4 ms·

> I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selecti

> I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selection of leaks. "selective omission", if you will. They have information about Trump but chose not to release it. According to Breitbart (so you know it's not from a "liberal media" source): http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-donald-trump/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona... > “We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day ..." I don't know about you, but I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated. It really doesn't help that they were selling explicitly anti-Clinton merchandise in their store: http://i.imgur.com/AjsWfqg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AjsWfqg.jpg This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias. If they were releasing everything they had, it would be hard to criticize. But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, it's hard not to make the argument that they are playing politics.

grandalf 10y ago
> This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias. I thought of this, but certainly there would have been someone CC'ed on one of those emails who would have leaked it to prove WL was sitting on relevant emails. This didn't happen.
- wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
  Mind explaining the logic?
  - grandalf 10y ago
    All they'd need to do is leak a single email, or even a snippet of a single email that was in the relevant date range but not released, and assert that WL had suppressed it. FWIW we also saw HRC and her cronies claiming that the recently released emails were doctored. They made this claim straight-faced and it was cryptographically proven to be completely false. So claims about WL's motivations and actions have thus far not stood up to scrutiny, and our officials have thus far been proven to be dishonest.
    - wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
      Their motivations are irrelevant. Proving politicians are hypocrites is easier than finding metaphors in the bible. Their releases have undeniably been assimilated by one candidate using WL's credibility and flavor of scandal. WL went along with it. "Troves" don't have signatures. Omissions and context matter. See the ICIJ approach.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > "Troves" don't have signatures. Omissions and context matter. See the ICIJ approach. Even a single email offered by anyone claiming WL omitted emails would suggest you might be right. None have been offered.
rdtsc 10y ago
> I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. I agree! I wish they did if they had it. > Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated. But what was shown was still factual and I'll take what I can get. CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, NYT and other mass media did a pretty good job at digging into Trump. With billions of dollar media apparatus, it is not that too upsetting Wikileaks didn't cover Trump as well. Others did a pretty good job there it seems. > But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, But what is better? CNN? Facebook friends? I don't have a lot of trustworthy sources around.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

grandalf 10y ago

> This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias. I thought of this, but certainly there would have been someone CC'ed on one of those emails who would have leaked it to prove WL was sitting on relevant emails. This didn't happen.

wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
Mind explaining the logic?
- grandalf 10y ago
  All they'd need to do is leak a single email, or even a snippet of a single email that was in the relevant date range but not released, and assert that WL had suppressed it. FWIW we also saw HRC and her cronies claiming that the recently released emails were doctored. They made this claim straight-faced and it was cryptographically proven to be completely false. So claims about WL's motivations and actions have thus far not stood up to scrutiny, and our officials have thus far been proven to be dishonest.
  - wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
    Their motivations are irrelevant. Proving politicians are hypocrites is easier than finding metaphors in the bible. Their releases have undeniably been assimilated by one candidate using WL's credibility and flavor of scandal. WL went along with it. "Troves" don't have signatures. Omissions and context matter. See the ICIJ approach.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > "Troves" don't have signatures. Omissions and context matter. See the ICIJ approach. Even a single email offered by anyone claiming WL omitted emails would suggest you might be right. None have been offered.

rdtsc 10y ago

> I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. I agree! I wish they did if they had it. > Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated. But what was shown was still factual and I'll take what I can get. CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, NYT and other mass media did a pretty good job at digging into Trump. With billions of dollar media apparatus, it is not that too upsetting Wikileaks didn't cover Trump as well. Others did a pretty good job there it seems. > But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, But what is better? CNN? Facebook friends? I don't have a lot of trustworthy sources around.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]