Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the delete-this dept.

Activist publishes 11,000 Wikileaks Twitter direct messages

An activist has published 11,000 direct messages on Twitter between the Wikileaks account and a group of its supporters. The direct messages were published by Emma Best on her own website. Her Twitter account states that she is a journalist on the East Coast. Best has been critical of Wikileaks and has advocated for government transparency. Some of the direct messages were previously published, but this is the first time all of the direct messages have been posted.

The messages show that Wikileaks wanted the GOP to defeat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. "We believe it would be much better for the GOP to win," the Wikileaks account states to a supporter named "Emmy B" in one of the messages from 2015.

Why would they do that?

Clinton: I don't recall joking about droning Julian Assange


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:37PM (#716440)

    You wouldn't accept this weak argument if an SJW said it, but don't let that stop you.

    The right to privacy is recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights but don't let your false equivalence stop you.

    There's nothing stopping a biological male who wants to rape from entering a female bathroom/changing room, regardless of what rules are in place. Bathrooms/changing rooms are not heavily guarded areas and it would be trivial for anyone to enter them. We already know that rapists are more than willing to break the law, so you're just a moron for saying this.

    You're seriously claiming that opportunistic acts of violence are not prevented by removing the opportunity? Your reasoning is both fallacious and dangerous.