According to a report from The Hill in his recent meeting with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange is reported to have told the congressman that he can prove the leaked DNC documents published during last years’ Presidential Election, did not come from Russia.

The meeting took place in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange has been granted political asylum for the past five years.  During their three-hour meeting, Assange stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking of the DNC emails.

If Assange does publish such information, it would prove groundbreaking for a number of issues thoroughly reported in recent months by Disobedient Media. However, Assange also wrote via Twitter:


This tweet implies strongly that we should not rely on third parties to ascertain Assange’s statements – such third parties would necessarily include Congressman Rohrabacher.

When questioned on who was the source of the disclosure of the documents, Rep. Rohrabacher stated that he needed to share the information in private with President Trump. Rohrabacher also indicated that Assange has further information regarding the DNC email leak that is currently unknown to the public, and that Assange requested that Wikileaks be given a seat in the White House Press Room.

Whether Assange will actually reveal such groundbreaking documentation, and what the response might be from various entities including the DNC, remains to be seen.


5 Thoughts on “BREAKING: Assange May Disprove Russian Hacking Narrative”

    • I think that in order to prove that the leaks did not come from Russia he would have to detail where they did come from. This is not in keeping with Wikileaks practice not to disclose the identities of sources. He has already stated on numerous occasions that the leaks did not come from Russia but has refused to say where they did come from.

      Craig Murray, the former UK diplomat and present media commentator, whose claim to fame was being the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, said months ago that he was the one who transported the files to Wikileaks from a source inside the DNC. It was suspected that this source was Seth Rich. This is quite separate from the Guccifer 2.0 leaks at the beginning of July which were reputed to have been concocted by the CIA in order to forestall the Wikileaks release in late July and to which were added spurious indications of Russian interference. The Wikileaks release had been announced in June so the criminals sought to cover their tracks by using the Guccifer 2.0 release ahead of the Wikileaks release and then attribute that to the Russians.

      That is at least my understanding of the series of events.

      • I would think that standard might be subject to change if the leak were dead and especially in the case of a suspicious death. My statement is purely conjecture.

        • Yes, that is certainly a possibility. However there is some distance between what Dana Rohrbacker reported, which has been interpreted as suggesting that possibility, and the tweet from Julian Assange himself that implies to my mind that he is not about to change the principles on which Wikileaks operates.

          We have always known that Wikileaks has denied Russian involvement but would not reveal the actual source. If one believes this assertion, which is central to Wikileaks’ reputation as a reliable source of information, then there is no further need to speculate. We also have Craig Murray’s testimony, confirming that he was the medium of transmission of the files, provided by a DNC insider, and that for me is sufficient proof.

          Given the tattered reputations of the DNC, the Clintons, the U.S intelligence and FBI heads, the legacy media, their fellow travellers and all their known shenanigans, it is not difficult to believe that once again they have lied themselves into a corner and that the long delayed denouement of this tragicomedy is at hand.

Leave a Reply