Assange says he is '1,000% confident' that Russia was NOT the source for hacked Democratic emails which were published by WikiLeaks


#1

Assange says he is ‘1,000% confident’ that Russia was NOT the source for hacked Democratic emails which were published by WikiLeaks

Julian Assange claimed Barack Obama is ‘trying to delegitimize Donald Trump’
Reiterated his claims Russia was not behind hacks during presidential election
Emails stolen from DNC and Clinton’s campaign chairman were published online
But Assange said ‘source is not Russian government and it is not a state party’

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4083580/Assange-says-1-000-confident-Russia-NOT-source-hacked-Democratic-emails-published-WikiLeaks.html#ixzz4UhdsVzEy


#2

Assange may think the Russians are not the source, but how could he know for sure? He only knows who gave the info to him. I’m sure the Russian government would not be so stupid as to deliver the info themselves. They probably took steps to ensure it could not be traced back to them with the use of some neutral intermediary. On the other hand, US intelligence has access to the actual computers that were hacked. They have examined the specific malware that accomplished the hack. Assange does not have this access, so he is not in a very good position to contradict the US intelligence agencies. So his 1000% assurance is not really worth very much.


#3

No one can trust Assange, and certainly I don’t.

But if the hackers used a fairly widely-used malware, it doesn’t mean the Russians did it just because they typically use that particular one.

It is my understanding that Podesta opened some site he shouldn’t have opened, which allowed the hacking. So can it really be said for sure that the Russkies laid traps in every suspicious site in hope that Podesta would click one of them on? Or did he just land a gift into someone’s lap, even a Russian lap, by sheer chance?


#4

Actually, he responded to an email that was sent to him. That email told him to go to that particular website to update some data. It was deliberate on someone’s part.


#5

So a political hack got hacked.

Lots of people get hacked some even lose money because of the hack. My question has been what’s the big deal?

Why is Obama acting like he is hacked off when his spooks hack computers all over the world.

Remember when he took credit for hacking the Iranian nuke computers and shut down centrifuges. Although I thought the Israelis did that.


#6

It is my understanding that the particular signature of the malware was not “widely-used”, but was only detected on devices used by the Ukranians during the Russian conflict. And those devices gave away their GPS position which the Russians used for targeting military attacks.

As for how the DNC was targeted, they were probably sent many emails to DNC members in the hopes that one of them would fall for it. Once one account is compromised, regardless of which one it is, it becomes easier to leverage that hack to compromise other related accounts, until one is found with some really useful stuff on it. The process is not as passive as you proposed.


#7

We actually know very very little about what happened and the software used, or where it may have come from. Not much was released in the report.

Assange is sure his group didn’t get the data from any country.


#8

Given that reports from intelligence agencies must be somewhat protective of their methods and assets, it is surprising that they released as much detail as they did. If we force our intelligence agencies to be completely transparent to the public, they will cease being effective intelligence agencies.

Assange is sure his group didn’t get the data from any country.

How could he possibly know that, unless he himself performed the hack?


#9

He knows who gave them the data. Where the data came from prior to that he may or may not have been told. We don’t know.

According to the report from the DHS, our government got their information from non-government security companies. They didn’t point to any internal knowledge at all.


#10

That was my point exactly. We don’t know, and neither does Assange.


#11

Why is the source considered more important than the contents? Perhaps it came from disgruntled Bernie supporters who wanted to expose the rigging of the primary against him. Only two conclusions can be drawn at this time. Hillary’s campaign was quite embarrassed by the revelations, and that it is rather easy to hack into unsecured email which says all we need to know about her “extremely careless” use of email while Secretary of State.


#12

The bottom line is, the mainstream media has lost any credibility or moral authority.

Maybe that’s a good thing, it might cause people to think about what they’ve consumed before reflexing an opinion.


#13

Ask John McCain and other Republican leaders who think Russian espionage into and American election is a big deal. They seem to think it is important.


#14

I would not call that the bottom line. I would call that a topic for a different thread. This thread has nothing to do with the media.


#15

McCain and Graham, certainly, have their own axes to grind, and perhaps do others.

For myself, I think I will wait until more information comes out, if it does. Supposedly there is going to be a congressional investigation, so maybe that will tell us more than we know now.

I certainly don’t trust Assange, but neither do I trust some of these agencies at this point. We don’t know the degree to which Obama has politicized them.


#16

And I don’t trust Congress at this point.
Amazing isn’t it. With so much misinformation among the flood of superficial information available for all to squirrel away in bubbles, we may not even be able to agree about threats to the nation.


#17

It’s quite possible, even likely, that the DNC was both compromised by Russia and also had a separate, unrelated leak feeding info to Assange.


#18

Probably there are threats to the nation we don’t even know about. But release of DNC emails really doesn’t strike me as one of them.


#19

Even if the Russians were the source of the hack and leak, I don’t care. Here’s why:

(1) The DNC claims to have known about the hacking over a year ago, yet they didn’t make an issue of it until their candidate lost.

(2) We can’t be sure how many votes the email leaks influenced, and to what extent. I strongly suspect that the kind of person who would be influenced by the leak wasn’t voting for Clinton anyway.

(3) The Russians may have leaked the emails, but the DNC staff still WROTE them. If it was the New York Times or the Miami Herald that leaked those emails, we would call it good investigative journalism.


#20
  1. The conclusion that this was a cyber attack from an adversarial government was only developed in the run up to the election. The POTUS discussed releasing the information with Congressional leaders. Republican leadership balked thinking that such a release would be partisan interference in the election. Now that the election is over there is bipartisan agreement on the need to defend against such attacks.

  2. Yes, we cannot be sure. that is why we need to defend against such interference.

  3. Interesting. What did the “DNC staff” write, and what was its significance. If this were a investigative journalism from the NYT or MH, we wouldn’t have had the “gotcha” feeding frenzy nonsense, but an professional effort to understand a pattern, a perspective, a policy, etc., of significance.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.