Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

Re:Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks by elif on Monday January 07, 2019 @03:32PM (#18849698)

>I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with foreign intelligence agents and lying about it.

There is no evidence of this. it is pure narrative based upon what you perceive as motives.

> some hillary vs trump stuff, who you voted for

not relevant to this discussion at all...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks by phaus on Monday January 07, 2019 @03:54PM (#18849946)

> There is no evidence of this. it is pure narrative based upon what you perceive as motives.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest it. What you're looking for is a smoking gun that definitively proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, such as a leaked, signed email from Assange outlining his entire strategy or a video of him at a coffee shop with Russian Agents wearing nametags that say "Guccifer 2.0". When it comes to international espionage, that's a pretty high standard.

> Who I voted for.

So many people take sides on the Russian election interference issue based on whether or not they identify as a Republican or a Democrat. Perhaps it shouldn't be necessary, but because that's the way most of these conversations go, I thought it would be relevant to mention that I don't support either of the people that ran in 2016.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks by elif on Monday January 07, 2019 @04:10PM (#18850123)

Please provide your cold gun evidence.

"taking sides" is a convenient diversion of narrative-based discussion

[ Parent | on HN ]