...

It is not about Republicans or Democrats -- the reality is that it is operating in a way where we can all be assured it is not doing so in "our" best interest, but instead for some other nation-states purpose. Just because the party you identify with seems to be helped by something they have done recently does not mean you should take them as being honest actors.

> "the reality is that it is operating in a way where we can all be assured it is not doing so in "our" best interest, but instead for some other nation-states purpose"

The reality is that WikiLeaks has exposed a lot of information that we should know, I have yet to see solid evidence it's done for another nation state.

> Just because the party you identify with seems to be helped by something they have done recently does not mean you should take them as being honest actors.

Agreed, but I am also not going to believe the talking points of a party apparatus that cheated one of its own candidates. Would you?

I am not even a U.S. citizen, so I have no dog in this race, but I am well aware that both of the parties do anything to deflect from their own failures and now it's the Democrats, since they lost.

What have the Democrats done to offer a truly progressive platform, instead of the centrist one that lost them the election? Sure, they blame Russia 24/7, but that doesn't offer voters anything. Many Democrats in Congress vote with Trump and the Republicans well over 50% of the time, so this whole thing looks to me like a sham.

If someone posts trolls by you with political bait, please don't bite!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't remember on which occasion it was -and can't find it now-, but recently (post-2016) both Assange and Wikileaks were clearly riling people up against Snowden. That's right about when I stopped caring what they had to say (and it's such a hard departure from the 2013-era Assange who was supportive of Snowden).

I did not hear about this, have a link?

> if you actually read more about WikiLeaks than the surface reports, it is simply that they believe in complete transparency of powerful actors to hold them to account

That simply isn't borne out by the evidence.

They whined about anti-Trump leaks. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408

> They whined about anti-Trump leaks.

I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but I think we should be consistent and all leaks should be either a.) fine b.) illegal.

If there are "sanctioned leaks", well that's super convenient for the current administration, but not for democracy.

There's all sorts of discussion that can be had regarding leaks, sanctioned vs. unsanctioned, how they're used politically, etc.

It remains illuminatingly inconsistent that Wikileaks would oppose certain leaks.