Meet the Press‘s Chuck Todd (7/31/16) interviews WikiLeaks‘ Julian Assange
On Sunday morning, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd (7/31/16) had on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to discuss his recent leaking of 20,000 emails from within the Democratic National Committee showing an institutional preference in favor of Hillary Clinton. Todd asked Assange a total of eight questions, all of which were about alleged foreign hacking of the DNC, never asking about the substance of the leaks.
Here are the questions in order:
- “Are you concerned that if foreign government uses your entity that you have now seen WikiLeaks get weaponized?”
- “The easiest way to clear this up, Mr. Assange, would you be able to say categorically that a foreign government did not hand you this material?”
- “But it is helpful to know if a foreign government is involved, isn’t that crucial information to civilians?”
- “Mr. Assange, you say you can’t go around speculating. Do you not know [if Russia leaked the documents to you]?”
- “Let me ask you this. Do you, without revealing your source on this, do you accept information and leaked documents from foreign governments?”
- “But isn’t the right of the public to know the motive also, to know the motive of the maker?”
- “Does that not trouble you at all, if a foreign government is trying to meddle in the affairs of another foreign government?”
- “That doesn’t bother you [foreign governments meddling in US elections]? That is not part of the WikiLeaks credo?”
The DNC leaks were also discussed on the show in interviews with Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Trump advisor Paul Manafort; these exchanges also included zero questions about the substance of the leaks, focusing entirely on the security questions and possible Russian involvement in the leaks.
Certainly, the issue of Russian government potentially hacking a major American political party is more than newsworthy, and Todd is fair in asking Assange to respond to the accusations. But just as clearly, this issue doesn’t merit omitting altogether the actual contents of the leaks–namely the DNC undermining one candidate in favor of another.
As Assange pointed out to Todd, even the US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, America’s top spy, thought the media was getting ahead of itself with what he called “hyperventilation” over Russia’s potential hacking of the DNC. As Politico (7/28/16) reported Thursday:
“I don’t think we’re quite ready yet to make a call on attribution,” Clapper said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. “There are just a few usual suspects out there.” Additionally, he said, “We don’t know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been.”
The reasons for the administration’s reluctance to assign blame are a combination of two factors, Clapper said: uncertainty about whether the Russians are the culprits, and the lack of a decision yet on whether the US should “name and shame” them if indeed they committed the cyberattack.
Todd would show no such prudence, asserting Russia’s guilt at the top of the interview and putting it in the context of a new Cold War:
There really is nothing new about the US and Russia spying on each other. Decades of Cold War-era movies and books couldn’t have existed without the idea of US-Soviet espionage. Look at The Americans. But what appears to be Russia’s attempt to expose Democratic Party emails and sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign does seem entirely new.
Obviously, the media shouldn’t decide the validity of claims based on the say-so of the government, but the fact that the press is getting ahead of an administration more than eager to claim attribution in the past is notable.
Although it was clear Assange wouldn’t answer Todd’s question about WikiLeaks’ source—”We don’t give any material away as to who our sources are,” he repeatedly pointed out—Todd persisted again and again. Which would have been fine if he had followed up with the questions about the DNC leak itself and what other leaks Assange might have in store—but instead it was 100 percent Russia, 100 percent Cold War plot, 100 percent anything other than the substance of the leaks themselves.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
Meet the Press‘s Chuck Todd can contacted at Chuck.Todd@nbcuni.com (Twitter: @ChuckTodd). Please remember that respectful communication is most effective.
You can always tell a leftist. They hate liberals more than they hate Republicans(so-called conservatives). This article is another example.
Tom, you’re stuck in the muck of ideology. Rise above it to see the bigger picture.
Tom, I hate hypocrites more than I hate upfront conservatives (Barry Goldwater) or even honest fascists. If you think Chuck Todd is a liberal, then you can call me a leftist, without knowing anything more about me. Chuck Todd has been a tool of the DNC and the corporate oligarchy for as long as he’s had a “career.”
Russia to judgment
Clearly, Washington’s lapdog media isn’t ready to abandon the false narrative that ‘Russia did it.’
I appreciated Assange’s attempts to steer the narrative back to what it should be focused on – the CONTENTS of the leaks.
Do they no longer teach “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in school? I expect nothing from Chuck Todd, but are there no thoughtful, honest adults who understand that the DNC and their spokesman, Chuck Todd, are inciting thoughts of military engagement between the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, for the basest of political ass-covering?
My God, they openly give David Petraeus and Hillary Clinton get-out-of-jail-free cards for their knowing violations of security statutes, but find the release of unclassified e-mails that show the DNC for the corrupt organization it is, tantamount to an invitation to war.
Chuck Todd is a sad and pathetic careerist. This isn’t the first time that he’s exposed himself as such. FAIR had an interesting article on Chuck’s run-in with Jeremy Scahill almost seven years ago. Chuck hasn’t improved with age: https://fair.org/uncategorized/chuck-todd-meet-jeremy-scahill/
Assange is now saying that Wikileaks has emails which prove that Clinton pushed for funding and weapons transfers to jihadists, including ISIS. I’d like to see some proof before I rush to judgement, but if it does indeed pan out, I don’t know how she can continue. She’d have been lying to congress, because she denied knowledge of it, which in itself is a federal crime. And just the underlying act is so despicable -I mean, we’re not talking about lying about blowjobs in the White House here; this is serious stuff.
It’s pretty clear that Assange is no fan of Hillary, but if he can produce those emails, they’ll speak for themselves. The content is more important than the messenger. The fact that corporate media is rushing to do everything they can to preemptively discredit Assange and Wikileaks, is a bad sign for Hillary.
How do you refute the irrefutable? The 7th question is particularly hypocritical: ““Does that not trouble you at all, if a foreign government is trying to meddle in the affairs of another foreign government?” Given that just for starters the US has more than 800 foreign military bases in more than 100 countries.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because whether or not a foreign power hacked into computers and actively tried to interfere with our election process in order to get their friend into the White House is a much more important story than a few emails telling us the DNC preferred Hillary, something that everyone already knew? We know what the emails said. Was there evidence of a crime? No. It never went beyond talk, according to the worst of the emails the hidden hacker could find out of thousands. And what does Assange know that we don’t? We already know the contents. Who gives a damn what Assange thinks about the contents. Did Russia hand him the emails? If so, we have an international problem on our hands. Seems like Meet The Press was, for once, doing their jobs.
Those who were paying attention may have known that the DNC preferred Hillary, but it helps to have irrefutable proof that they were actively manipulating the process, so that the Hillary campaign can’t just dismiss it as conspiracy theory.
Exposing malfeasance is a service to the country, and it frankly doesn’t matter who performs the service. The value of the service remains the same.
As for meddling in foreign elections… I guess it’s OK when the US does it, but not other countries. It wasn’t too long ago that Obama was telling the Brits that they’d be last in line for trade agreements if they voted for Brexit. Although… hard to say if that was a threat or a promise? ;)
Greg has it right…absolutely right.
LF
Jerry has it right. Refreshing to see a post that relies on facts instead of hyperbole and speculation
Greg’s right.
Must support war hawk and Wall Street promoter,Hillary, never mind that the people do not want her so she had to steal the Democratic primary.
Vote Jill Stein 2016
Down ticket vote all progressives (where possible) or at least vote D.
What is more dangerous then to vote for a candidate who stole the Democratic primary and is a war hawk? Hillary stole the Democratic primary. This included the rigging of the DNC and 6 methods of stealing, altering and suppressing votes.
Election justice report includes input from 100 experts.
Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide
http://www.dailykos.com/story/..
.
and
Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-and-Her-Ha-by-Gareth-Porter-Assad_Hillary-As-Warmongering-Hawk_Hillary-Clinton_Military-160729-240.html
and
The wasted vote myth.
“If you go to the polls thinking you are casting the deciding ballot in major races and if you value your life, you are making an irrational decision. The chances of dying en route in a car, plane or meteor accident are far greater than the chance of casting the deciding ballot.
“As a practical matter, we vote to tell everyone else which choice best represents the direction which we want the country to go. When you vote, you gain a certain power that a non-voter doesn’t have; the power to change America.”
So all those 13 million votes for Bernie (that were actually recorded and counted) in the Democratic primary and the millions of voters who will vote for Jill Stein 2016 as President will help draw more people to the Green to help change the attitude and direction of the country.
“An unprincipled vote is the only wasted vote.”
Jill Stein 2016
The “Wasted Vote Myth”
http://freepress.org/article/w…
On August 3rd at 8:38 am my comment on August 2nd 6:04 pm is awaiting moderation. This is the last time i will even read anything on this Site.
Apology. Just very slow, I guess.
In 1980 I voted for a third party candidate named John Anderson because I had doubts about Jimmy Carter. Had I and millions of others voted for Carter, Reagan would still have won, but it would have been a much closer race, instead of the landslide it was. Maybe that doesn’t seem important, but the Reagan Revolution may not have happened if the nation’s legislators had not decided that the voters, in electing Reagan in a landslide, wanted the change that Reagan promised. I regret that vote to this day. In 2016, I would not waste my vote on Jill Stein. Apparently you don’t believe that votes add up. One single vote may not seem to make a difference but that’s naive.
This is not 1980. People were not as unhappy with their choices of Carter and Reagan as they are today with Hillary and Trump. And because of that, a Third party has a real chance this year; especially if the (totally corrupt) Debate Commission lets them (Stein and Johnson) in the debates. But even without the debate publicity, the Internet (nonexistent in 1980) is providing them with plenty of recognition to where they might just stand a chance this time.
You write, “…the Reagan Revolution may not have happened if the nation’s legislators had not decided that the voters, in electing Reagan in a landslide, wanted the change that Reagan promised.
Please consider the following: Johnson was elected in 1964, receiving 61.1% of the popular vote. Immediately afterwards, there was concern voiced that the Republic party might be on its way to the proverbial dustbin of history. Four years later, Nixon was elected receiving, along with those votes cast for George Wallace (not an LBJ politico), 57% of the popular vote.
Your description of the “landslide” of Reagan, in 1980, should be measured by the fact that he received 50.7% of the popular vote. This is a “landslide” for which you should feel personal angst? I think you can breathe easily. Reagan was a movie actor who convinced people that he was a nice guy and that it was “Morning in America” again. Then his administrations began the arduous task of dismantling the New Deal. And it didn’t stop there; we’ve entered the new Gilded Age, almost as if the Sherman Act and the Trust busters, Taft and Roosevelt, had never existed…
But it wasn’t your fault.
Vote your conscience and hope others do the same.
Are you guys serious? How is Assange possibly an authority on the substance of the emails? Anyone can read the emails. The only reason to listen to that dweeb is to ask him how he might be getting his information, and why he’s deciding to release it at, what seems to be, calculated times. That is the only information he, specially, lends use to.
Of course. You are correct. And in answer to your question, yes, they are serious. Just too involved in their own bias and hyperbole to rely on fact and material evidence.
I fully agree. I know of no other criminal investigation or review that would allow evidence obtained this way to be used as evidence with out a proven chain of custody. And even if it was used it would not protect the hacker of a government system from prosecution by that government. Ever.
Of course he didn’t want the content talked about. He’s in them! DNC Debbie was asking for a favor.
I don’t know if the Russians had a hand in trying to illegally influence a U.S. presidential election. But I know for sure the DNC did.
LF
Just to shorten it up a bit for you …
“Meet the Press Ignores Substance” …
I question his chain of custody. Having built and administered a government ISP/Messaging/IAM for decades, it makes me ill that Wikileaks does this. There are ways to do it better and with greater safeguards to all involved. And then there is the issue of the right to confront your accuser that the “protection of sources” denies us here.
But beyond all that, Assange has become tainted with his personal grudge match against the DNC. Because you cannot convince me that the RNC was any harder to breach nor less full of juicy details. Finally, Assange’s incredibly nasty tease about when he will release data and predicting it will result in criminal charges against a US citizen running for office show both the depth of his cruelty and recklessness.
I didn’t like what Snowden did, but I believe in his sincerity and good intention. With Assange all I can think is that he has, at last, no decency left.
If this were a case at law, subject to the rules of evidence, you might have a point. As it is not, your chain of custody issue is inapposite and, ultimately a meaningless one. The DNC, itself, hasn’t contested the accuracy of the e-mails, they’re just blaming the messenger. Obviously, they are the real thing(s) or Debbie Schultz would not have immediately resigned her post, and the Clinton campaign wouldn’t be trying to avoid responsibility by launching a dangerous, intemperate attack on Russia.
Whether the RNC could have been hacked as readily as the DNC or whether the Republicans had as much to hide as did the Democratic ‘leadership’ is beside the point. We have proof that the DNC did what they now are scurrying to avoid confronting. If there were proof of the RNC doing the same, would the DNC be absolved? And if there’s something there, I have no doubt that the corporate forces behind the Clinton campaign have the wherewithal to discover and reveal such “juicy details.”
Finally if I had spent six years in the Ecuadorian embassy, pursued by the hypocrites of history’s Most Transparent Administration–those in charge of running the War on Whistleblowers, I, too, might enjoy the discomfort those antidemocratic political cretins now find themselves in…and smile broadly.
Harry, I hope that you are as concerned about the inhuman and illegal treatment that the US is handing out to innocent people in Guantanamo, for YEARS without any evidence, forget a chain of possession–a failure of legal process infinitely more serious and disgraceful than any imagined evidentiary issues in this DNC fiasco.
You nailed it in one sentence.:
“The DNC, itself, hasn’t contested the accuracy of the e-mails, they’re just blaming the messenger. Obviously, they are the real thing(s) or Debbie Schultz would not have immediately resigned her post, and the Clinton campaign wouldn’t be trying to avoid responsibility by launching a dangerous, intemperate attack on Russia.”
Link directly to the Election Justice Website:
Election Justice – Protecting your voice in Democracy! http://electionjustice.net/
**********
Election Justice USA Study Finds That Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won By Landslide.
Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries
We have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA’s legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1) Targeted voter suppression
2) Registration tampering
3) Illegal voter purges
4) Exit polling discrepancies
5) Evidence for voting machine tampering
6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates.
Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries
Perfectly logical Steve, thanks.
I would add one thing that baffles me : if “The Russians” bothered to hack the (for them) admittedly insignifant DNC server, surely they will have done the same with the infinitely more interesting one of the Secretary of State, in other words, the one in MS Clinton’s basement?
Why does no press ask that questions? Why does the Clinton campaign choose a diversion strategy which can lead to even bigger trouble for them? Is it perhaps, because they are certain that the press will not draw such parralels and ask such questions?
Every time I hear Todd ask a question or gloss over and shut down a “real” story, I have to once again note, the Owners of Media are doing this. This is not a Chuck Todd decision. This is an OWNER of corporate greed decision. They want to control the dialogue and they want the powers that be to continue the status quo. That is apparently all that matters in today’s big 3 owner playbook. Disgusting what they’ve done to journalism.
I think Todd’s focus was right on because I really don’t care what Assange thinks about the substance of the released DNC emails or other materials he has released or may release. The content of the DNC emails is absolutely a fair and important topic for Americans, particularly Democrats, to discuss in the almost unlimited forums available for such discussions. But Assange is an ego maniacal computer hacking foreign sexual predator (OK, that is perhaps unproven, but you get the idea) whose personal opinion regarding American politics are of no particular value. Why does Todd owe Assange a platform to disseminate his personal political views.
OTOH, as Americans we should be concerned about how Wikileaks got the information, what other information it might go after, who supports the enterprise, including who conducts or aids the illegal hacking activities involved in Wikileak’s activities.
On the contrary, Wikileaks is an invaluable service to the American people because it shines a bright spotlight on the fraud and corruption that the Elite wants to keep hidden in the shadows. The American people (and the world) deserve to know about that.