1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.

It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...

We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?

It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says:

> In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.

I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.

This is tiresome, but like I mentioned has already been proven.

> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton.

> On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'.

How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes."

It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.

I did some work for you. Here's the direct quote from the unreacted Mueller report:

"The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone."

"With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs."

They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories.

https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...

It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.

Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims.

Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?

Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.

This is the standard dissembling. We went from “I have got the truth! Your client is guilty!” to “He’s a smart guy, seems guilty.” Only two paragraphs. Astonishing really, that people are willing to invest themselves like this.

It most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.

Thankfully he's not being charged re: the Guccifer 2.0 hacking.

I'd like to understand the difference between "interfere[nce] with the US election process" and releasing true information that some voters use to inform their vote.