4 ms·

You mean like this? http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/347007-wikileaks-rejected-documents-on-russia-during-2016-election http://thehill.com/policy/cyberse

You 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 ago
If 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"