If an organization ever releases an edited document they're never to be believed. Unlike the rest of the media Wikileaks had never done that
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm
Therefore, completely discredit wikileaks based on this report from the media
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
but i don't even..what do i even care if "Guccifer 2.0" is "discredited" what do they think was hinging on Guccifer 2.0 being credible?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm
If true then wikileaks is "discredited". By that standard every media org is "discredited" but fuck you, they're the nyt and you're not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm
Every time there's a story they don't want to cover in a wikileaks dump they ignore it b/c wikileaks is "discredited" This used to work
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
But Wikileaks is just a clearinghouse for leaked stuff, it's the source of the stuff that is either credible or not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
So if they convince me "Guccifer 2.0" doctored some of that stuff..not sure why I care? What do they think relied on none being doctored?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
Not even sure i understand when/how it was established that G2.0 was 'Russian'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm
This is their thinking: Guccifer 2.0 doctored a doc = wikileaks published a fake document = wikileaks is "discredited" = can dismiss WL
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm
It's not honest, it doesn't follow and if you use the same reasoning it applies to every media org but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They control the megaphone
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Or so they believe
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.