Sign in / up

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

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

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

      8 9 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

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

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

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

        8 1 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

      11 7 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

        Not obvious to me - examples?

        14 2 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ...unlike his credibility

          Not obvious to me - examples?

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

          1 2 Reply
          1. mhenriday
            Reply Icon
            Boffin

            Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

            Henri

            2 2 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

              3 0 Reply
      2. h4rm0ny
        Reply Icon

        Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

        11 2 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

          3 2 Reply
    3. veti Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

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

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

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

      7 4 Reply
      1. BillG
        Reply Icon
        Devil

        Playing the Press

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

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

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

        5 3 Reply
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

        1 0 Reply
    4. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ...unlike his credibility

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

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

      1 3 Reply
  2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    The pale Australian

    We should get him a sun lamp

    2 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The pale Australian

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

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

      2 0 Reply
      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: The pale Australian

        @AC

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

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

        2 0 Reply
  3. Eddy Ito
    Facepalm

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

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

    9 0 Reply
  4. x 7

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

    Trumpp is Putin's bumboy

    5 5 Reply
  5. Snipp

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

    6 2 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

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

      2 0 Reply
  6. hammarbtyp

    Be careful who you choose as your heroes

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4 1 Reply
  7. SVV

    love this bit....

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

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

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

    1 2 Reply
  8. Velv
    Facepalm

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

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

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

    1 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Bring In The Clowns - Nah, Send Them Away

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

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

      1 0 Reply
  9. ukgnome

    Because the Russians would totally submit the files themselves right?

    0 0 Reply
  10. Not That Andrew

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

    0 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like