Regardless of who provides them, he published them and they happened to be true. Other intel agencies are free to leak as they please.

But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the truth. Unless you have the proof that it isn't.

>But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the truth.

But he isn't that. Even in the most charitable interpretation you have to admit that both Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.

In the last few years, they've also been shown to coordinate with Russian intelligence to the point where they are see as either a front, or a willing patsy. This is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German.

Wikipedia has a good write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

At this point, this doofus has no credibility.

> his is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German

Well, isn't that a bit self serving.

> Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.

As far as I've seen they curate so that people don't get in harm's way (see Bradley Manning's dump). They do time their release to get the biggest bang for the buck. I don't even understand why that's a criticism. Products from apple/google/samsung are released in time for xmas to get the biggest reception. NYT doesn't publish scoop on Nov 7th - they do it before the election. You cannot be serious with this criticism. As far as editorializing, I've seen very minimal amount of that (namely Collateral Murder data dump), but even with that the entire video was released, so you could make up your own mind.

> this doofus has no credibility

Disagree. His credibility will continue to be high as long as what he publishes is the truth.

Where's your proof that the documents definitely came from the Russians, and that Wikileaks knew who was providing it? If you manage those, do you think refusing to publish would have any meaningful impact?

There you go. https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4598895-DOJ-...

For start, an indictment isn't proof. Though I find it likely that Russia was behind the hack, charging someone with a crime requires little evidence and there are countless examples of false indictments.

Further, though dcleaks is mentioned repeatedly, there is no mention of Wikileaks. All my questions still stand.

Do you have any evidence, or is this simply opinion? An indictment isn't evidence by the way.

How is that different than what he did with Kenya? He got a standing applause from the TED audience (hugely liberal (for America)/Democrat leaning) for that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do&t=2m13s

There was not much criticism for "interfering" in their politics on that one (though I'm sure there was by certain political classes in Kenya).

The question was whether he coordinated with the Russians. I don't know the details of the Kenya leaks, but I'd imagine he coordinated with the people who leaked those to him too.