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

91–100 of 151 posts

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

#91

Post by derision »

ccaleb wrote: post #55
derision wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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

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

#92

Post by Bendingo »

three_seagrass wrote: post #36
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…

>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.

> 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.

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

#93

Post by jayd16 »

_4byd wrote: post #38
jayd16 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

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

#94

Post by Gibbon1 »

jayd16 wrote: post #93
_4byd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#95

Post by Bendingo »

three_seagrass wrote: post #53
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 electio…

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.

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

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

fit2rule wrote: post #18
rtkwe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.)

> 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.

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

#97

Post by dragonwriter »

derision wrote: post #22
sjg007 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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.

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

#98

Post by _4byd »

jayd16 wrote: post #93
_4byd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

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

#99

Post by pandaman »

monocasa wrote: post #88
crunchatized wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#100

Post by tropo »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN