3 ms·

Edit 2: Ironic, assange supporters shooting the messenger for exposing truth. I get downvoted for making a statement supported by hard evidence provided by a li

by mint2 6y ago

Edit 2: Ironic, assange supporters shooting the messenger for exposing truth. I get downvoted for making a statement supported by hard evidence provided by a linked source. Because you want something to be true does not make it so. Assange supporters like shooting the messenger now? Ironic. End edit 2 ———— > Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only. This doesn’t square. Assange wasn’t exposing everything he got, nor was he interested in looking for info on all countries. He was primarily focused on exposing info in one direction, the US, and actually had expressed indifference to exposing info on Russia. So it is impossible for his treatment to show anything about what happens if you exposure corruption equally without direction, because that is not what he did. He only shows an anecdote of what happens when you focus exposing corruption in a single foreign country, and go beyond that, to strongly support certain candidates in their elections due to personal grudges. Edit: proof -> https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-document...

colejohnson66 6y ago
Journalists are allowed to be partisan.
- mint2 6y ago
  That wasn’t what I was refuting. I was refusing the claim that what happened to assange is an example of what happens to someone who exposes corruption indiscriminately. It sounds like you just agreed with me in that Assange was partisan, and thus cannot be an example of what the OP claimed.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Your "proof" has always struck me as bizarre. Wikileaks gave a reason that they refused the data, they believed it had already been posted elsewhere. They were wrong, but it's understandable that they'd think that as part of the leak was already public and they lack a Russian speaking staff. At no point do the people offering the documents seem to reply with "only part of it is public." Without saying that, this doesn't serve as proof of anything except Wikileaks making a mistake.
- mint2 6y ago
  Okay you want more? How’s about their texts with the trump campaign. That was overtly partisan and thus their actions and exposures were not neutral exposure of all secrets, but targeted exposures with goals. Thus again, not what the OP claimed.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The OP offered no opinion on whether Assange was partisan, but I also don't see how his Twitter messages to Trump Jr. makes him partisan either. He encouraged Trump to talk about Wikileaks and to leak information to them. Nothing suggests his communication was stopping the exposure of any secrets.

by mint2 6y ago

colejohnson66 6y ago

Journalists are allowed to be partisan.

mint2 6y ago
That wasn’t what I was refuting. I was refusing the claim that what happened to assange is an example of what happens to someone who exposes corruption indiscriminately. It sounds like you just agreed with me in that Assange was partisan, and thus cannot be an example of what the OP claimed.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Your "proof" has always struck me as bizarre. Wikileaks gave a reason that they refused the data, they believed it had already been posted elsewhere. They were wrong, but it's understandable that they'd think that as part of the leak was already public and they lack a Russian speaking staff. At no point do the people offering the documents seem to reply with "only part of it is public." Without saying that, this doesn't serve as proof of anything except Wikileaks making a mistake.

mint2 6y ago
Okay you want more? How’s about their texts with the trump campaign. That was overtly partisan and thus their actions and exposures were not neutral exposure of all secrets, but targeted exposures with goals. Thus again, not what the OP claimed.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The OP offered no opinion on whether Assange was partisan, but I also don't see how his Twitter messages to Trump Jr. makes him partisan either. He encouraged Trump to talk about Wikileaks and to leak information to them. Nothing suggests his communication was stopping the exposure of any secrets.