Jazz Shaw:
There was an interview last night on Fox between Sean Hannity and long term Ecuadorean embassy resident Julian Assange. I’m not sure if more than four years holed up in that building is affecting his senses yet, but the Wikileaks founder still clearly wants to keep his hand in the game. The big takeaway being teased by Fox is that Assange once again made the claim (which has thus far been ignored in the media for the most part) that all of those Democratic emails they published did not, in fact, come from the Russians or any “state party.” Ian Schwartz at Real Clear Politics has the details.
HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.
Well, that’s about as unequivocal as you could ask for, while keeping in mind that the reliability of this claim rests entirely on how much credibility you give to Assange as an unbiased actor in all of this. He’s definitely a master showman and loves promoting Wikileaks, but does that necessarily mean that he’s bending the truth here to cover his sources? One of the other quotes from the interview would seem to indicate that he’s got a bit of an ax to grind with Barack Obama and the Democrats, so factor that into your conclusion.
Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President…
Keep in mind that not only is this not the first time the claim has been made, but Assange isn’t the only one saying it. You may recall that we covered a related story back before Christmas when a similar tale was being told by Craig Murray, the “colorful” former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. At the time, Murray was not only claiming that it wasn’t the Russians, but that he had personally collected the emails from a member of the DNC during a secret meeting in Virginia.
Could it be that the DNC knows who distributed the emails and this is why they and Obama are trying so desperately to hang this on the Russians?
Why would anyone assume Julian Assange is telling the truth? Crossing Vladimir Putin on this one might not be the wisest career move.
@Greg: Any garden variety hacker could hack into Hillary’s computer and those that correspond with hers. That is why She was required to use government computers.
No evidence has ever been produced demonstrating that Hillary Clinton’s server was successfully hacked by anybody.
@Greg:
That the Russians ever hacked into anything
That anything other than Hillary Clinton caused Hillary to lose.
That Obozocare is not the reason Hillary lost.
That Americans don’t want America to be great again.
etc.
@Greg:
Why would anyone assume Obama is telling the truth? Perhaps the saddest part of the damage done by this administration is how they politicized every aspect of our intelligence community and the trust in them damaged severely. Somehow, trust needs to be restored and that can only happen without liberals in the White House.
The FBI stated Hillary’s server was hacked by numerous outside parties.
@Greg: #2
@Greg: #2
On Thursday, Barack Obama, through the office of the U.S. Treasury Department, announced his response to the alleged Russian hackings of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The U.S. will expel 35 Russian diplomats and intelligence agents, sanction three Russian businesses and close access to two Russian government-owned compounds in Maryland and New York. Obama blamed the highest levels of government in Moscow for the hacks, claiming they were done to interfere in the U.S. election.
Democrats are predictably heaping praise on Obama’s decision, while several Republicans, long supportive of taking action against Moscow, have questioned the timing. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) stated, “While today’s action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia.”
What is troubling about Obama’s recent actions is indeed the timing. Why now? While Obama decries Russian interference and the need for retaliation and greater security, the truth is, had Hillary Clinton won the election, he wouldn’t have even considered lifting a finger. Perhaps this was the yin to his 2012 yang, when he promised more flexibility with Russia after that election.
Furthermore, consider Obama’s response to China’s unprecedented hacking of the Office of Personnel Management in 2015. China stole personal data on more than 21.5 million government workers and Obama said almost nothing. In fact, the New York Times reported at the time that government officials “were under strict instructions to avoid naming China as the source of the attack.” How times have changed.
Obama’s newfound concern over the nation’s cybersecurity has far less to do with protecting the U.S. against future cyberattacks than bitter political retaliation against Donald Trump. Obama’s actions belie his lack of respect and trust in the U.S. system of government. He is primarily motivated not by concern for the well-being and security of the nation, but by protecting his own legacy and agenda. Since an incoming Trump presidency is a greater threat to Obama’s legacy than a nefarious geopolitical power such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Obama clearly wants to complicate rather than support future foreign policy efforts by the incoming president. Some legacy.
Democrats and those that are in this administration have shown to be the most inept at technology, lost and destroyed government records at all levels, the inability to create a secure website for healthcare at any cost and boy did it cost! IRS, State Dept, Justice Dept, FBI. Its time to put these technology challenged old fools out to pasture. Bub bye dont worry the old folks homes will treat them real good.
Even Barry is screaming at the neighbors..your dog crapped on my lawn ignoring the fact he hasnt picked up after his own dogs!
@July 4th American, #8:
The timing? As with, Putin’s hackers meddled with our nation’s presidential election, and the current President of the United States responded before they guy they helped elect was sworn in and swept it all under the carpet?
Trump shows every sign that he wants this story to simply go away—to such a degree that he’s discrediting our nation’s own intelligence community without even knowing what evidence they have to back up their conclusions. It would be totally irresponsible of Obama to allow that to happen. He needs to put the spotlight squarely on the issue so that it doesn’t get ignored. It’s a serious national security issue.
Many Trump “conservatives” are bashing Obama on the one hand for taking action against Russia, while simultaneously bashing him for not acting to attend to cyber-security threats. This is the same sort of schizophrenic bullshit we’ve been getting from these idiots for the past 2 years.
They need to snap the hell out of it. Obama will be gone in a couple of weeks. They’ll no longer have the cover of a Democratic president to blame. They’ve got control of both Houses of Congress. The issues are what need to be addressed. They have to deal with reality now, not their propaganda fantasies. They promised big results, as they did 2 years ago. Now they’re flat out of excuses, so let’s see some.
@Greg: I wonder why Obama waited until Hillary lost to show interest? Did he just learn about it from the papers?
Obama has caused doubt to be cast upon the intelligence and justice community. Pitiful.
He showed interest, but was reluctant to make Russian meddling a central issue, as it would have given the appearance that Executive Branch powers were being brought to bear to directly affect the course of a presidential election. That, as it turns out, was a very big mistake—possibly the worst mistake of his time in office. The full consequences of a Trump win have not yet began piling up. At this point it’s all the stuff of reality television.
Trump has caused grave doubt to be cast upon the nation’s intelligence in general—not just on that of its intelligence community.
@Greg: This goes waaay back before the campaign started and Obama did nothing. Now, to besmirch Trump’s fair and legitimate election, he wants to ma a BIG deal out of hacking.
Obama, Hillary and the rest of the left are trying to tear down the legitimacy of the election due to sore-losership. Wah.
Only 15 more days, and the GOP will lose its magical blame-shifting powers. No more Obama to blame, no more Clinton to blame, no more democratic Congress to blame… All they’ll have is an economy that’s in pretty good working order that a couple of wrong decisions could totally screw up, a long list of promises that they haven’t yet figured out how to keep, and very high expectations among voters who truly believe what they were repeatedly told at Trump’s campaign rallies.
It’s going to be great, I’m sure.
THE SATACONS IT DID Their the ones that got the Jupiter 2 LOST IN SPACE its just Dr Smith was their scapegoat
@Greg: Au contrare, Greggy. The stain of Obama will be difficult to clean off. Obama, Hillary and Kerry leave a horrific mess to repair and they will be held accountable for every bit of it.
@Greg: Where did the emails come from then?
@Greg:
What in the hell are you talking about? Don’t you know that everything that has happened in the last 8 years has been GWB’s fault? The blame shifts to Obozo when Trump takes office. He gets to blame everything on Obozo, The dimocrats have set a precedent. It doesn’t shift to Trump’s blame until 24.
@RedTeam: One thing is for absolute certain; Obama bears full 100% responsibility for the rise and spread of ISIS. That is but one of his many blunders.
@Greg: Right…he’s lying…
So truth is simply whatever you want it to be.
You see now why the non-exploited majority of Americans are ready to fight idiots like you in the streets?
@Greg: At what point does the organization you work for dry up and have no more cash to pay you?
That’s the real question. You’re completely irrational, at this point.
It’s been fun.
@Nathan Blue:
I’m pretty sure ‘Move on’ is going to be drying up for campaign bloggers about inaug time. Don’t expect to see a couple of the trolls around after the end of this month.
@Nathan Blue, #21:
There’s nothing irrational about the points raised in post #10—to which no one has offered any intelligent response. There are no intelligence defenses of this sort of negligence to be made. At some point there will be consequences.
@Greg: 10
Consequences? you mean benefits, don’t you. Look at the simple benefit you get from not having to look at that face of Hillary Clinton regularly.
Though I expect the Lolita Express will have less passengers as a result of them not trying to woo Slick any longer.
I mean consequences such as the ascendancy of Russian power in Eastern Europe and beyond; the total elimination of Obamacare, with no coherent plan concerning what to replace it with or how to get there legislatively; the placing of agencies intended to protect the public into the hands of private interests they were created to regulate (refer to the metaphor concerning the fox and the hen house); more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest members of society, as if they didn’t have enough power, privilege, and special considerations already; etc, etc. All of that stuff you refuse to think about or talk about, because you’ve been too busy obsessing about Bill Clinton’s sex life, Obama’s imaginary plot to make America Muslim, Michelle Obama’s sleeveless dresses, or Hillary Clinton’s emails.
@Greg:
that occurred under Obama
A real benefit.
Delusional.
Outstanding, get that money back into circ in the U:S.
He’d better hurry, he’s only got two more weeks to get all those terrorists out of Gtmo.
Won’t have to look at that Mooche mug much longer.
@Greg:
with no coherent plan concerning what to replace it with or how to get there legislatively;
My My such a wonderful perfect plan that was perfectly executed,The Website , the rape of Medicare system, that was set up for the elderly. And all the awful plans that had those deductibles of 3 to 500 bucks well they had to go! they would cover a second mammogram if the doctor saw something suspicious before you had 5K out of pocket.
Legislatively, well Dirty Harry gave us the nuclear option we can cram anything we want down your throats..yes so kind of him to change the rules.
@Greg: Who do you work for? Answer that, and I might actually take you seriously. Otherwise, you’d got to be kidding.
But to remind you, America rejected your broken party: Senate, House, and the Oval Office.
You make the world a worse place, troll.
@Greg: #25
The democrat talking point of the day.
The mere fact that complete elimination is a 1st step in the right direction. The vast amount of those now on the “so called” health care plan could simply do what they are currently doing, use medicaid. The raw number of about 2.8 million insured on obamcare would have to be dealt with, a small number easily accommodated…..
The 20 million number bandied around by the lying administration is a debunked number….