Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
to publication on wikileaks? is that a channel, a flow of information that you think is justifiable? are you referring to the 2016 publication? yes, iam. well, there is, in fact, no clear evidence that russia was the source. in fact, julian has stated that russia was not the source. and there is just no question that those publications in 2016 were in the public interest. in fact, judge cottle from the southern district of new york has affirmed that the 2016 publications were of the highest public importance. that was when the democratic national party... again, perhaps, is about perceptions as much as anything. 0pen—source advocates — an opendemocracy activist in the united states has said, "nothing has been more damaging to wikileaks�* reputation than the publication of leaked democratic national committee emails, fuelling the perception that the organisation," that is wikileaks, "was costing up with the political circles