zlacker

>>rapnie+(OP)
Just the other day I asked people on here if they are afraid of commenting on Assange on HN incase the FBI break down their doors.

to my astonishment quite a few were convinced this is exactly what happens. TF?

>>demarq+yf
Why wouldn't they be? Assange is an enemy of the state. Not "of the administration", but "the state", in total. The FBI is known to keep lists on and engage in attacks against what they perceive as enemies of the state. It's logical to assume that they might still do so.

They probably won't break down your door for commenting on Assange though. They'll have some other pretense, an anonymous tip about drugs maybe.

>>luckyl+ug
Assange being an enemy of the state is sufficient proof for me that Trump is not as dangerous as the left says he is.

I mean, Assange basically had 2 nukes, one with Clinton's name on it and one with Trump's name on it and released only the Clinton one because he had personal beef with her. This likely resulted in Trump's election.

Until that election, I was a Wikileaks fan. Now, I think Assange can go f* himself in prison for the rest of his life. What he did is almost unforgivable.

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/wikileaks-julian-assange...

>>pmarre+Vl
>Assange basically had 2 nukes, one with Clinton's name on it and one with Trump's name on it and released only the Clinton one because he had personal beef with her.

What are you talking about? There's no source that Assange or WL had any information on Trump, which they held back.

Your cited article only writes about the twitter DMs, in which the WL account asked Trump Jr. to leak his fathers tax returns. It doesn't mean they ever posessed them.

>>fwklei+ou
Wikileaks got its dirt from Russian hackers. They did not do the hacks themselves.

The same Russian hackers who actually hacked both the DNC and RNC, but notably (and impactfully) did not release the RNC data.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/12/10/report-russi...