Wikileaks has given us pretty much all the dirt on Clinton that we have so far. For that I am very grateful. Assange looked into Trump. Said everything he found was boring. I doubt Trump (not having the political power that Hillary has had) has really done anything scandalious as far as ruining countries and raping democracies.

But the question is why do you trust Assange? Why would you assume that he's telling the truth about Hilary or Trump? Why wouldn't you assume he is just as corrupt and power hungry as the people he "exposes"?

So you think he made up all the information in the emails? Information that we no know has happened? How and why?

Not necessarily, but the fact that the idea that these emails could be doctored isn't discussed here is shocking to me. If the roles were reversed and the DNC or RNC were spouting off about things Assange had said/done, wouldn't you question them?

I'm not saying WikiLeaks is nefarious, I'm just surprised with all of the farfetched theories that you see that you don't see this one. Does no one wonder what Assange has to gain from bringing down the DNC?

edit: I'm not good at theorizing, but there are plenty of people that are and I'm surprised those people seem so one sided on who they're choosing to theorize on.

edit 2:

why

Because the current attorney general wants to prosecute him

Idk maybe the collusion to jail him or the request to kill him via drone strike. Probably pretty good reasons to make Obama administration look horrible and try to ruin HRC's life.

the collusion to jail him

Huh? He pretty obviously committed treason. What collusion happened? I can understand the call for pardon, but lets not act like he didn't blatantly commit one of the most serious crimes in the US.

request to kill him via drone strike

Is there any reason to believe this other than that he told you to believe this?

WTF are you talking about? Treason? He's Australian.

we dont assume his information is corrupt until someone proves it. If Clinton can bring proof other than claiming he is backed by Putin, she can take a long walk off a short ass bridge

So you don't assume that the information of a man wanted for treason is corrupt, but you do assume that all information from national political parties is? I'm not following your logic.

He's not an American, he can't be charged with treason, by America anyway.

Edit: downvote for saying he isn't an American. Wow, just wow!

That's never actually been defined by courts. The actual passage says

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Now, you might interpret "owing allegiance to the United States" as "an American citizen", but its definitely not 100% that the court would interpret it that way.

I disagree, Assange does not owe allegiance to America.

American Samoa/Puerto RICO/Guam/U.S. Virgin Islands and any other American territory.

I didn't downvote you, btw.

Well Wikileaks, as far as I know, have been credible enough and more transparent without being paid off by politicians, unlike CNN.

no, because he is wanted for treason for exposing corruption in our military. There is a reason so many people want Assange and Snowden pardoned, because they are viewed as patriots for exposing corruption and abuse of power as well as a direct attempt to erode the liberties of average Americans. WikiLeaks isnt a national political party. Clinton has been cloaked in conspiracy and corruption since their Iran-Contra ties in Mesa Arkansas. Assange, however, has been spot on with verifying his sources and info prior to releasing.

he is wanted for treason for exposing corruption in our military

I know that. Do you not consider that he might have a conflict of interest to elect the person and/or party that he believes is most likely to pardon him? And if you can acknowledge that, how can you believe what he says about that person's opposition? And how can you ignore that Assange is ignoring that person?

I'm willing to believe Assange is a freedom fighter and whistle blower. I'm also willing to believe Assange has nefarious plans which include him being pardoned. Why are you only willing to believe the former?

Trump has said neither Snowden or Assange will be pardoned. Hillary has already been asking to Drone strike him.

1. You didn't answer why you implicitly believe everything he says.

2. Maybe Assange thinks Trump wouldn't have the wherewithal to go about extraditing/prosecuting him.

1. i dont, but i also look for someone to disprove him.
2. You are speculating with 0 evidence. Thats not how this works, its not how any of this works. Cant just fling as much shit as you want and hope people stop caring

Because the current attorney general wants to prosecute him

Or maybe because Hillary wants to drone him?

Says who? Him? I wonder why he would say such a thing... could it possibly because it would benefit him to not have another Democrat in office?

When they say Trump supported this and that in the past....he wasn't a fucking politician?!

Get over it. Assange has leaked information on several countries, including Russia. Nothing has ever been proven to have been tampered with or false. Keep reading, keep researching, keep communicating, keep fighting.

Nothing has ever been proven to have been tampered with or false

It doesn’t strike me as a good idea for a group that relies on its credibility when it comes to the authenticity of what they publish — and which thus far has had a stellar record in that regard — to be making boastful claims that they published forged documents. I understand and appreciate the satire, but in this case, it directly conflicts with, and undermines, the primary value of WikiLeaks.

Source

Not good enough brother.

Serious question: what would be?

It has been proven now that most of the media is colluding with HRC now. And technically, you or I, can log into a Russian server via VPN and break into a computer and make it look like the Russians did it. That doesn't necessarily mean I am in Russia. I have seen too much now... I have read thousands of emails, I was there when stonetear was outed, and I am intelligent enough to see the bigger picture. See you are hung up on Assange and wikileaks when there is a big hairy ugly monster hanging right above your head.

I don't think they're to be trusted completely - but I don't think that means that you should discount the information they publish. As with anything, any one, or any source.

That's good. This seems to be the minority opinion, though.

Telling the truth is about the least nefarious thing he could be doing at this stage.

Why do you assume everything he says/leaks is the truth? Why couldn't these documents be doctored?

Telling the truth is about the MOST nefarious thing he could be doing at this stage

See? Now you're saying he's nefarious. GOTCHA!

100 day old account with anti-Trump and anti-Assange rhetoric.

I tried to quit reddit and this was supposed to be my lurker account. It didn't last long.

An older video from before the recent slew of leaks, but the points made still stand:

http://youtu.be/pycHfoCW7AU

So what exactly do you think Wikileaks is doing? I for one am glad they have released this information on Hillary and the DNC/Podesta etc...

If they are a disinformation agent, what is their end goal?

what is their end goal?

Isn't that something this sub should be discussing and theorizing on? I mean, I don't think they're just doing this for shits and giggles

I thought for sure they could have tossed those extra terrestrial emails in there in an attempt to throw us off of their scent.

Not necessarily, but the fact that the idea that these emails could be doctored isn't discussed here is shocking to me. If the roles were reversed and the DNC or RNC were spouting off about things Assange had said/done, wouldn't you question them?

I'm not saying WikiLeaks is nefarious, I'm just surprised with all of the farfetched theories that you see that you don't see this one. Does no one wonder what Assange has to gain from bringing down the DNC?

edit: I'm not good at theorizing, but there are plenty of people that are and I'm surprised those people seem so one sided on who they're choosing to theorize on.

edit 2:

why

Because the current attorney general wants to prosecute him