Someone who worked inside Wikileaks certainly felt they were newsworthy
We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”
Foreign Policy endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. This was the first time in its 50-year history the magazine endorsed a candidate.
you will forgive me if i don’t find your source to be credible in this regard.
It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?
>but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on
it seems to me that it was totally out (or later became totally available), regardless of the reporting that was done. it’s innuendo to imply that they refused to publish it for any reason outside of their normal editorial standards.
wasn’t he taking asylum in russia? do you really think he should have made enemies there when the US et al were already trying to jail him?
You’re thinking of Snowden. Assange was at an Ecuadorian embassy in London. Two very different cases.
oh. then is there any reason at all to think he got leaks about russia that were worth publishing?
Someone who worked inside Wikileaks certainly felt they were newsworthy
You can read more here
Foreign Policy endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. This was the first time in its 50-year history the magazine endorsed a candidate.
you will forgive me if i don’t find your source to be credible in this regard.
I mean, did you see the other guy?
I actually read the piece after checking for bias, and all the most damning stuff is innuendo. it’s a nothing burger.
It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?
>but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on
it seems to me that it was totally out (or later became totally available), regardless of the reporting that was done. it’s innuendo to imply that they refused to publish it for any reason outside of their normal editorial standards.
oh no! the situation is complex and it’s possible that even the best actors had to make some tough decisions.
Are you the actor making the tough decision to knowingly make disingenuous arguments?