You've still provided no evidence? These are all simply opinions and without any hard evidence you can't even really prove assange didn't get the emails in late September and then released them in early October ASAP.

Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative [1]. This kind of undermines the whole thing.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...

>These are all simply opinions and without any hard evidence

Sure, some of it is speculation on my part but not much. We know WikiLeaks is a dump for Russian intelligence. WikiLeaks coordinating with the Russians goes all the way back to Snowden when Assange brokered asylum for him. We have multitudes of data points on that including statements from most Western intelligence agencies, including American, German, French and British. Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

All fake news?

>Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative

I never thought that Trump coordinated with the Russians. Putin hated Clinton and Russia has a policy to fuck with the West - those two things are enough to explain them helping Trump without needing Trump to be directly involved. I do suspect that Trump may have engaged in some shady deals in Russia back when he was a private citizen and maybe there's a chance that the Russians have something damaging on Trump - but I freely admit this is just speculation on my part.

But the Trump collusion is a separate question to Wikileaks coordinating with the Russians or being a front for Russian intelligence.

How many anti-Kremlin leaks did he not publish?

Do you understand that he can only leak what someone gives him?

Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

This is rather unconvincing. Wikileaks stated they believed the documents were already public, which the source doesn't seem to have tried to correct. Wikileaks then said that the leak would be a low priority, which makes sense given their lack of Russian speakers on staff and the lack of news stories the leak ultimately led to. If you think they are trying to silence the leaks and protect Russia, what excuse does the Washington Post owned Foreign Policy have?

>This is rather unconvincing.

I bet it is to you. You can always contort facts to fit your conclusion, but I don't think that's honest. How about the fact that pretty much every western intelligence agency, including American, French, German and British, has noted the connection between Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks? Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

Fake news, right?

First, none of this further shows that they actively avoid leaking documents critical of Russia, which is what they are being accused of. I don't need to contort facts. Their reply of "As far as we recall these are already public" may have been incorrect, but they expressed their uncertainty, and there is nothing showing the source challenged their conclusion. The conclusion "they were wrong" seems more likely than "they're part of a conspiracy."

As for your post, the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks. That seems likely. The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.

>First, none of this further shows that they actively avoid leaking documents critical of Russia

No evidence that you would accept. Someone else posted a link of them declining to publish Russian military leaks [1], but you rejected it because of course you took WikiLeaks' response at face-value (why would they lie, amirite?). The wikipedia article I posted references multiple instances of direct coordination with Russian intelligence, such as Russia getting a heads up on upcoming leaks, WikiLeaks criticism of Panama Papers due to embarrassing info on Putin's inner circle (Assange blamed USAID and George Soros for the leak), and of course declining to publish leaked documents that would be embarrassing to Russia. Not to mention the clear political stance they took during the election to hurt Hillary, that just so happened to align with Russian ops. Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation. And on on on on. There is a mountain of evidence that shows coordination with and deference to Russia.

>The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.

That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.

>the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks

Again, I don't know why you feel the need to downplay and soften the accusations against Assange/WikiLeaks and Russia? Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing? It isn't just Russia using WikiLeaks as a dump of incriminating information against their targets (which they are), there is active willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to play their role as that kind of dissemination medium. And that's what intelligence agencies concluded, not your waterdowned statement.

I think you're dishonest.

[1]https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

>Someone else posted a link of them declining to publish Russian military leaks [1], but you rejected it because of course you took WikiLeaks' response at face-value (why would they lie, amirite?).

They posted a reason. If it was a lie it is a terrible one, as the followup of "no, some of it's new" exposes the lie. Without the followup their statement is a reasonable reason to pass on the data.

You specifically mentioned the Wikipedia claim backed up by four intelligence agencies. I did not realize I needed to address every other criticism or I'm "dishonest." Most of them boil down to a shared dislike of America, Assange can say ridiculous shit and dislike Clinton without Russian instruction.

>Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation.

This is false. Assange created a show, that RT bought the distribution rights to. Though I can't say what he got paid for the show, that seems fairly normal [1]

> That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.

So you're opposition is based purely on the fact Russia was involved? Wikileaks is guilty by association even if they did not take orders from Russia and were unaware of the source? I don't agree with that, Wikileaks should not need to determine the source's motive for the leaks.

>Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing?

Please, stop trying to attack me personally and address points made. Most of your post is just personal attacks.

The US government has spent a decade trying to discredit Wikileaks. The Snowden leaks provided some evidence of this happening. Though I don't fully support Wikileaks, I don't think they are just a tool of Russia. That narrative has been pushed on opposition journalists for a century now. And finally, even if Russia is behind a leak, the US should be held accountable for their actions. Coming from a worse actor doesn't justify many of the things uncovered in leaks.

https://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html