That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up.

The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).

You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site.

CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-...

You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen?

This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true.

And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.

Allow me to save anyone reading this thread some time: the assertion about Clinton wanting to drone strike Assange remains unsubstantiated, as the parent comment acknowledges.

I didn't assert anything about any of the other random stuff you're mentioning.

Instead of being incredibly rude and insulting, next time if you don't follow somebody's argument, try to read it again and try to make sense of it. It does make sense in this case.

I did write that out quickly though, and it is a bit disjointed and quickly-written. Still, I think you should be able to follow along and grasp the points. I think you're being disingenuous that you can't, maybe because you don't want to continue a civil discussion for whatever reason you have.

If you don't address my point, and instead go on long non sequitur tangents, there is no discussion to be had.

Well I did respond to what you said, and that is apparent. Thanks for continuing to insult my intelligence though, good on ya mate.

Nowhere did I insult your intelligence. I insulted your argument.

No, you didn't even take the time to criticize my argument, you dismissed it entirely. If you had actually read it you would understand what I was trying to say.