[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.