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

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

stundin.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 334 posts

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#121

Post by rendall »

extra88 wrote: post #87
rendall wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there you go with the exact flood I predicted. Here is my reply. Simple. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...

This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied. Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this: > No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that mat…

The guidelines require assumption of good faith. So, if we look at the same evidence and I find it lacking, your first goto assumption should not be "well, you have a cognitive bias while I am free of such".

> reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie

While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in "the government" insist that it's nonsense

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#122

Post by ComputerGuru »

threeseed wrote: post #118
2939223 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/30/us-intelligenc...

That's an unproven allegation. Navalny was actually poisoned.

These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. They weren’t disputed, and as such, they are part of the official court record and are worth more than random hearsay.

The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#123

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

gamblor956 wrote: post #103
Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi... ) In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. ( https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol…

The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#124

Post by ComputerGuru »

EvRev wrote: post #22
Medicineguy wrote: post #4

While scrolling, the web page shifts up a couple dozens of pixels (Android, Firefox) . It's very annoying. I had to stop reading after the second paragraph. Am I the only one?

It is a bug when you use VH instead of VW on your height attribute. Always use VW on mobile because of the default behavior on mobile browsers to show the address bar when scrolling.

But that breaks a lot of design assumptions, since many times the use of vh vs vw is to avoid assuming which of the height or width is greater. You’d have to use a min/max calculation to avoid aspect ratio mayhem whn comparing landscape to portrait.

The real big is UI elements that randomly appear and disappear in the browser chrome, such as scroll bars and address bars, that contribute to vh/vw randomly spazzing.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#125

Post by belorn »

lbwtaylor wrote: post #110
2939223 wrote: post #104

Nothing more jarring than the harrowing treatment of Assange by the US, contrasted with their subsequent lecturing and sanctioning of Belarus re Roman Protasevich, or Russia re Navalny. Zero integrity.

Has the US tried to extra judicially murder Assange?

Do the US need to extra judicially murder Assange in order to make an example of him?

I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to successfully influence the legal systems in countries like the UK and Sweden.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#126

Post by GoofballJones »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong.

Come on...

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#127

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

stefan_ wrote: post #98
billyhoffman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_ca…

You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?

To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#128

Post by threeseed »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #122
threeseed wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unproven allegation. Navalny was actually poisoned.

These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. They weren’t disputed, and as such, they are part of the official court record and are worth more than random hearsay. The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.

Anybody can make claims in court and the US government is hardly going to confirm or deny poisoning someone.

It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny who was actually poisoned.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#129

Post by iNane9000 »

jude- wrote: post #97
billyhoffman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_ca…

This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.

Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#130

Post by C19is20 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #127
stefan_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?

To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or…

sauce?
Post reply on HN