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.
I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.
The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.
he can still “publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight” without publishing every document about such an institution. any particular document or set of documents may be unable to be verified or not of particular interest or already available through other sources. he didn’t promise to publish every byte that mentioned the kremlin regardless of his editorial standards.
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.
I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.
The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.
he can still “publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight” without publishing every document about such an institution. any particular document or set of documents may be unable to be verified or not of particular interest or already available through other sources. he didn’t promise to publish every byte that mentioned the kremlin regardless of his editorial standards.