If I’m tracking properly, they got hacked and then the internal data was given to the media, and the media hasn’t released anything. Because it benefits them to support Trump.
But I thought it was Iran that hacked Trump. Surely they have media that can make this info available.
No, that makes sense. They have the time and energy to hack the Trump campaign email servers. But somehow lack the ability to make that information public. Yeah, that makes much more sense.
Yes and no; technically they’re an independent entity but they’ve been used as useful idiots by Russian intelligence so many times at this point they’re effectively Russian
No, the whole “Wikileaks is a Russian asset” story is a farce used to unjustly discredit them, since they’ve published some extremely damning documents.
It might be because RT gave Assange his talk show on state run tv, RT claimed WikiLeaks as a partner, Assange dumped the 2016 emails after Trump’s “Russia if your listening” statement, or because after Assange claimed the hacker that provided WikiLeaks with those 2016 emails wasn’t Russian, he was.
If you step back and squint, it kind of looks like he was working with Russia because of all the work with Russia.
I mean, that’s not entirely true. Yeah, there has been a long history of US based organizations, particularly governmental ones, trying to stop Wikileaks, capture Snowden, and generally just punish whistleblowers so brutally is deters anyone else from doing it.
But that doesn’t mean that as the years went on, the mission of Wikileaks changed as they seemed to adopt a particular goal that wasn’t just “shining a light on corruption.”
So it’s not as simple as “it’s a Russian asset” and it’s not as simple as “they’re being smeared for spilling govt secrets.” It’s a mixture of the two, but not only, and not entirely.
If I’m tracking properly, they got hacked and then the internal data was given to the media, and the media hasn’t released anything. Because it benefits them to support Trump.
But I thought it was Iran that hacked Trump. Surely they have media that can make this info available.
No, that makes sense. They have the time and energy to hack the Trump campaign email servers. But somehow lack the ability to make that information public. Yeah, that makes much more sense.
Yesterday there was speculation that it was an internal leak, not a foreign country. Remember that Trump’s entire staff lies constantly.
Or because there is literally nothing worth reporting. I guarantee if there was some juicy stories, they would come out.
That’s wild. Any idea what media outlet specifically it was leaked to?
Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post it seems.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-vance-leak-media-wikileaks-e30bdccbdd4abc9506735408cdc9bf7b
I wonder why it wasn’t sent to wikileaks?
Cuz they would have sat on it
Isn’t Wikileaks Russian?
Yes and no; technically they’re an independent entity but they’ve been used as useful idiots by Russian intelligence so many times at this point they’re effectively Russian
nope.
So they were already cc’d on them.
No, the whole “Wikileaks is a Russian asset” story is a farce used to unjustly discredit them, since they’ve published some extremely damning documents.
Totally. It is a complete farce.
It might be because RT gave Assange his talk show on state run tv, RT claimed WikiLeaks as a partner, Assange dumped the 2016 emails after Trump’s “Russia if your listening” statement, or because after Assange claimed the hacker that provided WikiLeaks with those 2016 emails wasn’t Russian, he was.
If you step back and squint, it kind of looks like he was working with Russia because of all the work with Russia.
I mean, that’s not entirely true. Yeah, there has been a long history of US based organizations, particularly governmental ones, trying to stop Wikileaks, capture Snowden, and generally just punish whistleblowers so brutally is deters anyone else from doing it.
But that doesn’t mean that as the years went on, the mission of Wikileaks changed as they seemed to adopt a particular goal that wasn’t just “shining a light on corruption.”
So it’s not as simple as “it’s a Russian asset” and it’s not as simple as “they’re being smeared for spilling govt secrets.” It’s a mixture of the two, but not only, and not entirely.
You’re right, it does not mean the mission of WikiLeaks changed. It clearly hasn’t. They still have never had to retract a single document or story.
But weren’t some of the Clinton email leaks proven to be planted?
Because they would actually publish it.
Narrator: They would not