<* 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists.> From the OP
They didn't identify him because just as journalists protect their sources they do the same from what I understand. To date, 100% of WikiLeaks leaked information has been verified to be true since the very first time it leaked something (10 years I think). That's a record that newspapers & news outlets the average person would consider reputable in the US cannot claim. How long do you believe that WikiLeaks would stay in business if their sources knew that they would be identified publicly?
After hearing this about what Julian Assange said about where the documents came from for the first time today, I preformed a few Google searches and discovered that back in August Julian Assange may have suggested who the person in DC might have been. He has also stated several times since the US has alleged that Russia was their source that the documents were not delivered to WikiLeaks from any government, and specifically not from Russia. http://tinyurl.com/hqyp4td
<This isn't meant to take away from the important issue of Russia hacking itself which is a separate issue from what the emails themselves reveled.> key word * separate *
Occam's razor does not necessarily apply in the way you are attempting to apply it in this situation. As I stated in the OP, Russia hacking does not automatically mean that Russia, and no one other than them, could have also had access to the information, nor does it mean that Russia hacked therefore, only Russia could have given the information to WikiLeaks.
Is it possible that Russia gave them the information? Sure, it is possible. Is it also possible that the information from WikiLeaks about who gave them the information is possible? Also the answer is yes. The difference is, it appears that Assange has been hinting about who their source may have been long before Obama and the Dems have been crying the Russian's did it. With that information, if you apply Occam's razor, it would seem that Assange's answer is more likely than not to be the real answer.
Both things can be true. The person WikiLeaks described as their source could have been their source AND Russia could have hacked the DNC without supplying WikiLeaks with a single document. It is not an either or thing as the Dems would have everyone believe. |
