabytes of full content take warrantless surveillance of all domestic and foreign comms stored in Utah, etc.) After all, sticking it to each other in public is surely much more fun for them than worrying about some boring secret tech program. Fan their flames :)
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
John Newman -
Mirimir -
Steve Kinney