Quote (IceMage @ Aug 18 2020 09:32am)
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1295710499322159104Senate Russia intel report out. Some interesting nuggets. Says administration significantly hampered and prolonged investigation, straight up calls Konstantin Kilimnik a Russian intelligence officer, redacts information that points to Manafort's connection to hack-and-leak operations, Wikileaks knowingly collaborating with Russian officials, etc.
Seems like very flawed logic. There's only a single section in the 966 pages that explains their reasoning for
speculating "Wikileaks knowingly collaborating with Russian officials"
its on page 237;
Quote
(U) WikiLeaks Promotes Alternative,-False Theories About the Source of
the GRU Materials
(U) Assange and WikiLeaks undertook efforts to obscure the source of the stolen emails,
including through false narratives. Assange's use of such disinformation suggests Assange
possibly knew of and sought to hide Russian involvement. 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 ·emajl 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, 1420 and that
day WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about Rich's
murder. 1421 In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the WikiLeaks interest in the
Rich case as concerning "someone who's potentially connected to our publication."1422 The
Committee found that no credible evidence_ supports this narrative.
(U) Assange also attempted to rebut criticism that WikiLeaks does not release .
documents critical of or damaging to Russia. For example, on September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks
released 35 internal documents from a Russian IT company that services Moscow's wiretap
system. 1423 The e~istence and nature of the system was already well known to Russian and
American researchers and was not assessed to be damaging to Russia. 1424 Nonetheless, Assange
complained that U.S. media had not paid sufficient attention to the release. 1425 The timing and
limited nature of this release is consistent with indications that WikiLeaks knowingly aided the
Russian 2016 election influence campaign.
(U) In 2017, Assarige also promised to provide evidence to then-Congressman Dana
· Rohrabacher that Russia was not his source, but only in exchange for protection from U.S.
authorities. Rohrabacher had been "told by a number of experts that it was impossible" for the
DNC data "to have been sucked out of the machine and hacked back to Russia." Rather,
Rohrabacher believed it had been "someone on the inside who downloaded it with some sort of
quick dowrtload."1426 Rohrabacher, convinced that •~the Russians were now being accused of
something they didn't do," instead "felt like [he] needed to go see how [he] could prove that one
way or the other" by speaking with Assange. 1427 The meeting took place in the Ecuador
Embassy on August 16, 2017,1428 and was also attended by Charles Johnson, a conse~ative
political activist who helped Rohrabacher set up the meeting,1429 and Assange's lawyer. 1430 ·
(U) According to Rohrabacher, Assange "made it very clear to me that he was saying
that the Russians did not do it" and "he had proof' of who was responsible. 1431 In exchange,
Assange wanted an "assurance"-whether in the form of a pardon or otherwise-that he would
not be taken into custody when he left the Ecuador Embassy. 1432 Rohrabacher promised to "go ·
back to the White House and see ifwe can arrange something where you won't be arrested."1433
He then attempted but was "not permitted" to speak to Trump on the subject, and told the
Committee that he did not communicate again with Assange about the potential deal. 1434 The
Committee found no evidence to support Rohrabacher' s theories or Assange' s claims. 1435
So to be clear- there's no new information here that we didn't already know, no new facts or details
They claim that because wikileaks acted like Seth Rich could have been their source, that evidences that they knew it was Russia and they were trying to distract from it. That's really flawed reasoning. They didn't present any evidence to contradict the much simpler explanation that Wikileaks didn't know who their source was- as is consistent with the Guccifer persona being masked in all their interactions- and were genuinely suspicious that Seth Rich was behind it or part of it.
The next parts are basically trying to turn "he doth protest too much" into a formal argument when Wikileaks complained over the negative coverage, and that a guy desperate to escape persecution was willing to lie and stretch the truth in an attempt to wiggle a pardon out of Trump. There are obvious, rational explanations for why Assange would lie in an attempt to save his own skin. Furthermore, the whole report acknowledges that they never found any instances of Wikileaks and Russians communicating through other channels nor any tripped up digital trails like they had from the GRU who forgot to use their VPN on the Guccifer account for a split second and gave up their real IP. So to buy into their Wikileaks-Russia conspiracy theory, you have to assume that Wikileaks had a flawless track record and cleaned up after themselves perfectly where the Russian intelligence services made mistakes.
They took the same set of facts, same details, and made a conclusion out of it that they can't support, one which requires a more complicated conspiracy when a simpler mundane explanation exists. Perhaps Wikileaks
suspected their source may be Russian, but there's no evidence they had anything more than reason to be suspicious.