It's a fair point - I don't see how ad hominem attacks change the news.

I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda.

But still, parties and a gov that are threatened by their people looking in on them are just asking to be influenced by outside actors anyways, state or not. There's a reason transparency is key.

>I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda

You do realize that Assange signed a commercial tv deal with Russian state propaganda shortly after they threatened his life? This followed his threats to dump 'kompromat' on them (threats which never translated into action), and was later followed through by Assange censoring emails showing Russian banks involvement in Syria, and then later trying to paint the panama papers as a'CIA plot to discredit Putin.' To act like there isn't more than reasonable grounds on which to question Assanges biases is absurd and contrary to actual history.

The CIA plans an intricate effort to smear someone, to assassinate his character, and the best they come up with is "might have had sleep sex which might be quasi-consensual, said he'd wear a condom and didn't"?

That was the best they could come up with for their "smear"?!?