this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
141 points (82.2% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
778 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] purplepuppy@links.hackliberty.org 38 points 9 months ago (21 children)

This is how Trump won in the first place, wikileaks published emails of Hilary's campaign doing this. Instead of critisizing her for being responsible for Trump, democrats blamed Russia and attecked Wikileaks as Russian spies, literally called for shooting the messenger.

This is a prime example of why voting for lesser evil is not a tactic in politics and the whole liberal ideology as whole that we just need to vote for right people, instead of removing powerful positions in government in the first place.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 23 points 9 months ago (20 children)

The wikileaks thing is highly suspect, though. Like, wikileaks intentionally disclosed a lot of publicly damaging dirt on Clinton and the Dems at a very sensitive time in the election while not releasing ANYTHING on the GOP, even though they supposedly had that information.

[–] alcoholicorn@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Would you evaluate the contents of the wikileaks leaks if they had released an equal amount of dirt on Trump?

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's just from people intentionally reading into things that weren't there and tricking idiots into believing it.

That's a very weird thing to specifically be calling out compared to all the other real obvious dirt that was in the emails too. Like stopping Bernie Sanders and literally helping insane GOP candidates.

Play with fire and get burned

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the odd thing about that is it specifically says Julian Assange says they (wiki leaks) won't reveal their sources, and the rumors of it being Seth rich were propogated by the long list of bad actors.

The Muller report says it damning about the timing, but I don't see Julian Assange himself saying it was Seth Rich at all.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

From the wikipedia article:

Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are"

From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): "Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There's a 27 year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back - murdered - just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

Then, the interviewer asks Assange: "what are you suggesting?"

Assange replies, "I am suggesting that our sources take risks..."

Like, you don't have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say "the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors." One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not gonna lie, I expected you to double down and say that Assange's comments don't actually suggest he was insinuating Seth Rich was killed for leaking information to Wikileaks. So, have an upvote I guess.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

It sure does seem like he intentionally was misleading about it from the context, I generally supported Assange and other whistleblowers because these kinds of things need to come to light, but yeah that sure is sus.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)