| I always found asking for sources on the internet kinda odd, you could have found the sources in the same number of characters as your reply. Seems to mainly be a way to lazily dismiss people relying on their memory, this is a forum and expecting everyone to have a source handy for every belief and opinion they have is absurd. If you actually care you're going to put your own research in anyways and not rely on the source provided by the OP. Anyways I was curious and did the 5 mins of research for you. > Selling Russia Uranium while accusing them of working for the other side. Seems to be old news and not part of what was released by Wikileaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... > Citibank supplying Obamas entire cabinet. Evidence seems to be pretty damning. If you want to pick at the source all the pieces are out there for you to look at yourself. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wiki... Anyways I'm more concerned about the accuracy of the information than the motive for releasing it, and the accuracy doesn't seem to be in question even by the DNC. > Wikileaks has clearly hooked its wagon to the anti-NATO, anti-EU, pro-Russia, nationalist movement that elected Donald Trump I'm not sure they have. I think they are more on the fuck the HRC train, HRCs stance towards whistle blowers while breaking the same rules without repercussions to hide corruption might be what resulted in the unprecedented amount of information that was leaked. There are people who hate HRC. Whether all this would have happened if the DNC presidential candidate had been someones else is debatable. Or maybe Russia runs Wikileaks now. Sad that the most effective way Russia can manipulate our nation to provide transparency, the promise of which is the main reason I voted the way I did last election. |