> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them. I hold a similar opinion to the op, and

> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them. I hold a similar opinion to the op, and don't really see how there's any narrative being formed. WikiLeaks own tweets and actions are concerning enough on their own. > #PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352 > The US OCCRP can do good work, but for the US govt to directly fund the #PanamaPapers attack on Putin seriously undermines its integrity. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717459700367790080 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717459700367790080 I read a fair bit about the Panama Papers at the time and never came away feeling like the focus was on Putin - the main thread was wealthy tax evaders across the globe. The casual mention of Soros instantly sends up alarm bells for me, as he's been a favorite punching bag of the right since the Glenn Beck days. Later, there was the whole process of releasing the DNC emails in batches week by week close to election time - this felt like deliberate social engineering to me. And finally, more recently there have been the private messages on twitter between Don Jr. and the WikiLeaks that came out - the way WikiLeaks asked for Trump's tax returns so they could look less partisan, the way they were giving suggestions, that they were communicating to begin with. There's other bits and pieces that I put less stock in - Assange's show on RT, word that they were offered Russian gov docs and turned them down, etc. But the overall tone and feel has changed a lot since 2010. Hell, you can look through their feed about a week back and they're talking about Clinton's emails and the "deep state".