• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All unsupported narratives aside, what did Assange really do and how did he really do it?

marke said:
Take two competing story lines:

1. A DNC insider stole the emails and gave them to Assange.

2. Someone connected with Russians or with Trump or both hacked into the DNC server and stole the emails.

My assertion is that both are not true and that one is true and one is not. Let's examine the evidence and sort out all the unproven rumors and assumptions from the irrefutable details and facts.
Click to expand...

Your two options do not include the actual charges against Assange.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You’re way behind.
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Click to expand...

What you present is a document put together by individuals who may or may not have been biased against Trump and, therefore, greatly tempted to lie to support democrat narratives in opposition to Trump. We have seen the clear bias in almost every former top official of the Obama administration intelligence agencies. What can be said about this document? That the authors claim the reason they cannot support their opinionated assessments any better than they do is because so much information they base their assessment on is classified. How convenient a cover is that if the 'sources' are lying and the narratives are lies?

We shall press forward with sources, reports and details which are not classified and which do paint a different picture than some of the narratives coming from biased sources.
 
code1211 said:
Your two options do not include the actual charges against Assange.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This OP is not about charges against Assange, it is about narratives accusing Assange of hacking or receiving hacked emails from the DNC, for which he has never been charged.

I shall post evidence or purported evidence that Assange leaked DNC emails in earlier cases which had nothing to do with the batch of emails associated with the leak on July 22, 2016, but the differences are significant.

Those earlier leaks came before Crowdstrike's assessment in May 2016 that the Russians had hacked the DNC.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Your two options do not include the actual charges against Assange.
Click to expand...

The indictment charging Assange has nothing to do with the the DNC email hack.
 
marke said:
Take two competing story lines:

1. A DNC insider stole the emails and gave them to Assange.

2. Someone connected with Russians or with Trump or both hacked into the DNC server and stole the emails.

My assertion is that both are not true and that one is true and one is not. Let's examine the evidence and sort out all the unproven rumors and assumptions from the irrefutable details and facts.
Click to expand...

Anti-Trump officials initiated a surveillance of Carter Page in July 2016 based upon hunches which were later proven to be entirely erroneous. The Carter Page surveillance was tied to the Russian collusion narrative first reported by those connected with the DNC and which were later debunked by the Mueller investigation. What does this have to do with Assange? The fact that the democrats blamed the Wikileak email release of July 2016 on the Russians demanded the FBI investigate. However, instead of starting with the DNC computers they chose instead to spy on Cater Page. That was a bad choice on their part.
 
marke said:
What you present is a document put together by individuals who may or may not have been biased against Trump and, therefore, greatly tempted to lie to support democrat narratives in opposition to Trump. We have seen the clear bias in almost every former top official of the Obama administration intelligence agencies. What can be said about this document? That the authors claim the reason they cannot support their opinionated assessments any better than they do is because so much information they base their assessment on is classified. How convenient a cover is that if the 'sources' are lying and the narratives are lies?

We shall press forward with sources, reports and details which are not classified and which do paint a different picture than some of the narratives coming from biased sources.
Click to expand...
^^ Expected untruthful right wing response.

The DNI’s report is the result of a collaborative effort between America’s premiere law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Many highly trained and experienced men and women from all walks of life, and of all political leanings worked tirelessly to get to the bottom of what actually happened during the ‘16 election cycle. To summarily dismiss the results of their dedicated labors because of political bias is shameful. People like you and your ilk are the reason for the confusion and division in America today.
 
marke said:
Exactly. This OP is not about charges against Assange, it is about narratives accusing Assange of hacking or receiving hacked emails from the DNC, for which he has never been charged.

I shall post evidence or purported evidence that Assange leaked DNC emails in earlier cases which had nothing to do with the batch of emails associated with the leak on July 22, 2016, but the differences are significant.

Those earlier leaks came before Crowdstrike's assessment in May 2016 that the Russians had hacked the DNC.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it is not a crime to publish the materials after they were stolen.

The crime is in stealing the materials in the first place.
 
Bullseye said:
What about the classified information from Manning? That's a crime, too.
Click to expand...

What about the TOP SECRET material from Ellsberg?

Manning's was NOT TOP SECRET.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ Expected untruthful right wing response.

The DNI’s report is the result of a collaborative effort between America’s premiere law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Many highly trained and experienced men and women from all walks of life, and of all political leanings worked tirelessly to get to the bottom of what actually happened during the ‘16 election cycle. To summarily dismiss the results of their dedicated labors because of political bias is shameful. People like you and your ilk are the reason for the confusion and division in America today.
Click to expand...

I know how upset people got after it was discovered Bush, Hillary Clinton and more than a hundred other politicians had been wrong to believe the intelligence reports claiming Iraq had yellow cake uranium. We should never forget that no intelligence agency ever thinks for itself. People do the thinking and people form the opinions and people do the analysis and people can be wrong.

Brennan spent two years railing on Donald Trump and assuring his followers that Mueller had a mountain of evidence of Trump/Russian collusion, but after the report came out he changed his tune. Now he admits he may have had "bad information.'

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan admits he may have had 'bad information' regarding President Trump and Russia - IBEX News 24
 
marke said:
I know how upset people got after it was discovered Bush, Hillary Clinton and more than a hundred other politicians had been wrong to believe the intelligence reports claiming Iraq had yellow cake uranium. We should never forget that no intelligence agency ever thinks for itself. People do the thinking and people form the opinions and people do the analysis and people can be wrong.

Brennan spent two years railing on Donald Trump and assuring his followers that Mueller had a mountain of evidence of Trump/Russian collusion, but after the report came out he changed his tune. Now he admits he may have had "bad information.'

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan admits he may have had 'bad information' regarding President Trump and Russia - IBEX News 24
Click to expand...

Bush, Cheney, and others in 43’s administration pushed hard for a justification to invade Iraq. That is irrefutable fact. Clinton and most officials afforded the opportunity to review the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq’s WMD program never even read it in full, however all of the committee’s Democrats, along with two Republicans, said that while the administration’s statements on Iraq’s nuclear capabilities were supported by some intelligence, the administration’s statements, “did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” Additionally, other significant players in the search for evidence concluded their was no viable WMD program in existence in Iraq including Scott Ridder, who was chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, who said this about the world’s intelligence agencies: “[W]e knew that while we couldn’t account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. Factually, all of the intelligence agencies and WMD experts did not agree that there was justification for invading Iraq.

The DNI’s report, on the other hand, does unanimously conclude that among other things, Putin’s folks hacked the DNC and gave the illegally obtained information to Assange/Wikileaks to publish with the specific intent of helping Trump to be elected. In the beginning of the DNI’s report, Clapper notes (as specifically as he can) that the various agencies involved in the investigation incorporated numerous methods of verifying/fact checking all information, including using lessons learned over the last decade.

As for Brennan, it’s entirely possible that he got bad information regarding possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin however, the “Russia collusion” investigation has not been the basis for most of Brennan’s justified/correct criticisms of Trump. Brennan has mostly attacked Trump for his pathologic lying, xenophobic comments and actions, and generally disgraceful
Behavior.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Think Again: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction: Did “Everyone” Agree?
White House Background Briefing on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
 
code1211 said:
As I understand it, it is not a crime to publish the materials after they were stolen.

The crime is in stealing the materials in the first place.
Click to expand...

Who stole the materials? Assange? Trump? Some Russian? Some mysterious unknown named Guccifer 2.0? Cater Page? The mainstream media apparently does not know. Adam Schitf does not know. Hillary Clinton does not know. This guy says he knows who stole the DNC emails:

ep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says he has seen evidence that could disprove Russia-Trump once and for all, but he's having a hard time getting his message through to the president.
Rohrabacher: Assange Has 'Absolute Proof' of Who Gave Him Emails

And then there is this:

In the interview Wikileaks envoy Craig Murray and former ambassador stated that he personally flew to the US and was handed both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails.

Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from a DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.
Republic Broadcasting Network >> WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia

Democrat insider? Two names have come up. Seth Rich and Eric Braverman.
 
Chomsky said:
Take another look at the claim you made in your original post; it was referring to Mueller ...
Click to expand...

Right. Neither Mueller nor the FBI ever examined the DNC computers. What a crappy way to conduct an investigation into computer hacking.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Bush, Cheney, and others in 43’s administration pushed hard for a justification to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
So? Hillary caved under pressure by the men? It is a good thing then she was never elected president.

That is irrefutable fact. Clinton and most officials afforded the opportunity to review the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq’s WMD program never even read it in full, however all of the committee’s Democrats, along with two Republicans, said that while the administration’s statements on Iraq’s nuclear capabilities were supported by some intelligence, the administration’s statements, “did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.”
Click to expand...

OK. So what inspired so many democrats to vote in favor of going to war with Iraq in the Iraq Resolution of 2002? That resolution was not like Obamacare in which all democrats voted in favor of the plan and no republicans voted in favor of the plan. The Iraq Resolution was a joint bipartisan resolution which passed 297 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. You cannot or should not blame democrat support for the war resolution on ignorance or, in your reference, failure to read the intelligence report in full.

Additionally, other significant players in the search for evidence concluded their was no viable WMD program in existence in Iraq including Scott Ridder, who was chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, who said this about the world’s intelligence agencies: “[W]e knew that while we couldn’t account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. Factually, all of the intelligence agencies and WMD experts did not agree that there was justification for invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

Something else Scott Ridder knew was that Saddam Hussein had kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in violation of the peace settlement which ended the first Gulf War. One of the 12 reasons Congress listed in favor of the war resolution of 2002 was the fact that Saddam needed to be chastised for violating that key point in the agreement. Several leaders of other nations were not happy that Saddam did that.

The DNI’s report, on the other hand, does unanimously conclude that among other things, Putin’s folks hacked the DNC and gave the illegally obtained information to Assange/Wikileaks to publish with the specific intent of helping Trump to be elected. In the beginning of the DNI’s report, Clapper notes (as specifically as he can) that the various agencies involved in the investigation incorporated numerous methods of verifying/fact checking all information, including using lessons learned over the last decade.
Click to expand...

Like Brennan said, the DNI had gotten bad information from the DNC about the supposed Russian involvement and everyone just accepted the DNC 'finding' because nobody but the DNC was allowed to examine the DNC computers.
As for Brennan, it’s entirely possible that he got bad information regarding possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin however, the “Russia collusion” investigation has not been the basis for most of Brennan’s justified/correct criticisms of Trump. Brennan has mostly attacked Trump for his pathologic lying, xenophobic comments and actions, and generally disgraceful
Behavior.
Click to expand...

Brennan's pathologic lying, xenophobic comments about Trump are beneath someone worthy of respect.
 
Last edited:
Thread title:All unsupported narratives aside, what did Assange really do and how did he really do it?

Does the thread starter suspect the federal prosecutor that wrote the Indictment is a forum member. Unless that is the case I simply do not find the means to construct a reasoned answer to the question in the thread title nor do I see how anybody else here can.
 
marke said:
Who stole the materials? Assange? Trump? Some Russian? Some mysterious unknown named Guccifer 2.0? Cater Page? The mainstream media apparently does not know. Adam Schitf does not know. Hillary Clinton does not know. This guy says he knows who stole the DNC emails:

ep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says he has seen evidence that could disprove Russia-Trump once and for all, but he's having a hard time getting his message through to the president.
Rohrabacher: Assange Has 'Absolute Proof' of Who Gave Him Emails

And then there is this:

In the interview Wikileaks envoy Craig Murray and former ambassador stated that he personally flew to the US and was handed both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails.

Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from a DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.
Republic Broadcasting Network >> WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia

Democrat insider? Two names have come up. Seth Rich and Eric Braverman.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about this.

I was only commenting that the crime they are going after Assange on is the stealing of the stuff, not the publishing.

It's refreshing that in this case, unlike Trump, they at least have a crime committed at a particular time and place that a they are investigating.

You know... Something that actually happened as opposed to just going after that guy that they don't like.
 
Rumors?

How about we deal in facts?

The fact is that Assange helped Manning hack national security computers and published what was found.

That he received stolen e-mails from Russian GRU agents and published them in their attempt to screw with our election.

He is human filth
 
marke said:
So? Hillary caved under pressure by the men? It is a good thing then she was never elected president.
Click to expand...
Misogynist idiocy. Many more men than women in office who also accepted the administration’s story.

marke said:
OK. So what inspired so many democrats to vote in favor of going to war with Iraq in the Iraq Resolution of 2002? That resolution was not like Obamacare in which all democrats voted in favor of the plan and no republicans voted in favor of the plan. The Iraq Resolution was a joint bipartisan resolution which passed 297 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. You cannot or should not blame democrat support for the war resolution on ignorance or, in your reference, failure to read the intelligence report in full.
Click to expand...
Comparing support for the Iraq Resolution and Obamacare is absurd. The two issues couldn’t be less alike. Remember what we’re talking about; whether or not all of the intelligence agencies and other sources got their information right and conveyed that to Bush’s administration. You asserted that they were wrong, and I have shown that, although some in the intelligence world were wrong, others were correct, but the administration minimized/ignored them. The DNI’s report, however, contained unanimous agreement across the intelligence and law enforcement community that Russia/Putin did hack the DNC and provided the stolen information to Wikileaks.

marke said:
Something else Scott Ridder knew was that Saddam Hussein had kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in violation of the peace settlement which ended the first Gulf War. One of the 12 reasons Congress listed in favor of the war resolution of 2002 was the fact that Saddam needed to be chastised for violating that key point in the agreement. Several leaders of other nations were not happy that Saddam did that.
Click to expand...
You’re moving away from the point again. There was disagreement within the intel and other agencies that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with. There is no disagreement between intel and law enforcement agencies that Russia/Putin hacked the DNC and gave the stolen information to Assange/Wikileaks.

marke said:
Like Brennan said, the DNI had gotten bad information from the DNC about the supposed Russian involvement and everyone just accepted the DNC 'finding' because nobody but the DNC was allowed to examine the DNC computers.
Click to expand...
Bull****. Brennan didn’t say any such thing. Nowhere even close that.

marke said:
Brennan's pathologic lying, xenophobic comments about Trump are beneath someone worthy of respect.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old “I’m rubber, your glue” retort. How 2nd grade of you.

Bottom line, your attempt at comparing the genesis of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the DNI’s report on Russia’s interference in the ‘16 election fails in the facts. The first was not based unanimous agreement and the second is.
 
jnug said:
Thread title:All unsupported narratives aside, what did Assange really do and how did he really do it?

Does the thread starter suspect the federal prosecutor that wrote the Indictment is a forum member. Unless that is the case I simply do not find the means to construct a reasoned answer to the question in the thread title nor do I see how anybody else here can.
Click to expand...

I suggest Assange has never been charged with receiving stolen DNC emails from either Trump or the Russians. Assange said a DNC insider supplied him with the emails and I have no reason to doubt he is telling the truth, especially since the FBI has not come forward with specific verifiable evidence to the contrary.
 
code1211 said:
I don't know much about this.

I was only commenting that the crime they are going after Assange on is the stealing of the stuff, not the publishing.
Click to expand...

Assange leaked a lot of stuff from various places, even DNC emails that he got from other sources and at a different which were unrelated to the email leak of July 22, 2016 which exposed Hillary and the DNC for being the crooks they are. Assange has not been charged with theft in that particular case.
 
Lesh said:
Rumors?

How about we deal in facts?

The fact is that Assange helped Manning hack national security computers and published what was found.
Click to expand...

That fact is supported by evidence which has been verified.

That he received stolen e-mails from Russian GRU agents and published them in their attempt to screw with our election.
Click to expand...

That allegation has not been verified. The fact that so many people blindly bought into the DNC story line accusing the Russians of hacking their emails does not effectively refute evidence that suggests a DNC insider gave the emails to Assange.
He is human filth
Click to expand...

The question of whether he had a free speech right to release info he obtained will be decided in courts. We should not overlook the fact that the emails themselves clearly show that Hillary and the DNC insiders were filthy.
 
Lesh said:
Rumors?

How about we deal in facts?

The fact is that Assange helped Manning hack national security computers and published what was found.

That he received stolen e-mails from Russian GRU agents and published them in their attempt to screw with our election.

He is human filth
Click to expand...

Facts?

Nothing you've stated is factual.
 
marke said:
Assange leaked a lot of stuff from various places, even DNC emails that he got from other sources and at a different which were unrelated to the email leak of July 22, 2016 which exposed Hillary and the DNC for being the crooks they are. Assange has not been charged with theft in that particular case.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't know much about this, but the charges being leveled against him are in regard to the theft of the stuff, not the publishing of the stuff.

The publishing stuff is a protected action.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Misogynist idiocy. Many more men than women in office who also accepted the administration’s story.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right and Hillary was not so bad as we might think for caving to the men in the Bush administration by voting to go to war with Iraq, but to say the reason for excusing her is because there were more men than women who accepted the administration's story seems a little silly.

Comparing support for the Iraq Resolution and Obamacare is absurd. The two issues couldn’t be less alike.
Click to expand...

I compared the voting patterns between the two, not the two subjects of the votes themselves.

Remember what we’re talking about; whether or not all of the intelligence agencies and other sources got their information right and conveyed that to Bush’s administration. You asserted that they were wrong, and I have shown that, although some in the intelligence world were wrong, others were correct, but the administration minimized/ignored them.
Click to expand...

Bush and Congress both had intelligence reports. Bush and members of Congress analyzed the reports and went with their best judgments. They did not take one report or a select type of report and cast aside all others like some democrats seem to think they should have done.

The DNI’s report, however, contained unanimous agreement across the intelligence and law enforcement community that Russia/Putin did hack the DNC and provided the stolen information to Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

The DNI report was based upon the DNC story line about the Russians which the FBI could not verify because it was not allowed access to the DNC computers and did not interview Assange for his side of the story.

You’re moving away from the point again. There was disagreement within the intel and other agencies that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with. There is no disagreement between intel and law enforcement agencies that Russia/Putin hacked the DNC and gave the stolen information to Assange/Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

You assume that there was no disagreement from spokespeople from the former Obama intelligence agencies who endorsed the DNC Russian hack claim, and you may be right, but we have seen clear evidence of anti-Trump bias at the tops of those agencies and have seen no credible proof thus far that Assange did not get the emails from a DNC insider like he claimed.

Bull****. Brennan didn’t say any such thing. Nowhere even close that.
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine a commie like Brennan would admit he may have been misled by the DNC narrative.

Ah, the old “I’m rubber, your glue” retort. How 2nd grade of you.

Bottom line, your attempt at comparing the genesis of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the DNI’s report on Russia’s interference in the ‘16 election fails in the facts. The first was not based unanimous agreement and the second is.
Click to expand...
 
code1211 said:
Again, I don't know much about this, but the charges being leveled against him are in regard to the theft of the stuff, not the publishing of the stuff.

The publishing stuff is a protected action.
Click to expand...

Again, Assange has not been charged with stealing the DNC emails he published on July 22, 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom