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

311–320 of 334 posts

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

#311

Post by rendall »

joshuamorton wrote: post #305
rendall wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact. All of those points which you attribute agreement to me, that you assert to be known are not, actually known , but again, are assertions only. The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known . An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable…

> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack?…

> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions

Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you.

"Who wrote X-Agent?" "It was definitely Russians" is not a valid answer, either.

An indictment is not evidence. It's an accusation. Show the evidence, let it be examined, cross-examined, etc.

No, spooks' testimony is not credible by itself, not after they repeatedly lied under oath, to both congress and the public.

> "Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? "

"geopolitically" not to nitpick, but you probably mean plain "politically"

Not necessarily. Clinton was already cosy with the Russians as State Secretary. Trump was an unknown quantity. Asserting anything else is a retcon.

> "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US"

You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either.

Ok, I think it's clear that there's no more fruitful exchange to happen on this topic. I tried to demonstrate that the evidence must be extraordinary and that it does not rise to that level. You disagree. You tried to demonstrate to me that the evidence is extraordinary. I disagree.

Know that I'll read your reply, and absorb it, and think on it, but likely won't answer. Let us amicably agree to disagree on this.

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

#312

Post by Cyberthal »

DevKoala wrote: post #280
Cyberthal wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A politician in conflict with the FBI and CIA? Someone who makes comments such as "Deep State Department," "drain the Swamp," and "witchhunt"? I'm having Trumble thinkinp of one. I Don't know aldbody offhand. He would have to be backed by the US military to have a realistic shot against such powerful factions of the US oligarchy. Who's popular with the military?

Someone with cool dance moves too.

You gotta be pretty smooth to dodge those CIA hitmen with their heart-attack guns.

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

#313

Post by gonehome »

joshuamorton wrote: post #305
rendall wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact. All of those points which you attribute agreement to me, that you assert to be known are not, actually known , but again, are assertions only. The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known . An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable…

> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack?…

> “An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof.”

This level of requirement is beyond what’s required to convict someone of murder in a court of law. It’ll basically never be met under any conditions.

It’s also almost certainly selectively applied to cases where they don’t want to accept a conclusion.

It’s admirable to lay out details, but I’m skeptical you’ll make any progress here. If their responses are in good faith maybe it’ll have some affect, maybe they think they’re responding in good faith? It feels strongly driven by motivated reasoning rather than a genuine interest in what’s likely to be true.

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

#314

Post by joshuamorton »

rendall wrote: post #311
joshuamorton wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack?…

> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. "Who wrote X-Agent?" "It was definitely Russians" is not a valid answer, either. An indictment is not evidence. It's an accusation. Show the evidence, let it be examined, cross-examined, etc. No, spooks' testimony is not credible by itself, not after they repeatedly lied under oa…

> Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you.

You're absolutely correct, but based on the weight of the evidence we have, we can find a most likely explanation. You've previously stated that all explanations bare equally likely, but that's not true. Bayesian reasoning allows us to look at various pieces of evidence and priors and weigh them, even when all are individually of dubious use.

It's clear you don't want to answer any of those questions. They're simpler questions, my assumption here, again based on the weight of the evidence is that you're avoiding answering them because they demonstrate that Russia being responsible is the most likely answer.

As another user mentions, you're showing lots of examples of motivated reasoning, and that's unfortunate. Even more so that you're then projecting these accusations upon me. Hopefully your inability to engage with the substance of what I've presented will demonstrate that to any other readers.

> You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write.

Yes and, this is a valid rhetorical act when, for example suggesting the abstract idea one is discussing.

> The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either.

That's not an accusation I made. Nor did any one else in this thread. And I'd agree that it is less likely than what I'm actually suggesting, which is that there wasn't collusion per say, but simply mutually beneficial actions. This is what is supported by the weight of the evidence and claimed in government reports, for example. That Russia hacked and leaked DNC data, to the benefit of the trump campaign and Russia itself, obviously. I'm unclear why you feel it necessary to inflate the accusations made to something less likely. This feels very motte-and-bailey, although I can't tell if it was intentional or a subconscious way to protect your preconception.

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

#315

Post by a0-prw »

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and just as much the propaganda build up to it), I believe nothing Western msm says.

Assange was stitched up, but we still constantly have to hear claims of the superiority of Western "democracies", freedom of speech and justice.

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

#316

Post by slg »

the_optimist wrote: post #308
slg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clear…

>You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees).

Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office replies[3]. If these emails are worthy of publishing, everything is worthy of publishing.

If anything, these emails have negative public value because they drown out the leaked emails that might have actually interesting content and many of them, especially the out of office emails, end up leaking totally innocent people's contact information.

[1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/21638

[2] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23479

[3] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...

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

#317

Post by the_optimist »

smashah wrote: post #299
the_optimist wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you ask, "Do they do ANY good?", then yes. Organized criminals are also active in charity. A good question is, is the net effect positive, and are the downsides worth the upsides? Arguably not at all. Possibly in a severely restrained, reformed, governed manner.

JFK was quite bitter about his experience, for example, and suggested he wished to "splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-pol...

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatter...

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

#318

Post by gamblor956 »

yownie wrote: post #184
gamblor956 wrote: post #101

Stundin is a tabloid. Let's wait until this report is confirmed by more reputable sources before declaring Assange innocent.

I'm not sure where you're getting that its a tabloid it's one of the more reputable papers here in Iceland, and broke the Panama papers stories here years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stundin

The front page of Stundin shows a number of articles about celebrities and uses the word "scandal" more than a dozen times.

The Panama Papers were first reported by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, not Stundin, but claiming credit for another paper's work is pretty standard for a tabloid.

Sure, it might report on real news occasionally. A number of U.S. tabloids have reported on scandals and crimes that eventually turned out to be true.

But if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.

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

#319

Post by efdee »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #252
freeflight wrote: post #172

Not really surprising considering the many other blatant lies in the Assange case. For example to this day barely anybody seems aware about the fact how Swedish police changed witness testimonies to create rape accusations that were never even made by the two women, to have these nasty accusations leaked to the press only hours later, in the middle of the night. That's only one of the many findings by the UN rapporte…

Are you saying there was no credible rape accusation?

Yes.

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

#320

Post by efdee »

nappy wrote: post #251
k1m wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2…

Before the cables, there were the leaks on Afghanistan and Iraq that were unredacted.

Unsufficiently redacted, not unredacted. And mostly because the Pentagon refused to assist in the redacting.
Post reply on HN