No, Assange did not lie.

Steve Kinney admin at pilobilus.net
Wed Mar 22 08:55:06 PDT 2017


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 03/22/2017 09:19 AM, John Newman wrote:

>> Comey said something interesting today that nobody???s picked up
>> on yet because they???re so distracted by this other stuff, which
>> I can understand. He was asked specifically if WikiLeaks was
>> furnished their information on Podesta and the phone calls by the
>> Russians, and Comey said no.
> 
> Just curious, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious - how
> does Comey know where Wikileaks got its info? I didn't realize he
> was on wikileaks staff which, if true, would actually be the most
> important piece of info to come out of this hearing so far... :P

Perhaps "no" was shorthand for, "The widely repeated assertion that
Russia penetrated the DNC's mail servers and gave their contents to
Wikileaks is an obvious lie."

Why obvious?

The Russian Hacking claim was first made in an October, 2016 press
release from DHS that attributes it to "the USIC."  No less an
Independent Security Authority than Bruce Schneier has asserted that
the public was not told about Russian Hacking until /after/ the
election, in support of his position that the story was not intended
to affect U.S. election results.  How deep does this bullshit go?
"All the way down" apparently.

Since there is no such agency or department as "the United States
Intelligence Community," that means the content of the initial press
release is not attributable to any auditable process or responsible
party.  Worse, it does not actually say "Russia did it."  Instead it
says that the leak was consistent with Russia's motives and methods.
That's all it actually says, but it says that in a context where an
uncritical reader can have no doubt that it said "Russia did it and we
have proof."  The rest of the press release is a lengthy statement
assuring us that Russia, despite its digital superpowers, can not
alter the actual election results.

A second, post-election press release makes more detailed assertions,
and presents graphics depicting information about "hacking groups,"
already available to the public, to support the belief that "we know
all the details about how Russia did it."  Nothing connects these
completely generic diagrams to the DNC servers - but "seeing is
believing" and plenty of people do believe.

A third and even more lengthy and elaborate press release falsely
calls itself a declassified intelligence report.  I say "falsely"
because it bears no classification or distribution markings, no
declassification notice, and no redaction markings.  This very
jargon-dense fake intelligence report reiterates previously made
assertions in Hollywood style spook-speak obviously calculated to
confuse and impress a naive audience.

We are consistently told that the red hot smoking gun evidence that
proves Russia Did It can not be released to the public because it is
Top Secret.  Presumably, releasing any evidence at all would
compromise sensitive methods and sources.  But...  News flash:  When
you tell the opposition what you know and when you knew it, you have
already compromised your sensitive sources and methods.  Meanwhile,
when an intelligence service creates a 100% convincing impression that
it is waging political warfare against its domestic audience through
Big Lie propaganda, the resulting loss of confidence and prestige does
more damage to The National Security than the release of /one/
fragment of evidence in support of the propaganda narrative could
possibly do.

There's an old political slogan used by resistance movements:  "The
whole world is watching."  We can update that today:  "The whole world
is laughing."  And not just at the illiterate buffon in the Oval
Office:  The NeoLiberal DNC and its partisans at CIA are equally
laughable thanks to their grim determination to keep pushing their
favorite Big Lie narrative, as if there was no other grounds to
demonize the illiterate buffoon's Administration.

> For that matter, how does wikileaks really know where they got
> their info? A state actor is not going to come out and say "hey im
> from the FSB, Putin loves you! -  here is some more shit.."

That's dangerously close to the classic propaganda technique called
Argument From Ignorance:  "Your failure to prove me wrong, proves me
right."  Not quite that, but dangerously close.

:o)




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJY0p5aAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqM8sH/AyVAWscW3zlCYleM/BXnj85
5su6VOKRYkpWrNp2zUyD9D800xIBtYUOTz5gjrhqmLyZOSOB2fGxmFM/Onv2H1gU
Ewc2BQMZgXy5Uqtat3K0iMCo0cvANvKpFUhHdltQxRi0oaAyot1B51TCLXYCLnuM
hjJyP/0lNfAMfA2Ulci/072FaAuzQcfRZwNK1xqBMLeee1y2fWFi1X2x8nYNGkZV
thf1dGDcS+CRTnsTet+2sXhE1LNIDdqQkpjsBkUDmXfDz1Tqa0lZ1gBo4JdH4HBq
0rOik2ruBjURozBcojjzVOxF4SHaqz3vH/vOOjVz/Iok0iNULaPw8a4LluwdveE=
=eg/6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list