[Natsu]

The claims of partisanship rely on claims that Wikileaks somehow selects their sources. They are not a hacking organization and they do not go choosing targets to hack for the leaks, so they cannot be selective in the same way that, for example, the NYT chooses openly to be.

I have yet to see anyone even claim that Wikileaks participates in the hacks themselves, let alone to provide evidence thereof.

[sanswork]

The claims of partisanship rely on Wikileaks own claims to have information that they aren't releasing.

Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.

[yorwba]

> Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.

Could you point me to a source for that?

[sanswork]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...

[yorwba]

I was expecting something more damning. But I guess they could have published the info, and the reason they didn't is not very convincing. It suggests they are more after the publicity than after a reputation of publishing anything and everything.

[Natsu]

From the description, it sounds like they got that opposition research doc that every other media organization had and which most of them said they didn't publish because they weren't able to validate it.

[sanswork]

What from the description do you think described that document?