4 ms·

>Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some reason never released them. [citation needed]

extra88 5y ago
I haven't heard that claim before either. The Wikipedia sources for the DNC hack article [0] say the RNC wasn't successfully hacked. "GOP" refers to the entire Republican Party so I suppose there could be emails from a different Republican origin than the RNC. > intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia attempted to hack the Republican National Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC but were prevented by security defenses on the RNC network. Searching for a source for the GOP claim did remind me of internal WikiLeaks messages from 2015 showing at least Assange's preference for the GOP over Hilary Clinton. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#United_States_intelligence_conclusions [1] https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/
slg 5y ago
Emails specifically? I'm not sure if that has ever been confirmed, but this is directly from Assange[1]: >“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post. >“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said. When it comes to leaks about Democrats, everything is worth publishing. When it comes to leaks about Republicans, it needs to "controversial" to be worth publishing. [1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
- the_optimist 5y ago
  You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.
  - slg 5y ago
    Ok, what does the quote actually say?
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely. Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
      - slg 5y ago
        That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?
        the_optimist 5y ago
        Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
        slg 5y ago
        I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.

I haven't heard that claim before either. The Wikipedia sources for the DNC hack article [0] say the RNC wasn't successfully hacked. "GOP" refers to the entire Republican Party so I suppose there could be emails from a different Republican origin than the RNC. > intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia attempted to hack the Republican National Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC but were prevented by security defenses on the RNC network. Searching for a source for the GOP claim did remind me of internal WikiLeaks messages from 2015 showing at least Assange's preference for the GOP over Hilary Clinton. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#United_States_intelligence_conclusions [1] https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/

slg 5y ago

Emails specifically? I'm not sure if that has ever been confirmed, but this is directly from Assange[1]: >“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post. >“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said. When it comes to leaks about Democrats, everything is worth publishing. When it comes to leaks about Republicans, it needs to "controversial" to be worth publishing. [1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...

the_optimist 5y ago
You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.
- slg 5y ago
  Ok, what does the quote actually say?
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely. Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
    - slg 5y ago
      That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
        slg 5y ago
        I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.