Assange's claims are not hard evidence either, nor do I trust him.
US intelligence agencies say the Russians were involved and that kind of activity by the Russians is corroborated by intelligence agencies in Europe.
The nature of intelligence operations is that, if done correctly, there is no hard evidence unless the perpetrator wants there to be.
He was never neutral or objective on the subject of Hillary Clinton. And isn't it convenient that despite our knowing of multiple politicians whose private email got hacked, hers is the only one he felt was worthy of publishing...
So, yeah, not exactly a "sudden" lack of objectivity on his part. Also it's been demonstrated his followers will turn a blind eye to things that don't fit their narrative.
How would he know? Isn't wikileaks set up so that people can submit data anonymously? Is he claiming that they got the data through different channels? Why would an insider purposefully leak the data in a way that de-anonymized him to Assange and possibly others, instead of using the established channels?
I’m a lot more puzzled by the fact that Assange would say anything about the uploader, even if it is negative. I guess denying it’s the most likely suspect re-rolls the dice in most people’s head.
Not all leaks are submitted through the web forms. Craig Murray has stated that he received some of the leaks in person from a DNC insider during a face to face meeting in Washington, and he couriered those leaks to wikileaks himself.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray...
Murray's Wikipedia page is not full of alarm bells, it does mention him appearing on Alex Jones's radio program but to discuss a non-crazy subject.
False!
He does not answer the question about someone affiliated with Russia handing him the information.
He always repeats this carefully worded answer: "our source is not the Russian government and it is not [a] state party."
Why so carefully worded -- why can't he say "no one affiliated Russia gave me the data"?
Because he knows it came through an intermediary for Russia and wants to be able to lie, but still have a weaselly excuse if he's caught.
The fact that he's spent a lot of time spreading the Seth Rich idea is even more suspect. It's a conspiracy theory straight out of the KGB's cold war book.
Seth Rich was murdered and his watch was yanked at. He fought back at his attacker(s). "Nothing was stolen!"
The professional assassin got into a fight with the victim and then shot him, but forgot to actually steal something? Not very likely.
So why doesn't he ? If it was really the CIA that hacked the DNC then why would they be so stupid to blame Russia if Assange could so easily falsify that claim ? That's a huge reputation risk.
Assange only said that it wasn't the Russian Government themselves. Doesn't rule out it being a team of hackers with connections to Russian IC or even directly to the Kremlin.
Or even Russian hackers acting on their own but with the wink wink approval of Putin. Kremlin may even fund groups like startups. Give out money, see what happens. It's like Al Qaeda - they don't need to have an org chart or any explicit communication.