Context is needed: Assange was the darling of the Dems until they won the presidency and started getting hit with leaks via Wikileaks too. So yeah, political affiliation does count, on the part of the Dems. And no, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Neo from the Matrix shows up with actual information in real life, and thousands of Agent Smiths fall all over themselves trying to explain to each other why they have just cause to murder him.

Unfortunately analogies to The Matrix abound in the US these days. Most people get their information from 6 mainstream media corporations that were left(down from 50) after the 1996 Telecommunications Act eliminated restrictions on monopolies in media. That's 6 billionaires determining what everyone gets as news. So yeah, welcome to the matrix: red pill or blue?

>released Democrat emails were completely innocuous

I was under the impression people lost their jobs due to the contents of some of the emails and that they definitely weren't completely innocuous.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz quit along with her staff because some of the emails showed the DNC was purposely hostile to Bernie Sanders in the primary.

Huh? DWS got forced out because she was a shit DNC chairman who couldn't keep her foot out of her mouth and then started chewing.

And, personally, I don't give a damn if the DNC was hostile to an avowed independent. Bernie was a carpetbagger. I like Bernie, but the Democrats treated him far better than I expected.

Assange wasn't relevant.

I am interested in hearing more about about how "Bernie was a carpetbagger" if you don't mind. I really liked him, but I do also see how he was a thread to the Democrats winning in both 2016, and 2020. So I have mixed feeling about what the DNC did.

I have no idea what you mean you when you say carpetbagger and am legitimately curious to hear your perspective.

> So I have mixed feeling about what the DNC did.

The DNC didn't really do anything. Staff talked outside of school about him but that's it. Bernie was never a player in the Democratic Party, as he just caucuses with them, wasn't a fundraiser, and didn't stump for many other politicians in the party. He ran for the D nomination and lost by millions of votes. He didn't appeal to as many people in the primaries as HRC and he lost.

> So I have mixed feeling about what the DNC did.

A) By and large the DNC actually adhered to their own rules.

B) Why should the Democratic National Committee play nice with someone who isn't a Democrat?

1) Everybody seems to forget that while Bernie caucuses with the Democrats he isn't actually a part of the Democratic Party.

2) Everybody seems to forget that Bernie wasn't winning. When you're the underdog, losing well doesn't get you anything.

Not the parent but Sanders wasn't a member of the Democratic Party yet he attempted to be nominated on the Democratic ticket with the goal of taking over the Democratic apparatus. After losing the nomination he went right back to not being a Democrat and acting like an outsider. I think that's what's meant by calling him a carpetbagger.

Sorry they exposed corruption in your favorite political party. But would you not think of the Panama Papers as substantial?

Yeah but what portion of what Assange has done is illegal? Being a liar and yellow journalist is not illegal, however unethical or even immoral.

On the one hand we have an innocuous, as in inconsequential character, Putin suck up who will probably go to prison forever. On the other hand, a consequential character, who groveled so magnificently in public, debased himself and his entire nation, continues to get accolades by 1/3 of that nation, who even think he'll be reinstalled as president come this August.

One of these things is pathetic, the other is a significant mass delusion. How can it be surprising that rank and file Republicans don't recognize Assange as a liar? They have consistently lacked or repressed the basic character assessment skills to identify and avoid empowering liars, grifters, and groveling toward dictators.

It's quite bizarre and outside the realm of politics in my view. It's some kind of macro psychological event that has more in common with behavioral economics (just how irrational are people anyway?)

Let he who hasnt tried to slip it in raw while the groupie from last night sleeps cast the first stone.

It wasn't just the leaks that was used.. Wikileaks had them timed up to be used by other operations pushing PizzaGate and Seth Rich, along with other similar conspiracies. It is clear that the leaks were done in conjunction to influence the election.

> Assange and WikiLeaks are guilty of participating in Russian attempts to spread disinformation in support of the Russian's agenda at a bare minimum.

What disinformation? They were hacked emails, the contents of which were authentic. Any disinformation involved would be intentional misinterpretation of the emails, which trolls on 4chan did, not Julian Assange or WikiLeaks afaik. Trolls on 4chan should never be taken seriously.

Also, is there any evidence that WikiLeaks had access to GOP hacked emails? You seem to imply it in your comment, but I have not found any sources claiming this is the case from brief Googling.

The biggest, real story exposed in those hacked emails was simply that the DNC was not a neutral party. They were helping Hillary Clinton get nominated, specifically in the case of sharing debate questions with her. Is there a reason this should not have been an important story at the time? I think it actually got a bit drowned out in comparison to all the trolling over Pizzagate. My base assumption is the people who even paid much attention to that story were the subset of Democrats who wanted Bernie to win the nomination.