Wikileaks has once again denied that Russia was their source of leaked emails

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

So what? Without actually releasing their sources then this is just confirmation bias fodder.

WHAT DIFFERENCE, at this point, does it make who/what the source of the e-mails is?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MostlyReading

Yep. I've heard that excuse before too.

ETA: And it looks like talking to you is going to be a waste of my time if you have to insult my intelligence just because we disagree on opinions.

It is not about "disagreement" or "opinions". It is about you failing to grasp the most basic FACTS about how WikiLeaks operate and why they will always protect their sources.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
I'm glad to see them reminding people of this. It's kind of frustrating to see propagandists constantly assert that Russia was behind anything regarding Wikileaks releases as if it were a matter of fact.

The WikiLeaks Task Force twitter account is described as an "Official @WikiLeaks support account," which exists to "Correct misinformation about #WikiLeaks, amplify our publications."

I'm a liberal. I don't really like Trump. But, yes. This Russian hysteria is the most cynical and cognitively dissonant thing I've ever seen.

I'll just leave this below.
www.thenation.com...

It's critical, because to this very day the "hacking" of the DNC by Russia is one of the pillars cited for the Russian investigations and evidence of Russian interference.

What, are you now saying let's not talk about it because that pillar is now in question? A bit convenient.

Why would Russia hack DNC? It makes no sense.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

They did. You guys just choose not to believe the stuff from Fusion GPS.

Except, Fusion GPS was proven to be DNC funded secret opposition research, i.e. it was represented as independent, but actually was DNC operations. Soooo, the very org that claims they were hacked by Russia pays to create a report to back themselves up? You do realize that's pretty flimsy right?

www.thenation.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MostlyReading

Yes yes. I know the excuse they've been feeding the public for the last few years or so. Doesn't mean I have to buy their schlock when they say their information didn't come from Russia. If they don't want to prove where their sources came from then they should shutup about it as their credibility is nil until they show otherwise.

The reality is that you, the DNC, and Fusion have to "prove" such extreme and serious allegations, not the other way around. I simply haven't seen that evidence yet. Your surety is suspicious or problematic at best. I think at some point many mainstream liberals, including many I love, are being either useful idiots or willfully ignorant of why Clinton really lost and these Russian allegations.