I’m not aware of that one. But sure I’ll grant you that exception. Do you have any other instances? Especially when it pertains to government documents? Or does one instance bring all other releases into question even when the targets of the leaks have confirmed them to be authentic?

You don’t like wikileaks because they exposed corruption within your favorite political party. Just admit that’s all there is to it.

I have. You didn’t present me with any evidence but decided to attack me instead. That says all I need to know about you.

No evidence has been presented. The intelligence community made assertions that could not backed by hard facts.

Wikileaks hasn’t exposed crimes? That’s patently false.

I don’t think she was saying that no one has ever been raped.

You mad, bro?

Wow. Just wow. No words... Literally no one has disputed the accuracy of anything wikileaks has released.

You didn’t answer the question. You also have no evidence that your claim is true.

You have no evidence for that. Everything wikileaks has released has been real. Ever hear of “don’t shoot the messenger”?

I ask for evidence and you accuse me of being paid by Putin. I feel sorry for you if you don’t understand what a stupid respond that is.

You obviously don’t know very much about what wikileaks has released.

So you support wikileaks but not assange? Really?

Did that apply to Hillary Clinton? Madelaine Albright are Henry Kissinger are objectively terrible people.

How is it not an apt for Assange?

Continue to believe that without any evidence.

What do you have against exposing the crimes of the government?

The CIA are a fantastic bunch of people.

It’s actually possible to want to expose the corrupton and illegal activities of the American government without being blackmailed by the Kremlin. Just a thought.

The conspiracy theories become more and more elaborate!