Julian Assange Said Bernie Sanders Won Race, Was Threatened

CLAIM

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Bernie Sanders was threatened to drop out of the presidential race.SeeExample( s )

Collected via e-mail and Twitter, September 2016

On 29 August 2016, the unreliable web site USA Supreme published an item claiming that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told journalist John Pilger that Bernie Sanders won the Democratic presidential nomination but dropped out of the race after he was threatened.

That claim was aggregated to a number of questionable web sites and rocketed to the top of Facebooks trending topics list on 9 September 2016. However, all iterations of the claim traced back to the original USA Supreme article, which stated:

John Pilger made an interview with Assange and is planning to use this material for his next documentary about Wikileaks founder! We gonna report with every major info from this interview in the nex few days! You can read the first part of the interview in a link below!

Pilger: Julian, we cut you off earlier when you were talking about what you felt were the most significant emails that you have released. Is there any last one that youd like to mention? And also, do you have any thoughts on Bernie Sanders? I mean what is your opinion why Bernie Sanders drop out of the race?

Assange: Look, I think you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And Bernie Sanders was independent candidate trying to get the nomination trough the Democratic Party and if you ask me he did get the nomination, but he was threatened to drop out!

Pilger: What do you mean by that will your next leak contain information about Bernie Sanders?

Assange: Of course were very interested in revealing the truth about any candidate and yes we have some material about Bernie Sanders that will be published!

Assange isnt focusing entirely on Clinton however, urging anyone with information on Bernie Sanders to come forward!

Although multiple articles had repeated this claim as of 9 September 2016, we found no other appearance of the alleged quote anywhere online other than USA Supreme as of 30 August 2016. Moreover, USA Supreme provided no information pertaining to the date of the interview, no link to the interview itself, nor an explanation of how they supposedly came into possession of information that would be headline news had it been credible.

Neither Pilger nor WikiLeaks made any reference on Twitter (through which Assange frequently communicates) to the bombshell claim. Pilger did mention Sanders by name on his official web site on 23 August 2016, but he made no reference to his presumably newsworthy interview with Assange:

In America, the problem for the thousands of followers of Bernie Sanders was the Democratic Party, not to mention their ultimate betrayal by their great white hope. In the US, home of the great civil rights and anti-war movements, it is Black Lives Matter and the likes of Codepink that lay the roots of a modern version.

Another massive red flag in the original item was that the words attributed to Pilger indeed stemmed from an interview with Assange conducted back late July 2016 (shortly after the DNC leaks controversy), but those words were spoken by Democracy Now!s Amy Goodman, not by Pilger:

Finally, Julian, we cut you off earlier when you were talking about what you felt were the most significant emails that you have released. Is there any last one that youd like to mention? And also, do you have any thoughts on Donald Trump? I mean, just before we went to air, a CNN poll came out that says Donald Trump is ahead by 5 percentage points of Hillary Clinton. Now, he did just come off of the Republican convention, but many called it the worst convention in history, so its not automatic that he should have had this percentage lead. Of course, though, you have the crisis, the disarray, the Democratic Party is in because of these emails that youve released.

What Assange actually said in response to that query in no way resembled a claim that Sanders had been threatened to drop out of the race:

Look, I think you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And so, as a result, corporate lobbyists will move in to help control those levers. So it doesnt make much difference in the end. What does make a difference is political accountability, a general deterrence set to stop political organizations behaving in a corrupt manner. That can make a difference, because that changes the perception of what you can do or not do. And so, always well, almost always, you should choose the principled position, which is to set a disciplinary signal about acting in a corrupt way, and take a philosophical position, which is our institutions can only be as good as our understanding of our institutions.

The other top emails, well, as I said, I think this instruction by Luis Miranda, the head of communications, to go out and covertly spread anti-Bernie Sanders propaganda is a clear instruction combined with a chain of command. Its not simply expressing a sentiment. It is expressing an instruction within the DNC to subvert the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Then theres a lot of emails about the close relationship between the DNC and the media The Washington Post involved in a co-fundraising party, an off-list co-fundraising for the DNC, calling up MSNBC during the middle of a program and saying, Pull that segment now, Debbie Wasserman Schultz calling up the president of MSNBC in order to discipline Morning Joe, etc. Thats, you know, of course, something that weve all suspected happens, but this is concrete proof of it.

Interview questions and answers attributed to Pilger and Assange on 29 August 2016 by USA Supreme matched much of Goodmans 25 July 2016 interview with the WikiLeaks founder, and verbatim repetition of the very same queries and responses in a separate setting is highly implausible. Moveover, prior to starting the rumor that Julian Assange had proclaimed Bernie Sanders was threatened, USA Supreme similarly falsely attributed remarks made by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

Got a tip or a rumor? Contact us here.

Democracy Now!. Julian Assange: Choosing Between Trump or Clinton Is Like Picking Between Cholera or Gonorrhea. 25 July 2016.

johnpilger.com. Provoking Nuclear War by Media. 23 August 2016.

Read the original here:
Julian Assange Said Bernie Sanders Won Race, Was Threatened

Julian Assange: "There’s Something Wrong With Hillary Clinton …

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange responded to Hillary Clintons claim that his organisation was a subsidiary of Russian intelligence by asserting that theres something wrong with the former presidential candidate.

Theres something wrong with Hillary Clinton, Assange tweeted.

There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu

Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement, he added.

The Wikileaks founder went further, tweeting, Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.

As part of her global whinge tour, during an appearance on an Australian TV program, Hillary said Assange was a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator, while also claiming (with no evidence) that WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.

Responding to Hillarys charge that Wikileaks never publishes any information about Russia, Assange pointed out that the group actually did so just three weeks ago.

WikiLeaks has a pristine record for accuracy. HRC is not a credible person. The primary cause of her downfall was her own Machiavellian scheme to elevate Mr. Trump ("Pied Piper").

Our last Russian expose was three weeks ago. https://t.co/MGa1z99vVU https://t.co/He4vgLIKBW

Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

He also repeated the charge that Clinton is just attempting to distract from the fact that she initially conspired to elevate Trump because she thought she had an easier chance of defeating him.

Meanwhile, speculation is raging on whether Assange is about to reveal who gave him the DNC emails during the 2016 election campaign after the Wikileaks founder tweeted a series of numbers that resemble an encryption key.

4767 5774 6a7a 4d6c 6330 666b 314a 3453 0000 0907 84b4 f787 7616 86f7 a737 5707 5736

Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

Evidence emerges of a conspiracy to take down the DNC as far back as 2010, tweeted Assange, suggesting that more information is about to drop which would further disprove claims that Russia was responsible for the hack.

Evidence emerges of a conspiracy to take down the DNC as far back as 2010. https://t.co/gEvlQbSll7 pic.twitter.com/DzEYjBpubM

Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) October 16, 2017

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Here is the original post:
Julian Assange: "There's Something Wrong With Hillary Clinton ...

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance …

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.

Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations the NSA.

In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."

He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. "I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the government will demonise me."

Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week's series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.

He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.

As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world."

On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.

He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.

Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.

Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution emanating from Washington.

And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of any connection to the leaks.

"All my options are bad," he said. The US could begin extradition proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane bound for US territory.

"Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets," he said.

"We have got a CIA station just up the road the consulate here in Hong Kong and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."

He predicts the government will launch an investigation and "say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become".

The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. "The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with tears.

Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade.

By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)

In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to justify his leaks, he said: "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression".

He recounted how his beliefs about the war's purpose were quickly dispelled. "Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone," he said. After he broke both his legs in a training accident, he was discharged.

After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security guard for one of the agency's covert facilities at the University of Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma.

By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.

That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.

He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.

"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good."

He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.

First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.

He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in", and as a result, "I got hardened."

The primary lesson from this experience was that "you can't wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act."

Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".

He described how he once viewed the internet as "the most important invention in all of human history". As an adolescent, he spent days at a time "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own".

But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."

Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.

As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? "There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich."

For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.

His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: "I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation," reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.

Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport. There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he will answer.

He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers, he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded by the behaviour of the intelligence services.

His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door. A fire alarm goes off. "That has not happened before," he said, betraying anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the street.

Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography of former vice-president Dick Cheney.

Ever since last week's news stories began to appear in the Guardian, Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to provoke was finally taking place.

He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer ask a discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.

Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have generated will offer him some protection, making it "harder for them to get dirty".

He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland with its reputation of a champion of internet freedom at the top of his list. He knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.

But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just the first week's haul of stories, "I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets."

Read more:
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance ...

Cryptocurrency Investment Course 2017: Fund your Retirement …

Hey guys!My name isSuppoman,your Superhero Instructor on Udemy.

Ilive in the UK with my 11 year old son Harry. Istarted building my own brand in 2014, with zero audience and basic skills, and now Iam a Cryptocurrency &Social Media Guruwith nearly 1 million followers.

I will teach you in asimple and entertainingway.To me, learning should be easy to comprehend no matter what skill level you are at, and you should have fun doing it.

What ever Iteach, Ihave already mastered, and Ipass my knowledge on to you. You will be taken through walkthrough tutorialsthat aresuper easy to copy and implement.You won't just see slides and theory and be left wondering how to do it.

My subject areas are:

Cryptocurrency- How to build your retirement fund withCryptocurrency investing, how to practically research andinvest for the long term and where to store your Cryptocurrency safely!

Social Media Marketing- Ihave approximately 700,000+ in totalfollowers across YouTube, Facebook, Twitter &Instagram.

Online Advertising - Facebook Ads, Google AdWords and YouTube Advertising.

Teaching - I have 180,000+ students on Udemy and 10,000+ students elsewhere. Learn how to build a teaching brand and market your courses online.

Ilook forward to being your guru and mentor, Ilike to keep all my courses updated with new information and look to respond to all questions in a timely manner!

Don't delay and select a course, every second could be costing you money!

Visit link:
Cryptocurrency Investment Course 2017: Fund your Retirement ...

Chelsea Manning: Wikileaks source celebrates ‘first steps of …

Media playback is unsupported on your device

US soldier Chelsea Manning is celebrating her freedom after being released from military prison.

Manning took to Twitter after her release, photographing her "first steps of freedom" in civilian clothes.

In a brief statement, she said she was focused on the future, which "is far more important than the past".

She served seven years of a 35-year sentence for leaking hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and military files to Wikileaks.

Most of her sentence was commuted by then-US President Barack Obama in January.

In a statement issued through the American Civil Liberties Union, which provided her with legal support, Manning said: "After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much!"

She added: "Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I'm figuring things out right now - which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me."

A US Army spokesperson confirmed that she left Fort Leavenworth military prison in Kansas in the early morning.

The 29-year-old soldier was born Bradley Manning.

A day after she was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013, Manning said she had felt female since childhood and wanted to live as a woman called Chelsea.

"For the first time, I can see a future for myself as Chelsea," she said in a statement last week ahead of her release. "I can imagine surviving and living as the person who I am and can finally be in the outside world."

Speaking to the BBC, Manning's friend, the journalist Glenn Greenwald - who was involved in the publication of leaks from Edward Snowden - said she faced a difficult life outside prison.

"She's going to live in a country where the top officials have expressed extreme denunciations of her, condemnations of her, who regard her as a traitor," he said.

"But the reality is that if you look back at what it is that she achieved, she revealed unquestionable war crimes, her disclosures led to reforms around the world."

President Obama's decision to commute her sentence drew criticism from leading Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who called it a "a grave mistake".

Manning was convicted of 20 charges in connection with the leaks, including espionage. She was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy.

She defended the leaking by saying she had wanted to spark a public debate in the US about the role of the military and US foreign policy, but later apologised for "hurting the US", saying she had mistakenly believed she could "change the world for the better".

In January she tweeted that she wanted to move to Maryland after being released, a state where she previously lived.

On Monday she tweeted: "Two more days until the freedom of civilian life ^_^ Now hunting for private #healthcare like millions of Americans =P".

Manning will remain on active army duty while her military court conviction remains under appeal. She will have healthcare benefits but will be unpaid, the army says.

An online campaign set up by her attorney has raised $150,000 (115,725) to pay for her living expenses for the first year after her release.

If the appeal is denied, she could be dishonourably discharged from the army, US media say.

Manning was deployed in Iraq as an intelligence analyst when she leaked hundreds of thousands of files to Wikileaks.

Included in those files was video footage of an Apache helicopter killing 12 civilians in Baghdad in 2007, and many sensitive messages between US diplomats.

Manning twice attempted suicide last year at Fort Leavenworth, a male military prison.

She also went on a hunger strike last year, which she ended after the military agreed to provide her with gender transition treatment.

Read more from the original source:
Chelsea Manning: Wikileaks source celebrates 'first steps of ...

Hillary Clinton says Julian Assange colluded with Russia to …

Julian Assange has launched a personal attack on Hillary Clinton, accusing her of lying and displaying a "cold creepiness" after the former US presidential candidate told the ABC the WikiLeaks founder is a "tool of Russian intelligence".

In an exclusive interview with Four Corners, Mrs Clinton alleged Mr Assange colluded with a Russian intelligence operation to disrupt the 2016 US election and damage her candidacy for president.

"Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator," she said.

"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence."

The Wikileaks founder, who has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, hit back this morning, tweeting that Mrs Clinton was "not a credible person".

Tweeting a link to the Four Corners interview, Mr Assange said there was "something wrong" with her.

"It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement," he said. "Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."

Speaking to Four Corners, Mrs Clinton said the operation against her was directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I think that their intention, coming from the very top with Putin, was to hurt me and to help [US President Donald] Trump," she said.

In January, the US intelligence community concluded Mr Putin ordered the influence campaign to discredit Mrs Clinton, and had a "clear preference" for her opponent.

"Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and [Mr] Putin have said he held a grudge against me because, as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism," Mrs Clinton said.

"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance and we consider Australia an extension of that."

WikiLeaks received thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign, allegedly stolen by Russian operatives.

The site released the emails over a four-month period in the lead-up to the election in 2016.

Mr Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian Government or any other "state parties".

Mrs Clinton contends the combination of WikiLeaks and the Russian operation contributed to her loss in a tight race.

"There was a concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to ... weaponise that information, to make up stories, outlandish, often terrible stories that had no basis in fact ... which were used to denigrate me, my campaign, people who supported me, and to help Trump," she said.

"I lost the electoral college by about 77,000, and what we're finding out is that there had to be some very sophisticated help provided to WikiLeaks ... to know how to target both their messages of suppression and their negative messages to affect voters."

Mrs Clinton pointed to examples of releases by WikiLeaks timed to do her maximum damage or distract from Mr Trump's campaign scandals.

At 4:00pm on October 7, The Washington Post published the 2005 Access Hollywood recording of Donald Trump's lewd comments about sexually harassing women.

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy," Mr Trump said on the tape.

Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks published more than 2,000 emails from the personal account of Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign chair, John Podesta.

Mrs Clinton said the release of the emails blunted the impact of the tape.

"It was covered dramatically and wall-to-wall for about 48 hours," she said.

"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information, promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response to the Hollywood Access tape.

"And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood Access tape."

Mrs Clinton said that WikiLeaks' actions were motivated by Mr Assange's personal dislike of her.

"I had a lot of history with him because I was secretary of state when WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive information from our State Department and our Defence Department," she said.

But she said WikiLeaks had lost any claim to legitimacy.

"If he's such a martyr of free speech, why doesn't WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia? You don't see damaging, negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks," she said.

In response, Mr Assange said WikiLeaks' "last Russian expos was three weeks ago" and said his organisation had a "pristine" reputation for accuracy.

Mrs Clinton warned cyber attacks had become the new normal.

"We've got to get used to the idea that cyber attacks are a really sophisticated and very difficult new form of theft," she said.

"It's [the US election] a precursor to what we will see continuing to happen in our politics or your politics or any democracy's politics, unless we figure out how to get ahead of it, and both to prevent it and mitigate it."

Watch the full Hillary Clinton interview on ABC iview.

Continued here:
Hillary Clinton says Julian Assange colluded with Russia to ...

Julian Assange is squabbling with Ecuadors new president …

By Simeon Tegel By Simeon Tegel October 14 at 5:30 AM

You might think that the worlds best-known fugitive from U.S. law would want to stay on good terms with the government that is shielding him. But that's not the way Julian Assange operates.

The WikiLeaks founder, who has been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since 2012, is embroiled in a spat with the South American country's new president, Lenn Moreno, about Assanges vocal support for Catalonian separatists.

Moreno, who assumed office in January, has asked Assange to stay out of the constitutional crisis in Spain, prompting this riposte from the self-styled champion of freedom of information:

But Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for alleged sex offenses and potentially in the United States for publishing state secrets, might want to think twice before antagonizing Moreno. The new president seems bent on charting a different course than his mentor and predecessor, Rafael Correa,the brash leftist who first gave refuge to the Australian activist.

Moreno is openly seeking to replace Correas confrontational approach with dialogue," is encouraging corruption investigations of the former presidents inner circle and has largely stopped enforcing a law that once caused human rights groups to label Ecuadors media the least free other than Cubas in the Western Hemisphere. He has also described his predecessor as an authoritarian with an obsession with maintaining power and has just proposed a plebiscite on limits to presidential reelection that would effectively quash any bid by Correa to return to power in 2021.

Correa has responded with a string of characteristically outspoken attacks on Moreno, calling him a traitor, mediocre and a wolf in sheeps clothing.

All in all, Moreno appears to be trying to reposition Ecuador away from Venezuelas Bolivarian socialist axis while modeling himself on impeccably democratic Latin American leftists such as Chiles Michelle Bachelet and the former Uruguayan leader Jos Mujica.

That could spell trouble for Assange, whose continued residence in the Ecuadoran Embassy brings Moreno scant domestic political benefits while defining Ecuador as a geopolitical outlier antagonistic to the United States and other major Western powers.

[The government wants Julian Assange in jail. That could hurt the rest of us.]

Moreno has publicly stated that he will maintain Assanges asylum. But he has included a highly specific caveat: as long as we assume his life may be in danger. The president has also previously dismissed the WikiLeaks boss as a hacker.

Among those who think Moreno may already be wondering how to end the impasse over Assange is Csar Ricaurte, head of Fundamedios, a Quito-based nonprofit that advocates for press freedom and had numerous run-ins with Correa.

The situation of Assange in the embassy is unsustainable, Ricaurte said. He has converted himself into this great conspirator against the major democracies. I think the government is looking for a way out.

Ramiro Crespo, a financial analyst in Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, predicts that the president will bide his time, first focusing on winning his war with Correa.

Moreno has approval ratings touching 80 percent but no clear legislative majority, given thathis Alianza Pas (Country Alliance) party is split between Correa supporters and reformists. Correa loyalists also still control the courts and many other public institutions.

Moreno has to pick his battles and dismantle Correas machinery bit by bit, Crespo said. He is being cautious. Dealing with Assange is not the priority right now, but Moreno could decide to make a move once he feels stronger.

Exit strategies could include the president pressuring Assange to leave the embassy voluntarily. He might also seek an assurance from Washington, with whom he has a warming relationship, that capital punishment be ruled out in any potential trial.

Or he might simply suspend indefinitely the WikiLeaks activists Internet connection as Correa briefly did ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election citing his refusal to refrain from political activity.

[Ecuador cuts off Internet access for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange]

For now, Moreno has his hands full battling to break his predecessors grip on Ecuadors many branches of power. Assange, however, would be wise to prepare for a new reality in which he can no longer depend on a steadfast protector in Quito.

Read more:

Julian Assange was Ecuadors guest of honor. Until he wore out his welcome.

Here is the original post:
Julian Assange is squabbling with Ecuadors new president ...

Can Julian Assange now walk free? What happens next – Q&A …

What has happened to Julian Assange?

Swedish prosecutors have dropped their rape investigation into the WikiLeaks founder. Marianne Ny, Swedens director of public prosecutions, said she had decided to discontinue the inquiry into the allegation dating from 2010, when the country issued a European arrest warrant for him.

Why has the investigation been dropped?

Ny said Sweden had exhausted the possibilities for investigating the allegations and were therefore obliged under Swedish law to discontinue the inquiry. But, she said, it could be reopened if Assange returns to Sweden before the statute of limitations ends in 2020. She also confirmed that Sweden had withdrawn its request for a European arrest warrant against him. Another allegation of sexual assault made by a second Swedish woman was dropped by Swedish authorities in 2015 after the statute of limitations expired. The UK government said on Friday it had no involvement in Swedens decision to drop the investigation.

Does this mean Assange can walk out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London?

No, because he still faces arrest over breaching UK bail conditions, and the possibility of extradition to the US. Assange sought refuge in Ecuadors embassy in London in 2012, after UK courts ruled that Swedens extradition request was lawful. Assange has always said he believes he faces extradition to the US because WikiLeaks published classified information. But the Metropolitan police have maintained that Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy.

That position has not changed. Scotland Yard said on Friday that it is still obliged to execute a warrant issued by Westminster magistrates court for the arrest of Assange after his breach of bail conditions in June 2012. It said in a statement:

While Mr Assange was wanted on a European arrest warrant for an extremely serious offence, the MPS response reflected the serious nature of that crime. Now that the situation has changed and the Swedish authorities have discontinued their investigation into that matter, Mr Assange remains wanted for a much less serious offence. The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence. The priority for the MPS must continue to be arresting those who are currently wanted in the capital in connection with serious violent or sexual offences for the protection of Londoners.

The offence of breaching bail carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison.

Does the US want Assange to be extradited?

Almost certainly, but the Home Office never confirms whether an extradition request has been made or received until the person in question has been arrested. Last month, the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said the arrest of Assange was a priority after the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, described WikiLeaks as a hostile intelligence service and a threat to US national security.

US federal prosecutors are understood to be considering bringing charges against Assange over a number of the websites publications since 2010. This could potentially lead to an extradition request for Assange. Weve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail, Sessions said.

Has the European arrest warrant against Assange been lifted?

Yes. The Crown Prosecution Service said that the European Arrest Warrant was discharged on Friday at Westminster Magistrates Court after the Swedish investigation was dropped.

Has Assange been questioned by Swedish prosecutors?

Yes, this took place at the embassy last November in the presence of Swedens chief prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren. Assange later released his full testimony to Swedish prosecutors, maintaining that he was entirely innocent of the allegation.

See the article here:
Can Julian Assange now walk free? What happens next - Q&A ...

Exclusive: Julian Assange on Roger Stone and Trump Campaign …

AMYGOODMAN:I want to get your opinion on all of the news thats breaking right now. On Monday, Google said suspected Russian agents paid for tens of thousands of dollars worth of political advertisements last year aimed at swaying the 2016 presidential election. Managers at Microsoft said Monday they, too, were investigating whether Russian operatives paid for inappropriate pro-Trump ads on its Bing search engine and other platforms. Social media giant Facebook has said a Russian company placed thousands of ads on their network, at a cost of more than $100,000.CNNreports a number of ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Trumps victory in November. And Twitter reported last month that it discovered about 200 accounts linked to a Russian campaign to influence the election. This comes as the head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said last week its reached the conclusion that Russia did interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Republican Senator Richard Burr said his committee is still examining evidence to determine if theres any collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Your response to all of this, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange?

JULIANASSANGE:Well, I think theres a very good article recently published inThe Nationwhich goes through all of that, and its shown to be nearly all fiction. The parts that you can actually determine, where you can compare with internally contradictory statements or other things, shows that its nearly all fiction. Whether theres any truth to it, I dont know. We havent researched that.

Yeah, I would say that I think its very concerning to see this neo-McCarthyist hysteria, very, very dangerous in geopolitical terms. And, of course, its an attempt to, you know, to unite the Democratic Party.CIAstructures it together inand the media, in their assault against the Trump regime. But I think theres plenty of important things to criticize the Trump administration aboutfor example, their promises to help the working class, but, in fact, trying to push forward enormous tax cuts for the rich. And these are the things that should be concentrated on, not leaping into an insane bout of anti-Russian hysteria.

AMYGOODMAN:Julian Assange, I wanted to ask you about Roger Stone. In March of 2016, he posted on Facebook that he, quote, never denied that Assange and I had a mutual friend who told me Wikileaks had the goods onHRCthats Hillary Rodham Clintonand would begin disclosures in Oct. He did and they did. I didnt admit it- I announced it, unquote. In a series of tweets, which he later deleted, Roger Stone also attacked a woman who challenged him on Twitter, writing, quote, You stupid, stupid [B-word]never denied perfectly legal back channel to Assange who indeed had the goods on #CrookedHillary [sic]. I now wanted to talk about the latest, Roger Stone going to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee and what came out of that. Your response to that?

JULIANASSANGE:Roger Stone has been trolling Democrats all his life, and hes doing exactly the same thing, in order to elevate his profile. Thats all. You can look at our statements at the time. He didnt say anything that I hadnt been saying in public at the time.

AMYGOODMAN:So, let me turn to Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff speaking at a hearing of the House

JULIANASSANGE:I would just say that the effectiveness of that trolling just shows you how mad the U.S. political culture has become. Is Roger Stone presented as a credible character in his statements? Is that a credible person? Do Democrats think that hes credible?

AMYGOODMAN:Well, I think the issue is his closeness to Trump. And whether or not you think Trump or Roger Stone is credible, the

JULIANASSANGE:Look, hesif he had something to worry about, why would he be deliberately playing it up, constantly? He doesnt have anything to worry about. Thats why hes playing it up.

AMYGOODMAN:What do you mean?

JULIANASSANGE:He doesnt have anything to worry about because there is no back channel. There was never a back channel. Ive said it at the time. Hes produced no evidence of it. We have complained about it. Hes simply trolling the absoluteyou know, they want to be trolled. They dont care. They dont care what the truth is at all. All they want is some little propaganda point that they can use to somehow satisfy their ridiculous fantasies about taking down Trump in relation to Russia. And if Roger Stone is going to help with that, they will give him a massive platform. And thats exactly what theyve done. And hes sold a lot more book as a result. I mean, you have to admire the chutzpah and, I suppose, the cleverness at which hes done it. Its, in some sense, admirable. What is not admirable, even though its really irritated us, is theI dont know, the slavish reaction of thoseyou know, he just throws a ball, like that, and these mindless mobs of people aligned to the Democrats and the Democratically aligned media in the United States run after it, and eventually over the cliff.

AMYGOODMAN:Well, let me turn to Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff speaking at a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year.

REP.ADAMSCHIFF:On August 8th, Roger Stone, a longtime Trump political adviser and self-proclaimed political dirty trickster, boasts in a speech that he has communicated with Assange and that more documents would be coming, including an October surprise. In the middle of August, he also communicates with the Russian cutout Guccifer 2.0 and authors a Breitbart piece denying Guccifers links to Russian intelligence. Then, later in August, Stone does something truly remarkable, when he predicts that John Podestas personal emails will soon be published. Trust me, he says, it will soon be Podestas time in the barrel, hashtag #CrookedHillary. In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience. I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon, he says, hashtag, #LockHerUp. Payload coming, he predicts. And two days later, it does. WikiLeaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podestas emails would then continue on a daily basis up until the election.

AMYGOODMAN:Your response, Julian Assange, to Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, ranking Democrat?

JULIANASSANGE:Adam Schiff is not a credible person. Hes justhes just lying in order to, you know, score political points. I had been saying all these things publicly, that we were going to publish information on Hillary Clinton before the election. Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN:So, this is

JULIANASSANGE:And the mediathe media got it into its stupid head, in fact, that we were going to publish it on October 4th, and that spread around everywhere. And so Roger Stones comments are responding to that kind of thing. But I dont want to feed intoI mean, I understand that theres a weird psychological phenomenon happening in the United States presently, but I dont want to feed into it, because I think its essentially inconsequential, in historical circumstances, unless it leads to a war with Russia. I mean, I dont know what the Trump campaigns connections are with Russia. I can only speak about us. Had no connections with us. We have no connections with Russia. So, I think itsand I think if the Russians have done anything else, as far as I can see, its not of a consequential nature.

AMYGOODMAN:But, Julian, this is thethis

JULIANASSANGE:So, maybe something will come out, but as far as I can determinenot that Im spending a lot of time on itas far as I can determine, theres nothing of any scale or significance.

AMYGOODMAN:But this is the anniversary of the email being released, the John Podesta emails. And I think its important because whats happening in these congressional investigations, Roger Stone is a key figure, whether you think hes credible or not, to have you respond, to make your point. I wanted to play Roger Stone

JULIANASSANGE:Yeah, he is brilliantly

AMYGOODMAN:Let me just play, and you respond to Roger Stone.

JULIANASSANGE:Yeah, he is

AMYGOODMAN:Let me just play two quick clips. August 8th, this is him speaking in Florida.

REPORTER:With regard to the October surprise, what would be your forecast on that, given what Julian Assange has intimated hes going to do?

ROGERSTONE:Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation. But theres no telling what the October surprise may be.

AMYGOODMAN:Was he lying, Julian?

JULIANASSANGE:Well, as you said, he just said that they would pertain to the Clinton Foundation, which he washe was wrong. Hes just repeating what I said in the press.

AMYGOODMAN:So then, more recently, lets turn to Roger Stone speaking to reporters following his appearance in this closed hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. His interview with lawmakers was part of the investigation into Russias meddling in the 2016 election.

ROGERSTONE:I made the case that the accusation that I knew about John Podestas email hack in advance was false, that I knew about the content and source of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton was false, and that my exchange with someone claiming to be Guccifer 2.0, when viewed through the context, content and timing, was benign and innocuous.

AMYGOODMAN:Stone also told reporters he declined to name his WikiLeaks intermediary during the interview.

ROGERSTONE:The reason I am not submitting that name is because the intermediary is a journalist, and our conversation was off the record. Im an opinion journalist. Hes a journalist. Im not going to burn somebody who I spoke to off the record. If he releases me, if he allows me to release it, I would be happy to give it to the committee. Im actually going to try to do that.

AMYGOODMAN:Now, of course, Roger Stone isnt a journalist, but what is your response to what hes saying right here, that there was an intermediary between you and him, who was a journalist?

JULIANASSANGE:That the United States political culture has gone mad. Roger Stone is trolling epically the Democratic political class in order to elevate his profile. And its sad to see thatDemocracy Now!is buying into it.

AMYGOODMAN:Presenting the news is not buying into it. Presenting the news is having you respond to what hes saying because you are the center of this, in this particular case, and its important to hear your voice.

JULIANASSANGE:Well, look, Amylook, Amy, Im getting annoyed. There is a historic event occurring this afternoon involving Catalonia, that could well change the nature of Europe, what forms of repression are acceptable within the Western world, and what moves populations can take in order to resist repression and come together to secure their self-determination. This has been the greatest Gandhian project that has occurred. Millions of Catalonians turning out to vote in the street are being beaten aggressively by Spanish security forces, being hacked by Spanish security forces, having their telephone exchange occupied, having their political leadership arrested, being threatened, as we saw today, with rebellion and put in prison for a minimum of 25 years.

That is going to spread throughout the Western world. The lessons of this are going to spread throughout the Western world toyes, to secessionist movements, but also to the states trying to repress them and to repress peoples struggles for self-determination, in general. The discipline with which the Catalan population have carried out their referendum is astounding. Astounding, that millions of people are going to the polls, being beaten by the police, and not one image of them fighting back. Not one image. Thats incredible discipline. And similarly in their marches and so on. And if the U.S. left is not absolutely obsessed with what is happening there and the redefinition that is occurring of the nature of the relationship between population and state, well, I mean, I have no time for you.

AMYGOODMAN:Well, we certainly had time for you today, Julian, and I think you made some really critical points, and theyre important. And I wanted to end on an issue that I also think that you care about, and thats the issue ofwell, Chelsea Manning is out of jail.

Read the original:
Exclusive: Julian Assange on Roger Stone and Trump Campaign ...

The myth of responsible encryption: Experts say it can’t work

Governments want tech companies to create a master key that only law enforcement can use. Security experts say it's a fantasy.

Governments want to have their cake and eat it too.

Many support a concept called responsible encryption, which, the idea goes, would provide complete privacy and security for people while also letting law enforcement see encrypted messages to better protect you.

Sounds fantastic, right? Unfortunately, security specialists say it's a paradox.

Yet the concept continues to rear its head. The most recent responsible-encryption advocate is US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. During a speech to the US Naval Academy on Tuesday, Rosenstein called out tech companies for refusing to help with uncovering private messages.

"Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval," he said, according to a transcript.

Rosenstein isn't alone. Officials in Australia and the UK have also called for responsible encryption, despite the fact that both governments have suffered major breaches that shatter the concept.

Responsible encryption, according to the lawmakers who demand it, would require companies to create a secret key, or back door, that would make it possible to read coded data. Only the government could access the key, so that with the proper warrant or court order, law enforcement could read through messages. The key would be kept secret -- unless hackers stole it in a breach.

Companies like Apple, WhatsApp and Signal provide end-to-end encryption, meaning people can chat privately, with their messages hidden even from the companies themselves. Such encryption means that only you and the person to whom you sent your messages can read them, since no one else has a key to unlock the code.

End-to-end encryption provides security and privacy for people who want to make sure no one's spying on their messages -- a desire some would call modest in an age of mass surveillance. Governments around the world have a problem with that though.

Rosenstein instead sees a future where companies keep their data encrypted, unless the government needs data to investigate a crime or a potential terrorist attack. It's the same rallying cry UK Prime Minister Theresa May made after a June 4 terrorist attack that took place on the London Bridge. May blamed encryption for providing a safe space for extremists.

Rosenstein uses password recovery and email scanning as examples of responsible encryption. But neither of those involve end-to-end encryption. He references an unnamed "major hardware provider," which "maintains private keys it can use to sign software updates for each of its devices." And then he touches on a major problem with responsible encryption: Creating a back door for police also means creating an opening for hackers.

"That would present a huge potential security problem, if those keys were to leak," Rosenstein said. "But they do not leak, because the company knows how to protect what is important."

Except these important files have leaked on multiple occasions, including from the US government itself.

Adobe accidentally released its private key on its security blog in September. In 2011, RSA's SecurID authentication tokens were stolen. The notorious malware Stuxnet used stolen encryption keys to install itself. The US National Security Agency has fallen victim to multiple breaches, from Russian spies stealing its secrets to the Shadow Brokers hacker group selling the agency's tools.

"When the companies have the keys, they can be stolen," said security researcher Jake Williams, founder of cybersecurity provider Rendition Infosec. "Law enforcement calls [end-to-end encryption] 'warrant proof crypto,' but many companies will tell you they're not trying to dodge a warrant, they're just doing what's right for security."

It's why Apple refused to create a back door for the FBI in 2016, when the agency wanted to crack into an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terror attack. Apple CEO Tim Cook said last year that the back door is "the equivalent of cancer," arguing that the master key could be stolen and abused by hackers, like it had been in previous cases.

It's unclear why Rosenstein seems to think encryption keys can't be stolen. The Justice Department confirmed Rosenstein's comments and declined to elaborate.

The call for encryption loopholes has alarmed the security community, which says it's experiencing deja vu.

"I think it's extremely concerning that the man responsible for prosecuting crimes on the federal level would expect the invasion of everyone's privacy simply to make law enforcement's job easier," said Mike Spicer, an expert and founder of the security company Initec.

The myth resurfaces nearly every year, said Eva Galperin, the cybersecurity director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights group. Every time, the EFF slams the demand, saying it's a "zombie argument."

"Calling it responsible encryption is hypocritical," Galperin said. "Building insecurity in your encryption is irresponsible."

Visit link:
The myth of responsible encryption: Experts say it can't work