I'm glad Assange is free, but he really pushes the definition. He wasn't a whistleblower, he actively pushed whistleblowers to deliver information that he wanted to publish. He frequently revealed sources in active warzones, and redacted a bunch of Russian financial information from their leaks on Syria.
What, by picking and choosing what content to release to push a political agenda?
Like getting leaked data from the DNC and RNC and coordinating with the Trump campaign to time DNC leaks for maximum effect (I have no love for the DNC) while not releasing RNC content sent to you?
>What, by picking and choosing what content to release to push a political agenda?
I think you've confused wikileaks with the new york times there. The times definitely pick and choose. I have seen no evidence that wikileaks suppressed anything ever. Link if you have it as that would make them more like the times.
> Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate.
> The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation.
> Candidate Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and others in the Trump Organization received an email in September 2016 offering a decryption key and website address for hacked WikiLeaks documents, according to an email provided to congressional investigators.
> In the messages, WikiLeaks urged Trump Jr. to promote its trove of hacked Democratic emails and suggested that President Trump challenge the election results if he did not win, among other ideas.
Playing sources (presumably to get information) is not suppressing stories or burying information. I find it difficult to believe Wikileaks would have hesitated a nanosecond to hang any trump out to dry given the opportunity.
So no.
I think you wanted Wikileaks to suppress the information there and they didn’t. They published. But hell maybe Assange really did decide he preferred syphilis to gonorrhoea. Just like the times do, and the post, wsj, and Fox, cnn and mother jones. It’s a very establishment media thing to do. Clapper disagrees, sure.
The content of the emails was the problem not Wikileaks for publishing truth.
Wikileaks gave access to third parties for documents they were publishing many times. So dues everyone when the story is big and impact is desired. So what?
> I find it difficult to believe Wikileaks would have hesitated a nanosecond to hang any trump out to dry given the opportunity.
And yet they did have leaks about the RNC that weren't released. Why?
I mean, dirt on Trump isn't hard to come by - are you claiming that not once has anyone sent Wikileaks negative information on him or his campaign, and that's the only reason we haven't seen any?
> I think you wanted Wikileaks to suppress the information there and they didn’t.
To be unequivocally clear - The DNC is corrupt to its very soul. Whatever you or I think of Bernie Sanders, the way they handled the whole Sanders/Clinton situation is despicable and vile and an insult to the members of the party they purport to lead. And the fact that Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was running the Clinton campaign, effectively, less than 24 hours after being finally forced out of DNC leadership, to me just demonstrates that those theories were accurate.
> The content of the emails was the problem not Wikileaks for publishing truth.
Yes.
The other problem is Wikileaks sitting on OTHER email contents and choosing NOT to publish them AND communicating with political candidates on what they'd like to see leaked and not, and when.
>are you claiming that not once has anyone sent Wikileaks negative information on him or his campaign, and that's the only reason we haven't seen any?
There is nothing that wikileaks is even credibly accused of suppressing. Trump leaks are found on the front page of the new york times. Lead story of CNN, NBC, CBS, wapo, wsj and fox. Eg his tax return. There is no need for whistleblowers to send things to wikileaks. If wkileaks didn't publish, you'd see it and also likely claims from the source that it happened.
"There must be massive trump dirt so if we haven't seen it that's wikileaks supressing it." Difficult to believe.
Again if there is /any/ credible accusation that wikileaks suppressed /anything/ at all in support of republican presidents, like we know the ny times did, let's see it. Let them answer for it specifically. These constant smear accusations that are totally evidence free look really bad.
