111–120 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is comically insane to clarify matters when lies are being spread about you?
I wouldn't say "insane," but it's comical to watch an organization ostensibly dedicated to shining the light of truth into the dark places of power crawling this far up its own nethers to attempt to damage-control their own leader's bad behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.
Why else would the podesta emails be trickled out over the course of the 30 days prior to the election, each time with a promise that the juciest ones are yet to come? Wikileaks has never done a trickle-release like that with any other document dump. Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there were solid evidence of this fact, the statement wouldn't need a qualifier. Their behavior is consistent with what you'd expect from an intelligence agency. Such as well-timed releases during the 2016 US Presidential Election which seemed to heavily favor a candidate with strong ties to a foreign government well known for their intelligence capabilities.
> which seemed to heavily favor a candidate And that's surprising how, exactly? Guess what, 4chan /pol/ supported the exact same candidate, rare pepes and all, purely "for the lulz". Would you expect Assange to behave any differently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why else would the podesta emails be trickled out over the course of the 30 days prior to the election, each time with a promise that the juciest ones are yet to come? Wikileaks has never done a trickle-release like that with any other document dump. Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?
You don't have to invent an answer to that question, they have provided their own explanation. Wikileaks believed the theft of the democratic party seat would be downplayed, refuted, or ignored by the 24-hour news-cycle. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. Also wikileaks has done multi-part staged releases on many occasions before and after, including the russia files and vault 7.
If by "theft" you mean "the person who got the most votes got the nom," sure. That's not really news though. I mean, it is, but not for the reason you think it should be.
The funny thing about this is, Wikileaks very effectively got a media outlet to publish a long list of corrections to media lies about Wikileaks. Great self own, ars technica!
Since the truth of them is in dispute, it comes off more as a list of nerves the media has struck on a very vain man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us. He told us factually about a progressive candidate being illegally silenced by the democratic establishment, and it has been transformed into a quasi-russo quasi-chino NWO conspiracy?
No one has argued that Wikileaks has never done anything right. You're disingenuously oversimplifying the situation to imply that my position is ridiculous. When your ridiculous position is simply that "Wikileaks did a thing that I liked so that means they never did anything wrong and anyone that thinks its possible is just paranoid". Instead of being dismissive and condescending why not try to have a conversation?
It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why else would the podesta emails be trickled out over the course of the 30 days prior to the election, each time with a promise that the juciest ones are yet to come? Wikileaks has never done a trickle-release like that with any other document dump. Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?
You don't have to invent an answer to that question, they have provided their own explanation. Wikileaks believed the theft of the democratic party seat would be downplayed, refuted, or ignored by the 24-hour news-cycle. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. Also wikileaks has done multi-part staged releases on many occasions before and after, including the russia files and vault 7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.
I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter. Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have an opinion on the idea of a smear campaign one way or the other, but just because people have the right to say whatever they feel does not mean that there isn't some organized effort to coordinate those individuals' speech.
Should not people have freedom of association?