Source? Its actually a source protecting organization. Thats what wikileaks is... That why he lives in an embassy. They leak in accordance to their sources and to verify the content of the leaks with tools like dkim verification.
They have a squeaky clean record 100% accuracy. He has earned the respect from his sources and from governments around the world. Duhh give me a break and show PROOF of russian hacking. We havent seen anything yet. Julian assange is the only man in the world privvy to this info and he has cultivated trust over the decade. What does intelligence have? Wmds, yellow cake and dead kids
Assange said himself just last night that they are a political organization. But he clarified they are not a partisan organization at all. They'll leak on "whoever" and they have done so many times. He went into great detail on what they deem safe to leak and what is not safe to leak. But most importantly, Julian said that they are always very transparent about the process and if it puts people at risk they let people know. He went on to discuss how they never redact things to protect entities from bad publicity, but only redact things if there is a safety concern.
But yes, they are political. His own words.
Assange himself said last night minute mark 7:00 that he is a source protection organization. Like wtf do you want. Yes all that shit yiu said doesnt makr him look bad it makes it look like he is doing his job.
Uh yes it is retard becaude your tagline to the word political is agenda..and they leak to further thr agenda of 1 guy? They leak an accordance to their sources like you just fucking repeated. Wtf
We don't know that they release everything, or whether they not they time it for political reasons. Assange has certainly cultivated his celebrity a helluva lot and him and WL have made loads of political comments.
There's the theory that WL is Russia controlled, or used by them, and the like.
I see a lot of legitimate reasons to be critical and question, and in the case of Seth Rich there have been the hints dropped.
"I see a lot of legitimate reasons to be critical and question, and in the case of Seth Rich there have been the hints dropped." what does this mean.. Wtf
There's the theory that WL is Russia controlled, or used by them, and the like.
Like conspiracy theories? Can i get source proof a fucking angle... Oh boy rumors that help out hillary clinton. Arent those the best runors?
We don't know that they release everything, or whether they not they time it for political reasons. Assange has certainly cultivated his celebrity a helluva lot and him and WL have made loads of political comments.
Thats the point you're not supposed to know only julian thats why they trust him. Yeah he makes political commwnts becausw with the leaks whoch are all factual he has takwn down political giants. So of cource his comments are gonna be tinged with a political color. Wow this is easy
Assange offered a $20,000 reward for info relating to Seth Rich's death. He also spoke about him in the following interview with Nieuwsuur amongst others.
Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?
Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.
I read a good reddit comment just yesterday that gave a theoretical timeline but God knows where. There was the interesting bit about WL talking about having info about Russia, the Russians then saying how they could take them down, then Russia is all matey with them.
Rest
I get the impression that he's your hero that you think can do no wrong, that's how your comments read. You did skip the bit about us not knowing if everything is released, and its timing too.
He and WikiLeaks cannot simultaneously make political comments claim that they're not a political organisation, and no they're not just political because the leaks have political effects.
I don't like the persecution of Assange and a lot of the attacks on WikiLeaks, but they've acted like knobs for a long time now.
Well past would be past? It's not as though they've leaked anything much that would embarrass Russia lately, and one could argue that they've got to release some things to keep up the pretense.
But it's not my theory and I'm not saying it's true, I'd rather not fall for a conspiracy theory just because I have other things I don't like about them. It was just one thing I mentioned when making my point that WikiLeaks is not apolitical and above criticism.
Why have you not linked to any articles that provide proof there is no Russian connection?
But it's not my theory and I'm not saying it's true, I'd rather not fall for a conspiracy theory just because I have other things I don't like about them. It was just one thing I mentioned when making my point that WikiLeaks is not apolitical and above criticism.
You made the assertion. Everyone in cyber has read the "reports", and they realize they are 1. inconclusive, 2. the tool used was made by ukranians, 3. never mentions wikileaks, and 4. huge disclamer.
Why are you telling me about seth rich.. It makes no sense. I know about him if hes the leaker it gors agsinst the russian narrative..
Yeah all those sources have a high chsnce of being infiltrated and compromised.
I guess you trust thr new york times over julian???
Well you are inferring way too much about my thought on julian
I merely speak on the facts of his record. 100%with dkim verification.
He is allowed to make political remarks. If everything is verified with dkim emails he is allowed to speak on it. Wtf he isnt some wierd bell boy not allowed to speak when you hand him luggage. He lives in an embassy and has been missing out on his children. And you're over here saying hes making political remarks?? Makes no sense.
Hillary has public and private positions assange is allowed to comment him. There isnt Journalistic integrity on the line. How have they acted like "knobs" you havent given a single viable point
Think about it. WikiLeaks know that $20k isn't going to bring them such sensitive information. The reward offers are crystal clear messages to the criminals involved.
I don't believe this is an accident at all. Assange is telling us who leaked, while still maintaining plausible deniability that WL doesn't out their sources. It raises a bigger red flag regarding Seth Rich's murder.
No, but unlike others here, I don't think he's trying to tell folks Seth Rich was the source. I think he's trying to keep people spinning their wheels.
I agree. Things like "I don't want to say whether or not it was inside the DNC, or outside the DNC, or that an ISP was involved or not" or whatever he said are completely intentional, just not for the reasons anyone can know for sure.
I don't know, do I think it's a coincidence that David Bowie and Elvis were both born on January 8? While Elvis's twin brother is said to have been stillborn? And that Elvis would have been 81 in 2015, while 8 and 1 add up to 9, which 2016 also adds up to, while being 1 more than 2015? And that he died in August, which is the eight month, which in Dutch (and Latin) consists of 9 letters (augustus), 1 letter more than the first month of the year? (januari) At the age of 42, while 42 equals 8? And that David Bowie, who died on the tenth of january (10 = 1 + 9 (9=2+1+6)) has 10 letters in his name, or 8 unique letters, while 8 + 1 (1+0) equals 9? While I, the ninth letter of the alphabet, appears twice in the name David Bowie (29=18, 1+8=9 again) and D, the 4th letter of the alphabet, also appears twice (2*4=8)? Meanwhile, eight consists of 5 letters, and one consists of 3 letters, which makes 8 again! Not to mention that I looks like Roman one (1), and that David Bowie and Elvis Presley have 3 I's between them, (Elvis was born first, he's number I), Roman 3 being III (3 * one)?
It seems that he has used Hannity before so there must be some mutual trust there and assurances that the piece won't be chopped to shit. For all that we know the rolling camera was controlled by Wikileaks and then it was edited on site with assurances that it would remain as is in one contiguous piece. That interview is a ratings getter and if FOXNEWS betrays trust then they won't have a next interview. The world is also full of mutually beneficial agreements only held together with fragile and transient trust.
I'm sure JA has enough pull to say I'll give you the interview if you air it when I want. Everyone wanted that interview. Hannity only got it for political, practical, and pragmatic reasons
60 comments
n/a Chokaholic 2017-01-04
Maybe he's sending a message, like "Wikileaks has info regarding the murder of Seth Rich, mess with us and it will be leaked".
n/a illBoopYaHead 2017-01-04
If that's the message I doubt anybody got it.
n/a Chokaholic 2017-01-04
Really? The elite wouldn't pick up on a subliminal message?
n/a Preacher_1893 2017-01-04
I mean come on they planted a chess board jeep which made no context in 1980 bollywood movie.
n/a TheTopSnek 2017-01-04
Random Redditors realize, the people who were actually responsible for it wouldn't?
Say what now?
n/a woozlew 2017-01-04
So he's withholding evidence on an active investigation?
n/a Chokaholic 2017-01-04
Did you read the wikileaks AMA?
n/a woozlew 2017-01-04
No, why?
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
He has to withhold info so its safe for his sourcrs and so he can verify it with tools like dkim verification.
This is day 1 stuff here folks.
n/a woozlew 2017-01-04
Give me a break. Wikileaks is a political organization with an agenda, and they leak to further that agenda.
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
Source? Its actually a source protecting organization. Thats what wikileaks is... That why he lives in an embassy. They leak in accordance to their sources and to verify the content of the leaks with tools like dkim verification.
They have a squeaky clean record 100% accuracy. He has earned the respect from his sources and from governments around the world. Duhh give me a break and show PROOF of russian hacking. We havent seen anything yet. Julian assange is the only man in the world privvy to this info and he has cultivated trust over the decade. What does intelligence have? Wmds, yellow cake and dead kids
n/a justforthissubred 2017-01-04
Assange said himself just last night that they are a political organization. But he clarified they are not a partisan organization at all. They'll leak on "whoever" and they have done so many times. He went into great detail on what they deem safe to leak and what is not safe to leak. But most importantly, Julian said that they are always very transparent about the process and if it puts people at risk they let people know. He went on to discuss how they never redact things to protect entities from bad publicity, but only redact things if there is a safety concern. But yes, they are political. His own words.
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
Assange himself said last night minute mark 7:00 that he is a source protection organization. Like wtf do you want. Yes all that shit yiu said doesnt makr him look bad it makes it look like he is doing his job.
n/a justforthissubred 2017-01-04
I wasn't disagreeing with you except that it's not wrong to say he's political.
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
Uh yes it is retard becaude your tagline to the word political is agenda..and they leak to further thr agenda of 1 guy? They leak an accordance to their sources like you just fucking repeated. Wtf
n/a uppitydownity 2017-01-04
We don't know that they release everything, or whether they not they time it for political reasons. Assange has certainly cultivated his celebrity a helluva lot and him and WL have made loads of political comments.
There's the theory that WL is Russia controlled, or used by them, and the like.
I see a lot of legitimate reasons to be critical and question, and in the case of Seth Rich there have been the hints dropped.
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
"I see a lot of legitimate reasons to be critical and question, and in the case of Seth Rich there have been the hints dropped." what does this mean.. Wtf
There's the theory that WL is Russia controlled, or used by them, and the like.
Like conspiracy theories? Can i get source proof a fucking angle... Oh boy rumors that help out hillary clinton. Arent those the best runors?
We don't know that they release everything, or whether they not they time it for political reasons. Assange has certainly cultivated his celebrity a helluva lot and him and WL have made loads of political comments.
Thats the point you're not supposed to know only julian thats why they trust him. Yeah he makes political commwnts becausw with the leaks whoch are all factual he has takwn down political giants. So of cource his comments are gonna be tinged with a political color. Wow this is easy
n/a uppitydownity 2017-01-04
Seth Rich:
Assange offered a $20,000 reward for info relating to Seth Rich's death. He also spoke about him in the following interview with Nieuwsuur amongst others.
Russia
https://warisboring.com/has-wikileaks-been-infiltrated-by-russian-spies-b876a8bc035a#.tdkkqce9b
http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-assange-wikileaks-and-russia-2013-8?IR=T
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/13145824474/former-nsa-officer-wikileaks-is-front-russian-intelligence-snowdens-probably-spy.shtml
https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-intelligence/
http://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html
I read a good reddit comment just yesterday that gave a theoretical timeline but God knows where. There was the interesting bit about WL talking about having info about Russia, the Russians then saying how they could take them down, then Russia is all matey with them.
Rest
I get the impression that he's your hero that you think can do no wrong, that's how your comments read. You did skip the bit about us not knowing if everything is released, and its timing too.
He and WikiLeaks cannot simultaneously make political comments claim that they're not a political organisation, and no they're not just political because the leaks have political effects.
I don't like the persecution of Assange and a lot of the attacks on WikiLeaks, but they've acted like knobs for a long time now.
n/a dylan522p 2017-01-04
And what of the Russian documents they leaked in the past?
n/a uppitydownity 2017-01-04
Well past would be past? It's not as though they've leaked anything much that would embarrass Russia lately, and one could argue that they've got to release some things to keep up the pretense.
But it's not my theory and I'm not saying it's true, I'd rather not fall for a conspiracy theory just because I have other things I don't like about them. It was just one thing I mentioned when making my point that WikiLeaks is not apolitical and above criticism.
n/a dylan522p 2017-01-04
So why do none of your articles linked have any proof about the Russian connection
n/a uppitydownity 2017-01-04
Why have you not linked to any articles that provide proof there is no Russian connection?
n/a dylan522p 2017-01-04
You made the assertion. Everyone in cyber has read the "reports", and they realize they are 1. inconclusive, 2. the tool used was made by ukranians, 3. never mentions wikileaks, and 4. huge disclamer.
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
Why are you telling me about seth rich.. It makes no sense. I know about him if hes the leaker it gors agsinst the russian narrative..
Yeah all those sources have a high chsnce of being infiltrated and compromised. I guess you trust thr new york times over julian???
Well you are inferring way too much about my thought on julian I merely speak on the facts of his record. 100%with dkim verification.
He is allowed to make political remarks. If everything is verified with dkim emails he is allowed to speak on it. Wtf he isnt some wierd bell boy not allowed to speak when you hand him luggage. He lives in an embassy and has been missing out on his children. And you're over here saying hes making political remarks?? Makes no sense.
Hillary has public and private positions assange is allowed to comment him. There isnt Journalistic integrity on the line. How have they acted like "knobs" you havent given a single viable point
n/a uppitydownity 2017-01-04
So WikiLeaks are a source protecting organisation according to you but there are hints that Seth Rich is a source?
And you still skip the political implications of timing and withholding then make some strange appeal to emotion?
Sorry, not going to bother with you further. You're either trolling or odd.
n/a schoofer 2017-01-04
Okay, just so I understand, you all think it's fine and understandable for Assange to protect his sources, but not the CIA or FBI?
n/a Pazians 2017-01-04
Hahhahahjajajnajababbabanjajhahhahhahahaha
You think fbi and cia have sources hahaha
Its not the source its the proof
Assange leaks proof not source. Fbi cia does neither
n/a schoofer 2017-01-04
Well, thanks for confirming.
n/a EightyNineMillion 2017-01-04
I suspect it might be part of an insurance file.
n/a yayfori 2017-01-04
If he had evidence, he would have leaked it. He could have brought them down long ago.
n/a rmandraque 2017-01-04
Not really, if everything comes to light at once, it would be way to much and it will be ignored.
n/a mastigia 2017-01-04
This doesnt jive with the reward they are offering for information on his murderer.
n/a TypeCorrectGetBanned 2017-01-04
Sure it does. Just because they know Seth is their source does not mean they have evidence of the crime of his murder.
n/a mastigia 2017-01-04
That is what I was referring to. If they had the evidence to leak, they wouldn't need to offer a reward for it.
n/a whacko_jacko 2017-01-04
Think about it. WikiLeaks know that $20k isn't going to bring them such sensitive information. The reward offers are crystal clear messages to the criminals involved.
n/a Chokaholic 2017-01-04
They're not playing checkers here. They want to entice leakers. What better way than to offer money?
n/a Tiki46 2017-01-04
I don't believe this is an accident at all. Assange is telling us who leaked, while still maintaining plausible deniability that WL doesn't out their sources. It raises a bigger red flag regarding Seth Rich's murder.
n/a mandmmadness 2017-01-04
I'm still unconvinced that was Assange. No POL !!
When they blatantly ignore this subs demand for POL I remain skeptical.
n/a sheasie 2017-01-04
said the redditor of 26 days
n/a mandmmadness 2017-01-04
Even newbies can be tards.
n/a reluctant_slider 2017-01-04
Smart bastard
n/a jubale 2017-01-04
Yes.
n/a Denmark1976 2017-01-04
1/365
n/a axe_reddit 2017-01-04
Considering assange gives x interviews a year, the odds are actually x/365
n/a kittymittens101 2017-01-04
r/theydidthemath
n/a TheGreatestBandini 2017-01-04
r/iamverysmart
n/a Denmark1976 2017-01-04
Mathematics is a beautiful thing to behold ;-)
n/a RandomVerbage 2017-01-04
Given the assumption that no interviews occur on the same day :O Otherwise you could say that
Considering assange gives interviews on x days a year, the odds are actually x/365
n/a schoofer 2017-01-04
No, but unlike others here, I don't think he's trying to tell folks Seth Rich was the source. I think he's trying to keep people spinning their wheels.
n/a AwayWeGo112 2017-01-04
I agree. Things like "I don't want to say whether or not it was inside the DNC, or outside the DNC, or that an ISP was involved or not" or whatever he said are completely intentional, just not for the reasons anyone can know for sure.
n/a Clivepwnens 2017-01-04
There is a .274% chance that it is a coincidence. Which means conversely there is a 99.726% chance it is not a coincidence.
n/a Dragofireheart 2017-01-04
No.
Julian absolutely knows it's him, but he can't/won't spell it out in plain English.
n/a ragecry 2017-01-04
Maybe planned. While putting together the timeline here I noticed Assange does a lot of anniversary events and releases.
n/a cheapbastardo 2017-01-04
Fantastic connection.
n/a Zomaarwat 2017-01-04
I don't know, do I think it's a coincidence that David Bowie and Elvis were both born on January 8? While Elvis's twin brother is said to have been stillborn? And that Elvis would have been 81 in 2015, while 8 and 1 add up to 9, which 2016 also adds up to, while being 1 more than 2015? And that he died in August, which is the eight month, which in Dutch (and Latin) consists of 9 letters (augustus), 1 letter more than the first month of the year? (januari) At the age of 42, while 42 equals 8? And that David Bowie, who died on the tenth of january (10 = 1 + 9 (9=2+1+6)) has 10 letters in his name, or 8 unique letters, while 8 + 1 (1+0) equals 9? While I, the ninth letter of the alphabet, appears twice in the name David Bowie (29=18, 1+8=9 again) and D, the 4th letter of the alphabet, also appears twice (2*4=8)? Meanwhile, eight consists of 5 letters, and one consists of 3 letters, which makes 8 again! Not to mention that I looks like Roman one (1), and that David Bowie and Elvis Presley have 3 I's between them, (Elvis was born first, he's number I), Roman 3 being III (3 * one)?
n/a DoYouBooBooDoYou 2017-01-04
I dont think it was Assange who made the choice of when to air the show. If he did then dont you think Fox wouldve used that as a fuck the Ds tactic
n/a destraht 2017-01-04
It seems that he has used Hannity before so there must be some mutual trust there and assurances that the piece won't be chopped to shit. For all that we know the rolling camera was controlled by Wikileaks and then it was edited on site with assurances that it would remain as is in one contiguous piece. That interview is a ratings getter and if FOXNEWS betrays trust then they won't have a next interview. The world is also full of mutually beneficial agreements only held together with fragile and transient trust.
n/a AwayWeGo112 2017-01-04
I'm sure JA has enough pull to say I'll give you the interview if you air it when I want. Everyone wanted that interview. Hannity only got it for political, practical, and pragmatic reasons
n/a SamSimeon 2017-01-04
Another coincidence yesterday, a story about Madeleine McCann -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4084922/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-hoping-New-Year-miracle-reunite-daughter-approach-milestone-10th-anniversary-without-her.html
n/a greggerypeccary 2017-01-04
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/did-julian-assange-hint-say-seth-rich-was-source-of-wikileaks-leaks-dnc-emails-hannity-interview-watch-video-quotes/
n/a woozlew 2017-01-04
Give me a break. Wikileaks is a political organization with an agenda, and they leak to further that agenda.
n/a schoofer 2017-01-04
Okay, just so I understand, you all think it's fine and understandable for Assange to protect his sources, but not the CIA or FBI?