Well played.Would it be less transparent if they didn't make their intentions obvious?
I don't know if this is legit, but Wikileaks certainly has become agenda driven. Not sure it started out that way, but it appears to me that a combination of self-preservation and ego may be what motivates its' actions these days.
Wikileaks has always been agenda-driven. It's an anti-establishment, vigilante kind of agenda.
I think Wikileaks will lose support from a lot of people after this election. I think they highlighted one of the fears people had with them; selectively leaking information to pursue and agenda and propagandize.
Perhaps, it just seems overly focussed on the US. That said, perhaps I am ill informed on the kind of things it has exposed over the years.
Would it be less transparent if they didn't make their intentions obvious?
Depends on what kind of transparency we're talking about. More transparent with their intentions, perhaps, but clearly there should be some doubt their transparency when it comes to their so-called willingness to release any and all information to the public.
Selectively leaking information to pursue and agenda and propagandize.
What information are they currently withholding that you believe would be relevant to today?
Whether or not they actually are withholding information is really beside the point, particularly since it would be almost impossible to verify. The point is that they've made it obvious that they can't be trusted to be an 'equal opportunity' offender.
What information are they currently withholding that you believe would be relevant to today?
I'm not surprised a bit, IMO Wikileaks exists to promote an agenda and little else, they are not about freeing information and Assange is no hero.
ABC News radio just reported that Wikileaks dropped another load of Clinton campaign emails, this time relating to opposition Bernie Sanders research developed during the primary. Wow, I am so underwhelmed... again. Something that all campaigns do and it's some kind of revelation? These timed releases clearly prove that they withhold information and try to time its release in hopes of having a negative effect on our electoral process. Granted, these releases are damned lame but that's what happens when you get desperate, have nothing and are willing to throw everything against the wall in the hope that something sticks. It's more than clear to me that Wikileaks is being used as a weapon and their main target is the United States.
But you're just asking questions, right?
t is almost completely certain that they have the very same sort of leaked documents from the RNC and certainly a long history of Trump's own correspondence within his empire, but it isn't being released.
How rational is it to accept that only the DNC and only the Clintons are capable of having their information hacked? haha.
Julian Assange despises the United States and actively wishes it harm, a fact which has been obvious since long before the election. I don't know why anyone ever thought he was politically neutral.
Anyway, his disdain for the US is why he supports Trump.
agreed, no way to compare her potential exposure to his.I agree that they're timing the leaks to maximize damage to the Clinton campaign. It is very clear that Assange does not like Clinton. However, from the context of my conversation with Balt, I was referring to Republican/Trump-related dirt that Wikileaks is refusing to release.
This assumption would seem to suggest that Russia attempted to or successfully hacked the RNC as well, which would fly in the face of the current mantra that Russia started all of this for the primary purpose of making Clinton look bad and Trump look good.
You're also assuming that Trump's empire has the same visibility and reach that the DNC does, which I think is a pretty terrible assumption considering that Trump keeps a very tight lid on his operations and image, and does not have the same obligation to keep potentially-damning documentation on hand that a public official might.
First there is zero evidence Seth Rich gave anything to Wikileaks. Second, Seth was found conscious and alert. You don't think maybe, just maybe, he would have said something to the police himself?Are you all this stupid, or just uneducated on the subject? His issue is with Hilary, there wasn't any hacking, and the dude that gave the info was murdered.
Go look up the issues between them two, it started long before she ran for president.