Not only is this hyperbole ("most humiliating in ages"? hardly!), but it gets the circumstances of what got provided wrong (WikiLeaks didn't publish these files).https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/939514422422319106 …
-
-
Yes, I agree accuracy is important. That's why I'm trying to understand what specific claim or sentence in the story you're referring to that is inaccurate. The article is referring to what everyone referred to: WL's publication on Twitter of the link:https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/939214967210987520 …
-
The email is inaccurate. Wikileaks didn't, as far as is known, "upload" that information. Guccifer 2.0 is understood to have. It's like the time when Wikileaks got held accountable for doxing a bunch of Turks when
@NatSecGeek had uploaded data instead. -
Or when Wikileaks posted a link to Macron leaks emails even while saying it didn't know if they were accurate, and they got blamed rather than the 4Channers who uploaded them.
-
Wikileaks makes a distinction between stuff they've vetted and posted and stuff they link to. This is a link to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I hate seeing my personal heroes fight. :(
-
Don't think we're fighting, at all. I'm being as rigorous w/Glenn as he's being w/CNN, and he responded.
-
Disagreement and rational discussion is an extremely valuable process here. Need for harmony should never get in the way of facts. Well done, everyone ;-)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ask Barrett what they do to people who pass links...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.