3 ms·
This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their
by hallihax 7y ago
This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their job is to publish things powerful people don't want published. That's it. Why should WL be on your side? Why shouldn't WL release info damaging to Clinton? It's hardly Assange's fault the US keeps committing war crimes and engaging in blatant corruption, is it?
- brohee 7y agoThe issue is that in this specific case, it was willingly publishing things powerful people wanted to be published. (Also I'm euro and don't have a dog in this fight, I just lost all respect for Assange and Wikileaks).
- hallihax 7y agoYou're confusing correlation with causation. It doesn't matter who or what stood to gain from Clinton's emails being published; unless you can demonstrate an illegal conspiracy (which you can't), there's nothing to say. WL did their job, nothing more.