[SEJeff]

People still actually trust wikileaks? Assange just admitted that the Trump campaign approached him for the Hillary emails, yet that wasn't reported. Their unbiased release all of the information narrative fell over years ago. Now they're more or less tools used by Russia to sow dissent amongst the US and western / NATO nations.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-wikileak...

So why didn't wikileaks mention that?

[pizzetta]

Hasn't Assange said that the campaign reached out to them? Opposition research is not extraordinary. Wasn't it revealed the Trump Dossier was paid ofr by Podesta/DNC?

They all do the same stuff.

That said, what has WikiLeaks published that has turned out untrue?

[fixed Pedestal/Podesta autocomplete]

[tyleraldrich]

> Wasn't it revealed the Trump Dossier was paid ofr by Pedestal/DNC?

http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-trump-russia-dossier-cli...

Allegedly also partially "funded by an unknown Republican during the GOP primary."

> That said, what has WikiLeaks published that has turned out untrue?

I don't think anybody is arguing that WikiLeaks is posting fake news or untrue information - the argument is that WikiLeaks is curating the information it releases in order to send a specific message.

[crummy]

I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?

[_b8r0]

Yes. Their entire Erdogan files release was a tragedy from start to finish

They released a bunch of info claimed to be mails from the inner echelons of the AKP (ruling Islamist party) that turned out to be an archive of a public Yahoo group used by random Turks to bitch about things including politics.

If they'd have hired a basic Turkish speaker to look at the leak, they'd have avoided being burned. Instead, they decided to get into a spat with an actual journalist and researcher who's been working against Erdogan for years and tried to paint them as Erdogan shills.

[SEJeff]

If you only release half of a narrative to fit your view, are you being truthful? It is debatable as it allows people to potentially infer untruths.

[kej]

Not just that, but they timed releases to benefit one side. The Podesta emails dropped an hour after the Access Hollywood video. That's not a coincidence.

[grandalf]

Not sure why this matters. Due to both publications I decided not to vote for either of the two candidates. It would not have mattered when either piece of information was released, both were enough to convince me that the third party candidates needed more love.

[indubitable]

What is your logic for thinking this is even possibly the case?

Consider something. Let's use Trump as an example, since the discussion of 'why aren't they releasing stuff on [the other side]' is generally connected to him. Imagine somebody had a treasure trove of leaked and compromising information on Trump. And they then submitted this information to Wikileaks. As the weeks and months passed by, it became clear to them that Wikileaks was not going to publish this information. Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets? US media outlets would do absolutely anything for this sort of information.

I'm curious to see where my logic may be failing me.

[FilterSweep]

> Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets?

Other outlets are accepted [by general public] to have already been compromised wrt bias.

Up until the Trump campaign - Wikileaks was considered to be an unbiased leak of private and/or confidential information.

The name "Wiki" even intentionally evokes the name Wikipedia, the (slightly biased) generalist source of information that appears at the top of many of our search results.

In many cases, Wikileaks is actually worse. Seeing MSNBC or Fox News flash on the screen, we know the bias put forth by the company. We don't know Assange's bias. Correction, we do now.

To be honest, I'm curious to see how your logic even equated Wikileaks to other media outlets in the first place.

[indubitable]

I don't feel you're answering the question. I asked exactly why you felt there was good reason to consider, let alone assume, that Wikileaks is choosing to withhold meaningful and impactful information on Trump.

If I take your response as the answer then it would imply you believe that somebody would choose to simply not publish substantive leaks if they couldn't get them published by wikileaks. However, I'm sure you don't believe that, so that must be a straw man - leading me to believe that you probably are simply choosing to not answer the question.

[SEJeff]

As a voter, if someone hired by a potential political nominee asked Wikileaks for illegally acquired information, I'd like to know. In a hypothetical world where Wikileaks gave them that information, it would in fact be criminal.

Assange stated that the data was requested by Cambridge Analytica knowing they were hired by the Trump campaign for normal opposition research. I consider withholding that information alone (the fact that the guys Trump's campaign hired attempted to break the law and were rebuffed) as quite impactful. Trump is quite tight with Brad Parscale, as he was the "Campaign Digital Director" in charge of these things.

[FilterSweep]

There are far too many assumptions in this comment, particularly in the second paragraph, to even begin to unpack.

Your entire Parent post is centered around a false equivalency between MSM outlets and Wikileaks.

Here's a similar assumption I'll throw your way: Parent personally slighted you and/or your belief system, and caused you to react this aggressively to my comment.

If I were to employ the same non-sequitur logic you used about myself further, I would reckon you are a shill.

[pizzetta]

Are you saying they are withholding information or that they only get one side of the information?

They can't publish what they don't receive.

[hackinthebochs]

Assange actually admitted that they have stuff on Trump that they didn't release.

[carry_bit]

Does he need to release it if it's well covered elsewhere?

[SEJeff]

If they want to pretend they're unbiased, yes. Who's to say the other release wasn't only partial?

[FilterSweep]

This should be the disclaimer every single time Wikileaks comes up in a discussion.