Assange confirmed alive, tells Fox: Prez Obama 'acting like a lawyer'

Julian Assange has been interviewed for the first time in months, putting to bed rumours he'd been kidnapped, while also disputing claims that Russia contributed to WikiLeaks' offerings during the US Presidential election. In a half-hour extract of an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, Assange tackled allegations that it …

[Stevie]

Bah!

The only person mentioning Wikileaks in connection with the "Russian Hacking" story is Julian Assange.

Tee-Hee. If Assange gets an OPOTUS pardon (normally reserved for outgoing presidents but let's not hamper the man with piffling meaningless traditions while he is Making America Great Again) it won't change his status vis-a-vis the Swedish desire to bring him to court, but it *might* make the Ecuadorans kick him out of the embassy on the grounds he has no fear of being nabbed by nefarious Ameriforces.

Then all he has to do is avoid obvious traps like beautiful blonde leggy women with sexy Scandinavian accents offering to meet him in an out of the way place ... oh dear.

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: Bah!

The ferals claim the Russians hacked everything to cover up incompetence. Their incontinence stems from the facts that there might be people in the DNC with a sense of ethics and that average Yank figures that Trump can not be any worse and might turn out better than the last several failures in the Oval Orifice. Assange is not making a connection Pravda on the Potomac and Ivestia on the Hudson have been shrilly making.

Also, Assange has repeatedly noted that they had next to nothing on Blowhard and a goldmine of goodies on Hildafelon and the donkeys. He has repeatedly and consistently said the goodies on Hildafelon were leaks from insider(s).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bah!

Assange is not making a connection Pravda on the Potomac and Ivestia on the Hudson have been shrilly making.

No, he is not.

He was, however, openly trying to influence the US election result by carefully staging the information disclosure for max damage instead of following the Wikileaks "mission statement", which would have required him to just dump the whole trove. At once.

Was he doing it on Russian payroll or it was a marriage of convenience of multiple people hating Clinton's guts is something we do not know.

In reality, Clinton(s) have accumulated a bill to pay of galactic proportions over the years going as far back as Billy Boy's involvement in the Yugo wars and the support for "freedom fighters" around the Russian periphery during the same period. Even if we assume that Russia cashed in that check at the cost of 35 diplomats, that cost is a joke compared to the cost incurred on by actions of "freedom fighters" which the Clinton(s) supported directly or via middlemen. That cost in Russia alone runs into thousands dead from terror acts and hundreds of thousands displaced or homeless ^(*).

^{(*) Disclaimer - my family had two apartments in Grozny, on either side of the high street. One dating from before 1917. Both ended up as rubble in the 1990-es and my mother's half-sister was raped by "freedom fighters" for the crime of being Russian who did not evacuate when she should. So, if the Russians did it to Clinton, I will applaud. Loudly. With joy. And shouts of "More, More, More, can we have Blair too"}

[Stevie]

Re: Bah!

4 a_yank_lurker: your speach is too cunning for me. Didn't understand a word of it, unfortunately. I'm sure it was an erudite refutation of something I said, based on facts securely in evidence. Sadly I don't speak 4Chan. Try phrasing it in English next time.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Stevie ... Re: Bah!

Hey! Just some corrections.

1) Wikileaks dumped the docs from the DNC hack along from Podesta's hack.

So he's not the only one mentioning Wikileaks.

2) Pardon?

For what? Free clue. Assange hasn't been charged with anything. Wikileaks' publishing of the emails is actually protected by US Law. See Ellsberg SCOTUS decision back around '73. (See NYT v US)

Officially there is no reason for the US to want him in the first place and the Swedes may get him on their own.

3) News Flash, this just in... Assange is still a prat.

Assange is being Ass-n-age. Could he break in to the GOP or Trump's systems he would.

Assange had always maintained that he got his leaked dump from an insider. Podesta's problem came from a script kiddie's phish. And Podesta's password was 'password'.

[Stevie]

Re: @Stevie ... Bah!

4 Sir IMG:

1) My appologies. The only one talking about wikileaks now is Julian Assange. Everyone else is talking about Russians. Except you, just now of course. Thanks for the correction.

2) I didn't invent the pardon bit, I was responding to a comment. But FYI you don't need to be a criminal to get an unconditional pardon from POTUS. See: Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

3) I agree. To the point I wish people wouldn't give the self-serving git any more press.

[PNGuinn]

Re: Bah!

"obvious traps like beautiful blonde leggy women with sexy Scandinavian accents offering to meet him in an out of the way place ..."

Stevie, what are you trying to suggest about the PC Plod??

[Stevie]

Re: Bah!

4 PNGuinn: Nothing. I'm saying something unkind about Wallander.

Oh, and the US Navy want their non-nuclear submarine back.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US "threat" remains a myth.

Then all he has to do is avoid obvious traps like beautiful blonde leggy women with sexy Scandinavian accents offering to meet him in an out of the way place ... oh dear.

And UK police - OPOTUS has no impact on his status as a bail skipper, nor on his suspected rapist status. I know he's playing for expiry, which suggests to me that there must have been something there or he would have gone to Sweden in a blaze of (self)publicity.

However, all of that skips over the fact that the US extradition threat remains the myth it has always been. The US has never asked for it nor is there any legal evidence to back up such a suggestion, so all this is doing is indeed removing the argument for his abuse of the asylum process, making the Ecuadorian position increasingly untenable.

Which suggest he's even more of an idiot than I thought, impossible as that seems.

[ma1010]

A pardon?

I have no idea what Trump will do, but I wouldn't mind seeing him issuing a pardon to Assange and, better yet, Snowden. Anyone who reveals illegal and evil activity should not be punished, but rewarded. After all, if some corporation were doing something highly illegal and pernicious, anyone bringing that to the light would normally be acclaimed for doing good by the public and government.

Unfortunately, that isn't how it works when it's the government whose nefarious behavior gets exposed. Then you get lots of jail time, which isn't really how it should be.

[BillG]

Re: A pardon?

I watched the interview last night. I have to admit that I have a new respect for Assange. If he is to be believed, the leaked DNC emails was completely an inside job, coming from people inside the DNC. There was no Russian involvement.

He also claimed that the charges against him in Sweden didn't come from the women, but were brought and forced by the government of Sweden, which yeah, looks very suspicious. If that's true - then, Julian, I too owe you an apology for how I've treated you on El Reg.

Obama has made it clear that he is hostile to whistle blowers like Assange, and has issued multiple executive orders against Snowden, even having a jet stand by to kidnap/rendition him and drag him to the US.

A pardon? Has Assange been charged with any crimes? If he hasn't been charged with anything, then he can't be pardoned, can he?

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: A pardon?

I do not know if he has been charged under any US statutes only the Swedish charges. Since Sweden is an independent country those charges are affected by any US pardon for charges under US law.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: A pardon?

Correct, but you're missing something. There is precedent for a US president issuing a pardon for crimes where charges have not actually been brought. (yes, really). Essentially turning it into a promise not to prosecute. Assange has said that his fear is not the charges in Sweden but that he will be extradited to the US which will immediately issue charges. And that's not an unreasonable position given the circumstances. We had trouble enough holding onto Gary McKinnon and all he did was guess a couple of passwords and fail to find UFO evidence. So some sort of guarantee from the US president that they wont try to extradite him would be pretty valuable.

It will be interesting when Trump takes charge and the CIA presumably have to do what he tells them and actually reveal the proof they claim to have (if any). Well, at least I think the CIA are supposed to do what the president tells them to do... Actually, maybe somebody should tell the CIA that.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Harmony Re: A pardon?

Kinda sorta.

First a Pardon is more than a 'promise not to prosecute'.

A pardon means your record is wiped clean and you would be immune from any future prosecution for said crimes.

A pardon for crimes committed but not charged isn't new, but its pretty rare.

Now what exactly did Assange do that would warrant a pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Harmony A pardon?

He let people see behind Hillary's mask.

A capital crime.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: @Harmony A pardon?

Now what exactly did Assange do that would warrant a pardon?

This goes back to Chelsea Manning.

Part of the prosecution documents at the trial alleged that Assange didn't just take the documents but was giving Manning advice via IRC on how to get the info off the computers and to Wikileaks.

The IRC was obviously under a pseudonym, and I don't recall any info on whether they had electronic proof this was Assange, or whether it was something Manning said under questioning or agreed to.

If Wikileaks just got the data and published it, then presumably they're just being journalists and have immunity from prosecution. If, on the other hand, Assange was actively helping to get that data, then he may be at risk of prosection for hacking, or even something really nasty like espionage.

Hence the desire for a pardon. He wants assurances from European countries that they won't extradite him to the US on unspecified future charges that it would be illegal for them to give. Ministers aren't supposed to tell courts what to rule. Hence he won't get them. It may be of course that this is the reason he's asked for them, as it gives him cover for not facing the rape charge. But the US Pres can pardon someone, even for something they've not yet been charged for apparently.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Harmony A pardon?

If Wikileaks just got the data and published it, then presumably they're just being journalists and have immunity from prosecution. If, on the other hand, Assange was actively helping to get that data, then he may be at risk of prosection for hacking, or even something really nasty like espionage.

In other words, and in line with what he seems to desire with events in Sweden, Assange would really like to be declared above the law because of the miracles he has bestowed on humanity with Wikileaks, an attempt to legitimise his earlier hacking activities so he wouldn't have to face consequences for that too. Am I the only one to spot a pattern here?

I suspect that that is not going to happen. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't resolve the situation in Sweden it will always follow him - when it all times out legally it also allows the victims to go public..

* _{As per law - only a court can absolve you from the consequences if you can somehow make it tenable that it was whistleblowing - which Wikileaks releases generally are not.}

[Sherrie Ludwig]

Re: @Harmony A pardon?

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, who had not yet been charged with any crimes, although it was certain he would have been if he remained in office. It was the first thing Ford did as President.

[mhenriday]

Re: A pardon?

«I do not know if he has been charged under any US statutes only the Swedish charges.» As a matter of fact, a_yank_lunker, Mr Assange has never been charged with any crime under Swedish law. He has, however, been arrested in absentia, wanted for questioning in a preliminary investigation which was first withdrawn by the prosecutor in Stockholm, who had jurisdiction as the alleged offenses had taken place there, but was reopened by a new prosecutor in Göteborg, nota bene some 600 km distant....

«Since Sweden is an independent country ...» Ah yes, we who live here would like to believe that. Alas, the Assange case is just one piece of evidence that this is not the case....

Henri

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A pardon?

wanted for questioning in a preliminary investigation which was first withdrawn by the prosecutor in Stockholm, who had jurisdiction as the alleged offenses had taken place there, but was reopened by a new prosecutor in Göteborg, nota bene some 600 km distant....

.. which is per process - no laws were broken or even bent here, they can do that - the reasoning behind that is - quite ironically - that if someone tries to circumvent process because of, say, a bias - be it negative or positive - the investigation can still be started.

If Assange is all that innocent and all for transparency, why is he running away from an investigation that will be so buried under press attention that getting creative is quite simply impossible (a luxury few of us are afforded)?

You'd almost think he has something to hide ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A pardon?

He also claimed that the charges against him in Sweden didn't come from the women, but were brought and forced by the government of Sweden, which yeah, looks very suspicious. If that's true - then, Julian, I too owe you an apology for how I've treated you on El Reg.

LOL. What, exactly, would Assange have said otherwise, given what we know of him?

"Yes, sorry, I did have sex with one whilst deliberately breaking the condom and with the other one without a condom while she was still asleep and yes, I know they both told me not to, but hey, if you gotta come you gotta come, so sue me. Oh .. they do. Anyway, moving on, let me tell you about this brand new conspiracy theory I cooked up to explain all of this away and make it someone else's fault as usual. And no, I haven't had an STD test in years - nothing sticks to me anyway.."

[Brangdon]

Re: He also claimed that the charges against him in Sweden didn't come from the women

That is true, and should be well-known to anyone following the case. It's not new. The women went to the police in an attempt to force him to have an STD check. When the police heard what they said he'd done (such as, had sex with a woman who was unconscious, knowing she would not have consented had she been awake), they informed the women that that was rape. That the women didn't realise until they'd been told is not too usual for non-violent rape.

In general it is the authorities who prosecute crimes, not the victim. The charges never come from the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: He also claimed that the charges against him in Sweden didn't come from the women

The whole thing kicked off because he refused to have an STD check when requested, something any normal and decent person would have no problem doing .. unless there was something not quite right and they knew about it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the re-trigger of his case was the result of the outcome of an STD test of one or both the girls, which would both explain the case restarting, Assange's abrupt departure from there and his absolutely frantic attempts to avoid a return to Sweden. Yes, I know that that makes "wikileaks a topical joke, thank you.

Of course, at this stage it is as much an assumption as anything else, but it seems to fit the actual verifiable facts in this case a lot better than the "extradition to US" nonsense Assange has been spouting, the UK is about the worst place in Europe to visit if that's the thing you're worried about.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: A pardon?

Well, what did Assange do that requires a pardon? ;-)

The release / dump of documents is a protected act. See NYT v. US '73 decision.

Ellsberg is the one who committed the crime yet due to circumstances he didn't go to prison.

NYT didn't and their actions gave protection for any news publication of pilfered papers because they are a benefit to the US Citizens. (Although there is a point to it.)

Or are you saying that Assange assisted with the stealing of the docs?

Then he would need a pardon which because he hadn't been charged, would have to admit to the theft so that Obama could write the pardon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Street Magic.

Can't tell WTF is going on here. Assange being used by FOX or vice versa? Palin trying to not be forgotten? Trump spicing up the entertaiment?

Who knows, but Trump, Palin and Assange walk into a bar...

[smudge]

Re: Street Magic.

Trump, Palin and Assange walk into a bar...

In my defence, your Honour, when I swung round whilst carrying an iron girder, I had no idea that the injured parties were walking together behind me. If I had, I'd have swung round a damn sight faster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Street Magic.

Assange being used by FOX or vice versa?

Both are desperate to be considered relevant..

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit transparent...

Regarding Ms. Palin all I can say is: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Now that Wikileaks targets people they don't like they're suddenly oh so sorry and fully supportive. Until that time when they show another blatant disregard of the rules and get called out for it again.

[Chez]

Re: A bit transparent...

As if it doesn't work both ways. The left was in love with Assange back in the day, now they hate his guts. The right hated Assange back in the day, now they're falling all over him.

While I've only half-followed the drama, it seems like Assange has been fairly constant, and everything else is just the political winds.

[BillG]

Re: A bit transparent...

As if it doesn't work both ways. The left was in love with Assange back in the day, now they hate his guts. The right hated Assange back in the day, now they're falling all over him.

True. But let's look at it from Assange's POV: Obama, Hillary, and the DNC would like to see him locked up and forgotten and that is never, ever, going to change.

It COULD BE interpreted that Assange is now courting the favor of the incoming Trump administration. With the DNC on his ass, can you blame him? Trump is really his only chance of getting off that couch in the embassy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A bit transparent...

Obama, Hillary, and the DNC would like to see him locked up and forgotten and that is never, ever, going to change.

.. but again (and again, and ..) there is no factual or legal basis to make that possible. No legal process has been started to get Assange shipped over, and they're not going to risk rendition with so much scrutiny - he's simply not worth it.

Besides, partly thanks to Assange all the aforementioned matter little for the next few years so that myth can safely be disposed of now - amusingly with less than positive consequences for Assange's asylum status. 2017 promises to be an entertaining year already..

[Chris Hunt]

Re: A bit transparent...

Obama, Hillary, and the DNC would like to see him locked up and forgotten

If that's what they want, they've succeeded pretty well: Assange locked up for six years in the Ecuadorean embassy and largely forgotten by the world outside, and all without any expense to the US taxpayer.

[Robert Helpmann??]

Re: A bit transparent...

Regarding Ms. Palin all I can say is: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

- Howard Tayler

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardoned for what?

To be pardoned you would first have to be charged and found guilty of something. As far as I'm aware the US hasn't even issued a criminal charge against Assange. The assertion that the US wants to extradite/rendition/assassinate* him is solely based on the opinion of Assange himself, and arguably its just an excuse to try to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden.

Why are we all still wasting time on this idiot?

* Delete as applicable

[O RLY]

Re: Pardoned for what?

The Presidential pardon does not require the pardoned to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, before a pardon is issued. Here are two recent examples. Jimmy Carter pardoned all those who disregarded conscription into service for the Vietnam War, some of whom had been charged and convicted, many not charged. His predecessor, Gerald Ford, pardoned Richard Nixon for crimes Nixon "has committed or may have committed or taken part in" before Nixon could be charged.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@O RLYRe: Pardoned for what?

Dude,

You missed AC's point.

What crime did Assange commit?

Its not a question of being charged, but having committed a crime so that you can write a pardon.

As to Jimmy Carter's pardon... you had a crime. Avoiding the Draft...

What did Assange do that would require a pardon?

Note: You have to have a criminal act before you can have a pardon.

Example: You kill someone on January 1st. Hide the body and before anyone reports the person missing, you call in your chit, get the POTUS to pardon you for any and all crimes committed before he signs it on lets say Jan 2. Jan 3, body pops up, you get hauled in for questioning. You have a pardon and there is nothing anyone can do to you.

Example 2: You get a pardon absolving you of any crime you may commit in the future. POTUS signs on Jan 1. You kill someone on Jan 2. You would go to jail, the pardon is worthless. The POTUS can only pardon you for crimes that you've already committed.

So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

[O RLY]

Re: @O RLYPardoned for what?

Ian,

During the Manning proceedings, there were articles suggesting the US was preparing charges against Mr Assange related to conspiracy to disseminate classified materials or even violating the Espionage Act. The wording of the pardon of Richard Nixon that I quoted above could conceivably be used in a pardon of Assange, if Mr Obama or Mr Trump were to choose to issue one. Whether it is, in fact, a crime for a journalistic entity (which is what Wikileaks call themselves) to publish classified documents is probably unlikely. Judith Miller was held in contempt for not identifying her source for classified information, not the information itself. Nor were the journalists who published the Pentagon Papers or the Snowden disclosures prosecuted. The "may have committed or taken part in" would cover such a circumstance where the specific crime is unclear.

[P. Lee]

>So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

He embarrassed high-ranking American politicians.

Is there any reason to think that would not be perceived as an act of war and result in a spell in Gitmo?

Do the Swedes see how their extradition agreements are impacting their ability to execute justice? Regardless of what they say with their mouths, what do their actions say about their valuation of politics vs justice? We need to kill extradition treaties with most European countries. Let foreign governments come and plead their case under local law and bear the cost of the trial and possible punishment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: >So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

Do the Swedes see how their extradition agreements are impacting their ability to execute justice?

Yes, they do. They are following process to the letter, as they have to do with any fugitive who tries hiding abroad to escape a full investigation. Assange is a fugitive from justice, so they ask for extradition. Nothing shady there - all public, above board and fully available for scrutiny. That same exposure would also ensure he'd be processed in full accordance of the law, but the same Assange who was hailing Sweden for its liberal stance and wonderful laws is not alleging, well, slandering really, that Sweden would do something dodgy - his excuse for hiding.

You can't have it both ways. The only way his behaviour adds up is if you assume something *did* happen and he damn well knows it.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: >So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

>>"You can't have it both ways. The only way his behaviour adds up is if you assume something *did* happen and he damn well knows it."

Or if you believe that people in the US government are out to get him. That also works. Are you really arguing the unliklihood of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: >So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

Or if you believe that people in the US government are out to get him. That also works.

No, it simply does not fit the facts - at least the facts that can be independently verified.

Are you really arguing the unliklihood of that?

Yes, I am. The ONLY source of that particular self-aggrandising nonsense is Assange himself. It's not backed up by anything in court or in process, nor is there any indication that the US plans to stop him from digger a deeper hole all by himself.

The US do not need to act, Assange is well capable of screwing things up by himself so they have been impressively intelligent in simply letting him be, thus starving him of the the publicity he so badly wants. There's also the fact that he convinced someone to be his patsy with a (broken) promise that he would help with the funds for his/her defence, so that person takes the hit instead of Assange.

The US knows it would be nigh impossible and far too much free publicity for Assange to make anything stick to him in the full glare of the press, so it won't bother. The fun starts if the new guy makes it accidentally known that he's not interested in pursuing Assange because it will then put Ecuador in the uncomfortable position that the already tenuous claim of asylum would then become groundless. I can't imagine Assange being very comfortable with the fact that he is a mere 140 characters away from being ejected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pardoned for what?

Original AC here...

"The Presidential pardon does not require the pardoned to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, before a pardon is issued."

Oh fair enough, I stand corrected - thank you, an upvote is on it's way. I wasn't aware that the american presidential pardon was set to "god mode", I assumed it was based in the realms of sanity - my mistake.

I do kind of wonder what would be in it for the president though (Obama or Trump). Nixon got the "get out of jail free" card because he was an outgoing PoTUS, and establishing a precedent that outgoing PoTUSes are untouchable by law is pretty handy if you happen to be an incoming one. Issuing a broad-spectrum pardon for draft dodging Vietnam is simply a crowd-pleaser - it affected too many people at all parts of the political spectrum, and showed that the administration wanted to bring a curtain down on that period of history. Plus there were actually charges to pardon in that case.

If Obama or Trump issued a Nixon-style "any and all crimes" pardon and it subsequently came to light that Assange had actually engaged in direct espionage against the US they'd take quite a lot of heat from the press, and rightly so. It's just not worth the risk to them, given that the only possible benefit is to resolve a perpetual couch surfing situation that's embarrassing the Ecuadorean, Swedish and UK governments (and the US probably couldn't give a toss about). Even if the US did want him, it's much more cost effective to them in having him self-incarcerated in a central London flat than clogging up a cell in Gitmo.

And even if a pardon was issued, it still wouldn't rule out the possibility of extra-judicial rendition, which I'm sure would be the pale one's next excuse for not facing the music. So it's a moot point anyway.

And here I am, wasting yet more time on this tosser! Ah well.

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: Pardoned for what?

Ford pardoned Nixon for "for all offenses against the United States which he has committed or *may have committed* or taken part in", so there's precedent for pardoning "in advance":

https://fordlibrarymuseum.gov/LIBRARY/speeches/740061.asp

[Hollerithevo]

I'm game

If WikeLeaks Russian or any other variety, is not involved, and I never read that it was, then who? He doesn't deny there was hanky-panky, but he only says who he thinks did not do, rather than who did.

[Adam 52]

Re: I'm game

Aassange is a child playing a grown-up game. He has no idea if his source was fed by Russia or not.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: I'm game

Unless of course his source was someone in the DNC in which case it would be pretty obvious they wouldn't need to be "fed by Russia" as they'd already have access.

Coincidentally Seth Rich had such access.

[BillG]

Save This Post

Unless of course his source was someone in the DNC...

Assange pretty much said that in the interview.

In which case, Obama falsely accusing Russia of hacking the DNC takes on a very sinister meaning.

I predict that when Trump gets in and the CIA has to admit that Russia didn't do it, the Dems will scream "Coverup!", which was probably their plan all along.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm game

A respectable democrat that was disgusted by the way Sanders was treated is almost certainly the source.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange confirmed alive...

...unlike his credibility, the last sheds of which are fading as we speak with help from his new Republican fan club.

[Anonymous Coward]

...unlike his credibility

Are you saying his credibility is not based on the actual truth of his assertions, but on what other people say/think? I can't tease any other meaning out of your post.

As far as I know, ALL of the information he has released has been exactly what it was purported to be.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

His credibility was based on a belief that he releases any and all info related to "evil doings of bad people." Yet, he stands for nothing except getting some brand recognition for himself, from whoever happens to be looking in his direction. Snowden is a whistleblower, and an insider with real knowledge of bad things happening under a guise of "doing good." Assange is just a huckster, and a self-serving, pretend hacker. Any port in a storm for old Julie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

"His credibility was based on a belief that he releases any and all info related to "evil doings of bad people."

He obviously can't release "any and all info" - only info he has been provided.

I'm sure the people who provide that information to him have their own agendas, but that doesn't make those agendas his.

Are you aware of info he has that he hasn't released?

I'm not sure why you call him a "pretend hacker" - it seems he has always been upfront that the information he has was provided by others, not by his own hacking. Maybe you are aware of claims to the contrary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

Are you saying his credibility is not based on the actual truth of his assertions, but on what other people say/think?

There is truth, and there is selective truth used to further particular agendas. Wikileaks' credibility came from the belief it was a neutral player, not serving any particular political agenda. Now that it has become quite obvious that Assange is a purveryor of selective truth, releasing information at times and in ways so as to help his "friends" and disadvantage his "enemies", he can no longer be viewed as any kind of neutral player, so the basis of his credibility is gone. Even the truth can be misused.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

"Now that it has become quite obvious that Assange is a purveryor of selective truth....so the basis of his credibility is gone."

Not obvious to me - examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

Not obvious to me - examples?

Political bias - and timing. WL has been sitting on that data to release it with deliberate intent to influence one of the most important democratic processes of a country.

[mhenriday]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

«... influenc[ing] one of the most important democratic processes of a country.» And influencing an election by releasing evidence of crimes committed by a candidate is a legal offense in which «democratic» country ? What's the point of elections, if they can not be «influenced» by evidence related to a candidate's record ? On what basis are voters to choose - the skill with which a candidate is made up prior to appearing on television ?...

Henri

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

And influencing an election by releasing evidence of crimes committed by a candidate is a legal offense in which «democratic» country ? What's the point of elections, if they can not be «influenced» by evidence related to a candidate's record ? On what basis are voters to choose - the skill with which a candidate is made up prior to appearing on television ?...

Even the FBI was held to suspend activity around the elections to keep the process clear of even unintentional interference - a tradition that James Comey ended with quite a bang, and I suspect he'll be well rewarded for it. But that doesn't affect the principle.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

Fascinating. So what information has been passed to Wikileaks that they have decided not to publish for reasons of bias. Presumably you have such a clear view of what Wikileaks have been given in order to say that they're being selective. I mean if you didn't, your post would be without support.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

Fascinating. So what information has been passed to Wikileaks that they have decided not to publish for reasons of bias. Presumably you have such a clear view of what Wikileaks have been given in order to say that they're being selective. I mean if you didn't, your post would be without support.

There's also timing. Wikileaks had that data for quite some time, but chose to release it at a point where it could impact the US election. That's not neutral, that's influencing with intent.

[veti]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

The way of releasing it, however, was not that of a whistleblower acting in good faith.

He could have dumped the whole lot out at once. He could have sent a routine press release to his media outlets of choice. Instead, he staggered the releases over several weeks, promised ever-rescheduling press conferences (thus catching more news cycles), and clearly colluded with the Russians in writing hack-job stories based on the contents.

I say "clearly colluded with the Russians", because time and again the stories were first published in RT or other Russian government-controlled media, and only then picked up and copied verbatim by US sources.

And while we're on the subject, "my source was not the Russian government" - think about what that doesn't mean. Specifically, it doesn't mean "my source was not supplied by the Russian government", or "my source was not working for the Russian government". Nor, for that matter, does it mean "I have personally verified my source's bona fides and confirmed that s/he never had any contact with the Russian government, because I have a foolproof way of doing that".

I for one would love to see Trump pardon Assange. It would remove his number one lame excuse for not going back to Sweden to face trial there.

[BillG]

Playing the Press

He could have dumped the whole lot out at once...

When Ronald Reagan was caught with Iran/Contra, and when Bill Clinton was caught for whatever (except for Lewinsky), they dumped it out all at once. This let the press have a feeding frenzy that lasted a short time, then fizzled out, then PEOPLE FORGOT (like I did).

So if you want your information to get attention, you drizzle the info out bit by bit over time. This is the only way to get people, especially sheeple, to remember.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

@yeti This National Review column also addresses some of your points in your third paragraph - I thought it was an interesting take on the subject: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443492/julian-assange-russians-not-source-wikileaks-emails-lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ...unlike his credibility

As far as I know, ALL of the information he has released has been exactly what it was purported to be.

Not about what happened in Sweden - that still stinks to high heaven, and that's not a reference to his habit to skip his annual bath.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

The pale Australian

We should get him a sun lamp

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The pale Australian

Better not. The Ecuadorian cleaner may end up having to clean away a lot of ash.

I still think that is the most expressive version of "oooooh sh*t" ever spoken :)

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: The pale Australian

@AC

Better not. The Ecuadorian cleaner may end up having to clean away a lot of ash.

So that's why he's not been seen - no doubt people have been trying to catch a glimpse of him during day time.

[Eddy Ito]

"He is acting like a lawyer," Assange said of Obama

Would that be, perhaps, because Obama is a lawyer?

[x 7]

whatever happens, Trumpp will only do it if Putin tells him to.

Trumpp is Putin's bumboy

[Snipp]

I haven't watched the interview. But Fox News isn't actual news. It's a propaganda machine with leggy blondes. Hannity is a college dropout blowhard who is light on facts, but heavy on emotional responses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hannity is probably mates with Assange because he too is quite happy to bend the facts to his own liking and take advantage of other people's good will..

[hammarbtyp]

Be careful who you choose as your heroes

I have lived long enough to know you should always be careful who you make your heroes.

There are good arguments to be made that Snowden should be pardoned due to the fact he highlighted illegal activity in the NSA.

Assange however is not in that category. Apart from the fact is is trying to escape unrelated charges, he has shown himself over the the last years as a narcissistic, thin skinned individual with a penchant for the dramatic. No wonder the president elect seems to like him so much.

During the election campaign he deliberately tried(and may of succeeded ) in trying to sway the election to the republications by using the wikileak material in the most damaging way, and by constantly adding hints and innuendo about the material. Whether the material came from Russia or not is a moot point (although he would deny it, wouldn't he) , his agenda could not of suited the Republican party any better in its timing and content. Whatever you feel about Clinton, he consciously tried to subvert a democratic process.

Rather than a purveyor of truth he has shown that he is a man willing to push his own agenda and the world be damned.

There are many people who have done brave and selfless things to make the world a better place Julian is not one of them. Look somewhere else for your heroes.

[SVV]

love this bit....

"I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago."

If they were nontroversial and boring, how come they became "infamous"? ANd how can you prove something noncontroversial?

Shame she didn't confess to having finally recognised a fellow dislikeable, egotistical, publicity seeking prat as she underwent her inteellectual journey towards believing that 2 + 2 = 5 that so many in the USA are now on in the wake of the preidential election.

[Velv]

Does ASSange really think the Russian government are going to act directly with WikiLeaks? Or is he so stupid he didn't they'd try to cover their tracks.

Unless he personally oversaw the hack then he like the rest of us has no clue as to who actually undertook it. It may have passed through many hands before it reached WikiLeaks, and like most megalomaniac hackers almost all of them probably tried to claim (in the dark world) that they were the source.

The US claims to have evidence pointing to involvement from various parties, however I'm experienced enough to know that the evidence is only a pointer, and not nailed on stand up in a free court incontrovertible proof. We will probably never know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring In The Clowns - Nah, Send Them Away

"The US claims to have evidence pointing to involvement from various parties, however I'm experienced enough to know that the evidence is only a pointer, and not nailed on stand up in a free court incontrovertible proof. We will probably never know."

If recent news reports are to be believed, the FBI never actually even bothered to examine the DNC server. However, Mr Crapper did say today he has a high level of confidence in his low level of evidence.

[ukgnome]

Because the Russians would totally submit the files themselves right?

[Not That Andrew]

It's would be interesting to know just how many of the ac's defending the indefensible have russian ip addresses.