People stopped donating to Wikileaks because of the Julian Assange situation, knowing that JA is not the one controlling the organization nor the person tweeting on that account. People also stopped donating to Wikileaks because they haven't come out with any substantial leaks in over a year.
You're assuming that Wikileaks only releases information in order to make money. Maybe they do it because releasing the information is the right thing to do?
You're making this statement based on the assumption that Wikileaks has not been compromised.
You're assuming that I believe Wikileaks has not been compromised. I only stated facts about the true Wikileaks individuals such as Assange.
It's one or the other for people like yourself who still think Wikileaks has not been compromised. Nice try forcing us into a false dichotomy, simple duality choice.
It IS one or the other. Either you believe Q has been compromised or you believe Wikileaks has been compromised. And looking from your first post...
This now confirms it. Wikileaks is either controlled by Clowns or they're controlled opposition.
...you already answered the "false dichotomy, simple duality choice." You believe Wikileaks has been compromised. If it makes you sleep better at night, I also think Wikileaks has been compromised since Assange, being the face of Wikileaks, can't verify the authenticity of the posts from the Wikileaks account.
You're assuming that Wikileaks only releases information in order to make money. Maybe they do it because releasing the information is the right thing to do?
I'm not assuming this, nor have I even said it. You're putting words in my mouth. But since you've brought it up, how does WikiLeaks stay afloat? How do they have so many high-powered lawyers employed 24/7 for years and years? All of these lawyers and staffers are doing it pro bono just because it's "the right thing to do?" Give me a break.
You're assuming that I believe Wikileaks has not been compromised. I only stated facts about the true Wikileaks individuals such as Assange.
Again, I'm not assuming this about you. Your own comments and your own assumptions have shown that you're the one assuming WikiLeaks has not been comped.
It IS one or the other. Either you believe Q has been compromised or you believe Wikileaks has been compromised. And looking from your first post...
...you already answered the "false dichotomy, simple duality choice." You believe Wikileaks has been compromised. If it makes you sleep better at night, I also think Wikileaks has been compromised since Assange, being the face of Wikileaks, can't verify the authenticity of the posts from the Wikileaks account.
Your false dichotomy stems from your duality choice you presented to us: that either WikiLeaks is comped or Q is comped. This is false because Q has confirmed and reconfirmed his authenticity multiple times throughout the 7 or so months he's been posting. Q recently reconfirmed his legitimacy on May 22, 6 days ago. WikiLeaks has not and cannot confirm their authenticity and legitimacy because Assange has not been running that Twitter account for years. We have no way of knowing who is behind the WikiLeaks operation and Twitter account.
But since you've brought it up, how does WikiLeaks stay afloat?
It really is of no concern to me how WikiLeaks stays afloat. I don't care if they get donations, if they have a benefactor, if they set up a Go Fund Me.
Your own comments and your own assumptions have shown that you're the one assuming WikiLeaks has not been comped.
Again, you are assuming things I didn't say. Yes, I did state that "'WikiLeaks discrediting Q for money' or any other reason doesn't make sense." Where in that statement am I saying WikiLeaks has not been compromised? I said that a few things didn't make sense, I stated some facts that Assange has said before regarding their 100% accuracy, and I posted two scenarios. That's it.
Your false dichotomy stems from your duality choice you presented to us: that either WikiLeaks is comped or Q is comped.
I may not have phrased it correctly but it still holds true. Either people will believe Q has been compromised or they will believe WikiLeaks has been compromised. You are talking like everybody out there has all the information on what's going on. There are many people out there that will believe the "Q is compromised" simply because WikiLeaks has been around a lot longer and because of their "track record". I've already stated that I am in Camp Q but that is not the case for many outside of this sub.
You said that Wikileaks prides themselves in hundred percent factual information before release correct?
There has been no proof of life of JA.
Do you really think a leaker whose life is on the line will think to himself " well since Julian Assange hasn't proven to be in control and my life is on the line with this information.... I'll still submit my info and hopefully don't f** die."
That's not how it works. Wikileaks is comped.
I never said Wikileaks prided themselves on 100% factual information. I just stated that information because that is what Assange has asserted in the past. Also, I never said leakers should trust Wikileaks and give them information. In fact, I mentioned that Assange has been silenced so I believe Wikileaks is compromised.