Information was passed to trusted reporters because they were the only ones who had access and the ability to publish in a newspaper so that many people could be informed at once.

This is no longer exclusively the purview of newspaper/television reporters.

If someone pressed Assange on this matter, I imagine he'd point out that he has more experience examining and organizing major leaks than almost any reporter. And, further, that he trusts himself more than he trusts the objectivity of reporters.

Now, I can disagree on those claims, and I think I do, but there's no particular reason an experienced data-handler is inherently wrong for not using reporters.

It doesn't work like that.

In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if they felt the media was biased.

The refusal to redact is plain and simply philosophical.

The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?

I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government?

Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue.

Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.

I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.

The DNC portrayed itself as a candidate-agnostic intermediary that wanted to see a Democrat win the election. They fundraised, did press coverage, and organized events using that claim. They were repeatedly accused of being biased, and they denied the accusations then publicly mocked the accusers for spinning crazy conspiracies.

So no, the DNC didn't 'rig' the primary, they didn't have the power. But everyone who donated to the DNC has a right to be angry. The DNC is free to operate as they choose, but they lied about how they operate, and took money under those false pretenses. We aren't expected to accept that behavior from companies or charities, and I don't want to accept it from political groups either.

Those elections use the state's voting machines and vote security infrastructure. That's functionally equivalent to being state-funded, even if the funding is in terms of human-power and machine use donation and not cash.

The state pays me to assist with the operations of the taxpayer-purchased-and-funded voting machines for the purpose of executing both the Democrat and Republican primary elections (and no other primary elections) on PA primary day. I don't know how that can be not "state-funded."

I drive to work on government supplied roads, but that doesn't mean you have a moral or legal right to hack my company email.

Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense.

My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd.

Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors.

So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.

In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?

Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.

Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate.

As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State.

Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries.

If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose.

To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.

As an example, say what you want, Donald Trump is clearly not a conservative in any meaningful sense of conservatism. What is the long run result of his candidacy? there is a high probability that the long run result is irreversible damage to Republican party. Surely, party officials can act to prevent something like this, and not simply act as disinterested administrators. A political party in the US is essentially a private non for profit organization - that can run its affairs as the leadership of that party sees fit

That's the entire point.

People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.

No, not exactly.

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1]

I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption.

[1] https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

What pray tell is actually meant by "vetting?"

Something tells me you would not be making this comment if they released leaks that implicated "evil" corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart, Koch, ect.

As much as I like The Intercept, for example, they do not have the same reach as the WSJ or the NYT.

It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears.

Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.

Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The DNC staffer that died _was murdered_. That's exactly what happened. I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy.

A $20k reward might clear the air either way.

Yes, thanks for correcting that.

You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.