Breech.

That would mean no one's return is safe. The chaos that would result is avoidable. We can win easily without it.

Wikileaks doesn't 'hack' anything. They curate and publish leaks from third parties who send them in.

So, anybody who claims to have understood Assange's spontaneous reply to Maher's question as a serious declaration of intent obviously doesn't know a damn thing about what Wikileaks does and doesn't do.

Probably the same people who claim to believe that losing a condom is equivalent to rape.

He and wikileaks function as an outlet for information. THEY didn't hack into the DNC's computers, they merely provide a platform, as they did for then Specialist Manning. They are open to publicizing Trump's tax returns, and so forth. The response in that context should be understood as a flip remark on Bill Maher, much like the much reviled comments on Bill Maher by Gloria Steinem.

Having recently been censored for posting in General a poll (Economist/YouGov) suggesting a FAR lower percentage of Bernie's supporters were already won over to Hillary than the usually cited 90%, I think there is getting to be too much of a bubble thinking here. It is not helpful when you have to win what could be a tough election

Like many on the Left, I continue to admire Julian Assange, tho I think there is an interesting issue raised by Snowden (who I also admire) critiquing the lack of redaction by Wikileaks here.

I do NOT think they would WITHHOLD Trump's tax returns if they were made available

Assange (less clearly articulated on Bill Maher last nite than on "Democracy Now" where he was recently interviewed) has noted that there are no doubt MANY interests and forces who have hacked into the DNC, NOT just the Russians, and that the MSM is being very misleading about this

Concerned about media coverage of Trump -- what about the extensive discussion of celebratory jihadi chatter we heard about in the MSM in the leadup to the Iraq War? Why aren't we hearing reportage in the MSM of jihadi internet chatter about Trump?

That is a question for the MSM which is panning Assange and painting him as a stooge for Moscow. Rather, grassroots who can should bring pressure on MSM on the issue I just mentioned -- a hound that should have been barking and hasn't been heard from (if it HAS been significantly and specifically reported PLEASE supply linx. I am VERY interested)

(CaliDemocrat thought bubble) I am only interested in damaging Trump and helping Clinton, without regard for truth and fair argument. I'm okay with any distorted hyperbole that assuages my worry that she could lose. Vilification tastes better than vulnerability.

(fpublic thought bubble) I share the same discomfort about Clinton losing as CD but come on, don't let it cloud your head.

(back to CD) Therefore, I will reverse the subjects and accuse WikiLeaks of monomaniacal conspiracy against Clinton. I will disregard the history of WikiLeaks just so I can imagine it is consumed with sinking Clinton's campaign.

I will paint them with the same desperate motives that plague me. That demonstrates my understanding of projection.

His interview with Bill Maher kind of confirmed it for me. I've followed Wikileaks since their Scientology leaks in 2008, but I really don't like Assange. His attempt to prove how "1337" he is by catching Bill Maher as a Clinton donor was lame and show-offish.

If they could get Trump's tax returns, then great. I don't like how Assange makes Wikileaks about black hat hacking vs. being a shelter for whistleblowers, and how he's turning it into a Partisan attack engine with an agenda. Go back to your roots.

I hope they dump all Clinton documents they have for transparency. I also hope they get juicy documents on Trump. They seem too fixated on attacking Hillary right now, almost like they're falling into the Alex Jones cesspool of conspiracies and wacky hearsay.