>Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.

That's wrong, and is spreading misinformation:

- Julian Assange said that his source was not Russian Intelligence.

- Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian.

It's well known in the cybersecurity industry that the DNC email hacks performed by Guccifer 2.0 were Russian GRU.

"It is well known that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

This Russia link is stated so often without a shred of evidence on the authority of known liars I think we're safe to say it's less likely than 50:50 at this point. I'll change my mind for credible evidence of which nobody has that they can share.

Evidence. Put up or shut up. The motive for spreading that lie, if it is a lie as seems more than plausible is as as big as the WMD lie are obvious.

Or at least be honest enough to say you still believe WMD as i did before evidence.

There's a fair bit of evidence in Mueller's report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf. But probably the most damning evidence is still highly classified.

There's evidence released by private firms, including ThreatConnect, FireEye, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Dell SecureWorks, who have been tracking Russian intelligence groups, including the ones that they allege hacked the DNC, for many years prior:

* https://threatconnect.com/blog/reassesing-guccifer-2-0-recen...

* https://www.fireeye.com/current-threats/apt-groups/rpt-apt28...

* https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

* https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...

* https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe...

(There are varying degrees of technical details in each report, but I recommend reading them all to get a full picture.)

Dutch intelligence says they hacked GRU computers and cameras and observed the hacks as they were happening: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch.... They contacted NSA, and this may have been the first time US intelligence became aware of this.

The evidence is so comprehensive, Mueller was able to name 12 of the GRU officers who conducted the breaches: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download. This indictment gets extremely specific, to the point of what software they were running and when, what they were searching for, how they got the funding to buy the VPN access they used to register the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, exactly what they said and sent to Wikileaks, etc. This goes into very granular detail. Here's an excerpt:

>Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server. 30.

>On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS software on the server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.

There is essentially a global consensus among intelligence and security organizations, governmental and private, that Russian intelligence was behind the DNC hack and the Guccifer 2.0 persona. By contrast, not a single entity other than the US government backed the Iraq WMD claims, and there wasn't any sort of specific public claims made beyond "they have WMDs". Here, Mueller's reports make hundreds of very specific, narrow claims.

If you like, I could write a 30+ page summary of all of the credible evidence in all of these documents, in addition to hints at what sort of classified evidence US intelligence may have (likely through compromised GRU and Russian government systems, and perhaps also moles, in combination with what the Dutch gave them).

As for whether Assange was aware of any of this or suspected it; who knows. It's very likely "Guccifer 2.0" / GRU would have maintained their cover while sending him information. Doesn't really make sense for them to be like "hey, Russia here, here's some stuff you might want". He's smart, though, and surely was (or at least is now) aware of the possibility.

> If you like, I could write a 30+ page summary of all of the credible evidence in all of these documents, in addition to hints at what sort of classified evidence US intelligence may have (likely through compromised GRU and Russian government systems, and perhaps also moles, in combination with what the Dutch gave them).

If you're offering... yes please.

I've seen some good RAND Corp write ups, and others on security blogs, to include one of those you listed, but a reasonably concise omnibus would be nice.

I want to and may get around to it eventually, but my infosec day job is occupying quite a bit of my time at the moment. If there's still contention around this in this sub-thread, that'll increase the odds I'll try to do it. (If most repliers are in agreement with the conclusion, not too much point of it.)

And just an aside unrelated to your post: I know the WMD error/lie/both depending on who was saying it has severely tarnished the credibility of the US intelligence community, as it should have, but it'd also be unempirical to disregard everything they ever say afterwards no matter how many decades later, especially when there seems to be near-universal independent agreement.

Purely speculatively, I suspect this was all very intentional of Russian intelligence, and perhaps Putin himself (if reports of his personal involvement are accurate; given his past field experience in intelligence, it seems plausible).

For example, that's one reason they began sending phishing emails the same day Trump gave his "Russia, if you're listening" comment/joke. They knew what kind of look that would create. They knew that whatever they did would be vehemently denied by Trump and his supporters and aggressively pounced on by his detractors and drive a huge wedge through the country and create wild disagreement about the integrity of this and future elections. The "metagame" (interpretation, backlash, and other butterfly effects) may have been much more of the goal than the game itself (releasing the compromised emails, which really weren't that juicy beyond things we already knew like bias against Bernie, the only exception being the Donna Brazile thing; though the perception and theories may have done much more damage than the actual facts). The mere appearance of Russian manipulation and the debates over whether it's ruining us or is a conspiracy theory achieves a significant objective without having to do hardly anything at all.

Maybe I'll write a big blog post about this whole thing, since I've ranted about this kind of meta-manipulation idea at length before (not that it's a novel proposition, or anything) in addition to debates about the evidence. First I'd need to make a blog, though.

The evidence is so comprehensive, and yet we can't see it.

Pages 36 to 51 of volume one of the Mueller report concern the hacking and dissemination of DNC emails. It has many detailed claims and conclusions, but what's notably missing:

The actual evidence on which Mueller bases his conclusion that both DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 are cutouts for the GRU. He doesn't even indirectly allude to specific evidence, let alone include it in the report. It just isn't there.

Funny thing: on page 46 it cites a 9/15/16 Twitter DM, @guccifer_2 to @dcleaks. If they're both false identities for the GRU, it seems odd for Russian state coworkers to be communicating with each other over cleartext DMs on Twitter, an American company. (Unless that's just to deviously throw us off their trail.)

>(Unless that's just to deviously throw us off their trail.)

This seems fairly probable.

But, yes, those are all valid points. The Mueller report does not contain the actual hard evidence of the attribution. It contains the full names of the people who registered the account and a lot of the things they did, but it doesn't state the proof of this. I suspect if we all had Top Secret clearances we would probably all be satisfied with the evidence they have, but that's blind speculation of course. A large percentage of it may be Dutch intelligence's findings, which have been widely reported on, but of course you still have to take Dutch intelligence's word for it that they really did compromise GRU computers and observe them.

There is some real evidence (especially released by private security firms) of GRU and SVR hacking the DNC et al., and Guccifer 2.0 is the only one who ever claimed to have the documents discovered during the hack. There's probably a lot of other circumstantial evidence, too. If I get around to writing a long post about all of this, I'll cover everything I can find.

> Julian Assange did not say that the hacks were not Russian.

Julian Assange has also never stated that a "hack" took place to obtain this data.

Which doesn't matter because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What is this evidence you bring up, and where can we find it?

If you have evidence - especially evidence that Assange himself doesn't have - by all means, share it. I am sure this would really help a lot of people understand an issue, about which the cyber-security industry has apparently reached a consensus.

Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

>The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

> The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded

"Conculded"? It's nice that they concluded. If they want _us_ to conclude, then let them bring evidence.

I remember when the US concluded Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". That did not turn out to be quite accurate.

In the case of WMDs in Iraq, it was based loosely off single and misused British intelligence.

There is overwhelming evidence with the DNC hack from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities.

Evidence cannot be "from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities"; it can only be from the affected machines. I believe you are conflating there being assertions by those communities with there being evidence.

If I am mistaken - please provide a link to such evidence.

I also remember that there was a report by many US intelligence agencies "confirming" the assessment - but they were all basing their opinion on the opinions by other agencies and/or CrowdStrike, the DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.

> DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.

Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"?

They're working with the GOP too https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cyb...

That's stronger than a mere association actually, at least w.r.t. this issue. The DNC was interested in deflecting criticism regarding the leaked information, and arguing "We're under attack by Russia!" is very useful to that end. So, the firm they hired reaches this conclusion, opaquely, and based on exclusive access to the machines, which are then not examined by any other party.

That's literally standard practice.

It really sounds like you're accusing CrowdStrike of lying with zero evidence to back that up.

I'm not accusing them of lying, I'm just saying that CrowdStrike claims are not uninterested third-party claims. On this matter they are not much more trustworthy than their contractors; and they need to present evidence to make their case to the public.

None of your sources are evidence; they are just unsubstantiated opinions.

The era when an authority could simply issue a conclusion, and expect the great unwashed public to just believe it without question, are long gone.

We all have access to much more information than in the past and if we wish, can perform our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, independent of old media, private sector experts, assorted propaganda sources etc.

You're certainly welcome to disprove the findings from the individual cybersecurity firms if you think they're wrong.

Here, start with Fidelis:

https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That link contains zero evidence.

That's your best? Really? How gullible do you think we are? Colin Powell had satellite photos of trains! That was something, not evidence he said it was, sure, but something at least. This is nothing.

If you won't address the evidence in the article then you have confirmation bias.

Let me spell it out even more clearly. I have addressed the article in its entirety by pointing out it is NOT evidence or even close to being evidence.

It is an unsubstantiated claim on the internet from a very dubiuos source with clear ulterior motvie.

The bias comes in when one is determined to believe something it can be confusing as to whether some item or other in support of it is evidence or not. This isn't. When there's evidence I may change my mind but it's kind of idiotic to believe this stuff when we've been so roundly lied to before and by Colin Powell with so much more credibility, with so much more to lose. Anyway he did lose it all and on behalf of all such "trust me" claims and this kind of unsubstantiated claim can only work once when it turned out to be lies. Bet your life that this is not just another lie? The last one cost into 6 figures of deaths just spell out the stakes. (But obviously also a huge funding boost to the military industrial complex. Rising tides lift all ships and most probably believed the lie that incidentally was good for their careers etc.)

Demand evidence for incendiary claims. For me, I owe it my own self-respect. I owe it out of support for this "democracy experiment". We can't rule this out as a total and utter lie. We really can't. Maybe it isn't but damn. That kind of lie worked so well before. Colin took me in totally, I believed the hell out of that guy.

That's actually not a claim you could make. You don't know why the poster has, thus far, not addressed "the evidence in the article."

That said, I am also seeking out this "evidence," of which you write. The Fidelis article you linked to did nothing but show some similarity in naming schemes, binary packaging conventions, and code style. And, it's building a case upon the precedent of prior "evidence," which we cannot see for ourselves either.

We all know that the FBI could put all of its evidence in a GitHub repo, along with a README.md that explains how to run the code that offers the substantiated proof of their claims. The problem is, they don't have any.

CrowdStrike, lol.

user: zmoreira created: July 8, 2013 karma: 49

Mostly posts on "hot button" political topics that can wielded as wedge issues, aka chelsea manning, iranian airstrikes, and DHS. I'm guessing this is someone's alt account.

What's wrong with CrowdStrike? It's perhaps the most respected shop in that list.

> including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

Some of these are not like the others.

The Ars article is at least very transparent about its conclusions and what evidence they're based on.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...

"We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era."

I never really got this argument. If someone embedded the username "J Edgar Hoover" in some documents, would we make the assumption that they pined for a return to cold war era FBI control over politics, or that they were just trolling? Dzerzhinsky was basically J Edgar's counterpoint in the east.

For the complete analogy, it should be the pinning of CIA control over politics based on Edgar Hoover's name because the GRU, which is accused of this operation is the military intelligence and Dzerzhinsky is the founder of NKVD/KGB/FSB - an FBI+DHS equivalent.

Direct quote from Mueller Report: "GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks's private communication system.”

Mueller claimed this was the case, but - his report, as released to the public, did not present evidence to establish these claims (nor, in fact, most claims in the report regarding Russian interference).

Also, "including possibly through Wikileaks" means nothing. "Including possibly through my second cousin's DIY basement mail server."

There was an indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

I don’t know if there was further evidence not made public to protect sources and methods.

Of all the things that aren't evidence, an indictment is possibly among the most not-evidence things.

A judge famously said you could indict a ham sandwich. In practice, grand juries say whatever a prosecutor wants them to say.

And as Russian nationals, it's also unlikely they'll ever have to actually stand trial, which is when evidence would be required to enter the public record to convict them.

I also very much doubt the US government will want to go through a discovery phase with these people, so I'm not sure the DoJ really wants a trial to actually take place.

> to protect sources and methods.

Either you "protect sources and methods", and not make strong public accusations, or you make accusations and disclose evidence.

Doing one but not the other is indistinguishable from just making false claims - which the US is known to have done repeatedly in the past (another example - Gulf of Tonkin).

It's true, the Mueller report is light on actual evidence and in places rather heavy on hedging language.

But it seems not an unreasonable guess in this case that there was possible use of "WikiLeaks's private communication system" based on a Twitter DM that was quoted in the Mueller report:

On September 15, 2016, @dcleaks wrote to @WikiLeaks, “hi there! I'm from DC Leaks. How could we discuss some submission-related issues? Am trying to reach out to you via your secured chat but getting no response. I’ve got something that might interest you. You won't be disappointed, I promise.”

> did not say that the hacks were not Russian

He also did not say that the hacks were not leaks. There are many things he also did not say. Are all of these things therefore true, or only the things you believe to be "well known" ?

> It's well known [...] were Russian GRU

Any Russian state or GRU involvement is completely unsubstantiated.

Any conspiracies saying the DNC emails were leaked have been debunked.

> It's well known in the cybersecurity industry that the DNC email hacks performed by Guccifer 2.0 were Russian GRU.

You mean, it is repeatedly claimed without solid (or any?) evidence.

> Assange, said Rohrabacher, “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.” Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, is the only U.S. congressman to have visited the controversial figure.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170817205448/https://rohrabach...

My understanding here is that "Russians" here means Russian government intelligence, it does not necessarily exclude Russian citizens.

> It's well known in the cybersecurity industry that the DNC email hacks performed by Guccifer 2.0 were Russian GRU.

That piece of disinformation was thoroughly debunked: http://www.g-2.space/

That seems credible...

This administration has shown to be more concerned with optics than court arguments

This story was broken by a tweet by SBS reporter Ben Lewis:

"Julian Assange court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks."

https://twitter.com/benlewismedia/status/1230172453185429505

Some extra significance to this, as Ben Lewis yesterday also interviewed two Australian politicians (including a member of the government) who visited Assange and alluded to knowing this was coming, as part of their request for the UK to ignore the US extradition request and return Assange to Australia instead:

"There is more the Australian government can do, and I think when we hear some of the stuff that's going to come to light next week, there's more that will be done," Mr Christensen said.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/leave-our-bloke-alone-australian...

> Can we get a transcript from what was said in court?

In English courts transcriptions are prepared by a private company and you have no right to see them. You can ask but if you're not involved in the case they will probably refuse.

It's quid-pro-quo all over again, whether true or not, it didn't matter, there were only interested by a public statement from Assange.

His source may not have been Russia but that source may have gotten them from Russia.

Yeah I'm not convinced Assange would recognize or care to look hard enough to figure out if his source was a simple cut out.

1. Maybe not. WikiLeaks is a leaks publication outfit, not a counter-intelligence outfit.

2. Suppose it had been a "cut-out" (though I'm incredulous of that). Do you believe they should have refused to publish in that case?

No to 2, I'm just saying I have doubts that Asange/WikiLeaks would reliably know who was actually behind the hacks.

You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved?

Is everyone in America to be considered a suspected Russian agent now?

Because there is a scenario: Assange got the DNC leaks directly from someone in authority in the DNC, itself, knows the person, and knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.)

Where did I say I can't fathom that situation for starters? From all indications from the DNC to the US Intelligence community it wasn't someone inside the DNC so absent any information from Assange/Wikileaks I have no reason to believe it's anyone else. Also we know from the War files that Wikileaks doesn't go through the documents provided to remove things like personal names to protect locals who did simple things like working as translators etc. so I'm not too convinced they'd look particular hard at exactly who was sending them the info.

DNC wouldn't know. US Intelligence community wouldn't know.

Only Assange knows where he got the data. Why is it so easy for you to trust entities that were not involved in the leak so easily, yet disregard Assange's own agency over knowing/understanding where he got the data?

Is it because you maybe just don't like Assange as a person?

I mean, not vetting documents is one thing. But, actively engaging in election interference all over the world is another thing. Assange did the former - your beloved intelligence agency, are currently doing the latter. Its reasonable to assume that US Intelligence agencies are lying, utterly, to give themselves yet more budget for nefarious deeds - i.e. the "Ma' Russkies" narrative, which serves only to foment more hatred...

They can definitely examine the access logs, method of intrusion, etc to determine who actually took the information from the servers... They're not 100% incompetent.

I think Assange isn't particularly careful or picky about what he releases and by extension particular inclined to thoroughly examine who's giving him that info. Additionally from all appearances he scheduled and coordinated (at the very least indicated he had something) to affect the US election.

As for my feelings about the various TLAs in the US they're mixed but I definitely think they're more likely to be able to tell who was actually involved than Assange.

[0] Wikileaks isn't a huge organization with massive investigatory prowess and resources, it wouldn't be terribly hard to believably fake non-association for a nation state.

>As for my feelings about the various TLAs in the US they're mixed but I definitely think they're more likely to be able to tell who was actually involved than Assange.

The same agencies that said, with certainty, that there were WMD's in Iraq .. and then, after a few million innocent people have been murdered, can't find them?

I think Americans put too much faith in their TLA's. These organisations are as corruptible as any other, and - as we have learned - could just as easily be controlled by Russia as anyone else.

They can't examine anything, because AFAIK the servers were physically destroyed before official US authorities got to them. They relied on CrowdStrike's analysis.

Yeah, Comey did say in 2017 that they could only get CrowdStrike to hand over their analysis, and never got direct access to the machines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03...

But I can't find anything about physical destruction, CrowdStrike claims to only have ever had images of the systems.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

In 2018, the DNC said “The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-n...

Maybe they were overwritten rather than literally destroyed. i.e. any VMs were destroyed and so on. Thanks for the links.

> You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved?

I can certainly imagine situation s where Assange would know this, but Assange hasn't claimed that Russia wasn't involved, by his own claims even when a pardon that would erase the risk he has been fleeing desperately from for years was dangled in front of him as an incentive, so I think it's pretty clear that either that situation does not exist or he has an undisclosed reason to preserve the image that Russia may have been involved. The former seems to be the simplest explanation.

> knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.)

World powers have had highly placed agents in foreign governments and political parties, etc., with high-level clearances that require rigorous vetting numerous times in the past. So, no, the person being in such a position does not establish that they are not a Russian agent or that Russia was not involved in their actions.

I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?

So, everyone in America is a potential Russian agent now?

That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.

The theory I've heard is Seth Rich stole the emails via USB and sent them to WikiLeaks after the nomination was stolen from Bernie in 2016 and he recognized the corruption inside the DNC. Reports from the investigation into the hack suggest the data transfer rate matches USB transfer speeds. Seth Rich was later murdered in what was deemed a robbery, but neither his wallet nor watch were removed from his body

Is there any evidence suggesting this Seth Rich story is believable? There's certainly ample evidence suggesting it is not. The (FOX) article that peddled this story has been retracted and Seth Rich's family is suing the network over it.

This conspiracy has been debunked. The VIPS statement you linked to doesn't name their "independent cybersecurity" source, which was later proven to be the work of UK trolls:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dn...

How is that a debunking? Sure, it points out an asinine argument but it's certainly not disproving anything.

It's proving their source was false, which was the premise of their entire argument, effectively debunking it.

Here's more information in another comment in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22369830

I don't mean to be condescending but perhaps you should continue your research. All of the stuff you're posting has been widely and thoroughly debunked. Additionally, you should think about which sources pushed this debunked information upon you. Are those trustworthy news sources?

I thought Hacker News had higher quality commenters than reddit, but lately I've been getting more and more disappointed.

(Not with you but with the likes of Seth Rich-conspiracy-theory spreading idiots).

I keep seeing people say it's debunked but their source for that is a news article that looks no different than my sources that doesn't provide convincing evidence in my opinion. Maybe you should continue your research on your debunking sources and think who pushed that theory onto you

That HN comment was debunked as well. See the response in the thread.

Again, this has been debunked, multiple times. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stori...

There is evidence from the leaks it was an inside job - basically the time stamps indicate the files were copied at USB2 speeds.

Imagine the lack of thought that goes into saying something like that. Not just saying it but also believing it.

You’re getting this data from a third party. One that may well have used a USB stick to copy the data AFTER exfiltrating it using some other method, but BEFORE handing it to wiki leaks.

Some shoddy timestamp correlations don’t mean that the data was stolen via USB in any way. They are inherently mutable and could well have been modified by an adversary to spread FUD.

Everything in the leak could be faked and nothing about it makes it definitionally due to a Russian hack either.

But the evidence certainly seems to indicate a local copy done by somebody who wasn't trying to cover their tracks:

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-met...

The only evidence pointing to Russians is the CIA says so. The NSA gave it about a 50% chance before joining the other agencies to parrot what the CIA said.

Yeah a guy working for an organization who would outright murder you for leaking sensitive information sure wouldn’t bother covering his tracks while leaking sensitive information.

Or, you know, this data was copied to a USB by Wikileaks at some point before publishing.

That doesn't make any sense. The source of the archive isn't wikileaks and the timestamps originate a couple months before publishing in the EDT timezone, before being organized and packaged for release.

Wikileaks source giving it to them via USB makes a lot of sense, then the timestamps where altered after delivery if they were not placed there as a red herring

What does it make sense is the evil DNC murdering one of their own employees on US soil after a very public data breach.

If only we could think of a country that would profit from promoting this conspiracy theory! Then we might get closer to the truth.

Fox didn't create the highly suspicious facts. What Fox does or doesn't report is not relevant. Also, anybody can sue anybody for anything, so that means nothing either.

Here we have an email recently obtained via FOIA, from Peter Strzok, showing he "squashed" the investigation:

https://imgur.com/a/9r44Qf4

That adds to the pile of suspicion. Seth had the means and the motive. Random killings are not so likely, even in DC. The attacker didn't take anything of value.

Podesta's emails also have very chilling comments about dealing with leakers.

> after the nomination was stolen from Bernie in 2016

I personally helped steal it, by casting one of the 3.7 million votes Hillary had over Bernie.

Did you also hide thousand of ballot boxes or conspired with DNC officials?

Yes. I'm also the one who leaked CNN debate questions, like: "here we are in Flint, MI – tell us what you think about the Flint water crisis."

Also, I sent John Podesta that risotto recipe.

BernieBro conspiracies haven't changed much in the last few years, I guess.

I was a Sanders supporter in 2016 (and am in 2020); while the system was in many ways rigged in advance to favor Clinton over any rival, there is no sense in which it is accurate to say that it was “stolen from” Sanders. I know this is a narrative that the Fox/Trump camp likes to push to exacerbate divisions within the anti-Trump opposition, but it's not at all accurate.

Assange would have been asked to provide evidence the Russian government was not the source of DNC emails, and likely to turn over his source.

It's true, as worded, it doesn't make any sense.

What would make sense is that in August 2017, Rohrabacher wanted to strike a deal for actual, solid evidence that would debunk the idea that the Russian government hacked the DNC (and with it, the idea that Trump worked with Russia), rather than just take Assange's word on who the source was and wasn't. Since his goal is to save Trump's reputation, Assange's word isn't enough.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-ma...

Of course Trump likely wasn't aware that Rohrabacher was trying to make this kind of deal at the time. Rohrabacher only spoke to Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who could have easily mentally filed their phone conversation directly in the trash, because the Trump administration was already busy secretly drafting up charges against Julian Assange at the time.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikil...

> Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.

Which is a blatantly false statement.

seems it's an easy pardon then

To be fair, Trump has a history of saying things that don't line up with reality (this is objective, apolitical fact), so it's not a stretch to think he might not have been aware of this. Or he might have wanted a repeat of the same statement in a different forum.

Or it might be total bullshit. But given the events of recent days, it's hard to argue that it's not at least consistent.

Assange hinted that Seth Rich was their source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_...

Combine that with Bill Binney's analysis that proves the data couldn't have possibly been downloaded over the internet but rather shipped on a USB: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/becdyc/nsa_whist...

Ok, so I watched some of that video and there is a comically simple explanation[1] that throws a wrench into Binney's "proof". All he knows is that the files were at one point saved using a FAT filesystem. He doesn't know specifically when that happened and if it was before, during, or after the documents were stolen.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=mwUoE8UecC...

The Seth Rich thing has been widely debunked multiple times (as I said, and provided evidence for in another comment). The Fox article pushing this has been debunked. Fox is being sued by the family. There is no evidence for this theory.

You couldn't possibly provide any evidence because none of the evidence ever reached the public. DNC never allowed FBI to investigate the servers, so all "evidence" you have are claims originating from CrowdStrike, a private company on DNC's payroll known for lies and manipulation.

I'm not sure that would preclude Trump from making the offer - it's entirely possible he didn't know Assange had done this and/or wanted him to re-amplify the claim.

There's also some wonky stuff in the original dispute from Assange and Craig Murray:

> Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all.

So ... why did they do it then? Seems like there would be an explanation.

> “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

They did eventually indict Russians, of course, and Roger Stone's involvement has been a separate news item this week.

edit: It is really interesting to see the downvoted comments here, many of which seem to be reasonable.

And it doubly makes no sense coming from _his lawyer_. To what end would they jeopardize his freedom by making such statements? I smell fake news.

Here's a quote from Rohrabacher after visiting Assange in 2017: “When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him"

Is it really that hard to believe?

That's not what's being "reported" though. What's being reported is that "Trump promised a pardon if Assange says it's not from Russia". Notice how Russia or promise of a pardon does not come up in your Rohrabacher quote (which, BTW, I'd need to verify as well before I believe it). It's like I said "I'll call on Jeff Bezos to give you a million dollars if you vote in this election", without even specifying who I want you to vote for.

Good point.

Somehow;

"tell us who did this" is being reported as;

"tell us the Russians did this"

This is why the old-media cannot be trusted.

The article quotes Rohrabacher like I did. You're right it does not say "tell us the Russians did this". It's Assange's lawyer who's filling that part in.

As well as other parts. No promise was made, and no specific answer was requested. That "lawyer" (assuming they even said what's being "reported") is working for the DNC, which is trying really hard to get ahead of some extremely damaging revelation (such as, for example, that someone at the DNC leaked the info, which would completely demolish what remains of the "Russian collusion" narrative they rode on for 3 years).

It makes zero sense otherwise for that lawyer to jeopardize Assange's "guaranteed" pardon.

Can we really trust CIA and the "multiple U.S intelligence agencies" on this issue? I have no idea.

Magic democraticly-elected-sovereign-leader-murdering 8-ball says: "No."

I think the anti-Assange/anti-Trump clan are trying to get ahead of this story and positioning it as if it were another quid pro quo situation, which is insidious and duplicitous to say the least - because actually there are a lot of political hacks who are headed for deep embarrassment if Assange can demonstrate that, indeed, Russia was not behind the DNC leak which embarrassed Clinton and 'cost her the election'.

Trump telling Assange "okay, so .. come out and tell the world that the DNC leaks weren't Russia-sourced and if you can provide evidence that this is true, I will pardon you" is not the same as Trump saying "cover up Russia's involvement in the DNC leak, and I'll pardon you" - but yet, the positioning in mainstream media so far (its only been a few hours) is definitely making it seem like the former.

Until we can refer to the sources (you know, "avoid fake news by going to the source"), this should be treated as fake news either way. The hearing hasn't even ramped up yet and we are already knee-deep in Russiagate nonsense already.

In what world is this not a quid pro quo and political extortion of Assange? The president should not be involved and withholding a pardon to squeeze out political favors is not acceptable in any form.

Lol. “Withholding a pardon” likes it’s an entitlement and not granting it indicates corruption...

How about "dangling a pardon to squeeze out the desired response"?

So, dangling a pardon to solicit irrefutable proof of a crime by the DNC in lying about the source of the email leak and fabricating the forensics through Crowdstrike?

We should surely go after Trump and not the perpetrators of the underlying crimes! More misdirection to hide their crimes a la Biden & Ukraine, Hillary & China.

I was not suggesting justice should only be sought for Trump's suspicious actions. In fact I would have voted to boot both Clinton's and Trump.

Corruption isn't limited to one side or the other. Party line votes in both past impeachments prove the US does not yet have a working judicial process for sitting presidents. (Except perhaps from those few jurors who crossed over such as Romney.)

If someone should be pardoned, withholding the pardon for the purpose of coercion is extortion. If they should not be pardoned, offering a pardon for the purpose of a political favor is corruption.

Seems like once you've done that due process is violated.

Lol. “Should be pardoned.” I’m not sure you’re getting it.

I’m not sure you are. Using the promise of a pardon, with the implicit threat of upcoming or continuing prison time, to coerce someone into doing something politically favourable for you is extortion.

And yes, some people “should be pardoned”. I wouldn’t say a guy convicted of war crimes or a corrupt governor falls into that category though.

Except it’s not extortion bc there is no threat of action particularly of the sort where one is obligated or expected by duty or ethically, despite your dogged perception that circumstances can entitle one to a pardon.

Further, there is no muh quid pro quo threat of prison time as it predates this.

Of course it also helps that none of this even happened and is Fake News and misinformation, but again muh “extortion”.

>Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.

https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assa...

Looking at the sources, so far, the White House has already been found out to have lied in it's opening statement about this, and the OP here confused whether the Source was Russia and whether Russia was involved. Sure, need to hear more, but so far, with Rohrabacher admitting to working on this exact thing in 2017, it's more real than fake.