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

191–200 of 334 posts

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

#191

Post by adrr »

rendall wrote: post #32
belltaco wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of evidence has been shown for this part: >Russians hack DNC

No. There isn't. There are lots of people saying they have evidence and referring to other people who say no its true they really have evidence. When you dig it's just circular self-references all the way down.

There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?

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

#192

Post by the_optimist »

joshuamorton wrote: post #78
rendall wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary standard because you’re only looking for evidence that supports an existing position based primarily Let's s start with even minimal evidence before we get to worrying about my cognitive biases. Read #8 in this article: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official... "Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, testifying in secret to congress, ... saying there was…

You've already been provided and discarded more than minimal evidence. For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. Whether or not crowdstrike knew in 2017 doesn't matter. Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.

For as informed as you claim to be, everything you’ve linked to, claimed, and insinuated is vague, indirect, unsubstantiated, and disappears into a cloud of boring political talking points.

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

#193

Post by the_optimist »

gonehome wrote: post #64
rendall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.

They traced it back to the IRA and named the specific people involved on the Russian side and the method (email phish of Podesta). The Mueller report goes into specific detail or you can listen to the lawfare blog podcast that goes through it. “Collusion” is a poorly defined term, the report found their actions didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, but there was plenty of evidence that the campaign was int…

Reference Lawfare as a source of unbiased truth in an article about Assange being framed by the intel agencies? The irony could hardly be higher. Ben Wittes, Lawfare editor (Brookings sponsored), claimed counsel status to the head of the FBI in legal proceedings. The streets of Russiagate are paved with agency partisans.

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

#194

Post by syshum »

DevKoala wrote: post #135

Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.

No, and it is only going to get worse

Since the Inception of the FBI they have declared war on the citizenry, they have zero respect for the constitution, seeing it as a hurtle to their power.

They have done this under many names "War on crime", "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", and now "War on Domestic Extremism"

They are all covers for the same abuse of power. The only way to end it is a complete reversion of decades and decades of legal frameworks that allows all levels of government to ignore the constitution, pass laws clearly outside the powers of Article 2 Section 8, and removal of all accountability under immunity practices like "Qualified Immunity" and "Sovereign Immunity"

In sort it will take something on the order of another Constitutional Convention and a complete restructure of the federal government... So I doubt anything is going to change

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

#195

Post by the_optimist »

slg wrote: post #107
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some reason never released them. [citation needed]

Emails specifically? I'm not sure if that has ever been confirmed, but this is directly from Assange[1]: >“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post. >“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial materia…

You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.

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

#196

Post by the_optimist »

belltaco wrote: post #31
rendall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.

Plenty of evidence has been shown for this part: >Russians hack DNC

Negative. No. Nothing of the sort. We have singularly a “trust me” from several deeply partisan individuals who have been caught directly in other lies.

That said, if you have this “plenty of evidence” please lay it forth at the feet of humanity very clearly. It would be tremendously valuable and conclusive.

In practice we have waving again and again with more hand waving and assurance on top. A heroic confabulation of nonsense.

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

#197

Post by the_optimist »

adrr wrote: post #191
rendall wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There isn't. There are lots of people saying they have evidence and referring to other people who say no its true they really have evidence. When you dig it's just circular self-references all the way down.

There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?

This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.

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

#198

Post by d3ntb3ev1l »

sb057 wrote: post #156
DevKoala wrote: post #135

Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.

Vote for politicians who will pass laws that dictate how they are to operate. Alternatively, if it is an avenue in your state, start a referendum to pass a state law calling for a Constitutional Convention (requires 34 states) to pass an amendment to deal with it.

We can’t even vote for politicians to fix potholes

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

#199

Post by the_optimist »

extra88 wrote: post #134
rendall wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These results are debatable and inconclusive, which is the entire point. If you're going to accuse a sitting President of collusion, you had best have all your ducks in a row. Anything less can be perceived as, or even be indeed, partisan hackery.

Why are you bringing up Trump? This is about whether Russians hacked the DNC's email, that doesn't require collusion or even awareness from the Trump campaign. But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, he publicly called on Russia to release information about Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in writing, called on a foreign governmen…

Yeah, we get it. Years of life invested in following the mumbling press who assured with certainty that overturning just one more insider-source stone would reveal that holy grail, all for naught. The real “collusion” was hoping for transparency and accountability, which was denied by our intel agencies from the get-go. Everything after was merely a tail-chasing exercise.

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

#200

Post by syshum »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #175
mywacaday wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why would they not apply to Assange?

The Espionage Act of 1917 is an extremely broad - and almost certainly unconstitutional - law passed during WWI, which gives the government broad power to go after anyone who publishes government secrets, including journalists. WWI was a low point in the history of freedom of expression in the US, and this law is a holdover from that era. It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government t…

>>The Espionage Act of 1917 ... almost certainly unconstitutional

Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court.

That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch

Post reply on HN