I have the same level of skepticism towards Assange that I do for the US intelligence community, but for different reasons.
If Assange received a email dump from a source, how could he possibly know with absolute certainty that the Russian government didn't have any involvement? The only thing I can think of is if he or one of his very trusted associates executed the attacks themselves. Isn't it possible that the Russian government orchestrated the attacks and then handed the data off to a third party? He has the same burden of proof as the CIA. ...and yes I understand that Wikileaks can't reveal its sources but one should not really make such claims if they can't be backed up with evidence.
I think he's saying between the lines that his source is a insider, and it's either a leak or an internal hack. That's the only way he could have any reliable information at all about the source.
Assange strongly implied that the emails were leaked by Seth Rich.
Not sure if I believe that though, since it seems that Assange would have proved it by now if it were true. Maybe he's withholding the proof as leverage, or maybe he's lying. I do trust Assange much more than the CIA though.
>I do trust Assange much more than the CIA though.
But do you trust Assange more than the 17 US intelligence agencies? And the actual president? And members of congress (including many Republicans who would directly benefit from any intelligence pointing another way)?
At this point it's getting close to Assange vs the world. Even Trump won't directly say the Russians weren't involved anymore, he's just muddying the water with "can you really ever prove anything" talk.
> But do you trust Assange more than the 17 US intelligence agencies? And the actual president?
Yes, probably. I find Barack Obama to be a deeply evil person. Assange I'm not sure what to think about. It's plausible to me that the Russian government hacked the DNC and/or Podesta, but it also seems plausible that many state and individual actors may have done the same.
I need to see proof that the Russian government did the hacking, then I need to see proof that the Russian government in particular passed the data along to Wikileaks, and once those two conditions are satisfied, then I will offer my sincere gratitude to the Russian government for exposing illegal behavior on the part of the Clinton campaign and the Clintons themselves :)
Not surprised but definitely saddened a bit. Because at this point I doubt anything is going to dispel the conspiracy for you if you think it's that widespread. Anyone who disagrees will merely be "in on it".
> Assange repeatably - and again tonight - said he was sure it wasn't Russia.
The very fact that Assange is has so strenuously denied it was the Russians is itself odd and suspicious. He couldn't possibly know if it is or not and yet he's been adamant since day one. He's either a gov agent, liar, or idiot. And I don't think he's an idiot.
If Assange received a email dump from a source, how could he possibly know with absolute certainty that the Russian government didn't have any involvement? The only thing I can think of is if he or one of his very trusted associates executed the attacks themselves. Isn't it possible that the Russian government orchestrated the attacks and then handed the data off to a third party? He has the same burden of proof as the CIA. ...and yes I understand that Wikileaks can't reveal its sources but one should not really make such claims if they can't be backed up with evidence.