4 ms·
> WikiLeaks does this every time they choose not to publish evidence damning people they support, which I'd be willing to bet happens more often than we all kno
by mi100hael 9y ago
> WikiLeaks does this every time they choose not to publish evidence damning people they support, which I'd be willing to bet happens more often than we all know.
I'd bet it doesn't happen all that frequently. If you were a source and Wikileaks refused to publish, wouldn't you just take your material elsewhere and make it known Wikileaks tried to squash a story?
- txcwpalpha 9y agoYou mean like this? http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/347007-wikileaks-rejected-documents-on-russia-during-2016-election http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/347007-wikileaks-rej... I only wonder how many times similar things happen but we don't hear about it because the source doesn't have the connections/credibility to make WikiLeaks' refusal known.
- norikki 9y agoIf it had been legitimate dirt on Russia or Trump, the NYT or Washington Post would have published it. That means this guy was attempting to discredit Wikileaks by passing them bogus intel like the "Trump dossier" mixed with already public info. Wikileaks made the right call, and you sound mad about it.
- Stanish 9y ago"An unidentified source told the hill"