Re:CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]
by jjk166 on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @01:00PM
(#25572641)
I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I think the gentlemen's agreement would be to give a fair amount of time to rebuff. If someone says something that isn't true it takes time to respond because (1) the responder doesn't know what was claimed since it is a fabrication and (2) responder can't necessarily grasp the damage or interpretation of the claim until some polling data comes in.
Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.
Re:CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]
by h0h0h0h0111 on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @01:08PM
(#25572759)
Indeed - surely the best time to have a full picture of a candidate is right before they go to the polls?!
Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...
> no bad press
Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.