Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/


Interesting, but no smoking gun. However, this keeps adding to the body of work.

Maybe not but this speaks volumes.

“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” Wikileaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” Wikileaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and Wikileaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”



Yes, but other side of this conversation, by not responding over Twitter with "Sure, sounds like a great idea, see attached document" has plausible deniability. We need to be always critical. What is this was attempted entrapment? Also, how come, Assange, a known paranoidac and competent opsec practitioner had these kind of conversations over unencrypted third-party channel?