By this logic we could say Snowden was not being HONEST because he didn't dish us any dirt on the FBI, or Russia, or any of those other Organizations / countries that he simply doesn't have dirt on.
wikileaks has access to information and they are sharing it. That's important.
I still think he is a hero who should be pardoned and lauded, but...he's a deeply flawed one.
Evidence, please.
Real truth doesn't have sides.
If you have damaging data on two people who are enemies of each other, publishing dirt on one but not the other is helping the other person -- taking a side, IOW.
Not really. The way I see it (and what I meant), is that although truthful facts can be presented in a way that favours one side, the presentation does not change the value of truth itself. Claiming that "truth has a side" is an attempt to disqualify information because you don't like it, and should not be accepted as valid reasoning by well-thinking people.
publishing dirt on one but not the other is helping the other person -- taking a side, IOW.
Then the publisher has a side, not the truth itself.
Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?
You claimed "he had nothing on Trump". And the links clearly counter that.
That's my last reply to you. I don't like my discussion partners to sleazily try and retroactively change their claims to something nobody ever talked about when shown counter arguments. That's not an honest mistake, that's simply dishonest and a waste of time.
and "undermines the democratic process by using slush funds, illegal foreign donations and a slew of felonious crimes" is hardly a moral equivalent.
So I double down on my assertion: Wikileaks has nothing on Trump.
Didn't this already happen to Trump as well, and aren't we glad we know?
Lets be 'HONEST', your problem is that the leak looks bad for the candidate you like. Were you against the Trump video that came out or is that okay?
I doubt you will find much info on how Bernie was trying to keep Clinton out by illegal means.
And you're going to need better proof it was Russia than the words of the criminals thus exposed.
Telling only one side of the truth is a form of a lie.
If you are actively soliciting, and distributing dirt on only one of the parties involved in an election, though it may be the entire truth, you are not being HONEST.
Especially if the information you are releasing was providing to you by a malicious 3rd party State who/which is releasing it to you in the hopes of influencing the election so that a candidate preferable to that 3d state comes into power (Russia).