Well then...Leaked private Twitter message shows WikiLeaks wanted Republicans to win 2016 election

[kpete]

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.

Another Twitter message from the Wikileaks account describes Clinton as a "bright, well-connected, sadistic sociopath."

Wikileaks had been accused of bias against Democrats during the election because of its release of hacked documents from the Democratic National Committee.

Critics believe that the documents released by the group were consistently helpful to the then-GOP nominee's campaign.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/399547-activist-publishes-11000-wikileaks-twitter-direct-messages

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[marylandblue]

1. We need a wikileaks wiki site for leaks from wikileaks

[mythology]

2. Transparency for others not for them.

Also even if you consider Clinton a smart well-connected sadistic sociopath, how is that worse than the incompetent boorish sadistic sociopath we got?

[2naSalit]

3. Bet Russia was covering his tab at the embassy...nt

[Jake Stern]

4. Wonder how long it takes Putin to slip Ol' Jules a radioactive mickey

[Jim Lane]

5. Did WikiLeaks publish any purported DNC emails that were not, in fact, actual DNC emails?

Here's why I ask: The bias of a source is relevant to assessing the credibility of the statement, but that's hardly the end of the matter. Biased sources sometimes provide accurate information.

In this instance, the notable circumstance is that WikiLeaks was making allegations that were widely considered damaging to the DNC (and/or the Clinton campaign) and were also completely within the knowledge of those who might be damaged. If any of the emails that WikiLeaks made public were distorted, or taken out of context, or completely fabricated, the authors or recipients could have come forward to (if I may borrow a phrase) correct the record. AFAIK, none did so.

Information about WikiLeaks is relevant for other reasons, too, for example if someone is considering donating. My principal interest is in the emails that were published. The absence of any refutation leads me to conclude that the WikiLeaks release was accurate.