8 ms·
Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? It doesn't work that way really. Either he is reliable, or not reliab
by angry-hacker 10y ago
Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? It doesn't work that way really. Either he is reliable, or not reliable to begin with. I have every reason believe he is, and he has demonstrated that people turn a blind eye on things if it fits their narrative of the world and politics.
- ubernostrum 10y agoWhy wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? He was never neutral or objective on the subject of Hillary Clinton. And isn't it convenient that despite our knowing of multiple politicians whose private email got hacked, hers is the only one he felt was worthy of publishing... So, yeah, not exactly a "sudden" lack of objectivity on his part. Also it's been demonstrated his followers will turn a blind eye to things that don't fit their narrative.
- sanswork 10y agoYou can trust the leak without trusting the leaker. I believe everything wikileaks has leaked has been legit. I also believe they frequently make extremely misleading statements(like the Seth Rich stuff) to push their own goals and I wouldn't doubt for a second that they would lie to push forward their own goals/or mask them.
- untog 10y agoWe never needed to trust Assange, because we knew the source of the leaks - Snowden. I trust Snowden, I have never particularly trusted Assange.