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.”

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ahmeexnal's picture

Chelsea is the leak!

Flying Wombat's picture

Ironically enough, there's some indication that Chelsea didn't inerrit sociopathy from her parrents.  She might actually be a somewhat normal person - not able to leak what was leaked, of course, but interesting all the same.

runswithscissors's picture

Are you trying to say Chelsea inherited a shred of sanity from her father Webster Hubble?

philipat's picture

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

Um, actually by virtue of the natural born citizen requirement, that would accurately apply to Obuttboy himself? 

In fact, the frightening thing is that even now we still no idea who he really is. The true Manchurian candidate..

 

erkme73's picture

How can Assange's source be compromised if he reveals his name?  He's dead.  His name is Seth Rich.

philipat's picture

True but then even more important not to reveal the source. Future potential leakers probably don't want to finish up dead?

PS. Out mutual friend:

lhomme, letsit, tazs, techies-r-us, stizazz, lock-stock, beauticelli, Mano-A-Mano, mofio, santafe, Aristotle of Greece, Gargoyle, bleu, oops, lance-a-lot, Loftie, toro, Yippee Kiyay, lonnng, Nekoti, SumTing Wong, King Tut, Adullam, espirit, rp2016, Holy hand grenade of Antioch, One of these is not like the others

appears to have moderated his behaviour somewhat? But he continues to talk to himself.....

InjectTheVenom's picture

 

>>>   bang chelsea   OR

>>>   wack it with a cheese grater

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) InjectTheVenom Jan 2, 2017 11:09 PM

They won't stop until they'll make it stick. Like trying to put a sweater on a pitbull:

http://dailywesterner.com/dog-mauls-whole-family-after-they-attempt-to-p...

Well...that should be funny to watch.

tazs's picture
tazs (not verified) xythras Jan 2, 2017 11:10 PM

Obama knows it's NOT the Russians. He just can't say "The Donald Stole the Election". Won't look good for America.

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#presidenttrump

----_-'s picture
----_- (not verified) tazs Jan 3, 2017 1:34 AM

ITS THE DUAL CITIZENS FROM ISRAEL WHO LEAKED THE DATA. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SPY UPON THEM.

 

THEY WANTED TRUMP TO GET ELECTED SO THEY CRASHED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

 

ISRAEL FIRST

MAKE ISRAEL EVEN GREATER

Escrava Isaura's picture

ASSANGE: …repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party

Wow, that’s a bizarre, kind of misleading answer.

What does he mean by “the last two months”?

And, that the leak came from one person alone?

Disclosure: I did not watch the video or read the article, so, I am not sure if these two issues were addressed by the journalist.

 

nmewn's picture

There is nothing bizarre or misleading about his answer when read in the context of the question being asked...

 

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.

...which you omitted when you copied it down. I realize the English language is not your first language and it does have nuances that may escape your comprehension so I italicized and bolded what you omitted for your future reference.

As an fyi...Wikileaks began directing peoples attention to emails regarding Hillary Crony on...the 4th of July...(a date which has some relevance to Americans...lol)...by providing the link to what she turned over from her home brew server by FOI request. July 22nd they released the first DNC emails, October of 2016 is when the Clinton campaign launched its McCarthyist operation...

Look! A Russian Squirrel!!!...lol.

Perhaps that is what Julian is saying when he says "...repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party..."

He's not saying a political party...he's using the nuance of language (in this case English) in saying the unidentified person(s) are people, people of interest in the question being asked...and stating flatly they are not Russian government connected or connected with ANY government.

In other words...quite possibly, the very much dead Seth Rich (shot multiple times on July 10th 2016) and/or the very much still missing former CEO of the Clinton Foundation Eric Braverman...or both. 

Your gal Hillary & your boi Obama, what a couple of characters ;-)

Escrava Isaura's picture

Obama saying that Trump is not legitimate President is a stretch by Assange because that’s not the case.

However, I can understand Assange using it because he needs Trump to get out of house arrest, but I don’t think Trump will touch this (Assange) hot potato. Nothing for Trump to gain.

  

canisdirus's picture

I thought he couldn't leave due to Sweden. Trump can't do a damned thing for Assange.

Escrava Isaura's picture

It’s not that simple:

Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women with whom he had sex. He was questioned, the case was closed, and he was told he could leave the country.

In November 2010, however, the case was re-opened by a special prosecutor.

Assange and his supporters state he is concerned not about any proceedings in Sweden as such, but that his deportation to Sweden could lead to politically motivated deportation to the United States, where he could face severe penalties, up to the death sentence, for his activities related to WikiLeaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Political_asylum_and_life_at_the_Ecuadorian_embassy

 

 

nmewn's picture

You have an annoying habit of inventing things out of thin air, Assange is not "under house arrest " he sought refuge in an embassy who's internet connection was subsequently cut off by a state actor and that attack was certainly not done by Russia. 

And to my knowledge he has not been formally charged by any government with any type of sexual assault. 

sinbad2's picture

BS, the tribe controls the Democrats, and the media that was pushing hard for Hillary to win.

----_-'s picture
----_- (not verified) sinbad2 Jan 3, 2017 6:57 AM

false. the tribe owns both parties and the media played into trumps hands. you forget or ignore the fact that most people have internet as their source of information.

 

FIAT CON's picture

By proving it was not the Russians makes Hitlery a LIAR again!

 She was losing the last debate badly and she was looking for a strike and all she could come up with was the "Russian's" and now they all have to stick with that story.

 

Ferrari's picture

For some reason I'm not seeing this story on the NYT website. If you need a good laugh, look at their add flogging independent journalism.

beemasters's picture

Assange here is defending the legitimacy of Trump presidency. Yet, Trump has all along been silent about Julian or Wikileaks. Not once, has he voiced concern over Assange's safety or given credits to Wikileaks.

It doesn't seem right.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

Given the players on the field one has to be very careful the sequence in which one does things or one could find oneself chauffered about Dallas in an open topped limo.   Even if Mr T. wanted to give full pardons do Assange and Snowden it might not be in anybody's best interest to telegraph that punch.

RiverRoad's picture

Especially when you haven't even been sworn in yet.

canisdirus's picture

He doesn't need to. Trump can ignore Assange. Assange makes his money releasing hot news about corrupt people through leaks he receives from anonymous sources. That the big news of the day were emails from a private server under investigation was merely lucky coincidence. He's a businessman that makes money on sensational stories released as quickly as possible.

Assange is right about what's going on, but it doesn't warrant any response. The man makes money from the above and his brand is only valuable if he keeps doing that and staying in the spotlight. He has much to gain and nothing to lose by stating the obvious truth.

11b40's picture

He is performing a public service, and at much greater personal sacrifice than our elected officials.

canisdirus's picture

I can't deny that, but it still doesn't mean Trump needs to pay any attention to him.

jeff montanye's picture

before we let chelsea of uncertain parentage and ethics go, it seems fitting to note that eric braverman, the person supposedly tasked by chelsea to "clean up" the clinton foundation as its ceo, and accused by john podesta of being a mole in the clinton campaign, is still missing.

https://stream.org/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-former-clinton-founda...

DeadFred's picture

Eric is with Julian. There is no way the real Assange would talk with Hannity or that Hannity would treat him so well. What you will be seeing is CGI and voice replication. Assange is either dead or in some CIA dungeon, IMHO, until someone credible can be shown reaching over and touching him (and the hand doesn't pass through the hologram)

sleigher's picture

Why will Assange go on Hannity who thought him a trader rather than walk to the window of the embassay?

Either we already know the answer or we "may" find out on the 20th or there abouts.

 

If I were a betting man ( I am...) my money would be on black.  CIA black site that is.  Or dead, but probably about that same as far as that goes.

J Jason Djfmam's picture

>>>whack Chelsea with a cheese grater.

philipat's picture

And at least 5 of "him" are online :-)

Zoltan's picture

Up to six (-6) now. Nice to see philipat back on watch.

Z

philipat's picture

Thanks but I feel I have done all I can do for the community already. "The idiot" has felt the pressure and now no longer uses fake links to his stupid website. He now posts the link transparently, although it obviously still has no connection to the comments he makes as "click bait". And he still talks to himself to prevent outing responses to his links falling directly below.

But, in fairness, since he is now being transparent about his link, he is no longer a Spammer in the understood sense. Most regular ZH users are very smart and recognise this Guy so will not click on his link, especially now it is not disguised.. Sure, non-regulars may fall for the click bait but my attempt was to help the regular users of ZH get rid of this annoying Prick from an otherwise excellent site which we all so appreciate and, from which, he detracts.

So, as they say, my work is done here. I may try to post irregular updates of his latest names and a full history of his previous names. If someone else wishes to pick up on the work I would welcome it but I have done enough.

JRobby's picture

Haldol is still the institutional psychotic management treatment of choice. 

Max Cynical's picture

"How can Assange's source be compromised if he reveals his name? He's dead. His name is Seth Rich."

As I understand, the information was handed off to an informant. Others lives may be at stake.

Realigious Nut's picture

Seth Rich didn't hand them to Wikileaks but he could be the original source.

Ambassador Murray said he got the files handed to him on 25 September 2016 in Washington, whilst attending the Sam Adams Award, before handing them on to Wikileaks.

Ray McGovern confirmed on Crosstalk that Murray was there that day at a presentation, then left early, and was seen 'walkíng backwards into the woods'. Sounds like the hand-over definitely occured that day.

They probably didn't even know he'd done it. Seth Rich was most likely knocked off because he was going to spill his guts to the FBI! 

Either way nothing like a few mysterious deaths to make people think twice about exposing these dickheads.

IAmNumberSix's picture

Murray said there was a go between that did the hand off. 

RiverRoad's picture

If the "hacker/leaker" had exposed the location of the Lindberg baby would we be prosecuting the hacker?

4 wheel drift's picture

"even now we still [have] no idea who he really is"

 

gezuz h krrrist...

YES we do, he is a fucking muslim traitor, based on actual deeds

along with all his accomplices.  why he is not been prosecuted shows the depth and intertwined treasonous web that DC is.

on top of that, he is a miserable lying human being, if one can call him a human being.... same applies to every scumbag who sent thousands of young Americans to their deaths based on LIES....    not to mention the mayhem and destruction path left around the world....

I don't believe in heaven or hell....   this is one time I wished it existed....  still....   there may be karma, and I hope it bites these people hard in their respective arses, before  their miserable lives are over.   ALL OF THEM, no exceptions

JRobby's picture

Oblivio, Manchurian Kenyan 

The Destroyer

neilhorn's picture

Docs in my Jordan briefs Web Hubble? Or I made a brief mistake Web Hubble?

whatamaroon's picture

Yea, well she is still buttugly.

jeff montanye's picture

perhaps i am easy (no real perhaps) but, particularly say before stanford and all that "growing up", she had a certain appeal.

for that matter i think hillary clinton when she was on the nixon investigatory committee was quite pretty.  showing signs of the world class criminal she would become but not bad looking.

neilhorn's picture

LOL. There was a time in 1960's and early 1970's when an ugly woman could look at you and make you think she was pretty, but you have to remember there was a pussy shortage back then. If you had some pussy you were in good supply, but if not then anything that looked like a pussy was so awe inspiring that one's tongue would hang out. That is what made the ugly girls look so pretty, a lack of pussy.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Come on Eric. Fuck me. She's a horrible person.

Mr.Sono's picture

Confirmed, fuck Obama that lying peace of shit.