| > In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign In my opinion, Donna Brazile lost her moral high ground after it came out, from Assange, via the Podesta leaks, that she was communicating with the Clinton Campaign and helping them prep the debate questions. Or does "moral high ground" only apply to one side in your book? > he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage Very unjournalistic of him! Real news organizations never play sides, or game the news cycle, or the political cycle. For example: I'm confident someone just a happened to stumble upon the Access Hollywood tapes in some dusty archive right at the moment they were released, and no thought was given to timing. > If he exposed corruption or overreach in the Obama admin, or something that Hillary did as SoS, that had the side effect of Trump winning, that's fair game and he would have my support. Did he ever mention Libya in any of his leaks or interviews? I forget. |
Yea, she leaked that the debate held in Flint, Michigan would talk about lead contamination in the drinking water, as if that wasn't super obvious.
Yes, it was a shitty move, she wasn't on high moral ground in my book in the first place. But why bring up the whataboutism? Lets agree that both Donna and Assange are political agenda driven partisans not deserving of respect? But it was never a secret with Donna, she was always heavily democratic and partisan and it's known to everyone. Meanwhile Assange tries superhard to appear non-partisan, even begging Trump Jr for some leaks so that he could fake being nonpartisan!
>Very unjournalistic of him! Real news organizations never play sides, or game the news cycle, or the political cycle.
So Assange is bad as Fox News or MSNBC now? I thought the hype about Wikileaks was how clean they were.
>For example: I'm confident someone just a happened to stumble upon the Access Hollywood tapes in some dusty archive right at the moment they were released, and no thought was given to timing.
So Wikileaks is the same as shitty media sources and not some saints out to change the world like 75% of ppl on here are saying?
Thanks for making my point.