
Trump offered to pardon Assange if he provided source for DNC emails – lawyer - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/trump-offered-to-pardon-assange-if-he-provided-source-for-democratic-emails-lawyer-says-idUSKBN2691VW
======
dleslie
For those making quips about Russia: Assange has already claimed the source
was _not_ Russia.

[https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-
source...](https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-source-is-
not-the-russian-government)

Edit: oh wow, to -2 in less than 2 minutes.

It's a point of information, not an endorsement.

Double-edit: Ha, ok, colour me shocked. The discussion thread is excellent and
I thank everyone involved for remaining civil.

~~~
ciarannolan
>HANNITY: Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not
get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the
American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia...

>ASSANGE: Yes.

>HANNITY: ... or anybody associated with Russia?

>ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly...

>HANNITY: Right.

>ASSANGE: ... over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian
government and it is not a state party.

He's basically saying that Vlad didn't call him up one day and say "Russia
wants to give you some files." No shit.

\-----

> Researchers from the Atlanta-based cybersecurity firm Dell SecureWorks
> reported that the emails had been obtained through a data theft carried out
> by the hacker group Fancy Bear, a group of Russian intelligence-linked
> hackers that were also responsible for cyberattacks that targeted the
> Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign
> Committee (DCCC), resulting in WikiLeaks publishing emails from those hacks.

> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence
> Community concluded that the Russian government was behind the hack and gave
> to WikiLeaks a collection of hacked emails from John Podesta

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Data_theft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Data_theft)

> "The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s
> conclusions," Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the panel, said.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-
intel...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intelligence-
findings-on-2016-russian-interference-11587483408)

> Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly,
> the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-
> affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

[https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-
democ...](https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-
national-committee/)

> We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in
> 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine
> public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and
> harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and
> the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect
> Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

[https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)

etc, etc, etc.

I thought this was pretty well accepted at this point.

~~~
macinjosh
Oh, the CIA, you say? Yeah, let's believe what the CIA says. They can
definitely be trusted at their word and they never have done anything
questionable. /s

~~~
cies
They (CIA, NSA, US deep state in general) are in the business of lying. The
WMDs that Saddam had? The Gulf of Tonkin incident?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)

~~~
leftyted
There's nothing in the Pentagon Papers to suggest that the CIA lied to the
government (or to the American people). The liars were various presidents,
their various cabinets filled with brain-trusters, and other politicians who
either ignored factual information from the CIA or twisted it to fit their
ideas of "containment" and "domino theory" and all that nonsense.

The CIA would be no good to anyone if they were in the business of lying.

~~~
jessaustin
Gulf of Tonkin was an NSA op.

[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.ht...](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm)

~~~
leftyted
> The SIGINT also shows, according to Hanyok, that a second attack, on August
> 4, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. ships, did not occur
> despite claims to the contrary by the Johnson administration. President
> Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara treated Agency SIGINT reports as
> vital evidence of a second attack and used this claim to support retaliatory
> air strikes and to buttress the administration's request for a Congressional
> resolution that would give the White House freedom of action in Vietnam.

This is exactly what I said.

> Hanyok further argues that Agency officials had "mishandled" SIGINT
> concerning the events of August 4 and provided top level officials with
> "skewed" intelligence supporting claims of an August 4 attack. "The
> overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no
> attack occurred." Key pieces of evidence are missing from the Agency's
> archives, such as the original decrypted Vietnamese text of a document that
> played an important role in the White House's case. Hanyok has not found a
> "smoking gun" to demonstrate a cover-up but believes that the evidence
> suggests "an active effort to make SIGINT fit the claim of what happened
> during the evening of 4 August in the Gulf of Tonkin." Senior officials at
> the Agency, the Pentagon, and the White House were none the wiser about the
> gaps in the intelligence. Hanyok's conclusions have sparked controversy
> among old Agency hands but his research confirms the insight of journalist
> I.F. Stone, who questioned the second attack only weeks after the events.
> Hanyok's article is part of a larger study on the National Security Agency
> and the Vietnam War, "Spartans in Darkness," which is the subject of a
> pending FOIA request by the National Security Archive.

To figure out who the liars are we need to know who engaged in a cover-up. Who
manipulated, withheld information, or lied. You already know my opinion: I
don't think it was the NSA.

For example "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the
story that no attack occurred" suggests that the NSA's information was, in
fact, good. It just was ignored, manipulated, omitted, etc.

~~~
jessaustin
_This is exactly what I said._

I don't find that you mention NSA ITT before my comment. Parent comment _did_
mention them, and your response was the off-topic (for Tonkin, anyway) "CIA
doesn't lie!"

Neither supposed "attack" occurred! NSA reports were used to claim that they
did occur! You don't think NSA has and is currently withholding information?
Why don't you read what you pasted above? "Key pieces of evidence are
missing"? If only the TLAs had the technology to preserve the information they
gather... this is not credible.

Even if NSA reports had said "there was definitely no Vietnamese attack",
those reports _were_ used by the executive branch to ramp up the war. The
authors of those reports, and every superior of those authors up the chain to
the president, would have had a duty to contradict the false claims. Of course
this is fantasy. NSA doesn't oppose war, and its reports reflect this.

~~~
leftyted
I don't think the intelligence agencies willfully produce false intelligence.
They might be wrong but, as a matter of policy, they don't lie.

I think the lying occurs higher up in the command structure where some
intelligence is omitted from consideration because it doesn't fit the
narrative the higher-ups are pursuing. I suppose there's a question here about
who, exactly, is involved in this process of filtering out inconvenient
information. Are those people part of the intelligence agency or not? This is
a tricky question but, even if they are part of the intelligence agency, the
pressure to omit comes from the executive branch. The NSA/CIA/etc aren't
pursuing a pro-War policy...the executive branch is.

For example, imagine someone in the CIA is asked to provide a report about the
likelihood of Iraq having radioactive material that could be weaponized. This
person performs diligent research and produces, to the best of their
abilities, a factual report. The executive branch presents this report as a
"slam dunk" which shows that Iraq has radioactive material. Who lied?

Toward the end of your post, you blur the distinction between "lying" and
"having a duty to contradict false claims". I'm only talking about lying
although I agree that people do have an imperfect duty to contradict false
claims.

~~~
jessaustin
At least the DNI, and usually the D/CIA as well (these positions used to be
the same one, and were only separated _after_ we invaded), attends all
presidential meetings that touch national security. I'll admit, any meeting
with Cheney could spontaneously whip up a war from the ether, but even in his
odious presence I think we have to hold these officials responsible for using
their words.

In every press conference announcing some fresh horrific stupid war, there are
spooks present and they do receive direct questions. It would be better for
humanity if they didn't lie when answering.

Claims that CIA aren't pro-war and must be corrupted by evil presidents are
pure fantasy. CIA have fought wars, by themselves, without telling the
president. [0]

[EDIT:] If you've reached the point that you're imagining that honest secret
reports are overruled by the public statements and actions of dishonest
elected officials, could you accept that the whole idea of government secrecy
is mistaken? Why not have these conversations in the open? Surely we'd make
better decisions?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America)

~~~
osobear
The CIA has a mandate to carry out clandestine operations in foreign nations,
which includes arming local militias.

Personally I'm pro-regime change, especially in Cold War Latin America, but
that doesn't change anything.

~~~
ed25519FUUU
Please, we need to stop these endless wars. Why is it people are voting for
TRUMP of all people because they want our troops pulled out of Iraq (17
years), Afghanistan (19 years), and Syria (6 years). How is antiwar/anti-
occupation a TRUMP thing and not a liberal/progressive tentpole issue?

Why does the military industrial complex together with intelligence agencies
fabricate lies to keep us embroiled forever in these evil endless wars? Every
time we try and pull out there's a new BS story from these groups that
everyone laps up: "Bounties on US soldiers! War is good! War is peace! War
forever!"

~~~
jessaustin
Americans are really bad at remembering what just happened. Every war we've
fought in the last 150 years, except perhaps WWII (i.e., there were lies but
we probably did have to fight), we entered based on complete lies. Yet, we
keep starting wars. I think our forgetfulness is not some contingent detail,
but a core driver of the American war machine, which grinds up brown people to
create money for armaments manufacturers and their puppets in government and
news media. We forget because we must. If we remembered, the machine would
grind to a halt.

------
rsynnott
This is one of these cases where the US appears to have borrowed concepts that
existed in the British governmental system at the time of their independence
(when this power still vested with the monarch in what was then England,
AIUI), and then never got round to reforming them. Today, an individual having
an unchecked pardon power is a bit of an anachronism, and very dangerous.

(If you want to be ultra-pedantic this power is still vested in the monarch,
but they can't use it without the direction of the Home Secretary, who in turn
is bound by convention to generally almost never use it, and certainly not
purely of their own initiative.)

~~~
bosswipe
We in the US also thought the president was bound by convention to use it
rarely. Trump has ignored the convention without any consequences.

~~~
nlitened
Wikipedia says that Obama pardoned 1927 individuals [0], while Trump pardoned
25 [1]. Am I reading it wrong somehow?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump)

~~~
rsynnott
If you look at those, there's a significant difference in the _sort_ of
pardons given, though. Most of the Obama ones seem to be retroactive pardons
of mostly rather severe sentences, for random people (note how none of the
names are links). This is essentially the traditional use of the power; random
person appeals, says their sentence was unjust, his majesty/mr president/the
committee agrees and issues a retroactive pardon.

Most of Trump's appear to be pardons of notable people, often aligned with
Trump, currently serving their sentence, and in the case of Stone actually
convicted for activity relating to Trump. There are a few more traditional
cases (eg Jack Johnson), but all in all they're two very different lists,
showing a very different use of the power.

To be clear, I'm of the opinion that both are bad and that the power should be
restricted to a judicial committee or similar, as elsewhere, but I do think
these two cases are _different_.

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
Even if "most" of Obama's pardons were "good ones", the fact that he pardoned
77x more people than trump leaves a lot of room for more than 25 "bad ones".

I'm not saying this is for sure the case.. just that your comment smells of
bias to me.

~~~
rsynnott
Who on Obama's list of pardonees was a witness in a criminal investigation of
Obama?

By the way, at the end of his first term, Obama had pardoned _17_ people.
Expect a flood of pardons from Donald in January (or, if he's re-elected, in
January 2025) as is traditional.

------
dayofthedaleks
As long as the named source is “Seth Rich” and not “The Russians,” presumably.

------
beervirus
Old news from February: [https://www.businessinsider.com/dana-rohrbacher-
confirms-he-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/dana-rohrbacher-confirms-he-
proposed-presidential-pardon-to-julian-assange-2020-2)

~~~
pragmaticpandy
Thanks. Any idea why the wire services are re-reporting it?

------
odyssey7
There seems to be a lot of strange comments here. As if to create a cacophony
quickly and limit the chance of quality discussions forming.

~~~
aero-glide
Whenever news about Chelsea Manning was posted on reddit, few comments
(falsely) posted how Manning leaks were of no use, etc.

"Internet armies" is very real, not some conspiracy.

~~~
mhh__
No use to whom?

~~~
aero-glide
Basically they were pushing the narrative that Manning only leaked info which
put US personal in danger. That his leaks didn't really reveal any human
rights violations.

------
dpcan
So, he's selling pardons for political gain now?

~~~
jhpriestley
yes, he pardoned Roger Stone for obstructing the investigation into him

~~~
charwalker
And after he threatened the judge hearing his case with a blatant image with
added crosshairs.

------
NalNezumi
So the offer was made in 2017, meaning after the election, I guess under the
probe in to Russian meddling.

It's really confusing then: If he know that he did not use Russia, acquiring
that knowledge wouldn't help much since the next election is in 3 years, so it
can't be used as a leverage, unless he wanted the information as an insurance
to the probe being biased by DNC influence. If he did, why would he _want_ to
know the source? The only thing he would want to know if Assange have been
contacted by democrat, or if that _information were available to begin with_.

Sure is a news that asks more question than it answers, and why was it even
mentioned in a court in London?

~~~
awinder
Assange is currently under extradition trial in London, so this is probably
being mentioned to make the case that the extradition request is political in
nature as opposed to actual legal interest (no personal take on
validity/chances of success, that just seems like the play).

I'm not sure about the reasoning for why one would do this, but it's the same
person that took a gamble to get dirt on Biden and got impeached over it, so
probably shouldn't approach it from a place of pure rationality. It's
terrifying that Rohrabacher was a part of this though, and really skews my
personal take that nothing about this was above board.

------
muglug
For context, the guy offering this deal (US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher) was the
most Russia-friendly member of congress:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/politics/dana-
rohrabac...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/politics/dana-rohrabacher-
putin-trump-kremlin-under-fire.html)

It can be assumed that he wasn't making this deal in order to implicate
Russian hackers (and Assange would likely have known that).

~~~
ciarannolan
> “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” [House
> Majority Leader Kevin] McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of
> the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The
> Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in
> Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/house...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/house-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-
trump/2017/05/17/515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html)

~~~
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA
Wow, downvotes for quoting a statement which is not only relevant, but also
_recorded_.

------
ferros
It doesn’t say if he knows the source, and if he declined?

~~~
netsharc
After reading this: [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-
hagan/ghost...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-
hagan/ghosting) (obviously Assange defenders will call this a biased hit
piece), Assange lost my admiration, he seems to be yet another self-obsessed
prick. But the way he's been treated and is being treated by the UK courts is
also fucking undemocratic and inhumane.

But in my view, Assange is unprincipled enough that he'll say whatever
Trump/the thugs running the West wants, so he can be freed. Or to paint it in
a different light, they're torturing him so he'll say whatever they want him
to say.

~~~
dencodev
>Assange is unprincipled enough that he'll say whatever Trump/the thugs
running the West wants, so he can be freed.

The fact that he didn't go with the pardon offer this very page is discussing
suggests that this is wrong. You don't think Assange had options to be freed
in the past however many years?

"biased hit piece" indeed

------
Bhilai
> The proposal put forward by Congressman Rohrabacher was that Mr. Assange
> identify the source for the 2016 election publications in return for some
> form of pardon, assurance or agreement, which would both benefit President
> Trump politically and prevent U.S. indictment and extradition

How would this benefit Trump politically?

------
drunkpotato
Article title: Trump offered to pardon Assange if he provided source for
Democratic emails, lawyer says

~~~
inlined
Per the bottom of the article, Democrat was changed to democratic. The former
frankly seems more accurate

~~~
LocalPCGuy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_\(epithet\))

> Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States,
> used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has
> been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the
> 1940s

------
jazzabeanie
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this favour Trump politically?

~~~
kemiller2002
I'm curious about the same thing, unless maybe he's gambling that it won't be
completely tied to Russia. I suppose it could be that if it is something
damaging, he can release the information and use it politically, and if not
he'll try and keep it secret. This is a total guess though.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm curious about the same thing, unless maybe he's gambling that it won't
> be completely tied to Russia.

Pardon offers are in no way binding or enforceable, so no actual gambling is
involved. You just don't follow through unless you get the answer you want, as
well as making very clear (such as by spending multiple years building a
particular public narrative which the defendant actively participated in
around your preferred answer) what the expected answer is so that, regardless
of what the true answer is, the defendant knows what answer gets them free of
the charges.

------
fedxc
I see that the discussion centers around Trump, but what would you do if you
were Assange?

~~~
cwhiz
Divulge the information and take the pardon??

------
josefresco
The corruption of the current American administration is staggering.

------
mentos
Why is this on hacker news?

~~~
sneak
Assange is a cypherpunk and hacker, and is currently undergoing a massive
violation of his rights by several leading world powers (who claim legal
jurisdiction over many of the world's most prominent hackers) for liberating
information to the public (in the spirit of many original hackers).

I'm not sure why it _wouldn 't_.

Not everything that the mainstream culture war has picked up as its
touchstones is actually _about_ the mainstream culture war.

Shoehorning leaking of data, by a hacker, about corrupt governments into the
standard (and frankly boring) left/right US culture war is one of the most
obvious examples of this ridiculous phenomenon.

Regardless of your political affiliation, the world is a better place that
this information is public.

~~~
quesera
> Regardless of your political affiliation, the world is a better place that
> this information is public.

In its purest form, I'm inclined to agree with you.

But I think Assange is more of a tool than a tool-user. He's a launderer of
information provided by parties with an agenda.

This might be inevitable, given the players, but it doesn't make it pure or
honest.

Also I think he injects a lot of personal agenda into his curation of released
information. This opens him up for legitimate criticism, just like any other
activist or politician.

------
jonplackett
I guess it would serve them both well to put out a story that it wasn't
Russia.

Just as much as Trump doesn't want Russia to have helped him become president,
Assange doesn't want to be seen as an unwitting pawn of Russia.

~~~
elliekelly
And Russia would like to be seen as completely uninvolved in the whole matter.

~~~
rsynnott
Eh. Not so sure about that. The Russian government has long had a tendency of
doing things in a manner that is officially deniable but where it is made
deliberately obvious that they are responsible. See the novichok and polonium
poisonings; they _could_ have used far more plausibly deniable agents there if
they had wanted to.

Notably, "Guccifer 2.0"'s IP address was part of a block allocated to the GRU
headquarters in Moscow. I seriously doubt that was an _accidental_ disclosure;
it was an advertisement. It's an implicit threat to others.

~~~
mhh__
In my experience of reading material on spies, and watching panels with ex-
spooks and analysts etc. one thing I have learnt is that you shouldn't give
them the benefit of the doubt but you shouldn't refuse to assume incompetence
either. You only have to get your tradecraft wrong once to get caught - in
this case I don't think they were at all bothered if they got caught early but
it's not impossible that someone got lazy

~~~
rsynnott
Maybe, but the Guccifer example seems like very basic stuff, and there's an
established pattern of deniably advertising the they did the things.

------
qaq
One thing I always fail to grasp is -- if Russia successfully carried out
influence campaign to get Trump elected how does it exactly paint Obama and
Biden in good light ?

~~~
akhilcacharya
What I don't grasp is - how are you not bothered by an adversary picking our
president? It's not about Obama anymore.

~~~
qaq
How do make this leap ? I consider Trump to be a horrible president and human
being in general. But I don't hold people who dropped the ball on national
security in such a major way in high regard either.

------
cassepipe
Most comments seem to revolve around if the source of the leaked emails was
Russia but does it really matter? Wether or not it emanated from Russia does
not change that the emails were genuine. It is maybe a catastrophy if Trump
got elected because of it but it is nevertheless great that those became
public. We can only hope that Trump being the steaming pile of sh __* he is,
we will learn about it in the same manner. Such as that Reuters piece of news
for example. I can only understand how sorry many of you gringos must be for
having Trump as president but blaming Russia won 't solve any of your
problems. A more democratic voting system and more transparency maybe will.
Democrats are not crazy as Trump but they don't seem like a solution, sorry.

~~~
hackinthebochs
One sided "transparency" for the purpose of manipulating an election is an
affront to democracy.

~~~
cassepipe
And democracy is generally a buzzword if one does not explain what in his/her
opinion it covers. Are Democrats democratic ? Is the Us voting system
democratic ? You can sense that if you frame the question like that you will
have an endless debate that won't get you anywhere. What voting system is in
place ? Are parties limited in the money they can get for their campaign ? Is
there a independent institution that controls the voting process ? Etc. Maybe
the problem with Trump is not that he is a agent of Russia but the fact that
he is an infantile billionaire with the worst industries such as oil and coal
behind him. But I don't expect democrats to utter that critique since they are
probably not clean either. Here is an idea instead, companies or rich
individuals should not be allowed to contribute to a campaign more than a
certain amount.

------
diego_moita
For 3rd people like me Trump is very entertaining precisely because he acts
with exactly this same disregard for institutions and decorum that our 3rd
world populist politicians do, just like Bolsonaro (Brazil), Berlusconi
(Italy), Erdogan (Turkey), Kirchner (Argentina), Putin, Duterte, ...

Sure, there was a time on the 19th century when all American presidents were
all like that. But the U.S. were a very different country back then, the
Federal government was a lot less powerful.

~~~
nine_zeros
This is very underrated. Quite often, I see people from developed countries
look at poorer countries with pity, despair and wishing the best. We, in
developed countries, take our development and good way of life for granted.

The tables are completely turned. America has become the country to show pity
towards.

Unless America changes its way of governance this Fall, 4 more years and what
exactly is the difference between America and Brazil?

~~~
vidarh
Well, in quite a lot of developed countries, the attitude to the US government
has been deeply negative in parts of the population for a very long time.

I recall, probably in the 80's, an incident where the US government objected
to a foreign aid organisation distributing food aid in the US on equal basis
to the kind of food aid programs operated in third world countries.

Several European countries also refers to "American conditions" as a threat of
chaos during political debates. E.g. I grew up in Norway, where the threat of
"American conditions" was a common scare-tactic by the left to get people to
oppose right wing policies. This was decades ago - the first threats of
"American conditions dates back more than half a century.

~~~
nine_zeros
Well, the difference is that today, even developing, poor countries are
talking about "American conditions". Sometimes to justify their own
incompetence. Other times to refuse American bullying. More often than not,
just out of pity.

This is because poorer countries have seen this story before. They didn't need
a war to make them poor. Their incompetent leadership over years was enough.

------
ones_and_zeros
Based on my evaluation that Trump only does things to further his agenda of
sowing distrust in institutions and not out of any sense of justice or
progress, here is my take:

He is forcing Assange to say "I will not reveal my sources as I am a
journalist". Trump then gets to say he tried. The "media", especially any real
journalists that take their profession seriously, will provide analysis that
Assange is right for refusing. This gives Trump another opening to smear the
media by portraying them as pro Assange, pro hacking and anti DNC.

~~~
latortuga
I highly doubt Trump has enough 5D chess experience to make that level of
analysis.

~~~
mhh__
Thankfully people (other than those very into QAnon) have given up on the
n-dimensional chess theories for the most part, but if we needed any more
proof nearly incriminating himself in a phone call with Bob Woodward (who keep
in mind has already written an extremely critical book about Trump) while
trying to woo him (in effect) is the most recent disaster.

------
peter_retief
That seems like a reasonable request, possibly clear up some of the hysterical
conspiracy theories. It "is" clear that the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Naughty
Koreans are keen to disrupt the US elections and did so in 2016 as well. All
very entertaining, thanks for the show!

------
ed25519FUUU
This headline really is a way to create a poisonous and intentionally toxic
and politicized reaction to Assange. He exposed some of the biggest corruption
and evil in our lifetimes, including torture programs.

We must stay TOGETHER in demanding a pardon, rather than indefinite detention
meant to keep him quiet. We must not allow this to get dragged into the
political culture wars.

Edit: thankfully the headline has been changed.

~~~
bdcravens
Yes, and any pardon must be 100% complete and unconditional.

------
zoobab
Here is the source of the emails: i@am.com

------
aty268
If it wasnt the Russians, it's almost certainly Seth Rich. CrowdStrike has
already said the hack seems it came internally, and there's no evidence it
came from Russia, but somehow the FBI came to a different conclusion. One is
either completely incompetent or lying.

Edit: It appears CrowdStrike has officially changed their conclusion in their
investigation after the FBI concluded theirs. I hope you people know this is
all complete nonsense. The CEO himself said they ONLY had 'circumstantial
evidence', and nothing at all concrete. Not a single thing.

Edit2:
[https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-
firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html)

~~~
simias
Is there any serious reason to tie Seth Rich into this mess besides "he died
roughly within that time frame and he worked for the DNC"? It really seems
like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as
soon as you start digging a bit.

What's more likely, that Seth Rich really was murdered for leaking some
(overall fairly tame) emails or that his death is completely unrelated and it
was just opportunistically reused by far-right groups to make up one of the
conspiracy theories they like so much?

~~~
aty268
It's more likely he was murdered for doing something he shouldn't have been
doing rather than anything else. The area where he lived had no shooting in
the past 16 years or so, and this young guy gets clearly murdered for no
reason and not even robbed?

Rich was pissed at what the DNC did to Bernie (look at his past), and I think
it's a fair guess to say he wanted to screw them over. He was in the perfect
position to do so. If that's the truth, why Assange won't leak that, I'm not
sure.

On top of all this, CrowdStrike themselves said under oath that it's likely it
was hacked internally, although they have now conveniently changed their
stance. See my original comment.

~~~
nooron
Hey, I wanted to tell you I worked deep in the Democratic Party's technology
operations for several years. I didn't know Seth but I know plenty of people
who did. What you are saying is nonsense.

I can't prove a negative, but I am not sure where you got the idea that Seth
was in a "perfect position to screw" the DNC over, nor the idea he was
motivated to do so. His family has begged for years for conspiracy theorists
like you to let this rest.

~~~
aty268
Great, then I would love to hear the more likely explaination for his murder.

~~~
dooblethrowaway
You have even less evidence for this position than CrowdStrike does for their
position. You are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing.

~~~
aty268
I disagree. I'm looking at the most likely scenario here, the same reason I
(and most people) believe Jeffery Epstein was murdered.

-Crowdstrike said it's likely someone internally hacked the server

-Seth Rich was in the position and time to do so and had a direct grudge against the DNC

-He was murdered almost around the exact same time the server was hacked in a wealthy area with no history of something like that ever happening.

You can come to other conclusions. I've come to mine. It's not certain of
course, but it's the most likely with the information I have now. If you think
it's more likely he was randomly murdered, that's possible but it's not the
most likely.

~~~
dooblethrowaway
==You can come to other conclusions. I've come to mine.==

You can come to any conclusion you'd like. Just like I can point out your
obvious hypocrisy. You demand far more evidence from others than you present
for your own stance. The Mueller Report and Senate Intelligence Report each
investigated this allegation and found it to be non-credible [1].

Mueller Report:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report said WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange had made statements “designed to obscure” the source of the DNC leaks
and of having “implied falsely” that Rich was his source."

Senate Intelligence Report:

"One narrative from Assange involved a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich, a DNC
staffer killed in a botched robbery, was the source of the DNC email leak and
had been murdered in response. On August 9, Assange gave an interview on Dutch
television implying that Rich was the source of the DNC emails, and that day
WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about
Rich’s murder. In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the
WikiLeaks interest in the Rich case as concerning “someone who’s potentially
connected to our publication.”

The bipartisan Senate report was unequivocal about the factual basis for this
theory: “The Committee found that no credible evidence supports this
narrative.”"

[1] [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
news/senate-i...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/senate-
intelligence-russia-report-seth-rich-wikileaks-1046134/)

