• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s a fact that WL refused to publish the document cache with the justification being that the data was already out in the open but that wasn’t true as only half of it had already been reported on. How is that innuendo?

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I agree there is no smoking gun per se, but I find the justification that it would “distract” from the 2016 election leaks to be incredibly flimsy. The rest of the info got out on the internet through sources other than WL.

        The refusal to publish also contradicts Assange’s claims in 2010 to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight. The Kremlin couldn’t fit more squarely into that bucket.