Talk:DCLeaks

Mapping Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019)
How about an additional section about Open Society's plans for lobbying in the EU parlament?

- https://legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/soroskooptbrussel.pdf - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/11/george-soros-defends-400000-donation-pro-eu-campaign/ - https://medium.com/@james.franklin363/george-soros-ngos-exposed-manipulating-eu-elections-in-2-500-document-hack-from-dc-leaks-7b56ed3a5c31 Northwolf56 (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Politically neutral
Could we please make this article more politically neutral. VERY obviously the article as it's written now leans so far to the "left" that some parts are complete nonsense. For example, this part: "Following Donald Trump's request on July 27, 2016, during a rally in Florida that Vladimir Putin should have Russia hack into Trump's opponents networks, servers, and emails to make Hillary Clinton's 30,000 missing emails made public, Russian hackers tried for the first time to hack into Hillary Clinton's personal offices.[33] The GRU mined Bitcoins to later purchase the DCLeaks domain and operate both the DCLeaks server and Guccifer 2.0 server to distribute information obtained from these hackers in order to discredit and disrupt the Clinton Campaign". Trump didn't seriously request a foreign government to hack Clinton or the DNC. He was making an obvious joke! At the time, Clinton was already saying Russians had hacked her personal server and the FBI was (and still is) missing 30,000 e-mails from that server. So, if those 2 things were true, that would mean the Russians already had a copy of the e-mails the FBI could not find. This also means that if Clinton's claims were true, there'd be no reason for the GRU to start trying to hacking for that info because they'd already have it. Also, why would the GRU need to mine bitcoin to pay for something? Wouldn't they already be funded by the government? The ONLY reason for such a thing to happen would be if the GRU was acting on it's own without the permission and knowledge of the government, which would go against the claim that the Russian government was responsible for the hacks, assuming it was hacks and not a person from the inside who leaked the data.

Other things are said that are clear politically motivated attacks on Trump. Things are stated as facts which are impossible to know as 100% fact. Again, for example, Russian hacking. The US government and other governments have the ability to leave fake traces for where hacks come from. This fact alone makes it impossible to really say where a hack originated from with 100% accuracy. We could say "alleged hacks". We could say "suspected hacks" But we can't state such a thing as a known fact, as has been done in this article.

→ In response to the unsigned comment above, I would say that, yes, there is some bias in this article. It would be hard to write it from an POV that everyone would agree is neutral. However, saying alleged about matters that were never proven in a court of law would be helpful.

Regarding the part mentioned specifically in the 2nd paragraph, the wording from Vol. 5, p. 5 of the Mueller Report, is more neutral, as follows: "WikiLeaks’s first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically)." Do you think that wording would be an improvement?

Evan Donovan (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)