Source is probably years of watching Rachel Maddow’s Russiagate conspiracy theorizing.

A comment replying “Source?” is not contributing to the conversation, and criticising someone for writing more than 1 word in reply is also bullshit.

It really gets on my wick when people thing saying “Source?” is a sufficient challenge in online conversation. We’re not writing academic papers here, we’re chatting shit on the internet.

If you have an argument to make, make it.

If you have a counter-argument, make it.

If all you want to do is shit on someone for not writing an academic article with citations^[1] but don’t actually contribute anything yourself, go suck on a turd.

However, it should be said, @Shalakushka@kbin.social has probably got things wrong. I don’t think Russia provided emails from the Republican party. The argument doesn’t even make sense - why would Russia provide arguments on both sides if they wanted one side, their Republican tiny-handed man, to get into the White House?

Rather, what happened, as I recall, was that Assange also received intel on Russian corruption from somewhere else, then elected not to publish it. That is perhaps dodgy, but at the same time the reasoning I recall him giving was that it is obvious that Russia is corrupt - it simply was not newsworthy.

That’s because they didn’t. What happened was someone subsequently released info about Russian corruption, and Wikileaks didn’t publish it, citing the fact that Russian corruption was obvious and not newsworthy.

The apparent bias where he released documents about the Democrats but did not release documents about the Republicans and/or Russians, having received said Democrat documents from the Russians.

Maybe it’s a little more nuanced, I dunno. I can’t remember all the shit I’ve read over the years, the freshest stuff is from the comments in these threads.

My guess is that he didn’t actually have dirt on the Republicans, as one commenter suggested. Why would Russia provide that, when the supposed goal of Russia was to get their Republican man in the White House?

Then, maybe, he got some other dirt on Russia from somewhere else, but didn’t release that. However there could be any number of valid reasons there. I do vaguely remember something about him saying like (my complete paraphrasing) “reporting on Russian corruption isn’t of journalistic interest to me, of course Russia and Putin are corrupt.”

So yeah, his “apparent biases” raise questions. That doesn’t mean those questions can’t have valid answers.

But that also doesn’t mean the questions are invalid in and of themselves. They should be addressed openly and succintly every time, such that objective truth wins over incessant lies.

The only stupidity here is in your 3 word comment. Try harder.

The Guardian, Nov. 2022: ‘Publishing is not a crime’: media groups urge US to drop Julian Assange charges: First outlets to publish WikiLeaks material, including the Guardian, come together to oppose prosecution

The letter:

Publishing is not a crime: The US government should end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.

Twelve years ago, on November 28th 2010, our five international media outlets – the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El País and Der Spiegel – published a series of revelations in cooperation with WikiLeaks that made the headlines around the globe.

“Cablegate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US state department, disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.

In the words of the New York Times, the documents told “the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money”. Even now in 2022, journalists and historians continue to publish new revelations, using the unique trove of documents.

For Julian Assange, publisher of WikiLeaks, the publication of “Cablegate” and several other related leaks had the most severe consequences. On [April 11th] 2019, Assange was arrested in London on a US arrest warrant, and has now been held for three and a half years in a high-security British prison usually used for terrorists and members of organised crime groups. He faces extradition to the US and a sentence of up to 175 years in an American maximum-security prison.

This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticise his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.

The Obama-Biden administration, in office during the WikiLeaks publication in 2010, refrained from indicting Assange, explaining that they would have had to indict journalists from major news outlets too. Their position placed a premium on press freedom, despite its uncomfortable consequences. Under Donald Trump however, the position changed. The DoJ relied on an old law, the Espionage Act of 1917 (designed to prosecute potential spies during world war one), which has never been used to prosecute a publisher or broadcaster.

This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s first amendment and the freedom of the press.

Obtaining and disclosing sensitive information when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists. If that work is criminalised, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.

Twelve years after the publication of “Cablegate”, it is time for the US government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.

Publishing is not a crime.

The editors and publishers of:
The New York Times
The Guardian
Le Monde
Der Spiegel
El País