YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Julian Assange Full Interview with RT Aug 6, 2016

Julian Assange Full Interview with RT Aug 6, 2016 — Transcript

by Media War Archive · 6,573 words · 1,370 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:03Julian Assange, thanks for agreeing for
0:04this interview. Are you worried that
0:06you're on this channel RT after being
0:08accused by Hillary Clinton basically of
0:11uh
0:12working the Russian working for the
0:13Russian government. We know Russian
0:14intelligence agencies hacked into the
0:16DNC. WikiLeaks is now publishing all the
0:19hacked emails.
0:20I don't think WikiLeaks needs to be
0:22constantly worried about PR.
0:24Uh I've been called a Mossad agent. Uh
0:27it got so bad in fact that the ADL, the
0:31Anti-Defamation League, had to put out a
0:33press release
0:34uh denying uh that I was a Mossad agent.
0:36I'm not sure actually that that's
0:38particularly helpful.
0:39Uh cat torturer, CIA agent, etc. So,
0:43it's expected uh with our publications.
0:46Uh
0:46Uh RT uh
0:48is obviously of interest to people that
0:50are interested in Russia.
0:53Uh and Russia has been brought up
0:56uh by Hillary Clinton most recently just
0:58a few days ago
1:00on Fox. So, I think it uh
1:03is necessary to address
1:05uh what WikiLeaks feels is its
1:08perception
1:10uh of its own publication uh to the RT
1:12audience.
1:13So, when you started WikiLeaks,
1:15obviously the Afghan War Logs, these
1:17different leaks that uh you presented to
1:19the world gave us a context about the
1:21so-called war on terror, the atrocities
1:23by UK US-backed forces. Did you ever
1:25think WikiLeaks was going to change the
1:26outcome of a US presidential election?
1:30Well,
1:31our proponents argue that we have
1:34shifted outcomes uh in improving
1:37election Kenyan election. Um
1:39we've uh been involved in removing the
1:42intelligence heads of a
1:44number of countries as a result of our
1:46publications and the public
1:47accountability that has come from it.
1:49Um yeah, it's
1:51Well, I I think
1:53uh
1:54it remains to to seen, right?
1:56And also
1:58um
1:59the upcoming WikiLeaks publications to
2:02do with the presidential election.
2:04Those can go either way.
2:06Hillary Clinton says she has proof that
2:08it's come from a Russian
2:10hack. Is there Is there
2:12Well, she she is very sneaky. She She
2:14made a sneaky statement
2:16on Fox.
2:18Um
2:20uh
2:21which contains elements with which are
2:22simply strictly false and other ones
2:24where
2:25she's sort of
2:28trying to
2:29push the
2:31truth through a very small gap.
2:34Uh
2:34Hillary Clinton just said, "We know
2:35Russian intelligence agencies hacked
2:37into the DNC. We know they arranged
2:39arranged for emails to be released."
2:43Yeah, so on the
2:44Actually, she has a slight slight
2:46variant on the we know.
2:48Uh
2:49I don't think she says emails. I think
2:50she says some documents.
2:53Because the
2:55uh difference here is that do state
2:58actors hack
3:00uh the political organizations of
3:03um different countries?
3:06Does the United States government do it?
3:07Absolutely.
3:09Of course, it uh hacks the political
3:11parties of many different countries.
3:13Uh
3:14Does French intelligence, Chinese
3:16intelligence, Russian intelligence hack
3:18political parties in order to collect
3:20intelligence?
3:22Uh
3:22Yes. Did they hack the DNC?
3:26Has at least one state actor hacked the
3:27DNC?
3:28Uh probably.
3:30Uh Now, this is a separate question
3:33to the release of our emails. So, in the
3:37US media, there's been a deliberate
3:38conflation between DNC leaks, which is
3:42what we've been publishing, and DNC
3:44hacks of the US Democratic Party,
3:47uh which have occurred over the last 2
3:49years by their own admission uh
3:52a number of times.
3:54You're not going to sue for defamation
3:55though given all the people saying that
3:57you
3:58were endangering the lives of people and
4:01all manner of accusations about this set
4:03of DNC leaks have come out.
4:05You don't plan on taking legal action?
4:08Well, we we look carefully. I mean, we
4:10sometimes do take legal action
4:12where there's a a strict liability and
4:15when we can show that someone knew that
4:17what they were saying
4:19was untrue.
4:21So, if it gets too bad in this case and
4:23unfortunately, that's what you have to
4:25do because if if there's no incentive to
4:30encourage people to say the truth and
4:32they won't do it by themselves and
4:33unfortunately, you have to take action.
4:35I think this
4:36statement by Hillary Clinton on Fox
4:38really does need to be tackled because
4:40it
4:40concerns us directly in our
4:42publications.
4:45What she is
4:48attempting to do is to conflate our
4:51publication of pristine emails.
4:54No one in the Democratic Party
4:56argues that even a single email is not
4:59completely valid. It hasn't been done.
5:02And the head of the DNC, Debbie
5:06Wasserman Schultz has rolled as a
5:07result.
5:10And
5:11whatever hacking has occurred
5:14of the DNC or other political
5:16organizations in the United States
5:19by a range of actors.
5:23Now, in the middle, we have something
5:26which is the publication by other media
5:28organizations
5:30of information
5:32purportedly from the DNC.
5:36Seems to be the case.
5:38So, that's a series of word documents
5:40and PDFs published by The Hill,
5:43by Gawker,
5:44by The Smoking Gun.
5:46This is a
5:47completely separate
5:49uh
5:50batch
5:51of documents uh compared to the 20,000
5:54pristine emails that we had really we
5:57released.
5:58In this batch of documents released by
6:01these other media organizations, um
6:05there are claims that in the metadata,
6:09uh there's uh
6:10someone's done a document to PDF
6:12conversion,
6:13uh and that the in some cases the
6:17documents the language of the computer
6:20that was used for that uh conversion uh
6:23was uh Russian.
6:25Okay, so that's
6:27the
6:30circumstantial evidence uh that some
6:33Russian
6:34uh was involved um
6:36or someone who wanted to make it look
6:38like a Russian was involved
6:39with these other media organizations.
6:42That's not the case
6:44uh for the material that we released.
6:46The Hillary Clinton campaign has a
6:48serious problem in trying to work out
6:51how to counter spin the publication. Why
6:54do they have such a problem? Well,
6:56uh because the emails are unarguable. Uh
6:59WikiLeaks has a perfect 10-year history
7:02of having never got it wrong in relation
7:03to what we have published. Uh that means
7:06that what we have published is trusted.
7:08But even so,
7:10across the whole 20,000 emails, no one
7:12in the DNC, no one even in the Hillary
7:15Clinton campaign is saying, "Ah, look,
7:17that word there, I did not say that."
7:19It's accepted that they are all
7:20legitimate. So,
7:22what is the source of the emails? I can
7:25reveal the source of the emails. The
7:27source of the emails is is
7:30the Democratic National Committee. It is
7:33the president as Washington Schultz, it
7:35is the communications director Luis
7:36Miranda, etc. etc.
7:38That's not what they're asking.
7:39They wrote them. Okay.
7:41So,
7:43we know they're accurate, we know who
7:44the source is, we know who the publisher
7:46is.
7:47From our perspective, that's all that's
7:49important. Now, there's an attempt to
7:52bring in a meta story. And the meta
7:53story is, did um some hacker uh obtain
7:58these emails? Okay.
8:00Um well, uh
8:02people have suggested that there's
8:04evidence that the DNC has been hacked.
8:07Uh
8:08I'm not at all surprised it's been
8:10hacked. In fact,
8:11Clinton says it's the Russians.
8:12If you read very carefully, uh they say
8:14it's been hacked um
8:17many times over the last 2 years.
8:19Um and our sources say that the
8:22DNC security is like Swiss cheese.
8:25Uh the um DNI, the Director of National
8:28Intelligence of the United States, uh
8:30several months ago said that
8:33both RNC, the Republicans, and the DNC
8:37were being attacked uh by a range of
8:40actors um from philosophical opponents
8:44uh
8:45to uh states engaged in espionage.
8:49Um now,
8:50the head of the DNI, uh James Clapper,
8:54who's responsible for all US
8:55intelligence agencies, he's the boss of
8:57the boss of the CIA. Uh if anyone knows
9:01what US intelligence agencies knows
9:03knows he he knows. And on Friday, he
9:08had to come out and say that there's a
9:10lot of media hype and ventilation.
9:12Uh that uh they have no idea uh as to
9:16what uh motivation is,
9:18um even if they did know who it was.
9:21Uh so, that's the the head of the DNI
9:24dampening down ideas that they know who
9:28it is.
9:29Uh now, despite that,
9:32uh Hillary Clinton
9:34is
9:35saying
9:36uh untruthfully
9:39uh
9:39that she knows who
9:42the source of our emails
9:44uh
9:45Now, she didn't quite say our emails.
9:48She's playing some games because there
9:50have been other publications by The
9:52Hill, uh by Gawker, other US media of
9:56different documents, not emails.
9:59So, we have to separate
10:01uh
10:02the various DNC or RNC hacks that have
10:06occurred over the years
10:08and who's done that.
10:11The source, we know who the source is.
10:13It's the Democratic National Committee
10:15itself. Um
10:17and our sources
10:20who gave
10:22uh these materials uh
10:25and other pending materials
10:27uh to us. These are all different
10:29questions. And you know, Clinton is
10:32playing a
10:34fairly effective um game at trying to
10:37distinguish this. But, I mean, we said
10:40that can journalists count to two? It's
10:42not hard to count to two. We have
10:45DNC leaked emails that we have
10:47published. Uh and we have questions
10:49about the hacking of the DNC over a
10:52number of different years by a number of
10:53different actors. These are different
10:54questions.
10:55Any Russian connections between
10:57Hillary Clinton and uh and Russia? Any
11:00Russian connections there?
11:02Hillary Clinton has done quite well
11:04strategically to try and draw connection
11:07between Trump and Russia.
11:09Um because she has so many uh
11:12connections of her own.
11:13Now,
11:15my analysis of uh Trump and Russia is
11:19that there is no substantial uh
11:21connection.
11:22Why do I say that? Well, because Trump
11:24was trying to invest in Russia before
11:26Putin in the 1990s, after Putin, in
11:29fact, nearly all the way up to the uh
11:32present moment
11:33Uh and he's had no success.
11:35He did not manage to build hotels and so
11:37on in Russia. So that that shows the
11:40how um
11:42um
11:42insubstantial
11:44his contacts are. Now if you look at
11:47Hillary Clinton on the other hand,
11:50you see that Hillary Clinton was
11:52involved
11:54in approving
11:56the sale of 20% of the United States
12:00uranium reprocessing market to a Russian
12:02company. That's just an incredible thing
12:04when you think that uranium is part of
12:06the new US nuclear weapons
12:09complex. In fact, it is the origin.
12:12It's a Russian government funded
12:14company.
12:14Yeah, and now now American uranium
12:18is being
12:19shipped off to Russia.
12:21Um and potentially used or in the
12:25construction of Russian
12:27atomic weapons or at the very least
12:29displacing
12:31um the use of Russian uranium.
12:34Um so there's more spare uranium.
12:35Your involvement is through John Podesta
12:37who's her campaign manager.
12:39The The involvement is a number of
12:41areas. So there's donations, large
12:43donations going into the Clinton
12:45Foundation while Hillary Clinton is
12:47Secretary of State.
12:49Um at the time that she is making the
12:51decision as to whether to permit
12:54the export or not.
12:57Um and through John Podesta
12:59Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
13:01there's an extremely well-documented
13:03pattern
13:04of when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of
13:07State
13:08those people, companies, governments who
13:11wanted a decision by the Secretary of
13:13State in their favor
13:15making large donations to the Clinton
13:18Foundation or in some other cases
13:21business deals with the people around
13:22Hillary Clinton. Now one particular
13:25instance is the approval by Secretary
13:29Clinton
13:30of selling 20% of the US uranium
13:36reprocessing rights
13:39to a Russian company to be exported to
13:42Russia.
13:43So at that time
13:45a large donation was made by those
13:47Russian interests to the Clinton
13:49Foundation.
13:50In addition, Clinton's campaign manager
13:53Podesta
13:54was on the board company called Jewel
13:57Unlimited and Jewel Unlimited held some
14:00of these rights
14:01and received a 35 million dollar
14:05investment
14:07from Russia.
14:08And that's a Russian government company.
14:10So Hillary Clinton is
14:11From a Russian government company and
14:12and also
14:14Russians
14:16were on the
14:17board also with Podesta.
14:19So the kind of email revelations from
14:21WikiLeaks reveal that Hillary Clinton is
14:23a Kremlin stooge.
14:24I wouldn't say Kremlin stooge but there
14:26is a much deeper connection uh
14:29on record with Hillary Clinton
14:32and Russia
14:33than we are presently aware of with
14:36Donald Trump.
14:37Is this revenge for Hillary Clinton
14:39overseeing the torture of Chelsea
14:40Manning of obviously seeking
14:44continuing grand jury against yourself,
14:46perhaps extrajudicial killing of
14:48yourself, let alone the death penalty
14:50for yourself if you were tried in the
14:52United States. Is that why you're
14:54attacking
14:55I I I just I just find it quite amazing.
14:57I mean WikiLeaks is doing what it's
14:59always done. That's what its mandate is
15:01for past 10 years. In 2009 we published
15:0550,000
15:07donors
15:08and from the Norman Coleman Senator
15:11Norman Coleman campaign. He was a
15:12Republican.
15:13So it's
15:15That's what WikiLeaks would just think.
15:17Would WikiLeaks turn down tens of
15:19thousands
15:21of documents from a political party in
15:24an election.
15:26I think the the interesting question is
15:29would another media organization turn it
15:30down?
15:31And
15:33these questions about the motivations of
15:37an editor
15:39or proprietor
15:41actually I I think they're fair. I think
15:43it is fair to to ask those questions. I
15:45don't think the answers are very fair.
15:49But do you ever hear those questions
15:51asked about Sheel Griffin, the president
15:53of MSNBC?
15:56Or
15:57Comcast or Time Warner?
16:00So whoever the source is, they couldn't
16:02trust those companies to be able to
16:04publish the information because they're
16:06already so partisan.
16:07I mean, I assume that's why the source
16:09came to us because of that belief.
16:13In
16:14when we were strategizing our roll out
16:18which we had to really work hard to
16:22do a roll out before
16:25the DNC. It was a a lot a lot of work to
16:28try and meet that deadline.
16:31But
16:32we thought, okay, well
16:34who should we choose as, you know, media
16:36partners in the United States,
16:39who, you know, perhaps they know some
16:42the back story of some of these
16:43characters like Debbie Wasserman Schultz
16:47better than we do.
16:50And we thought, actually, there is
16:52basically no one that we can trust
16:56to do an impartial job on this issue
16:58because the election has polarized
17:00everyone. You base You're basically
17:02having US media market,
17:04Fox
17:07going mostly with the Republicans. It's
17:09actually a bit unclear whether they're
17:10going to stay with Trump
17:12toward toward the end.
17:14And then everyone else
17:17with Hillary Clinton.
17:19So, who can you choose to work with in
17:21that environment? You can't. So,
17:25the most impartial way of doing things
17:27is just just to publish it out publish
17:29it ourselves and invite everyone to the
17:31table. That's what happened.
17:33Well, some journalists would argue that
17:35it's
17:36it's actually the the subject of the
17:38revelations that's more interesting to
17:40to the American voter about the
17:42election,
17:44while the media of course is fascinated
17:46about whether
17:47the Kremlin is working with you, whether
17:48you work for the Kremlin basically.
17:51No, but but it's very
17:53I think it's a a
17:55genuine question you should you should
17:57ask
17:58the sources of information. Um
18:02Um
18:03the least, however, in the case of
18:05WikiLeaks publications.
18:07Why do I say that? Well, the principal
18:09reason why you want to know the source
18:11of some statement is to understand
18:12whether it's true or not.
18:14What are the what what are the
18:16motivations by the source in creating
18:18some allegation whatever. We don't
18:20publish allegations.
18:23We publish inform- We know what the
18:25source is. The source is the DNC. The
18:27source is the Wason and Shorts. The
18:29source is the head of finance. The
18:31source is the communications director,
18:33Luis Miranda.
18:35Um so, we know who the source is. Uh
18:38the question is who is the intermediary.
18:41We know who the publisher is, it's
18:42WikiLeaks.
18:43So, it it's a for our publications, it's
18:45a lesser lesser issue. It is a big issue
18:49in the case of other media organizations
18:51who are simply making claims and not
18:53publishing original documents.
18:56I'll give you an example.
18:57Um
18:59very very interesting example.
19:01Uh
19:02I've done some research on the Turkish
19:04coup.
19:06Okay.
19:07Um now, within it's not spoken about in
19:10the West, but within Turkey, the Turkish
19:12newspapers
19:13uh
19:14uh
19:16publishing elements of a theory
19:19that the United States was directly
19:21involved in the coup. The US
19:22intelligence uh
19:24backed Fethullah Fethullah Gülen, who's
19:26based in Pennsylvania, as the head of
19:28the Gülen cult
19:30that
19:31uh has been implicated in the in the
19:33coup. In fact,
19:35according to Turkish government, he's
19:36the leading actor in the coup.
19:39He's wanted by President Erdoğan.
19:41Yes, and they've put out extradition
19:42requests and so on.
19:43Um
19:45But
19:48one of the the key independent
19:51independent points of evidence, not
19:52coming from an interrogation in Turkey
19:54where people might have been placed
19:56under duress,
19:58is that
19:59in the middle of the coup,
20:02NBC
20:05published that Erdoğan was on his way to
20:08Germany to seek asylum.
20:12And they say
20:14this was told to them by a US military
20:16source.
20:18So, what the what the hell is going on
20:19there?
20:21Uh because that went all the way around
20:23the world
20:25and was used to un- uh used to further
20:27the chance of the success of the coup
20:29uh
20:30within Turkey because if the president
20:31has fled,
20:33uh
20:33then he's lost control.
20:35NBC, a close
20:37supporter, so Trump supporters would say
20:39of of Hillary Clinton. So, would a would
20:41a Hillary Clinton presidency endanger
20:43the NATO alliance and the ability to
20:46to store American nuclear weapons at
20:48Incirlik Air Base and use it as a base
20:50to bomb Iraq and Syria under Hillary
20:52Clinton?
20:53Well, I think uh either government is
20:55potentially a a problem because of I
20:58mean
20:59that's a that coup was in Turkey very
21:02serious business. Hundreds of people
21:04have died. About 100,000 people have
21:07been fired or arrested in the post coup
21:10purge. In a In a
21:12opportunistically in some cases of um
21:16political enemies of Erdogan. In In
21:18other cases trying to purge
21:21the society of the Gülen movement.
21:24Okay, but for an American viewer of this
21:26program right now, Donald Trump has been
21:28castigated for undermining NATO.
21:31You seem to be saying that the Turkish
21:33alliance within NATO
21:34Yeah.
21:35I think regardless the the
21:38perhaps not the broader NATO alliance,
21:39but the relationship between the United
21:42States and Turkey is seriously
21:43compromised.
21:45So, back to the democratic process in
21:47the United States.
21:49Basically, the first batch you released
21:51showed and obviously we did have at
21:53least you got to admire Wasserman
21:54Schultz for resigning very quickly after
21:56your emails were released after the
21:58WikiLeaks publication. There was a dirty
22:00tricks campaign against Bernie Sanders.
22:01So, democratic primary voters didn't
22:03really understand uh what was going on
22:06during that process?
22:07Because the Clinton Foundation's major
22:10donors include members of the Gülen
22:12movement that Erdogan says were
22:14responsible for the attempted coup
22:16d'état.
22:18Right. So, I mean Erdogan's going to
22:20look at that and uh treat Clinton
22:22suspiciously. But, I mean
22:24you know, regardless of who becomes
22:27president of the United States, you have
22:28an extremely large bureaucracy, an
22:30intelligence bureaucracy that has its
22:32own mind in things. So,
22:34uh he's going to look unless there's a
22:37unless
22:39um Trump is elected and engages in a
22:41significant purge um
22:44of the CIA, for example, I
22:46think Erdogan will continue to view it
22:48very suspiciously especially as as long
22:50as
22:51um
22:52as long as you've got Fethullah Gülen
22:55being
22:56protected in Pennsylvania.
22:58Now, the vice presidential pick for
23:01Clinton
23:02uh
23:02So, you go back. Uh
23:05Hillary loses the election. Uh loses the
23:08primary process against Obama.
23:11At that point, Tim Kaine was the head of
23:13the D- DNC, the Democratic National
23:15Committee.
23:16Debbie Wasserman Schultz uh was Hillary
23:19Clinton's campaign manager.
23:21So,
23:22then some kind of deal is done
23:26whereby
23:27Debbie Wasserman Schultz
23:29becomes the head of the DNC.
23:32And
23:32Tim Kaine steps down.
23:35Um
23:38Now,
23:40if you're Hillary and you're thinking
23:42strategically that you're going to run
23:43again in 4 years or 8 years,
23:47to have your campaign manager as head of
23:49the DNC,
23:51uh
23:51controller of the if you like the
23:53regulator who's regulating the nom- the
23:55nomination competition
23:57uh is a huge strategic advantage.
24:00Okay. So, that Now, let's wind forward
24:04um
24:04and the 20,000 DNC leak emails that we
24:08released.
24:10Okay. So, they're from Debbie Wasserman
24:11Schultz, head of the DNC, and six other
24:15uh prominent people, finance,
24:16communications, and so on.
24:18And so, what they show is that within uh
24:21the DNC, there was a a unity of the
24:25uh
24:26most senior people, including Debbie
24:28Wasserman Schultz, uh
24:30to act
24:32uh against
24:34Bernie Sanders
24:36in the nomination process and for
24:39Hillary Clinton.
24:41Now,
24:41in what what particular actions were
24:43performed? Well, there's a lot of
24:44discussions. There's so discussions
24:47about
24:48we can
24:49um use a captive reporter and uh push
24:53out the fact that Bernie Sanders might
24:55be an atheist and not a Jew and this is
24:57going to cost him in the South.
24:59Which organization, sorry to interrupt,
25:00but CNN I think was the name, was it?
25:03No, they didn't mention they didn't
25:04mention the reporter in that in that
25:07particular case.
25:08Um
25:09and
25:11where
25:12uh MSNBC
25:15um
25:16on
25:17its most influential morning program
25:19Morning Joe was
25:21defending Bernie Sanders. Um
25:23then Debbie Wasserman Schultz called up
25:25the president of MSNBC. Amazingly this
25:28is not reported in the US media. It is
25:30reported in the US media that they
25:32called up Chuck Todd
25:34who's the
25:36host of Meet the Press.
25:39Uh
25:40Something much more serious is not
25:41reported that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
25:44herself personally called up the
25:46president of MSNBC to apply pressure in
25:49relation to positive coverage
25:52about Bernie Sanders
25:54on Morning Joe, their big morning TV
25:57program.
25:58Okay.
25:59Then then
26:00uh
26:01to my mind what is the most serious from
26:04an evidentiary point of view.
26:07Uh
26:08it is the communications director uh
26:11Luis Miranda
26:13making an instruction to his staff
26:17to
26:18pump out
26:20a black propaganda story
26:22against Bernie Sanders saying that his
26:24supporters were violent.
26:26Uh and to put this out in a quote
26:29unattributable
26:31unquote manner.
26:32Uh why do I say that is the most
26:34serious? Because it is an instruction
26:35given through the chain of command to
26:37staff. It's not a discussion. It's not
26:39any one person calling up the
26:42another person.
26:43Um
26:45and it is
26:46um to depict Bernie Sanders supporters
26:49as violent.
26:50Uh
26:51So that is not just a critique. Um,
26:55that it that is not just to give
26:59Sanders a break here or make things a
27:00little bit harder for him there.
27:02It is to
27:04demonize a Democrat
27:07in the eyes of the public. So the
27:09Democratic Party demonizing a Democrat
27:11in the eyes of the public through covert
27:13means.
27:14Why did Hillary
27:16Clinton appoint Tim Kaine?
27:19This
27:20you know
27:22it's got a kind of a
27:24a nonentity.
27:26Uh,
27:27doesn't give the ob- obviously the way
27:29Hillary if Hillary Clinton's going to
27:30win,
27:32um,
27:33well, she has a range of things she can
27:35use but the
27:36the biggest demand for her
27:39going into the convention
27:41uh, was to show prominently to Bernie
27:44Sanders supporters that they had one of
27:48their guys at the table.
27:50Bernie Sanders as vice president, one of
27:52Bernie Sanders' key allies as vice
27:54president,
27:56uh, or something of an equivalent
27:57nature.
27:59Didn't happen.
28:01Uh, in fact, when Debbie Wasserman
28:03Schultz
28:04was pushed to resign,
28:08within hours Hillary Clinton put out a
28:10statement saying that she was taking
28:12Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be the
28:14honorary head of her
28:16uh, campaign and would be her surrogate
28:19and is her friend and would be used
28:21throughout the campaign.
28:23Uh, what kind of signal is that?
28:26When the person has been found to be
28:28acting corruptly, acting against Bernie
28:30Sanders, and you're trying to create
28:31unity, to conspicuously display that.
28:34She could have waited a week. Okay, they
28:37could have done it under the surface.
28:38Why conspicuously
28:39Well, the DNC says because they didn't
28:41believe Bernie Sanders would win in
28:42November, which is why they would do
28:44everything to help the Democrat Party.
28:46No, no, no, but what why did Hillary
28:48Clinton conspicuously
28:50after Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head
28:53of the DNC,
28:55was pushed out as a result of our
28:57publications?
28:59Why, moments after did Hillary Clinton
29:02look release a press release saying that
29:04she was
29:06effectively rehiring her?
29:08What kind of signal is that to create
29:11unity
29:12with the Bernie Sanders supporters? It
29:14is It is mad.
29:15So,
29:19my perception is that
29:21the appointment of Tim Kaine
29:24and the conspicuous rehiring of Debbie
29:26Wasserman Schultz
29:28both come from the same
29:31um
29:32phenomenon,
29:34which is
29:36cronyism. The Clinton's campaign,
29:39Clinton's
29:41structure,
29:44is based upon these
29:45um
29:46friendships and alliances that she has
29:49built built up.
29:51And she cannot
29:54permit any signal to go out that says
29:56that she doesn't respect
29:59these alliances because
30:01um that's what the structure is based
30:03on.
30:03She would be endangered by breaking
30:05relations with those.
30:07Exactly. If she If she, for example, if
30:09she didn't pick Tim Kaine
30:12and there was a deal done
30:148 years ago to put to for Tim Kaine to
30:16resign and put in Debbie Wasserman
30:18Schultz for strategic purposes, and then
30:20she doesn't give Tim Kaine
30:22whatever he was promised,
30:24perhaps the vice presidency,
30:26then of course she'll pay a price.
30:28Uh Debbie Wasserman Schultz, no doubt,
30:31um knows a lot about Hillary Clinton
30:34having been intimately involved in the
30:35previous campaign. So, Hillary needs to
30:39um
30:40keep her close.
30:42Uh but more than that, she needs to
30:45publicly demonstrate
30:47that she has to keep publicly
30:49demonstrate to all the other people,
30:51"Don't worry. If you take a fall
30:54uh
30:55for me, for doing
30:57a corrupt act for me, like Debbie
30:59Wasserman Schultz was doing,
31:01uh then you'll be taken care of." So So
31:04that is
31:05um
31:07it creates a a limit on the moves that
31:10Hillary Clinton can take.
31:12She can't take any move.
31:15An obvious move would be would be to
31:17appoint some key Bernie Sanders
31:20uh person
31:21vice president. That's an obvious move.
31:24Um
31:25Or Or Or to Or to not be conspicuous
31:28about
31:30saying, "Oh, you did You just screwed
31:32over
31:33uh in a corrupt manner the Bernie
31:35Sanders the nominee."
31:37that there's much more information which
31:38she's blackmailable by by these
31:40different people.
31:41Hillary Clinton
31:43does not have an unlimited number of
31:45moves she can make. She's confined on
31:47her chessboard as a result of these
31:49relationships. That may well cost her
31:53uh the election.
31:55Because there wasn't a move She's not an
31:58idiot. She's a highly intelligent woman.
32:00There wasn't a move available to her
32:04to unite with the Bernie Sanders
32:05supporters.
32:07That move was not available to her.
32:09Because because because the pieces those
32:11squares were already occupied.
32:13Well, there is no way, presumably,
32:14Hillary Clinton can win if there's a
32:16link between Hillary Clinton and ISIS
32:18Daesh.
32:20Now, I know your WikiLeaks is reviewing
32:22all these different emails. You have so
32:25many of them, and you need to uh
32:28look at them and who they can damage,
32:30who they got all sorts of
32:32things WikiLeaks does before releasing
32:34them.
32:36President Obama's now bombing uh ISIS
32:38positions in Libya, so it's it's
32:40reported.
32:41Did Hillary Clinton use Libya as a
32:44conduit to sell arms to ISIS in Syria?
32:49The US government at the time that
32:51Hillary Clinton was in charge of foreign
32:53policy
32:57did use
32:59um
32:59Libya
33:01as a conduit to get arms
33:04to jihadists in Syria. That's well
33:07established not just by um
33:11a range of our materials
33:14but by the investigative work of Sy
33:16Hersh and
33:19a variety of other investigative
33:21reporters in the United States. Some of
33:22some of those even published in New York
33:24Times.
33:25And any of the emails
33:26I mean you have mentioned that Libya
33:28comes up in so many of the emails that
33:30you've been releasing.
33:32As regards Hillary Clinton as Secretary
33:34In the batch of of
33:3632,000
33:38emails
33:39we released
33:42a few months back.
33:44There are 1,700
33:47in relation to Libya, so it
33:50including I suppose that the most useful
33:52one is
33:55which is colloquially referred to as
33:57Hillary Clinton's Libya brag sheet.
34:01So
34:02she was documenting all the ways in
34:05which she led the invasion of Libya in a
34:08political
34:10and to a degree
34:12and organizational sense.
34:14So
34:16pushing it within the US government,
34:18bringing in the European partners, etc.
34:20etc.
34:21Okay.
34:22Even going going there herself
34:24personally.
34:25Anything to add to reports that
34:28according to the French papers the big
34:30French industrial conglomerate Lafarge
34:32which has been donating money to the
34:34Clinton Foundation
34:35and has got the reports in the French
34:37press were it was
34:40sending it was relating
34:42funds with ISIS Daesh.
34:46Any any information any emails that
34:48connect up Hillary Clinton to ISIS Daesh
34:50through Lafarge?
34:51Most of this work was done by Le Monde,
34:53so that's the
34:54the New York Times equivalent
34:56of France.
34:58And so what they show is that Lafarge
35:01which is a a giant
35:04amongst other things a giant concrete
35:06company transnational concrete company
35:08uh it was involved in Syria. There's
35:11interestingly more than 350
35:14uh Lafarge related emails in our Syria
35:18emails released. So that's 2 million
35:20emails that we published about Syria
35:22including the
35:24personal emails of uh the President
35:25Bashar al-Assad.
35:27Uh and so
35:29um
35:30the investigation by uh
35:33Le Monde reveals that
35:36um
35:37that they paid
35:39ISIS Daesh
35:41money
35:42um
35:43um taxes if you will for their
35:45operations in certain areas.
35:48Uh
35:49Yeah, they engage engage in a variety of
35:52um business business deals.
35:53They have donated to Clinton to the
35:55foundation. Uh where we
35:56No, and
35:58um Hillary Clinton's involvement is that
36:01money from uh Lafarge in 2015 and 2016
36:06went to Hillary Clinton
36:07uh foundation. So that's recent. Now you
36:10you ask why it go to Hillary Clinton
36:13foundation. Actually there's a a
36:14long-term relationship between Lafarge
36:17and Hillary Clinton.
36:18Uh she was a member of the board
36:20for example.
36:22Okay, let's go to Venezuela the country
36:23with the biggest oil resources on Earth.
36:26Obviously there was an attempted coup
36:27d'état by the United States a while
36:29back. People are now predicting one.
36:31Now, anything in your email cache to
36:32suggest Hillary Clinton has been
36:34involved in sabotaging the economy of
36:36Venezuela?
36:38Uh, do you mean our pending emails or
36:40our presently
36:41Both.
36:43Good.
36:44Pending emails I can't talk about.
36:46Uh
36:47I mean, we have released
36:50Yes, there's a lot of material that we
36:52have published.
36:53Cables, emails, uh
36:55But some of the people are starving to
36:56death in Venezuela because of the
36:58sabotaging of their economy via
36:59sanctions with Hillary Clinton and the
37:01DNC involved.
37:03There has been a range of attempts by
37:05the US government to undermine
37:08uh
37:09the Venezuelan government, the
37:10Venezuelan state
37:13for years.
37:14Uh our publications document that going
37:16back to at least 2005.
37:18And so, I don't think Hillary Clinton's
37:22term as
37:25Secretary of State was especially
37:27unusual.
37:28Uh it's a continuation of US policy
37:31going back at least 2005
37:34uh of of attempting to marginalize
37:37uh in a variety of ways uh the
37:39government of Hugo Chávez and and now
37:41the government of Maduro.
37:43Okay, I just I know we don't have
37:45time to go through every country in the
37:47world, but Hillary Clinton's
37:48involvement, of course, in the
37:49democratically
37:50the overthrow of the democratically
37:52elected
37:53uh President Zelaya of Honduras.
37:57I mean, any other emails that suggest uh
38:01uh
38:01we can get more information how Hillary
38:03Clinton tries to overthrow
38:04democratically elected governments. I
38:07know that her brother, Tony Rodham, was
38:09implicated in Haiti with mining licenses
38:13by the Clinton Foundation.
38:14Um Bill Clinton as well.
38:18So, I mean, it's Bill Clinton um
38:21basically became the
38:23the overseer or governor
38:26of Haiti Haiti.
38:28So, I mean Clinton's
38:31intimately involved. I mean there's
38:33reports back from
38:35quite a an amazing naive
38:38amazing report back from Chelsea Clinton
38:42and which we have already published. Um
38:46um describing
38:48her
38:49uh trip to Haiti.
38:52But that's a a kind of
38:56in ingenuous
38:58naive
38:59um
39:01description. It it
39:03Chelsea Clinton is not um
39:05from what I have been able to read,
39:07she's not
39:08um
39:09involved in the
39:12in the the dirty work of the family.
39:14She's
39:17she's um
39:19well like some some daughters of
39:22powerful families, they're treated like
39:24princesses and
39:26you know,
39:27try and keep them away from that.
39:29But I was actually talking about the
39:30brother, Tony Rodham.
39:33He got some licenses
39:35and he actually is on the record for
39:37saying
39:38I get licenses via the
39:41uh Clinton Foundation. I deal through
39:43the Clinton Foundation, that gets me in
39:45touch with Haitian officials.
39:47Yeah.
39:48So, it is this foundation which is
39:50central in the
39:51The The Clinton
39:52Yeah, I mean
39:54That's why I'm
39:55that I know you can't comment directly
39:56about the pending email releases from
39:58WikiLeaks, but you expect more about the
39:59Clinton Foundation.
40:00Yes.
40:01I I have to also get to
40:03Yemen because Saudi Arabia does crop up
40:06in the some of the emails you've already
40:07released.
40:0820 million people now facing
40:10humanitarian disaster.
40:13Uh Clinton Foundation mentions to There
40:16was There was no mention of the Clinton
40:17Foundation at the DNC conference,
40:19noticeably, at all about the good works
40:21it does.
40:22Do you think part of it is that
40:24connection to Saudi Arabia, let alone
40:25the 28 pages of connection of 9/11 to
40:28Saudi Arabia?
40:29Uh
40:30what is the connection between Hillary
40:31Clinton and Saudi Arabia that certainly
40:32got Israel angry?
40:33it's extensive. I mean, the
40:35relationships between Hillary Clinton
40:37and Saudi Arabia, between the Clinton
40:38Foundation and Saudi Arabia.
40:41Uh
40:41Saudi Arabia is probably the largest
40:44single donor
40:46uh to the Clinton Foundation.
40:48Um
40:49uh and
40:51um
40:53you can see uh
40:55Clinton's
40:57arms export uh
40:59policies while she was Secretary of
41:01State
41:02favoring extensively
41:04Saudi Arabia.
41:07Uh I mean, it's not just Hillary
41:09Clinton. Even before Hillary Clinton, I
41:11mean, the variety of US policies shifted
41:13by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia
41:15extensively hires
41:17uh consultants.
41:20Um
41:20But as president, would President
41:21Hillary Clinton be more
41:23uh likely to do the bidding of Saudi
41:25Arabia than President Obama, or or
41:27actually it doesn't make any difference?
41:29I'm not sure it makes a difference
41:31compared to Obama. Uh
41:33I'm not aware of significant
41:35relationships between uh Trump and Saudi
41:38Arabia.
41:40He would probably, I imagine,
41:43develop those relationships rather
41:44swiftly once he was once he was in
41:46office. There's a
41:48There's um
41:49I mean, there's a turning point in the
41:51United States, but potentially a turning
41:53point in relation to Saudi Arabia
41:54policy. Uh because, you know, the United
41:57States is
41:58uh
41:59about to become a net exporter of oil
42:01because of um shale.
42:04Uh so, the dependency on Saudi Arabia is
42:06no longer there. In fact, Saudi Arabia
42:07is a is an oil competitor uh
42:10or soon to be an oil competitor to the
42:12United States.
42:13Now the
42:15the
42:16existing
42:17financial and personal ties
42:20and arms export ties to Saudi Arabia
42:23Those will still be there, but
42:26the relationship can go to one of a
42:29deep embrace and dependency to a more
42:32independent kind of relationship and
42:35arguably
42:36that has already started to happen
42:39and the Iran deal
42:42that
42:44is part of Obama's
42:47and Kerry's legacy phase
42:51probably couldn't have happened if it
42:53wasn't for those
42:55changing
42:56nature of the oil relationship between
42:58the two countries.
42:59William Binney, the whistleblower has
43:01been on our show says that
43:03the NSA can easily get access to all
43:06these emails. So if there is illegality
43:09in the pending emails of your release or
43:11malfeasance in the ones you've already
43:13released
43:15President Obama could presumably act on
43:17it and get Hillary Clinton charged
43:20regardless of whether you're about to
43:22release an email
43:23which would uh
43:25mean that James Comey of the FBI would
43:27have no alternative but to arrest
43:30Hillary Clinton.
43:31Well, our our view which we have already
43:34stated is that uh
43:38that the evidence that the FBI
43:41has
43:42um
43:45is enough for a grand jury to indict
43:47already.
43:48Um that's not hard. It's it's actually
43:53saying that a grand jury will indict a
43:55ham ham sandwich if instructed to do so,
43:58but
43:58but
44:00I'm have having cuz I have a grand jury
44:02myself a federal grand jury in
44:03Washington D.C. I'm I'm well aware of
44:07what they're like. Um
44:10but
44:11the prosecutor has to ask the grand jury
44:15to indict. If a prosecutor doesn't ask,
44:17the grand jury won't indict.
44:19Uh
44:20so, that's the basic problem.
44:22Do you believe she can win given the
44:25emails you've
44:27so far not
44:28Can she win the election?
44:31That's a interesting question. I I
44:33wouldn't
44:35be willing to say
44:37so far where we really see a number of
44:39ballots.
44:39Will it be up to media to come to be
44:41covering WikiLeaks properly for
44:44uh
44:44Well, there there has has been there has
44:46been some decent coverage, to be fair.
44:48There's also
44:51was a very fast turnaround.
44:53It's interesting to to see how these
44:55things go. You know, you've got
45:00news organizations want an audience. So,
45:04initially
45:06people think, is that newsworthy?
45:08And then there's a rush, a competition
45:10for audience.
45:13And then
45:14uh
45:15you have the more politically connected
45:17people, the more senior management in
45:19news organization going,
45:21you know, this is not helpful for our
45:24industrial interests or political
45:25interests. And you have some of those
45:28interests calling up and going, what the
45:29hell are you doing? Which is one of the
45:31things that came out uh
45:33in our emails.
45:35There was some insurance calling up Phil
45:36Griffin, head of MSNBC.
45:38You're giving Trump the election in
45:39effect.
45:41Well, what the hell are you doing also
45:43in terms of you're giving Trump the
45:45election, presumably.
45:46Yeah, calling up and saying, you know,
45:49are you with us or against us?
45:51What's going on?
45:52Um and so so then you see a kind of
45:56turnaround uh in coverage over the next
45:59few days. That's a We're quite used to
46:01that with many different publications.
46:04And just one last question away from the
46:05US presidential elections. It's 5 years
46:08since Mark Duggan was shot to death by
46:11British police.
46:13Of course, Black Lives Matter in the
46:14United States has come to the fore
46:16partly because of evidence of
46:18gained via technology.
46:20Well, well, phone footage. What message
46:22would you have for Black Lives Matter
46:23both in the United States and here in
46:24Britain?
46:26Well, it's transparency. I mean, the
46:27transparency in relation to
46:30the NC League which took the head of
46:32Debbie Wasserman Schultz
46:34uh head of the Democratic Party.
46:37That came from
46:39us
46:40um
46:41presenting to the public
46:44um
46:45pristine
46:46original
46:48documentation of what
46:50people were doing.
46:51Uh and the Black Lives Matter
46:54movement has come up
46:57yes, by hard work for activists, but the
46:59the the
47:01core the of what is driving it uh is
47:05uh footage that is undeniable. And that
47:08everyone can It's not a matter of the
47:09you know, do you believe the police? Do
47:11you believe uh the friends of the person
47:14uh who was shot? The witnesses?
47:16No, there's undeniable footage of
47:18exactly what has occurred and that is
47:21um
47:22um what is stimulating um
47:26um
47:27um the
47:29both
47:30Probably
47:32uh
47:35It's what's
47:37not only stimulating parts of the black
47:39community. I think the black community
47:40has under- understood this for
47:43all too long, actually.
47:45But it's stimulating uh enormous
47:47acceptance and sympathy outside the
47:49black community because their argument
47:51is proven.
47:52Julian Assange, thank you.
47:54You're welcome.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Julian Assange Full Interview with RT Aug 6, 2016 by Media War Archive, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,573 words across 1,370 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.