I suspect that is precisely the line that WaPo will adopt should they bother to address what Assange has said. They'll scrutinize his ability to know and verify what he is saying and they'll point out all the opposing arguments.

If only WaPo had applied this sort of scrutiny and skepticism to their 'Russians hacked the power system' story; millions of people wouldn't be misled today and perhaps the White House wouldn't be harassing Russian diplomats.

Does that timeline add up? The announcement about the diplomats was made Thursday, and I believe the original WaPo article was published on Saturday. You could blame the WaPo for being hasty, but they certainly aren't the reason Russian diplomats are being expelled.

Because unlike the US government, WikiLeaks has a more accurate/transparent track record?

What track record does Wikileaks have of positively ID'ing their sources? To my knowledge the opposite is true.

That argument only works if you trust WikiLeaks and a lot of people don't.

When reasoning with incomplete information, things like history of credibility have to be taken into account. US Intelligence services have been caught in lie after lie. Wikileaks has never been caught lying.

Trust is not binary. You don't have to "trust" WikiLeaks to wonder if there's something sketchy going on.

Since I don't trust anyone on this issue, my only conclusion is that I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not going to pretend to be an instant expert.

(In particular, I don't trust Wikileaks to know whether they are being played or not. Attribution seems difficult.)

It's by design that you don't know what's going on here.

Yes, that's how it works. It's still the right conclusion, particularly when you're not paying close attention.

Alot of people also do trust wikileaks.

> why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite?

because he might actually know? it was his organization that received the documents, after all.

is he lying about it? possibly, but what incentive does he have to lie about it?

was he deceived himself? possibly, but if that's the rabbit hole you're going down than what would establish confidence that _any_ claim on this subject is a truthful one?

because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda that is consistent with the narrative they have been aggressively promulgating through a complicit media? Assange isn't the one trying to start a new cold war. the Clinton faction of the state department and the CIA on the other hand...

> because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda

What is CrowdStrike's "clear political agenda" and where is evidence of it?