Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Tuesday his whistleblowing website might release “a lot more material” relevant to the US electoral campaign.
Assange was speaking in a CNN interview following the release of nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee by suspected Russian hackers.However, Assange refused to confirm or deny a Russian origin for the mass email leak, saying Wikileaks tries to create ambiguity to protect all its sources.“Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,” Assange told CNN.The Kremlin has rejected allegations its behind the hacking, calling suggestions it ordered the release of the emails to influence US politics the “usual fun and games” of the US election campaigns.
“This is not really good for bilateral relations,” Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, added.Speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he faces extradition over sexual assault allegations, Assange told CNN that Democratic Party officials were using the specter of Russian involvement to distract from the content of the emails, which have had tumultuous affect on the party at the start of its national convention, where it is expected to make Hillary Clinton its presidential nominee.“It raises questions about the natural instincts of Clinton that when confronted with a serious domestic political scandal, she tries to blame the Russians, blame the Chinese, et cetera,” Assange told CNN.“Because if she does that while in government, it could lead to problems,” he added.
Like the demac-RATS fixing the election for Hillary?
Wikileaks has a very active Twitter account.
They pointed out something people are missing:
Who hacked the DNC and who leaked those emails to Wikileaks are TWO different questions.
Can people still count to two?
Julian A. said a lot of people will have egg on their faces IF the leaker ever comes forward and becomes known.
Wikileaks will never expose the leaker.
Or any of the leakers.
Trump publicly thanked his friends the Chinese and the Russians for this hack
Trump’s main source of financing now are Russian oligarchs, they keep him afloat and that is one reason he can’t show his tax returns like he promised
No US banks will finance him
Here we have our biggest enemies conspiring to elect Trump, why do they want him as POTUS and not Clinton?
I can’t see much difference between who hacked them and who forwarded them to Wikileaks
I think that they were aligned with Russian intelligence organizations and did so with the intention of harming the USA
Putin wants Trump as POTUS . Do you?
Got a link for that? Have any proof that it was the Russians?
All indications are that the hacking was done by Russian intelligence operatives.
Here’s What We Know About Russia and the DNC Hack
From the same article, which appeared in Wired about an hour ago:
The issue is still the content of the emails that show the true character of the left!!!!!
Here’s the Norse hack attempt live map.
Why isn’t Russia more prominent if it is the hacker?
China, Mid East and Muslim countries, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Germany and the Czech Republic are all big hacker origins.
Seems a lot of domestic (USA originated) hacks are aimed at other US computer systems, too.
@Greg: But, they weren’t MARKED Russian when they were hacked, so it could never have happened!!
@Randy: They are using the same tactic they used with the PP videos. Forget about the content and go after the messenger. They also didn’t seem to be too concerned about foreign hackers hacking into Hillary’s less secure emails which contained classified information. As a matter of fact, they said it couldn’t happen. Now they are telling us that those same people hacked the DNC emails. They are in full blown panic mode and damage control mode knowing more is yet to come.
You’re correct, another vet, the content is damning.
Now we have more conjecture, based on parsing the terms used by Hillary and Comey.
Perhaps the reason there is no proof the Russians ”hacked” Hillary’s email was that, simply by videoing her enough, the Russians were able to see her input her Password.
The NYPost posits this theory.
Once the Russians realized they had her Password all they had to do from then on was input it and READ ALL HER EMAILS!
No hack required!
She never, by her own admission, changed her Password.
Not even after scenes like this in Russia:?quality=90&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1
We need a bumper sticker:
Maybe Russia hacked the emails, maybe they didn’t. maybe a few different hackers hit the DNC server.
What difference does it make?
@another vet, #11:
If the messengers are Russian intelligence operatives who are plotting to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, that’s actually a lot more relevant than the content of the emails. Vladimir Putin shouldn’t be able to help choose who will be president of the United States.
Not that the content was forgotten. It became a major, high-profile issue that tested Democratic Party unity and shook up the party hierarchy. Fortunately, most democrats don’t tend lose sight of their shared goals and objectives all that easily.
@Nanny G, #12:
Not if logins had to come from recognized devices and known locations. Logins that don’t can be blocked and made to generate security alerts. Proxy servers can be detected and blocked. It depends on how good her security was. Last I heard, no evidence had been found that her server was ever compromised. Hacked emails were obtained from people who sent them to her, who were careless about their own security.
Do you have any indication her system required such security as a limited number of devices to log in?
A blocking of ”foreign” log in attempts?
Security alerts if such attempts are made?
No, of course you don’t.
Because her server was wide open.
SHE could use any number of devices (she admitted to having 4.)
Huma could, too.
And Cheryl, too.
Why stop there?
You make a great point that security could have been tight, but then you forget what was testified to.
It was obvious from testimony that her system’s security was NOT tight.
Russians (or anyone else) could have gotten right in.
@Greg: The content reveals what we have known all along about the Democrat party and liberals; that they are racists who feign empathy for minorities while using them as props and chess pieces. That they are elitists that believe their choices are superior to those of the American people. That they have low regard for working people.
Then, they confirm all that with their parade of anti-American liars to speak at their convention.
@Greg: The only evidence you got that the DNC was hacked was when the emails were released. We know Hillary’s unsecured server was hacked; all we don’t know is if it was successfully entered which, if the DNC is any indication, it was. However, anyone who got classified information from it may be to clever than to reveal they have it.
We’ll see. One thing we know, making that information available was un-Presidential.
@Bill: Yesterday they released hacked voicemails. While nothing big came of it, it shows that whoever did the hacking had access to those as well. Look at Assange’s comments. He questioned if Hillary was going to blame the Russians every time there is an issue. He has also said that if the source were to reveal themselves, it would cause great embarrassment to certain parties. Even Trump came out today and brought up the possibility that this could have been someone other than the Russians.
There is a possibility that this could have been an inside job. Perhaps a disgruntled employee or a lone wolf Bernie or Trump supporter who infiltrated the ranks. If that does turn out to be the case, imagine the embarrassment and damage that will have been caused to the country’s credibility from the knee jerk reaction by the dems and certain “intelligence experts” to all of this.
@another vet: Unfortunately, we now have to consider the FBI’s assessment with suspicion as well. The damage this administration has done to the trust and credibility of government is astounding.
Or perhaps a Democratic party whistle-blower who is fed up with the corruption.
@Ditto: A Democrat fed up with corruption? Cmon… get real.
Yes, there are some Democrats who are concerned about the corruption.