101–110 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
There is overwhelming evidence with the DNC hack from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
Here, start with Fidelis:
https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...
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
"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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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'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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?
That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
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.