3 ms·
This is an extraordinary claim. To my best recollection, he was only given information on the Clinton campaign. Do you have any source, any evidence whatsoever
by ZoomerCretin 5y ago
This is an extraordinary claim. To my best recollection, he was only given information on the Clinton campaign. Do you have any source, any evidence whatsoever that he had damaging information on Trump around the time that WikiLeaks released the Clinton State Department/Podesta emails?
>He chose sides, while simultaneously claiming he is neutral.
It's interesting that you can look at hard evidence of a 100% political prosecution of a _journalist_, and not think one layer deeper than what information you've been fed about him. If the United States is willing to imprison a journalist who has never set foot in the US on false charges, what makes you think they won't also manufacture a second scenario to turn public opinion against him?
"I don't agree with the political prosecution of Julian Assange, but he is responsible for (AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FALSE FLAG), therefore I do not care what happens to him."
- beeboop 5y agoAssange said if he was given stuff to leak about Trump and was able to verify it the same way he verifies anything, he would release it. There's no reason not to, it's not like Assange is the only person in the world capable of releasing stuff and performing journalism. The idea that he covered up Trump leaks is ridiculous - the leaker would just go to someone else and it'd get out regardless. This is proven by the many many Trump leaks that did get out to mainstream media.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoWow, you have the gall to criticize my argument with bullshit? /r/selfawarewolves would like a word with you, son. And to call assange a journalist is utterly laughable. Journalists provide context, history, and analysis. Assange is copypasta.