> Wikileaks released all of Clinton's/DNC/Podesta email at a timing chosen specifically to inflict damage on the campaign of one party
Do you mean the emails concerning attempts to steal/fix the Democrats primary? Why would wikileaks sit on those emails? Would you prefer they waited to release them until the primary was over?
I looked it up, and apprently this could be true, assuming that wikileaks were given the emails ahead of time. Some of those emails were first posted to a DCLeaks website, then Wikileaks announced they'd be posting some, then DCLeaks posted more a few weeks later, then Wikileaks posted some, then Wikileaks posted more just before the election.
It makes sense to time these things for impact, assuming you want to punish corruption, and that's the motivation behind these kinds of leaks, right? People seem to focus on the part Assange and the Russians played in this instead of the actual corruption - how Bernie Sanders and millions of his supporters were screwed by Clinton and the DNC.
I don't think it's partisan to expose the truth. To do otherwise serves those in power at the expense of the general public.
I believe it. I just don't see the big deal, given the fact that Clinton and the DNC were exposed trying to steal an election. That's why this happened. Assange and the Russians didn't screw Bernie Sanders. Truth is truth, right?
The delegates were exposed as disliking Bernie Sanders. That's it. There's nothing illegal or immoral about that, which is why there were no criminal charges or lawsuits even after Republicans won the election and both houses of Congress.
It was a smear campaign targeted at democrats, nothing more.
This is textbook whataboutism. "Stealing a hundred thousand confidential emails from political rivals is fine because look at all the bad things they said about Bernie Sanders"
Look at the even more outrageous event of Trump magically getting the laptop of his rival's son and parading it around in 2020. It's organized crime trying to corrupt politics that you're rooting for. The kind of thing that happens in Russia or deeply corrupt banana republics
I don't think it's whataboutism. We were discussing if exposed corruption should be dismissed as being partisan.
There was more than just a DNC dislike of Bernie Sanders. There were financial, policy, and hiring decisions involved, arranged between Clinton and the DNC, contrary to a free and fair election. From wikipedia [0]:
> The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership's publicly stated neutrality, as several DNC operatives seemed to deride Sanders' campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions. The revelations prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the 2016 Democratic National Convention. The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process." After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.
I'm rooting for the exposure of political corruption on all sides. I think it is an important thing for the people to know the truth, no matter the messenger.
Do you mean the emails concerning attempts to steal/fix the Democrats primary? Why would wikileaks sit on those emails? Would you prefer they waited to release them until the primary was over?