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

291–300 of 334 posts

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

#291

Post by the_optimist »

res0nat0r wrote: post #288
the_optimist wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?

It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says:

> In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.

I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.

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

#292

Post by the_optimist »

slg wrote: post #285
the_optimist wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely. Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?

That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?

Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer.

You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.

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

#293

Post by res0nat0r »

the_optimist wrote: post #291
res0nat0r wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good…

This is tiresome, but like I mentioned has already been proven.

> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton.

> On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."

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

#294

Post by the_optimist »

the_optimist wrote: post #291
res0nat0r wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good…

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'.

How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes."

It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.

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

#295

Post by res0nat0r »

the_optimist wrote: post #294
the_optimist wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good…

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "…

It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.

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

#296

Post by the_optimist »

the_optimist wrote: post #294
the_optimist wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good…

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "…

I did some work for you. Here's the direct quote from the unreacted Mueller report:

"The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone."

"With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs."

They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories.

https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...

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

#297

Post by slg »

the_optimist wrote: post #292
slg wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?

Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.

I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.

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

#298

Post by DevKoala »

pseudo0 wrote: post #201
sketchyj wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of words but you didn't answer the question. The CIA and FBI are not accountable to Americans. You may be a fan of, or even work for, these institutions. But they are unaccountable and authoritarian and opaque.

Accountability likely peaked with the Church Committee (disclosed MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc), some of the results of which are still classified today, almost 50 years later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

I always thought MKULTRA was a meme. Thank you.

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

#299

Post by smashah »

the_optimist wrote: post #273
smashah wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly thinks the CIA does any good in the world?

I do, but such polarity isn’t the question. The real question is whether or not it’s appropriate to have an independently governed, extra-national paramilitary organization funded by the US but not limited by its laws or oversight. What we can and should do as citizens when that group renders monstrous, rogue injustice under your name and funding.

The polarity is the result of asking the question. It's not a presumption. Any basic knowledge of CIA history would conclude that they're a complete geopolitical and moral liability. Must be worth it to some maniacs though.

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

#300

Post by [deleted] »

the_optimist wrote: post #202
newacct583 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I continue to be amazed at the level of competence ascribed to this man. Donald Trump was, at heart, a lazy do-nothing in search of sycophancy and praise. He had zero inclination to actually change anything about how the government operates. All he cared about was that it was "his". And to the extent he was ever "critical" of agencies, it was only because they said something (or leaked something) that embarrased him.…

I understand this is how you feel. However, your reply reeks of not only anger, but of hatred. You haven’t succeeded in identifying biographic or factual characteristics that even merit inspection. Navel gazing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN