Assange To Hannity: “Our Source Is Not The Russian Government”

Tyler Durden's picture

It won’t be the first time Julian Assange was interviewed and asked whether the source of the hacked DNC and Podesta emails was Russia; however, it will be the first time everyone pays attention to his answer. Recall that the first such interview of Assange – when the question of who had sourced Wikileaks with the hacked emails came up – took place exactly two months ago, on November 3. Back then, in an interview televized by RT, John Pilger explicitly asked Asange where the emails in question had come from.

Assange’s response was straightforward: “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.”

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

That particular interview took place when Trump has losing badly in the polls, and as such few people paid attention: after all, what difference did it make who had leaked the Podesta emails: Hillary Clinton was assured to win (with a 90%+ probability according to the NYT and other “non-fake news” outlets).

Needless to say, the issue of Russian hacking has since come back with a vengeance, and culminated last week with Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats in the greatest diplomatic escalation between the US and Russia in decades; an action which took place based on a flimsy 13-page DHS/FBI report which demonstrated that anyone could have hacked the DNC emails if only they spent a few dollars to purchase a piece of Ukranian PHP malware.

Which is why many more will pay attention to Assange’s next interview with Sean Hannity, which will air Tuesday on Fox News. According to a Fox News release, the two will discuss Russian hacking, the 2016 presidential election, and both the Obama and upcoming Trump administrations. It will air at 10 p.m. on Jan. 3, with additional portions of the interview airing throughout the week. As Variety adds, The interview will mark Assange’s first face-to-face cable news appearance. It is not, however, the first time he’s spoken publicly to Hannity. Most recently, in December, Assange called into Hannity’s radio show, in which the host gushed to Assange that “you’ve done us a favor” in exposing gaps in U.S. cybersecurity.

And while what Assange would say was rather predictable, as he would simply reiterate what he has said previously, courtesy of Real Clear Politics, we have an advance glimpse into the punchline, to wit:

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?

 

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… Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.

When asked if  WikiLeaks changed the outcome of the election, Assange replied “Who knows, it’s impossible to tell” but, he added, “if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

Which is correct, however admitting as much would shift the blame away from the “Russians” and back to the failures of the Clinton campaign and the shortcoming of the Democrats, and the whole point of this scapegoating campaign is precisely the opposite.

As the Hill adds, Assange said there’s an “obvious” reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia’s alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Donald Trump’s electoral win.

“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House.”

He then added that “our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true,” Assange continued. “But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House.”

However, as we said previously, since at the end of the day it is Assange’s word – unless Wikileaks does actually reveal its source, which would be professional suicide – against the word of Obama and 17 agenices who back him up, despite still having provided no actual evidence in the ongoing, and quite bizarre attempt to force a deterioration of US-Russian relations in the final days of the Obama administration, just so Trump can inherit a complete diplomatic mess and make closer relations with Putin more complicated, this latest interview with Assange will likewise resolve absolutely nothing.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Overthecliff
Overthecliff
January 3, 2017 6:51 am

The most convincing evidence of Russian innocence in this matter is that Clintons and the media say they are guilty.

Maggie
Maggie
January 3, 2017 7:43 am

Assange makes this point well:

When asked if WikiLeaks changed the outcome of the election, Assange replied “Who knows, it’s impossible to tell” but, he added, “if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

Good point. Also a good point that even though Snowden broke rules by letting US citizens the government was ILLEGALLY violating every single citizen’s rights of privacy by ignoring them in the phony baloney name of terrorism.

Pardon Snowden, Mr. Trump.

Edited to eliminate one “that” Suzanna. I almost always look. One survived because it introduces the “good point” and meaning would change. And again, Stuck… if too much information, you know what you need to do.

TrickleUpPolitics
TrickleUpPolitics
January 3, 2017 7:47 am

As a retired intelligence officer, in my opinion there is no there there. What do I base that on? Two things:
1. When the “Russians hacked the election” first came up, Congress demanded a briefing from the ODNI, NSA, CIA and FBI and none of them sent a briefer……because they had no evidence.
2. I read the report. It is a big fat nothingburger stated in the best federalese.

Maggie
Maggie
  TrickleUpPolitics
January 3, 2017 8:07 am

TUP, I was never “in” intelligence, but as an AWACS crewmember, there were certain briefings and reports we could read, if we desired to understand the “issues.” Most were a bunch of repetitive crap that needed a good wordsmith to impart some meaning to the words. Most needed to be stamped classified for numerical reasons only… how many and how fast and what are indeed classifiable, imho, but the fact that the machines exist should NOT be hidden from taxpaying citizens with the right to know.

Later, when editing the same sort of crapola for the government under strict guidelines to not add or change one word without SME (subject matter expert) approval, I found nonsensical bureaucratese as “systemic” in most government documents. As contract writers/editors, we were allowed only to correct spelling, punctuation and format, but even then had to provide a list of THOSE to the SME.

If it sounds tedious and dull and like a waste of an educated editor’s time, you understand why I was paid so much to do it. And why (and how) I retired at 50. And if that is too much information for you Stuckmeister, you know what you can do with your spare hand.

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 3, 2017 8:24 am

John8:32 “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” -CEV

It wasn’t the Russians, Assange, some mysterious hacker or insider with a USB drive that set us free of Hillary.

It was the Truth that set us free of Hillary.

Just the simple Truth.

That’s why Democrats and leftists hate Truth so much, it sets us free from them when we know it.