5 ms·

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty muc

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other potential news... Not that I want to see Trump win of course, but I don't want to give a free pass to the other side either. edit: grammar

ceejayoz 10y ago
There is precisely zero evidence the DNC primaries were rigged in the Wikileaks DNC content.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Did the DNC favor one candidate over another in any way?
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    They had a clear preference, just like the RNC preferred a non-Trump candidate. Imagine what you'd read about Trump in their emails. That's not evidence of election rigging.
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      It was not just preference, they interfered with the media to change their peaces on Clinton. It's not just opinions here, they acted on them.
      - cynicalkane 10y ago
        The context of the "interference" is that people affiliated with the Sanders campaign were accusing them of rigging the Nevada primary, which very obviously did not happen. It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        This is false, and your "correcting the record" is only spreading mistruths. This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.
        sitic 10y ago
        This email is dated May 21, just 2 weeks before AP called the primary for Clinton. It was pretty clear by that point to everyone that Clinton would win the primary. I'm not surprised to see DNC discussing narratives for the point when the primary is over. This is no evidence that the primary was rigged.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Bernie had not conceded and the DNC still was obligated to be neutral. And yet, they were not. So strange that they forgot to mention to shop this story around after the primary. How did you pick up on this intent of theirs without them saying it?
        sanderjd 10y ago
        I feel like I'm just a curious bystander here - I haven't read much about the emails, nor looked at any of them individually until clicking on your link, so I really haven't formed an opinion on how noxious they are - but I don't see the smoking gun you seem to see in that email... Could you provide some more perspective on the issue, for those of us who are new to this debate?
        tanderson92 10y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/he... The religion, "Bernie's campaign is disorganized" talking points, and Hillary Victory Fund e-mails are the most odious in my opinion.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      This is a weak talking point. The DNC has in its charter that it must be neutral. What the RNC may have thought of Trump is irrelevant. Anyway, you really want to be playing moral limbo with the RNC right now? That is where the moral high ground is? As others mentioned, there was coordination on talking points as well to discredit his campaign.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        The DNC also has in its charter that they must work to get Democratic candidates elected and work towards getting the ideals of the Democratic Party implemented. Sanders didn't lose because the DNC said mean things in their internal email system. He likely lost because he never made much of a dent in the heavily black Democratic voting population in the South.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Did I say anything about why he lost? In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning. Nope, pure distraction in an attempt to deflect from my points. Also see: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        > In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning. That would seem to deflate your point a bit. Surely the DNC isn't violating its neutrality promise if the candidate has effectively been already chosen? > I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"! I've seen this thrown around several times in this thread. Is it an accusation I'm being paid by the Hillary campaign? If so, LOL.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Not at all. They are to remain neutral as long as they claimed they were. Sanders was still an active candidate through the DC primary, and he actively contested the California primary. The candidate had not been chosen, but the DNC lackeys (edit: sorry, top officials) were coordinating media coverage against him.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - _asummers 10y ago
    Accidentally downvoted you on mobile, apologies.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      For the record, there's a new "undown" button for when that happens.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  Except for a few people who had to quit their jobs and clear favoritism from the DNC chief which is supposed to be neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz.27s_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    Which is, again, not evidence that anything got rigged. The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.
    - dpweb 10y ago
      There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged. While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        > That's impossible if it was rigged. That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump. It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.
      - krapp 10y ago
        >There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged. And yet Trump has accused the RNC process of being rigged many times. Strange how the current narrative seems to be that only the DNC is exceptionally corrupt, to the point of rigging an election, and possibly having Seth Rich killed as if the Democratic party was literally a crime syndicate. There really isn't proof of anything, either way, other than "rigged elections" being the current political accusation du jour.
- billbail 10y ago
  Take a look at the evidence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-c...
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge > The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it." Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information. > Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery." Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt." > Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      >Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        Good thing there are five others in the section I quoted alone.
ZoF 10y ago
*Critiques from liberals But yes, agreed; Wikileaks wasn't an issue until the leaks started showing corruption of the DNC. Now that it has, apparently the corruption isn't the problem, that evidence of corruption can be leaked is the problem. Hmm.... Really makes you think. Time to Correct The Record.
dvcc 10y ago
From my perspective, the DNC leaks really didn't show that the primaries were rigged. It basically just showed that workers within an organization are human and naturally form biases. These were not public communications from the DNC, but private conversations between individuals. Expecting them to practice full-neutrality in every conversation is a little too much to expect.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  Most of the infamous emails can be summarized with a "Hey, lets do X" followed by a coded "No". There is no smoking gun whatsoever.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eli 10y ago
If it helps, I'm a liberal who has found Wikileaks/Assange increasingly obnoxious for years. IMHO you see more people upset about Wikileaks now because they're actually doing things that are more objectionable.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Which could also mean they are doing things that are more important.
  - eli 10y ago
    I'm sure many Sanders supporters were happy for ammunition to help their case that they were treated unfairly, but I don't think catty behavior at the DNC is anywhere near as important as Wikileaks' earlier work uncovering potential war crimes in Iraq. And I find Assange's overt attempt to influence the outcome of a US election much more distasteful than anything that was in those DNC emails.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      I wasn't thinking about the DNC in particular. I was responding to the parents growing annoyance with WikiLeaks.
  - lallysingh 10y ago
    Or just more objectionable.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Subjectively yes.
mtanski 10y ago
I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an independent. He joined/registered early enough before the process started... but essentially he was just renting the ticket. I can understand how the party would try to dissuade that. Which leads to my third point, the party has to care about its platform, future viability and not just one candidate. The Clinton have a long history with the DNC. Obviously Bill was a generally well liked president before (by the base) but they have done a lot over the years to support other Democratic candidates in State, Congressional and even Mayoral races. They've raised a lot of money for the DNC and down tickets candidates. Finally, Bernie didn't earn any extra points (my eyes) by claiming a lot of problems with voting and the process it self. He benefit from the system where there were caucuses; in NYC (where the DNC electoral organizer sucks) he voters that were purged were in heavy HRC; and to take the the next level the campaign started claiming at the end it was going to flip the super delegates after bitching about it for a while. TL;DR Parties have their own rules; Bernie did not pay his DNC dues; parties have to care about a lot more then a single election; Bernie acted like a spoiled child about ballot box issues. Disclosure: I'm registered independent in NY. Can't vote in either parties primary as a result of that.
- mason240 10y ago
  >First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.
  - mtanski 10y ago
    > Literally no one is saying otherwise Nice, Argumentum ad populum. After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).
krapp 10y ago
Plenty of people have been criticizing Wikileaks since the beginning, not just "liberals." If you really want to be fair about not giving people a free pass, don't give Assange one either. He's made his anti-Clinton bias clear, and it's obvious that his leaks only serve to benefit one specific party, not the cause of truth in general. And let's not pretend that "the DNC rigged the election" is actually an assertion that's supported more by the leaked documents than by Trump-camp propaganda.
brianlweiner 10y ago
Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy. If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They definitely previously referred to Assange as a criminal and a threat to national security, but I guess as long as he's anti-Hillary he's a hero?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mtanski 10y ago
  Assange has a personal vendetta against HRC because while Secretary of State she complicated his life. She wanted to find a way to indict/prosecute him and she made sure a lot of nations doors would be closed to him. Details on vendetta: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-... I like the mission of wiki leaks; I think they should do some basic editing like not leaking names or ordinary citizens (or low level gov employees). But, I think Assange is terrible front man for the organization. I guess nobody else wants the job.
ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
I'm not sure this is accurate. In fact, conventional wisdom says that Assange is pursuing this as revenge against HRC, who has historically been a major opponent of his. If he isn't pursuing revenge against her, then why isn't he going after the RNC?
- ja30278 10y ago
  I feel compelled to point out that your question has 2 assumptions: - that the RNC is equally corrupt as the DNC - that Assange has (or could obtain) evidence of that corruption. If either of these assumptions is incorrect, then your question is meaningless.
  - ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
    Based on your two points, I'm kind of leaning toward the question having some meaning.

ceejayoz 10y ago

There is precisely zero evidence the DNC primaries were rigged in the Wikileaks DNC content.

mistermann 10y ago
Did the DNC favor one candidate over another in any way?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  They had a clear preference, just like the RNC preferred a non-Trump candidate. Imagine what you'd read about Trump in their emails. That's not evidence of election rigging.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    It was not just preference, they interfered with the media to change their peaces on Clinton. It's not just opinions here, they acted on them.
    - cynicalkane 10y ago
      The context of the "interference" is that people affiliated with the Sanders campaign were accusing them of rigging the Nevada primary, which very obviously did not happen. It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        This is false, and your "correcting the record" is only spreading mistruths. This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.
        sitic 10y ago
        This email is dated May 21, just 2 weeks before AP called the primary for Clinton. It was pretty clear by that point to everyone that Clinton would win the primary. I'm not surprised to see DNC discussing narratives for the point when the primary is over. This is no evidence that the primary was rigged.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Bernie had not conceded and the DNC still was obligated to be neutral. And yet, they were not. So strange that they forgot to mention to shop this story around after the primary. How did you pick up on this intent of theirs without them saying it?
        sanderjd 10y ago
        I feel like I'm just a curious bystander here - I haven't read much about the emails, nor looked at any of them individually until clicking on your link, so I really haven't formed an opinion on how noxious they are - but I don't see the smoking gun you seem to see in that email... Could you provide some more perspective on the issue, for those of us who are new to this debate?
        tanderson92 10y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/he... The religion, "Bernie's campaign is disorganized" talking points, and Hillary Victory Fund e-mails are the most odious in my opinion.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    This is a weak talking point. The DNC has in its charter that it must be neutral. What the RNC may have thought of Trump is irrelevant. Anyway, you really want to be playing moral limbo with the RNC right now? That is where the moral high ground is? As others mentioned, there was coordination on talking points as well to discredit his campaign.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      The DNC also has in its charter that they must work to get Democratic candidates elected and work towards getting the ideals of the Democratic Party implemented. Sanders didn't lose because the DNC said mean things in their internal email system. He likely lost because he never made much of a dent in the heavily black Democratic voting population in the South.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        Did I say anything about why he lost? In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning. Nope, pure distraction in an attempt to deflect from my points. Also see: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056 I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        > In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning. That would seem to deflate your point a bit. Surely the DNC isn't violating its neutrality promise if the candidate has effectively been already chosen? > I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"! I've seen this thrown around several times in this thread. Is it an accusation I'm being paid by the Hillary campaign? If so, LOL.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Not at all. They are to remain neutral as long as they claimed they were. Sanders was still an active candidate through the DC primary, and he actively contested the California primary. The candidate had not been chosen, but the DNC lackeys (edit: sorry, top officials) were coordinating media coverage against him.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- _asummers 10y ago
  Accidentally downvoted you on mobile, apologies.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    For the record, there's a new "undown" button for when that happens.
patrickaljord 10y ago
Except for a few people who had to quit their jobs and clear favoritism from the DNC chief which is supposed to be neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz.27s_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Which is, again, not evidence that anything got rigged. The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.
  - dpweb 10y ago
    There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged. While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > That's impossible if it was rigged. That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump. It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.
    - krapp 10y ago
      >There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged. And yet Trump has accused the RNC process of being rigged many times. Strange how the current narrative seems to be that only the DNC is exceptionally corrupt, to the point of rigging an election, and possibly having Seth Rich killed as if the Democratic party was literally a crime syndicate. There really isn't proof of anything, either way, other than "rigged elections" being the current political accusation du jour.
billbail 10y ago
Take a look at the evidence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-c...
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge > The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it." Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information. > Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery." Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt." > Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    >Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      Good thing there are five others in the section I quoted alone.

ZoF 10y ago

*Critiques from liberals But yes, agreed; Wikileaks wasn't an issue until the leaks started showing corruption of the DNC. Now that it has, apparently the corruption isn't the problem, that evidence of corruption can be leaked is the problem. Hmm.... Really makes you think. Time to Correct The Record.

dvcc 10y ago

From my perspective, the DNC leaks really didn't show that the primaries were rigged. It basically just showed that workers within an organization are human and naturally form biases. These were not public communications from the DNC, but private conversations between individuals. Expecting them to practice full-neutrality in every conversation is a little too much to expect.

akhilcacharya 10y ago
Most of the infamous emails can be summarized with a "Hey, lets do X" followed by a coded "No". There is no smoking gun whatsoever.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

eli 10y ago

If it helps, I'm a liberal who has found Wikileaks/Assange increasingly obnoxious for years. IMHO you see more people upset about Wikileaks now because they're actually doing things that are more objectionable.

ThomPete 10y ago
Which could also mean they are doing things that are more important.
- eli 10y ago
  I'm sure many Sanders supporters were happy for ammunition to help their case that they were treated unfairly, but I don't think catty behavior at the DNC is anywhere near as important as Wikileaks' earlier work uncovering potential war crimes in Iraq. And I find Assange's overt attempt to influence the outcome of a US election much more distasteful than anything that was in those DNC emails.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I wasn't thinking about the DNC in particular. I was responding to the parents growing annoyance with WikiLeaks.
- lallysingh 10y ago
  Or just more objectionable.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Subjectively yes.

mtanski 10y ago

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an independent. He joined/registered early enough before the process started... but essentially he was just renting the ticket. I can understand how the party would try to dissuade that. Which leads to my third point, the party has to care about its platform, future viability and not just one candidate. The Clinton have a long history with the DNC. Obviously Bill was a generally well liked president before (by the base) but they have done a lot over the years to support other Democratic candidates in State, Congressional and even Mayoral races. They've raised a lot of money for the DNC and down tickets candidates. Finally, Bernie didn't earn any extra points (my eyes) by claiming a lot of problems with voting and the process it self. He benefit from the system where there were caucuses; in NYC (where the DNC electoral organizer sucks) he voters that were purged were in heavy HRC; and to take the the next level the campaign started claiming at the end it was going to flip the super delegates after bitching about it for a while. TL;DR Parties have their own rules; Bernie did not pay his DNC dues; parties have to care about a lot more then a single election; Bernie acted like a spoiled child about ballot box issues. Disclosure: I'm registered independent in NY. Can't vote in either parties primary as a result of that.

mason240 10y ago
>First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.
- mtanski 10y ago
  > Literally no one is saying otherwise Nice, Argumentum ad populum. After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).

krapp 10y ago

Plenty of people have been criticizing Wikileaks since the beginning, not just "liberals." If you really want to be fair about not giving people a free pass, don't give Assange one either. He's made his anti-Clinton bias clear, and it's obvious that his leaks only serve to benefit one specific party, not the cause of truth in general. And let's not pretend that "the DNC rigged the election" is actually an assertion that's supported more by the leaked documents than by Trump-camp propaganda.

brianlweiner 10y ago

Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy. If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They definitely previously referred to Assange as a criminal and a threat to national security, but I guess as long as he's anti-Hillary he's a hero?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mtanski 10y ago
Assange has a personal vendetta against HRC because while Secretary of State she complicated his life. She wanted to find a way to indict/prosecute him and she made sure a lot of nations doors would be closed to him. Details on vendetta: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-... I like the mission of wiki leaks; I think they should do some basic editing like not leaking names or ordinary citizens (or low level gov employees). But, I think Assange is terrible front man for the organization. I guess nobody else wants the job.

ComteDeLaFere 10y ago

I'm not sure this is accurate. In fact, conventional wisdom says that Assange is pursuing this as revenge against HRC, who has historically been a major opponent of his. If he isn't pursuing revenge against her, then why isn't he going after the RNC?

ja30278 10y ago
I feel compelled to point out that your question has 2 assumptions: - that the RNC is equally corrupt as the DNC - that Assange has (or could obtain) evidence of that corruption. If either of these assumptions is incorrect, then your question is meaningless.
- ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
  Based on your two points, I'm kind of leaning toward the question having some meaning.