Did Russia Hack the Election? WikiLeaks Said Its Source Was Not Russian

wikileaks email source


Despite a joint report released today detailing how Russia hackers may have infiltrated the Democratic party, and new sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama against Russia diplomats, WikiLeaks is maintaining that the source of its leaks was not Russia hackers. WikiLeaks was the main source of leaked information during the presidential campaign, through emails released from John Podesta’s account and the DNC.

Here’s what you need to know.

Intelligence officials released a joint statement again on December 29, discussing how Russian hackers had infiltrated one political party’s emails. But WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have not changed their statements about the source of their information. In a radio interview with Sean Hannity in mid-December, Assange asserted again that their DNC emails and Podesta’s emails did not originate from Russian hackers.

Hannity asked him, “Russia did not give you the Podesta documents are anything from the DNC?” And Assange responded, “That’s correct.”

On December 14, just a day before Assange’s interview, Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, said that he had received one of WikiLeaks’ sources, The Washington Times reported. He said that he was given a package near American University, in a wooded area, that was the source of some of the Clinton emails. He said the source was a Democratic insider who had legal access to the information. Murray said he was prompted to make the revelation after seeing claims that WikiLeaks’ source came from Russia.

The sources, he said, were disgusted with corruption in Clinton’s campaign and the sabotage of Bernie Sanders, Inquistr reported. Murray is a former British ambassador who was removed because of allegations of misconduct, after he was highly critical of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan.

Whether Murray’s statement is true, however, has not been established. The next day, WikiLeaks’ Twitter account stated that only Assange, Sarah Harrison, and sometimes their lawyers are authorized to speak for WikiLeaks.

The joint security statement released on December 29 did not mention WikiLeaks when it discussed Russian hacks. Exactly who was the source of WikiLeaks’ emails still remains unknown.




It all goes back to Hillary Clinton using a private server – no matter who did the hacking, it was her that opened the door. Why are people not pointing at Hillary for the hacking?

Candace Zuno

Exactly! No matter who leaked this info, all involved (including Obama, who was caught responding to Clinton emails) should have been held accountable, and prosecuted! They think they can point fingers, and blame Russia, to bury the real issue at hand!


Hillary was specifically targeted so Putin’s Puppet would win the electoral college vote. Otherwise, since Powell and Rice used a private server as Secretary of State as well, why weren’t they hacked as well?


Why are people not pointing at Trump who dared the Russians to hack U.S. intelligence?


On one hand, we have: private cyber security companies, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, and even many republicans all saying that Russia was behind the hacking, all of whom would have little reason to lie (as any deception would look bad.) On the other hand, we have the word of Assange that it wasn’t Russia… a man who has worked for Russian media sources before, a man who has made false claims about how “free” Russian press is, and who has every reason to lie, since being seen as a Russian tool would be detrimental to Wikileaks.

Yeah, I think the evidence clearly points to Assange being full of bunk.


and little duckie barackie also said no one hacked into the elections because…..it’s impossible.

However all these unsecure servers and email accounts were accessed because a clinton/democrat party boss (crooked podesta) fell for some sort of cheap porn phishing email.
The problem seems to be that those running the democrat party and all of their billionaires/foundations/thinktanks lying/cheating/stealing were exposed to the public.

To the liberal/progressives, apparently that is the crime, exposing their corrupt leaders as bare naked liars.


Hmm, prior to his campaign, Donnie thought Wiki leaks were terrible. Now, they’re “great.” Must be that birds of a feather flock together, I mean one’s a self-admitted rapist and the other is charged with rape but hides out in Britain’s Ecuadorian embassy to evade trial. Make a nice couple, don’t they?

anony mouse

What evidence? You have no evidence from either side pointing towards any conclusion, you only have supposition and your opinion.
You suggest motives and lack there of as opinion and repeat the lie about what Asange or wikileaks have said about Russia.
Your position as to why companies making large amouts of money from govt contracts and goverment officials and a political party beholding to the status quo would not be lying is laughable.

Think what you like about either side in this, but don’t call opinion evidence.

Terry Conklin

Check you hands again. A Security Company is in the business and will want to scare us. Our multiple “Intelligence” Agencies lie for a living as part of their agenda. Even Henry Kissinger thinks the notion of Russia doing it is ridiculous. No, Russia would hack anything possible and Clinton’s campaign had childish security but the “hack” was more likely a leak by a Millennial staffer who cringed at the idea of Clinton getting elected instead of Sanders. There was one that got murdered at that time. maybe it was him?


Yes, sometimes the government lies . . . but all 17 agencies simultaneously?? Sounds as if you revel in conspiracy theories! Hey, when North Korea nukes us all, who will Donnie (who will escape to his bomb shelter) have left to blame–we’ll all be dead–including those of us who did not vote for him!!!


“All 17 agencies simultaneously”–I’m sorry, but if you believe that the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Treasury, the Drug Enforcement Agency, etc., all investigated and then got together and said “yes, Russia hacked the election,” then you’re the one theorizing about conspiracies.

The “17 agencies” factoid is only trotted out in order to give weight to the report, which was otherwise stuffed with filler information (some of it was completely irrelevant–and worse, some of it may be contradictory to the report’s central claim).


“private cyber security companies, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, and even many republicans all saying that Russia was behind the hacking, all of whom would have little reason to lie”

Did you even think about what you wrote here?

Literally every one of those entities has every reason to lie.

Literally every one of those entities has lied to the public again, and again. Consider, for example, Donna Brazile and Tim Kaine repeatedly lying (on camera!), claiming that there were fakes among the releases. Meanwhile, even the joint report confirms ***WikiLeaks’*** statement that none of the emails were fake.

And WikiLeaks has published nothing inauthentic for ten years.

Discuss on Facebook