Julian Assange was on Sean Hannity today. I consider this proof of life, as Assange addressed the entire thing head on. It was a fluid conversation in which Hannity and Assange interrupted each other a couple of times and it was a believable exchange. Phew! My day just got 100% better.
The 26 minute video is below, however here are the highlights:
Our source is not the Russian government
Does Wikileaks have hacked info from RNC which was withheld?
Yes – we received about 3 pages of info to do with RNC and Trump, but it was already public. Nothing significant.
CIA says Russians tried to influence election. Do you think they are?
I think it’s very interesting. The key quote for us is from Clapper, who oversees all agencies – says evidence is not strong, no good insight into the sequencing of the releases, or when the data may have been provided.
There’s a deliberate attempt this week, to conflate a whole lot of issues together. It seems to be a desire, a dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the US Electoral collage. It’s foolish because it won’t happen It’s dangerous because the argument that it SHOULD happen could happen in 4 or 8 years.
What about the reports of a DHS attack on Georgia?
Could be nothing, a test.
Without revealing your sources, safe to say that the info came from within the USA?
We have said it has not come from a state party [Russia, or any other country], there’s been no claim that it’s been altered or fake. We’re unhappy that we felt we even needed to say it wasn’t Russia, as we never like to reveal our sources in any way.
Do you think Obama knows the source wasn’t Russia? And he’s purposefully advancing the theory to hurt Donald Trump?
YES. (9:30) It’s clear if you look at statements by Clapper that US intel was not aware of when or how received it’s pretty clear Obama must be getting the same briefings. Deliberate attempt to conflate information.
Benghazi: Youtube demonstration “spontaneous”
That’s false, and our publications show Hillary Clinton knew it was false. Letter from Hillary to Chelsea, the day of / after the attack, where she had knowledge of the cause. The CIA advanced the Youtube video lie.
Assange then goes on to discuss how the polls got Brexit and Trump’s election SO WRONG.
There was intense pressure to make people feel ashamed to vote for Trump.
Assange EXCORATES the liberal media for bias, which turned a lot of people off.
Everything is almost all insecure now, almost all hackable.
Assange addresses the Conflation between 3 current events; the wikileaks publications, alleged hacks of the US voting system (DHS), and other publications appearing on the internet that almost nobody has heard of. In this last category: DC Leaks and wordpress site calling himself “Guccifer 2.0.” Also publications by “The Hill” “Gawker,” and “smoking gun” who have relied on Guccifer leaks. Those leaks are intended to look like the Russians.
And most importantly: If Trump goes to the dark side and we have information on him, we won’t hold back
See the interview here:
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Really?!? Some audio that comes across as suspicious from go? Proves life to you? The most camera friendly wiki staff member not seen since Oct,16 in London. But this hannity audio is good enough?
Julio,
There’s obvious back and forth, interrupting, etc. Questions asked were responded to immediately, and it was all about current events.
Also, wouldn’t Clinton/Podesta’s team have been the ones behind anything bad happening to Julian, considering he helped destroy their grip on world domination? Would the new scenario be that despite Assange being dead, pro-Trump forces, including Sean Hannity, used technology to create an auto-tuned Assange interview meant to solidify Trump’s win and speak to his legitimacy? Maaybe.
That possibility aside, this is the best we have for now and it’s good enough for me.
Let’s see the info he has on RNC and Trump. Why not publish those now? What about the Colin Powell emails.. who supplied them? Easy for him to deny anything on the basis of protecting his mysterious source.
How does he know his source wasn’t fed by Russians? They had motive, means, opportunity and no fear of consequences because Obama was fearful of looking like he was screwing with election.
Syeth Richski?
J. Assange is man of the year
Cock and balls baby. Just another man being a fucking man. The tyranny of the fairer sex is over. Sorry girls you just did not have the brains to see the forest for the trees. Russians! Russians! Russians!
Why would anyone believe Assange about who his sources are or are not? He obviously wanted to harm Clinton and he did it. He is certainly not free of bias. Do you really expect him to say “The Russians and I wanted to keep Hillary from being elected and to elect Trump?” It’s obvious that that is the case, but what would he have to gain from admitting that?
But just about everyone on this site has decided, without any reason or evidence, to trust Assange and to trust the Russians, in what they say, as well as to trust fake news, and to disbelieve the CIA. The CIA is of course hardly perfect. But there is no reason to believe that Assange or the Russians are trustworthy either.
This is all tribal stuff. Your tribe tells you who to believe– no evidence needed. And for most people here, your tribe tells you to believe fake news people like Hannity.
No one wants to wrestle with tough questions. You just believe what your tribe tells you to. Here’s an article by a conservative talk radio host about fake news.
Charlie Sykes on Where the Right Went Wrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/sunday/charlie-sykes-on-where-the-right-went-wrong.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
frog go get your needed female products and leave the men alone. It was a good ride kid. It is over. Never again will the people respect the bleeder class for true leadership roles that truthfully the commies created by design. Give a fool a dollar or a woman power and all. At least the civilized world does not stick you in a trash bag.
Frog, Julian Assange is a respected journalist, and Wikileaks is a respected organization which has in fact, been noted for not having a bias. If you’re going to sit there and impugn either, you should back it up with evidence.
The Economist New Media Award (2008)
The Amnesty New Media Award (2009)
TIME Magazine Person of the Year, People’s Choice (highest global vote) (2010)
The Sam Adams Award for Integrity (2010)
The National Union of Journalists Journalist of the Year (Hrafnsson) (2011)
The Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (2011)
The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011)
The Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (2011)
The Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)
The Voltaire Award for Free Speech (2011)
The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011)
The Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011)
The Privacy International Hero of Privacy (2012)
The Global Exchange Human Rights People’s Choice Award (2013)
The Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts (2013)
The Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013)
The Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014)
As well as nominations for the UN Mandela Prize (2015) and nominations in six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize (2010-2015)
Here are a few articles, but I am not going to dig up any others, though there are tons of them, because I am 100% sure that if Jesus Christ himself came to you and said that Assange was biased, you wouldn’t believe him either.
I am not saying that all of his work was biased. But the bias against Clinton has been obvious and clear for a long time, and has been written about quite a lot. This is all tribal stuff. You will believe what your tribe tells you to believe.
Assange, Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
The Origin of Julian Assange’s War on Hillary Clinton
From inside the Ecuadorian embassy, the proponent of radical transparency has worked out a playbook for exposing secrets to influence elections.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html
WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory That Hillary Murdered a DNC Staffer
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html
Ex-Friend: Assange Out to Settle Score with Hillary
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/wikileaks-clinton-election-2016-politics/2016/10/23/id/754926/
Assange grudge against Clinton shapes US election
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/300890-assange-grudge-against-clinton-shapes-us-election
I will say this again. Hillary Clinton would not have lost the election had the head of the FBI not claimed that they had evidence that could lead to charges against her 2 weeks prior to the election. There is still no discussion of this fact. Why is that?
The Wikileaks documents helped Trump, yes. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was Comey.
Why isn’t the media focusing on Comey? There was a reason he did what he did. I want to know what it was…
What is it with the dykes around here. frog peaches “Seth”. How obvious must it be? They are fucking commies. That is bad for the intellectually retarded. Bad as in bad. Not good. Evil. Cancer. Filth. Scumbag. etc etc etc
“I’m just a poor communist frog with a big mouth”. Look it up. These fuckers are not an accident.
Obamacares got you on all sorts of cheap and dangerous meds.
Frog,
First of all, you apparently feel that the entire MSM can somehow personally oppose Donald Trump – going to dinners at John Podesta’s house and slipping Hillary debate questions, yet their reporting was bias-free and not designed specifically to defeat Trump. By the transitive properties of your own bullshit, Assange – an award winning Journalist known specifically for integrity – gets to be both against Hillary Clinton and presumed to be unbiased in regards to the way his organization disclosed the leaks. He, of all people, get the benefit of the doubt.
Second, think about what you’re saying and who you’re supporting. Think about who Hillary really represents.
Why do you think Assange and Wikileaks received all of those awards? Did you even look at all of them? Assange brings truth and sheds light on corruption worldwide, and his accolades (quite frankly) have mostly come from liberal humanitarian / journalism organizations. Julian’s credentials and reputation speak for themselves, and his journalistic integrity has saved lives and helped end a war. Have you so quickly forgotten, dear liberal, that Julian was a hero when Wikileaks was the conduit through which the world learned about US conduct in Iraq and Guantanamo via the Manning leaks? Do you understand that exposing this changed public opinion towards US involvement in regime change, which led to an enormous backlash – and was actually a considerable portion of what Obama campaigned on in 2008? (only to continue more of the same in different countries – but of course, you forgive Frog). It might have been McCain/Palin without Assange.
Given all of that, you should perhaps pay attention to the *reasons* for Assange’s opposition to Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry, but I think you need to dig a bit deeper. You keep talking about echo chambers and zealotry and a “Trump walks on water” cult mentality – yet given ample evidence of insane levels of Hillary Clinton’s WAY WORSE corruption and war mongering, your brain gets stuck on whatever your long-frozen moral compass decided to polarize and filter for however long you’ve been this way. I’m sorry, but you’ve been conned by people who played on your natural “peace and love” programming from decades ago. You have been pacified and placated by their staged humanitarianism, while they have revealed themselves to be predators and whores for multinational conglomerates and global banks.
YOU have been played. It happens to everyone, adapt. WE are taking a chance on an outsider, and I think it’s condescending for you to assume that Trump supporters aren’t holding his feet to the fire. You should have seen the collective shit-fit thrown in the_donald over Romney for SoS. There has been active debate over Mnuchin and the other Goldmanites as it pertains to swamp draining, and people are keeping track to a degree I’ve never seen a democrat do.
Wikileaks unbiased and credible, CIA not so much.
Frog… Assange did receive the The Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014).
I believe it’s awarded each year by Borat, that country’s leaging cultural figure.
Well if he says his sources were not Russian I guess that clears everything up. I mean it’s not like anyone in this mess would ever lie or anything, right?
ZP… that last post was very well thought out and written.
Pity you wasted all that brain power and time on those who are too mentally dull to grasp what is being said.
Thanks Heaterman. Even if the intended recipient(s) don’t absorb what I’m saying, my words are out there and I hope they will help someone down the road.
The cruckpots say Russia didn’t hack anything. Wrong. Nuts on other side say do over election. Wrong. Russia hacked something and eventually we will find out what the info is. Important question is if, what and when Trump campaign knew what was going on and aided the effort. If not, I don’t care.