• bolexforsoup
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    His group existed to be transparent against all powers. He ran the group and suppressed stuff that didn’t agree with his politics. That’s not a transparency-first organization. That’s not speaking truth to power.

    Russia is more complicated than that and you know it dude.

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      So, somebody hacked the RNC emails just like they hacked the DNC emails, yet Assange wouldn’t publish them, and apparently nobody else would either? I doubt it. I’m sure Politico would love to run with those. This “he had docs from both sides but only leaked one side which prevented the leaks from getting out” story is nonsense. Any media outlet would have sold their left nut to get a copy of the RNC email server.

      Whether Russia gave him the leaked documents or not doesn’t matter imo. All the DNC had to do was not be corrupt, that was it. If they did that, there would be nothing to leak and no backlash that could impact the election. The DNC tried to bury Bernie, they had a corrupt primary process, Assange exposed that and they lost some votes. Blame the DNC for that, don’t shoot the messenger. I vote in DNC primaries, I’m glad he helped that system be accountable to their primary voters.

      • bolexforsoup
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You’re moving the goalposts.

        I never said the DNC wasn’t corrupt or putting their thumb on the scale against Bernie. I am saying that for the head of a transparency first organization, he was particularly choosy except when it fell in line with his politics.

        When your explicit goal is to expose corruption and malfeasance by governments and politicians you’re supposed to do it across-the-board, not just based on your personal whims and preferences.