> the release of the documents was politically timed to be as impactful as possible with hyped and staggered releases.
Umm, yeah. Why bother leaking documents straight into the trash?
> It's one thing to release the documents in a fair, unbiased method.
Wikileaks can only leak whatever is given to them. Did you send them Trump email that they refused to leak?
> He and wikileaks took sides and that is not something I consider ok.
The point of a vote is literally for everyone to take sides.
> He had/has a vendetta.
I'd have a vendetta against a politician (in a position of military command) who asked if I could be killed extra-judicially. How can you fault someone for this?
> Umm, yeah. Why bother leaking documents straight into the trash?
They built a legitimacy and reputation for releasing documents in big dumps and this time was different.
> Wikileaks can only leak whatever is given to them. Did you send them Trump email that they refused to leak?
No I did not. The fair and unbiased method I was referencing is the way they had handled things in the past.
> The point of a vote is literally for everyone to take sides.
He's Swedish and leaking information gained from a politically adversarial country. Neither of which get a vote in our election.
> I'd have a vendetta against a politician (in a position of military command) who asked if I could be killed extra-judicially. How can you fault someone for this?
You think trump is going to be any different? I think both were awful candidates, personally.
>They built a legitimacy and reputation for releasing documents in big dumps
No, they built a reputation doing the exact opposite. The diplomatic cable leaks for example, were drip-fed out in the exact same way. It prevents the meat of the leaks from getting buried.
The Hillary Campaign and the DNC (which is behind much of the smearing of Assange), for example, tried to bury the podesta email dump by timing the leak the pussy recording on the same day.
It likely was a little personal though. Clinton has joked about murdering him to shut him up and I doubt she was being entirely unserious.
They've always said that their goal is to get the maximum coverage for the leaks. That's not unfair, or biased, and it's exactly why leakers pick them rather than just releasing the information themselves.
Can you show that they do different things based on the content of the leaks, or the identity of the leaker? Not that having a bias is a crime, even if you could prove it.
> You think trump is going to be any different?
The goalposts were fine where they were, thanks.
> He's Swedish
No, he's not.
> and leaking information gained from a politically adversarial country.
I know for a fact that you don't have any evidence for that statement.
> Neither of which get a vote in our election.
And yet he's entitled to an opinion, and to share any information he has with others, to influence their opinion.
Umm, yeah. Why bother leaking documents straight into the trash?
> It's one thing to release the documents in a fair, unbiased method.
Wikileaks can only leak whatever is given to them. Did you send them Trump email that they refused to leak?
> He and wikileaks took sides and that is not something I consider ok.
The point of a vote is literally for everyone to take sides.
> He had/has a vendetta.
I'd have a vendetta against a politician (in a position of military command) who asked if I could be killed extra-judicially. How can you fault someone for this?