[walru]

And because a journalist wants to protect his source (aka. Seth Rich/his family) we have people calling him a traitor and worse. Sadly, this is one time I wish he'd put down his integrity and finally unveil who delivered him Hilary's emails.

[lawlessone]

>(aka. Seth Rich/his family)

That's Russian fake narrative there.

[walru]

A budding and vocal DNC personality with access to all the information which was gathered gets murdered at 4AM in the streets in a 'botched robbery', someone who championed Bernie, and was in a position to out how Clinton (and the rest) stole the election from him and you believe that to be a Russian narrative. Problem here is, if you ask 1000 people who Seth Rich is 999 of them would say, who? So to say that affected the election is simply bizarre.

[ryanwaggoner]

This stupid conspiracy theory couldn’t be more debunked. Not only does it make no sense, it’s been investigated and denounced as nonsense from dozens of organizations and professionals.

But that’s the thing about conspiracy theories: they’re unfalsifiable. Any journalist or publication or investigator or law enforcement agency or intelligence agency that disagrees is now part of the conspiracy.

Let’s play it this way: what evidence would thoroughly convince you that Seth Rich died in a simple botched robbery instead of a sprawling international conspiracy?

[sbliny]

I don't know about that. Assange alludes it was Seth Rich (calls him out by name) and says:

"Whistle blowers go through significant efforts to get us materials and often significant risks. There's a 27 year old who works for the DNC that was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Right from his mouth, not Russian propaganda - unless you're suggesting Assange himself is a Russian propagandist. It's a very interesting interview regardless.

[dragonwriter]

> Right from his mouth, not Russian propaganda - unless you're suggesting Assange himself is a Russian propagandist.

That's exactly what is claimed about Assange; that at least in regard to the 2016 election he has acted as a willing agent of a Russian propaganda operation.

[fastball]

In the "Collateral Murder" era, Assange seemed to be nothing more than a whistleblowing journalist with good intentions.

At this point though, it's very clear that Assange is a partisaned actor with a very clear and very biased agenda (the fall of America). Whether or not you agree with that agenda does not change the fact that it is anything but impartial and he can't be trusted to deliver fair or balanced reporting.

[belorn]

Having politicians say on media that you should get drone killed or get the death penalty for being a journalist do get personal, as does it when the candidate is implicated as interfering with a police investigation (US diplomats in Sweden was documented to have visited the prosecutor in the case of Sweden vs Assange and put diplomatic pressure on it). Plenty of commenters during the 2016 election concluded that Assange had a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton.

But it doesn't matter much as any leaked document always get studied and verified as much as it is possible. If the leak information is a source code for a state written virus, NSA documents, or banking information, in the end it is journalists at news papers that dig further, verify and follows up on the leaked information.

[ryanlol]

Why a personal vendetta against Clinton and not the US in general?

[yholio]

Because he's not releasing nuclear codes or instructions to build centrifuges - rather, sensitive information relevant to internal politics.

This idea that you could "destabilize" a country by posting newsworthy material covered by free speech will not stand in any court.

[Tepix]

Being a biased journalist wasn't illegal last time i checked.

It's not "very clear" to me that Assange's agenda is the "fall of America".

[fastball]

Where did I say or imply it was?

It's very clear that his agenda is a destabilization of America rather than a unilateral revealing of the truth.

The former is not an agenda I align with, but the latter is (even if it causes the destabilization of America as a side-effect).

If you haven't seen how these leaks are very targeted in both timing and scope, you haven't been paying attention.

[RobertoG]

"Being a biased journalist wasn't illegal last time i checked."

Certainly, all the journalist should be in jail then.

[walru]

No.... that's only because this has gone against the narrative you wish existed.

[fastball]

What exactly is the narrative I wish existed?

The facts are that Assange does not release information as soon as it has been vetted, and he does not release everything that could be released. This is not a man who wants to reveal the truth at large, this is a man that wants to reveal certain truths and not others with a very specific political agenda.

I fully supported Assange when he seemed an unbiased actor in pursuit of the truth and holding the US and others accountable for their actions. I was horrified at many of the early Wikileaks leaks, but glad that such things were being brought to light. But now it seems that Assange neither cares for the transgressions of any other country save the US, and neither does he seem to care for the truth for the sake of it.