[hallihax]

Assange is on record dismissing both candidates in the 2016 election as terrible choices, and the DNC / Clinton documents WL released also included oppo-research on Trump.

Wikileaks publications preceding and during the 2016 campaigns weren't targeted at damaging Clinton, as much as the Clinton camp and its surrogates like to claim. It was about informing the public, which is exactly what journalism is supposed to do. What people subsequently do with that information is entirely up to them.

[fanatic2pope]

> “Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

> It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

[hallihax]

This is called 'cultivating sources', not 'collusion'. In any case, the conversations led to nothing. WL wanted info and data - which is their trade, and to boost the reach and impact of their publications; again, completely normal.

What's the problem, exactly?

[fanatic2pope]

If you don't see a problem with wikileaks specifically looking for a curated "leak" to help Trump's campaign and their own appearance of "impartiality", there's not much else to say here.

[hallihax]

I don't see any problem whatsoever with a journalistic organisation approaching potential sources, no. How else do you imagine this works?

[fanatic2pope]

LOL. Spin spin spin, and downvote dissenting opinions. You guys are transparent.

[hallihax]

I haven't downvoted you - and there's no spin.

Just because people with vested interests in destroying journalism keep saying that journalists talking with your political opponents is some sign of underhanded activity, it doesn't make it true.