Assange offered pardon if he co-operated over email leak, UK court hears • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by afiori » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

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

#132

Post by three_seagrass » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #125

three_seagrass wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#133

Post by three_seagrass » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #112

three_seagrass wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#134

Post by m0zg » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

workaccountone wrote: post #127

Bendingo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#135

Post by _4byd » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #111

_4byd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

#136

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

three_seagrass wrote: post #133

harry8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#137

Post by crunchatized » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

meowface wrote: post #121

harry8 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 pl…

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:…

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.)

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

#138

Post by _4byd » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #66

_4byd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#139

Post by crunchatized » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #68

ccaleb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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.”

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

#140

Post by crunchatized » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #25

The level of brazen corruption this administration has been getting away with is absolutely staggering. At least when Nixon did it people had the decency to be upset. There's not even a pretense of integrity any more; this is the new normal. Our democracy is crumbling.

Maybe, but this doesn't appear to be an actual example of brazen Trump corruption. The journalist's summary of the lawyer's summary of the ex-congressman's statement appears to be inaccurate to the point of being fake news.

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

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all.