4 ms·
The Guardian one is slightly better. I don't think there is real evidence, and Assange isn't so stupid as to publicly say he supports Trump (even if he does, fo
by dharma1 10y ago
The Guardian one is slightly better. I don't think there is real evidence, and Assange isn't so stupid as to publicly say he supports Trump (even if he does, for whatever reason).
But if there is no agenda, it does make one wonder why the Wikileaks of late have focused on Clinton in the run up to the election
- cwkoss 10y agoOccams Razor says that they've only received credible leaks about the HRC campaign. Seems to me like anyone with credible evidence against Trump can sell it to the highest bidding mainstream media org and be sure it will get national attention. Why would a Trump leaker need wikileaks?
- fluentintypo 10y agoSimple. Wikileaks can only leak what others have hacked and submitted to them. Someone submitted a treasure-trove on Clinton and DNC. As soon as someone hacks the RNC and Trump (though Trump does not use email at-all, ever) and submits the result of that hack to leak to Wikileaks, they will be published. Not for nothing, but "the rest of the World" is pretty tired of America being a bully and starting never-ending wars. It is really not that spectacular that an anti-war person like Assange doesn't want the Presidency to go to Clinton or Trump, but of whom want more war and are not even limiting themselves to just 'the middle east' anymore. It is far more likely that Assange wants the only anti-war candidate in office - Gary Johnson.