3 ms·

> This accusation is being asserted without evidence, and can therefore be dismissed without evidence. What? There's plenty of evidence. Wikileaks consistently

• jarfil 9y ago
  Unless you can prove that WikiLeaks received some information damaging to Trump and then REFUSED to publish it, all you're saying is that nobody sent them such information.
• belorn 9y ago
  Assange intention has been rather clear after the statement Hillary gave as the Secretary of State during cablegate and the involvement of US diplomats in the Swedish investigation. I don't get it why people think that he is supposed to be unbiased in his view of her and trump. What is a normal reaction to be publicly declared a murderer and enemy combatant (with an implied statement to be droned) for publishing documents from people involved in the US military that wanted to give the public information? In the context of what he perceive she has done against him, what is the likeliest outcome if he comes into contact with damaging information and a request to publish it? "No thank you, only if you provide equally damaging information on her opponent or else it will look bad?".
• culot 9y ago
  Obviously they should have withheld their timely and important trove of Clinton's wrongdoing until they had roughly an equal amount of material on her primary political opponent. That seems totally reasonable.
• fareesh 9y ago
  That is not evidence that they knowingly selectively leaked anything.