So, people who look at conservative sources for information will see articles like this: [
www.realclearpolitics.com]
while people outside that little breitbart/hannity/limbaugh sphere will see articles like this:
[
thehill.com]
While in theory these two articles are completely opposite one another in tone and message, in reality once you analyze them more closely, they're saying the same thing - Julian Assange says he did not receive the files directly from state actors in the Russian Government, but from other sources which may or may not be affiliated with the Russian government or under the Russian Government's direction. In both articles he directly acknowledges that there were Russian fingerprints on the files, in the form of cyrilic code that was not removed (this is also one of the big reasons other big names in the cybersecurity field, like ThreatConnect, think these files were taken by Russians.)
The question is really whether these Russians were state directed or independent actors. The CIA, FBI, NSA, and several other organizations think they were. You think they weren't. Shrug.
---
Furthermore, there's also the trustworthiness issue - many people feel Julian Assange is a source with significant bias, after he started running a political TV show on Russian-controlled state media. The show production is actually pretty noteworthy because previously he had a fairly tense relationship with the Russian Government after publishing files which embarrassed several key Russian figures, like the Panama Papers, which showed a close affiliate of Putin with nearly 2 billion in illicit funds.
His unusually close relationship with the Russian Government is even more strange because historically he was known to be a passionate advocate of information transparency AND market libertarianism, and as of right now, Russia has some of the lowest press freedoms, least transparent government, and least libertarian markets in the developed world.
Others think him and wikileaks are unimpeachable, and have done very good work in the past (I do agree that wikileaks did good work in the past). Personally, I believe everyone has bias, and although Julian Assange may have started out wikileaks with good intentions, that does not mean he stayed that way.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 04:17PM by vortexmagus.