Does Wikileaks have anything more on DNC/HRC/etc megethread

[Kalimantan]

What sucks is that eventually, a major government secret will find it's way to WikiLeaks, something that SHOULD be reported, and no one will believe them. They've destroyed their reputation.

Ehm, why? Have Wikileaks ever faked the data they published? The answer is no, as far as I know. Or?


P.S. It is funny that Dems are so angry with the deliever, not with those who actually done/said things. I understand, that one can be mad that WL publishes only the data about one of the campaigns. But hey, better something that nothing, right? RIGHT?
According to the majority of American people the American media is biased against Trump. It is not a problem according to Dems here (because Trump es un hombre malo?). But when some international organisation is, yeah, it suddenly becomes a problem

Let be honest, if Wikileaks published some "private" data exposing Bush clan back in 2000/04 and by doing this affecting the elections, would you be against them? It is a rhetorical question, dudes


P.S.S. I don't think WL have some game-changer, but you all are so painfully hypocritical

Its a fair point, and certainly WL should be intrinsically popular on the Left. It just seems like they have gone from exposing government wherever they can, to becoming a partisan hack. If your motivation is to get the truth out there, why drip feed it instead of dumping it all in one go; why build it up - tweeting about how next week 'we're going to expose Hillary's lies' - that's electioneering grandstanding, there's no need for commentary, let the media do that - and by turning off many on the Left its self-defeating, they're pissing off one of their biggest constituencies.

And if they'd done the same to Bush then the Left would have celebrated and the Right been turned off - if WL wants to be taken seriously by all it shouldn't take this editorializing stance, imho

[Kalimantan]

Its a fair point, and certainly WL should be intrinsically popular on the Left. It just seems like they have gone from exposing government wherever they can, to becoming a partisan hack. If your motivation is to get the truth out there, why drip feed it instead of dumping it all in one go; why build it up - tweeting about how next week 'we're going to expose Hillary's lies' - that's electioneering grandstanding, there's no need for commentary, let the media do that - and by turning off many on the Left its self-defeating, they're pissing off one of their biggest constituencies.

And if they'd done the same to Bush then the Left would have celebrated and the Right been turned off - if WL wants to be taken seriously by all it shouldn't take this editorializing stance, imho

It is not how WL works. WL is sort of media canal for "illegal, anonymous hackers". They don't to choose who they will hack. They get information from hackers; now, probably, from Russian hackers. What should they do to be "balanced"? Wait until Mexican hackers hack Trump?

I don't know about DNC leak, but WL usually dumps a large part/almost everything of the information they've got from the hackers. Eventually.  https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html
So as I said they are just a "service". They give opportunity for hackers to publish information about  elites without being killed/tortured in Guantanamo. But yeah, "bad" guys can use WL in their own interests, like Russians now. But it is not a good reason to NOT publish this information. The information doesn't get "evil" if it is leaked by evil hackers.

On-Topic: the probability that they've got a game-changer is <1%. But they will harm Clintons/establishment. Enough for me

If you're just releasing documents given to you by a government agency then you're hardly an anti-establishment organisation are you. If the idea is to promote clear, transparent, fair governance, then being a mouthpiece of the Russians is an interesting angle to take.