EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange on Releasing DNC Emails That Ousted Debbie Wasserman Schultz
July 25, 2016
Guests
founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.
This is viewer supported news
WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange joins us from London Philadelphia , Pennsylvania
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush
transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Democratic National
Convention is opening today in Philadelphia ,
Pennsylvania
In one email, DNC Chief Financial Officer Brad
Marshall suggested someone ask Sanders about his religion ahead of the Kentucky and West
Virginia
AMY GOODMAN: A third email shows National
Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach writing, quote, "Wondering if there’s a
good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act
together, that his campaign was a mess," unquote. Multiple emails show the
DNC complaining about MSNBC
coverage of the party and of Communications Director Luis Miranda once writing,
quote, "F***ing Joe claiming the system is rigged, party against him, we
need to complain to their producer," unquote, referring to Joe
Scarborough. Other emails suggest the DNC was gathering
information on Sanders’ events and that a super PAC was
paying people to counter Sanders supporters online.
On Sunday, Bernie Sanders reacted to the emails during an interview with
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I told you a long time ago that
the—that the DNC was not running a fair operation, that
they were supporting Secretary Clinton. So what I suggested to be true six
months ago turns out, in fact, to be true. I’m not shocked, but I am
disappointed. ... What I also said many months ago is that, for a variety of
reasons, Debbie Wasserman Schultz should not be chair of the DNC.
And I think these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair. I
think she should resign, period. And I think we need a new chair who is going
to lead us in a very different direction.
AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks has not revealed the
source of the leaked emails, although in June a hacker using the name Guccifer
2.0 claimed responsibility for the hacking into the DNC’s computer network. On
Sunday, however, Clinton
We go now to London
Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about this
email—these emails, these 20,000 emails you have released?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, it’s quite remarkable
what has happened the last few days. I think this is a quite a classical
release, showing the benefit of producing pristine data sets, presenting them
before the public, where there’s equal access to all journalists and to
interested members of the public to mine through them and have them in a
citable form where they can then be used to prop up certain criticisms or
political arguments. Often it’s the case that we have to do a lot of
exploration and marketing of the material we publish ourselves to get a big
political impact for it. But in this case, we knew, because of the pending DNC, because of the degree of interest in the U.S.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Julian, your reaction to
the announced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz shortly after the release
of these emails?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I mean, that’s
interesting. We have seen that with a lot of other publications. I guess
there’s a question: What does that mean for the U.S. Democratic Party? It is
important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an
example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately
produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into
her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress.
So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act
in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why
does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the
public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC,
at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going
on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future
presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of
corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as
that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it’s very interesting,
because Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine appeared together, as Mike Pence and
Donald Trump did the week before, on 60
Minutes. And Hillary Clinton distanced herself from all these
emails and the DNC, saying, "These people didn’t
work for me." And yet immediately upon the forced resignation of Deborah
Wasserman Schultz, she said she’s a good friend, and immediately hired her.
But, Julian, I was wondering if you can say, from your point of view, what do
you think are the most significant emails that have been released, that you
have released?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, actually, I think the
most significant ones haven’t been reported on, although The Washington Post late last night and
McClatchy did a first initial stab at it. And this is the spreadsheets that we
released covering the financial affairs of the DNC.
Those are very rich documents. There’s one spreadsheet called "Spreadsheet
of All Things," and it includes all the major U.S.—all the major DNC donors, where the donations were brought in, who they
are, identifiers, the total amounts they’ve donated, how much at a noted or
particular event, whether that event was being pushed by the president or by
someone else. That effectively maps out the influence structure in the United States for the Democratic Party, but more
broadly, because the—with few exceptions, billionaires in the United States United States
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, on that issue, clearly,
a lot of the emails talk about the actual amounts of money that were being
offered to donors for the opportunity to—I mean, asked of donors for the
opportunity to sit at different events next to President Obama, especially, the
use of President Obama as a fundraiser. Now, most people in the political world
will consider this business as usual, but the actual mechanics of how this
operates and the degree to which the DNC coordinates
with the president, his marketability, is—I don’t think has ever been revealed
in this detail. Would you agree?
JULIAN ASSANGE: That’s right. And it’s not just
that the president holds fundraisers. That’s nothing new. But rather, what you
get for each donation of a particular sort. There’s even a phrase used in one
of the emails of, quote, "pay to play." So, yeah, I think it’s extremely
interesting. There’s emails back and forth also between the Hillary Clinton
campaign and the DNC. So, you see quite elaborate
structures of money being funneled to state Democratic Party officers and then
teleported back, seemingly to get up certain stats, maybe to evade certain
campaign funding restrictions.
In relation to what has become the most significant political discussion
as a result of the publication, which is that the DNC
higher-ups, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were clearly against Bernie
Sanders and trying to subvert his campaign in a whole raft of ways, that’s
true. That’s the—the atmosphere that is revealed by hundreds of emails is that
it’s perfectly acceptable to produce trenchant internal criticisms of Bernie
Sanders and discuss ways to undermine his campaign. So, whether that’s calling
up the president of MSNBC—Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the president of MSNBC to haul Morning
Joe into line, which it subsequently has done. I noticed this
morning, Morning Joe actually
discussed it themselves, trying to shore up their own presentation of, you
know, a TV program that can’t be pushed around. But, in fact, they did not
mention the call to the president. That was something that is still
unspeakable. And it was a 180-degree flip in that coverage.
And you see other, you know, quite naked conspiracies against Bernie
Sanders. While there’s been some discussion, for example, about—that there was
a plan to use—to expose Bernie Sanders as an atheist, as opposed to being a
religious Jew, and to use that against him in the South to undermine his
support there. There was an instruction by the head of communications, Luis
Miranda, to take an anti-Bernie Sanders story, that had appeared in the press,
and spread that around without attribution, not leaving their fingerprints on
it. And that was an instruction made to staff. So, it wasn’t just, you know, a
plan that may or may not have been carried out. This was an instruction that
was pushed to DNC staff to covertly get out into the
media anti-Bernie Sanders stories. Another thing that—
AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Hillary—
JULIAN ASSANGE: Another aspect that is—
AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Hillary Clinton’s
campaign manager, Robby Mook, cited experts saying that the DNC
emails were leaked by the Russians in an attempt to help Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump. Mook was speaking to CNN.
This is what he said.
ROBBY MOOK: What’s disturbing to us is that
we—experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying
that they are—the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of
actually helping Donald Trump. I don’t think it’s coincidental that these
emails were released on the eve our convention here. We also saw last week at
the Republican convention that Trump and his allies made changes to the
Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian. And we saw him talking about
how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend—necessarily
should intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they’re attacked by Russia
AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Robby Mook citing
experts saying the DNC emails were leaked by the
Russians. You were the one who released these 20,000 emails, Julian Assange.
Where did you get them?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, what’s not in that clip
there by Robby is that, just afterwards, he was asked by Jake Tapper, "Who
are these experts? Can you name them?" The answer was no, a refusal to
name the experts. But we have seen one of the experts, so-called experts, that
the Democratic Party is trying to base its incredible conspiracy theory on
about WikiLeaks. And that is this—what we jokingly refer to as the NSA dick pic guy. He’s a former National Security Agency agent
who started to produce conspiracy theories about us in 2013, when we were
involved in the Edward Snowden rescue, as a means to try and undermine the
Snowden publications, subsequently embroiled in some amateur pornography
scandal. That’s why they don’t want to name their experts, because they are
people like this.
In relation to sourcing, I can say some things. A, we never reveal our
sources, obviously. That’s what we pride ourselves on. And we won’t in this
case, either. But no one knows who our source is. It’s simply speculation.
It’s, I think, interesting and acceptable to speculate who our sources are. But
if we’re talking about the DNC, there’s lots of
consultants that have access, lots of programmers. And the DNC
has been hacked dozens and dozens of times. Even according to its own reports,
it had been hacked extensively over the last few years. And the dates of the
emails that we published are significantly after all, or all but one—it’s not
clear—of the hacking allegations that the DNC says have
occurred.
The original content of
this program is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the
work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed.
For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
