In response to President Obama vowing that the United States would retaliate for Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s emails, which Democrats are claiming cost Hillary Clinton the election, WikiLeaks called out Obama and told him to produce the proof for verification.
In a tweet on Friday from the WikiLeaks Twitter account, they encouraged Obama to “submit any Putin documents” to them so they can “be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.”
Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 16, 2016
The tweet comes the day after Obama told NPR, “there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action.”
Ignoring repeated statements by Russia and Assanage, Obama has ordered a full review into the hacking and expects it will give “a comprehensive and best guess as to those motivations,” behind the leaks.
Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, said the U.S. needs to show some proof or quit talking. “It is necessary to either stop talking about it, or finally produce some evidence,” he told Interfax, per the New York Times. “Otherwise, it all begins to look quite unseemly.”
RT reports that the Washington Post published an article last week featuring claims by anonymous CIA officials that Russia had “intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.” It quickly came under public scrutiny, as people were wary of trusting anonymous claims without evidence, given the intelligence agencies’ historyoflying to the public.
There is no documents to submit!!
— Crystal #PutinTeam (@CRSTAL_52) December 16, 2016
Amazing that the CIA won't deliver the evidence. Maybe because there is none that is credible. Obama/CIA = False narrative.
— FEMA Resident #20314 (@FEMA_Resident) December 16, 2016
Speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange clearly stated, “Our source was not the Russian government.”
Addressing claims that WikiLeaks chose not to release similarly damning information about Republicans during the election, Assange also said that the site had received about three pages on the RNC, but that the information had already been published.
The WikiLeaks editor went on to say they were unhappy to even have to say that the documents did not come from a state party, as their usual policy is not to say anything about the source of leaks. In this case, they were forced to do so to prevent further distraction from the content of the documents.
Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and WikiLeaks insider Craig Murray said he knows for a fact that the DNC leak came from an insider and not a foreign hacker.
“Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak,” he said. “The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.”
“The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks,” he explained, adding that he was part of the handover of the data.
When asked about Murray’s comments, Assange said he did not want to be drawn into discussing it, as they had to protect their sources.