VIDEO: State Dept. Won't Give Specifics on How Assange Hurt "National Security". Or How "Russiagate" -- Used to Demonize WikiLeaks -- May Have Actually Been Israelgate.

Questioning for World Press Freedom Day .... A new report by cybersecurity expert James Bamford charges it was Israel -- not Russia --that colluded with Trump campaign. State gives no response as yet.

[Piece may be updated with full transcript and longer writeup.]

Video by decensored.news on Twitter and YouTube:

On World Press Freedom Day, in response to questioning by Matt Lee of the AP at the beginning of the State Dept. briefing, about whether Julian Assange was a journalist, spokesperson Vedant Patel said that WikiLeaks had damaged US “national security”.

I was ignored for most of the news conference as I held my hand up again and again. Eventually Patel started calling on the same reporters for a second round and at that point I finally spoke up, noting the irony of him — on Press Freedom Day — going to the same reporters over and over while ignoring others.

Only after that intervention, he finally called on me.

I asked a series of questions about WikiLeaks’ disclosure of US criminal conduct, like the mowing down of Reuters media workers in Iraq. Was that an example of WikiLeaks damaging US “national security” — by exposing US government criminality?

Patel did not give a substantial response.

I then noted that the US government is targeting Assange for such work and not for Russiagate related work which demonized Assange to many. And then I noted that James Bamford, who has written extensively on espionage and surveillance recently reported in The Nation that the dominant Russiagate narrative is even more off than most critics of it know — in fact, Israel was the conduit to the Trump campaign:

Trump apparatchik Roger Stone pointed a finger at Randy Credico, a onetime friend who had a radio program in New York, as his back channel to WikiLeaks, effectively smearing WikiLeaks and Credico.

But Bamford reports that Unit 8200, the Israeli equivalent of the NSA, was “eavesdropping on the Russians and they were picking up all this information that the Russians were getting from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. And rather than giving it to the president of United States, to Obama, which is what an ally is supposed to do, especially one that gets $4 billion a year, they instead were secretly giving it to the Trump campaign, in order to get concessions from Trump when he became president, and hopefully they were going to help make him president.”

I asked if State had any information which would contradict Bamford’s reporting. Patel did not give a substantial response. I asked for an email followup and will report on any on the record response I receive.

Added: transcript via State Department:

Go ahead, Sam.

QUESTION: Thanks so much. You refer to WikiLeaks allegedly damaging U.S. national security. People might remember that WikiLeaks came to prominence because they released the Collateral Murder video. And what that showed was U.S. military mowing down Reuters reporters – workers in Iraq. Reuters repeatedly asked the U.S. Government to disclose such information about those killings, and U.S. Government repeatedly refused to do so. Only then did we know what happened, that the U.S. helicopter gunship mowed down these Reuters workers, through the Collateral Murder video? Are you saying that disclosure of such criminality by the U.S. government impinges U.S. national security?

MR PATEL: I was answering a question about Mr. Assange.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: I was not offering an assessment on anything else.

QUESTION: But you said that he – that WikiLeaks damaged U.S. national security. Did it do so by exposing U.S. criminality?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to parse or get into specifics. What I will just reiterate again is that Mr. Assange has been charged with criminal conduct for his role in the compromise of – the largest compromise of classified information in our nation’s history. That compromise has seriously harmed U.S. national security to the benefit of our adversaries.

QUESTION: But you can’t be specific as to —

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything else to add on this.

QUESTION: Just another dimension to this is that of course you’re going after – sorry, the U.S. Government, the DOJ is going after Assange because of the disclosures pertaining to Iraq and Cablegate and so on. This is separate from the whole Russia-gate situation. I don’t know if you’re familiar with a recent report by James Bamford in The Nation. He’s coming out with a book. He’s a cyber security expert, written book all about the NSA. Piece is entitled: Trump’s Campaign’s Collusion with Israel, subtitle: while U.S. media fixated on Russian interference in the 2016 election, an Israeli secret agent’s campaign to influence the outcome went unreported. What Bamford is alleging is that Israel was actually the conduit to the Trump administration, that their unit, eight – 8200 went —

MR PATEL: I’m just going to stop you right there. I don’t —

QUESTION: No, no, no —

MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t think that’s true. I also don’t have anything else to offer on this.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’d like to know if the State Department has any assessment on this, because what this means is that this – that we – everybody was obsessed over Russia and this collusion with Trump for years, and what Bamford is reporting through his sources – and he’s a very serious NSA reporter; he wrote a book about the NSA, and he’s just come out with another book on espionage – is that Israel was actually the conduit to the Trump administration. Does the State Department have any —

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to offer on that other than —

QUESTION: Could I get something in writing?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to offer on that other than in the United States, people can write and publish whatever they want. One of the benefits of the —

QUESTION: I’d like to know if the State Department has an assessment —

MR PATEL: One of the benefits of the First Amendment.

QUESTION: I mean, it should be in the interest —

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room now. Your colleagues have their hands up.

QUESTION: I’d really like to know the State Department assessment on that.

MR PATEL: Nick, you had your hand up recently. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I’d be happy to get an email. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Nick, go ahead. You had your hand up patiently.