21–30 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a "credible" (read: state-approved) news organization had released those emails, would you have the same thoughts toward them?
News organizations wouldn't drop all the emails at once. Previous enormous leaks have been handled by ICIJ members with great care, going for years of investigations, careful verifications, and publishing only pertinent stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a "credible" (read: state-approved) news organization had released those emails, would you have the same thoughts toward them?
News organizations wouldn't drop all the emails at once. Previous enormous leaks have been handled by ICIJ members with great care, going for years of investigations, careful verifications, and publishing only pertinent stories.
Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
So much for WikiLeaks thinking there was a lesser evil back in 2016
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was illegal about releasing campaign emails that were given to them?
When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
What was illegal about releasing campaign emails that were given to them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
What was illegal about releasing campaign emails that were given to them?
NY Time has a great 3-part video series about Russia's history of spreading fake news. Each video is about 15 minutes but it's well worth the watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
Yes, they are a news organization. Covering the election is what a news organization should do, and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't newsworthy. >They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly coordinated with Russia. And that TV…
Wow. Freedom of the press is dead.