But its a bit ironic to complain about a lack of leaks about the conservatives in an article about Chelsea Manning. President George W. Bush was a conservative president and the leak provided by manning through Wikileaks was criticizing the war that Bush ran. We would not be here talking if Wikileaks did not publish dumps on conservative.

Assange himself admitted it was payback,

"This is payback because she's coming after me, but otherwise we disseminate information in a fair and balanced way" doesn't seem plausible to me.

"Can't we just drone strike this guy?" -- Clinton, on Assange

Clearly selling t-shirts is worse though.

“sources at the State Department,” a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification.

Anonymous sources are unreliable? That seems important to remember...

The WSJ has a record of having anonymous sources whose stories pan out. TruePundit not so much.

Why wouldn't she simply deny it if it wasn't true?

B) You'd be biased too if somebody was trying to kill you for doing your job. Furthermore, why is it bad to be biased against a candidate that wants to kill you? Does it interfere with the secrets leaking process? Was Deep Throat's testimony marred by his political convictions?

C) When asked which candidate he preferred Assange said that it's like choosing between Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.

D) If there was a critical dump of Trump emails which he sat on, fair enough. There wasn't.

B) Probably. And it would quite likely influence my choices in what information to release and what to focus on.

C) Ok?

D) How can we know there wasn't data critical of Trump's campaign that Wikileaks sat on? If Wikileaks wasn't selling anti-Hillary merchandise I'd have an easier time believing that there wasn't.

You may think it's a joke, but some people will believe even obvious nonsense if you keep repeating it. Back in December, a man drove to Washington to "self-investigate" with a gun: https://www.google.fi/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...

Alex Jones has apologized for spreading this story. Don't be worse than him.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1223066_re-get-ready-f...

How many times did the Clinton's visit that island?

Bernie people: Please read Skippy's email.

https://i.redd.it/5nuf25zglpvx.jpg

How about that island?

Any visitor. AT THE FUCKING MOMA. How many pictures of her do you think were taken?

The links you posted didn't have anything about an island, so if you want me to do your googling for you, please be more precise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramović#The_Artist_Is...

The island is Little St. James.

What are you trying to accomplish with all these bizarre hints ("sounds like you know...")? Do you think I'm part of some conspiracy?

The 'sounds like you know' is because I incorrectly assumed you swearing about that pic meant you knew who that is. It's a totally reasonable reaction. That's Anthony Weiner (former congressman). Joe Biden knows him well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCuDF4u5Yg

It's from a performance art piece that lasted 736.5 hours. Abramovic sat there quietly all that time, anyone could sit down with her, there was no vetting. Assuming an average of two minutes per visitor, she received 22,095 people. I would guess most of us don't meet that many people in our lifetimes.

It's literally the same as if you posted a picture of me in the Louvre looking at a painting and standing next to someone you don't like, and then suggested this evidence proves I'm part of a paedophile ring with this person.

Maybe pedo rings don't exist, or maybe it's not something some elite have a history of. Maybe I have no good reason to mention that island, or these people. You made it clear you don't know the who what or where on subjects I suggested are pretty basic and related, yet you seem sure you are informed. If you want to know more, you could. It's not something anyone can effectively research in an evening unless you decide to dismiss it.

I guess I was offended that Marina Abramovic is dragged into this on the flimsiest of evidence. She is one of the leading artists in the world, and this kind of malicious gossip is the complete opposite of the radical openness and self-consciousness that she lives through her work.

That's probably why this character assassination feels personal: if it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone.

> You made it clear you don't know the who what or where on subjects I suggested are pretty basic and related, yet you seem sure you are informed. If you want to know more, you could. It's not something anyone can effectively research in an evening unless you want to just dismiss it.

Here's the thing though: it's not something anyone can effectively research over the Internet -- full stop!

Edgar Welch, the Pizzagate gunman who drove to Washington to investigate the Comet restaurant, believed he had done deep research on this. His family said to reporters that he spent months obsessing about it. One day, he had enough. This is what happened next:

  "According to texts cited by prosecutors, Welch believed he was doing a public service.

  'Raiding a pedo ring, possibly sacraficing [sic] the lives of a few for the lives of many,' Welch wrote to one friend.
  'Standing up against a corrupt system that kidnaps, tortures and rapes ­babies and children in our own back yard.'

  He added: 'I’m sorry bro, but I’m tired of turning the channel and hoping someone does something and being thankful
  it’s not my family. One day it will be our families. The world is too afraid to act and I’m too stubborn not to.'

  When he went to Washington, Welch took with him the assault weapon, a .38 revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun.
  When he walked into the restaurant, diners, including families with children, fled in panic.

  According to court documents, Welch fired the rifle several times at a locked closet door, damaging computer equipment,
  and aimed the gun at an employee who had entered the back of the restaurant and promptly ran back out. No one was injured.

  Welch later said he regretted his actions."

Do you think Welch was well-informed by Internet research?

Also, you brought her up, and are mass pasting when you could just link, yet not a word about the island.

No, you did. You posted a Wikileaks link to an email sent by her, and you didn't explain why it's relevant.

It's not a bit surprising to most people to see Clinton's folk get excited about a dinner with _that_ ritual. I mean, heck, everyone knows that's completely normal right? (I would rather not post her demo video, but it's on yt).

And it's perfectly normal for Bill (and?) to be visiting the unmentionable island.

How about Tony Podesta's taste in art? Totally normal right? (I _really_ cant post that here out of respect for basic norms, I recommend not googling it if you don't want see some extra creepy shit).

Regardless of whether he ever actually said it, remember the quote attributed to Richelieu. Even an honest person's email can be spun to make them look like the greatest villain of history. Or if you prefer the modern reality-show metaphor: everyone has a "loser edit" lurking in their private data.

WikiLeaks basically only publishes "leaks" of people Assange personally dislikes/opposes. That's the definition of a partisan outlet, no matter how much you may dislike it.