Hacker News Reader

It does when the interviewer is more interested in putting on a show than hearing from a source. Read the transcript (or see my post above). Constant interruptions, reinterpretations, jumping around in timelines, etc. It's a horrible interview meant to extract one or two talking points.

View on HN

That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc. This is the interview where the question was asked and answered.

You can disbelieve what Assange says if you don't believe him. Discounting what Assange says, explicitly, clearly and deliberately because Hannity is interviewing him is foolish. It was a friendly interview. So what.

> That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc.

Weird how I didn't mention any of these in my comment. The problem is that the interview is not designed to elicit credible testimony. It's designed to put on a show. Thus, I discount it heavily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com