Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#81

Post by nsdfg »

sschueller wrote: post #2

This makes no sense. Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. From wikipedia [1]: On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[11] from winning the presidency.[12] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gav…

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

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#82

Post by akvadrako »

workaccountone wrote: post #32
derision wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 The (FOX) article that peddled this story has been retracted and Seth Rich's family is suing the network over it.

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

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#84

Post by crunchatized »

dangoor wrote: post #77
einpoklum wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#85

Post by einpoklum »

dangoor wrote: post #77
einpoklum wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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).

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#86

Post by einpoklum »

crunchatized wrote: post #84
dangoor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#87

Post by nsdfg »

Rohrabacher: "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."

https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assa... https://web.archive.org/web/20200220001758/https://www.rohra...

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#88

Post by monocasa »

crunchatized wrote: post #69
ryanlol wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#89

Post by crunchatized »

einpoklum wrote: post #71
rtkwe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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...

Re: Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears

#90

Post by nsdfg »

sschueller wrote: post #2

This makes no sense. Julian already stated that Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks. From wikipedia [1]: On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[11] from winning the presidency.[12] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gav…

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.
Post reply on HN