You can tell the truth and still be deceitful. Claiming to have had evidence on Russian corruption and publicly declaring an intent to release followed by silence and unwillingness to do so indicate two things, to me anyway.

1. The original claim is a lie. There is no evidence of Russian corruption and the claim was made for attention or some other purpose. Remind me, again, how many lies it takes to make someone untrustworthy?

2. The original claim is true, but something or someone prevents information from being released. This is the more insidious reason. It means that the organization will only release "the truth" that jibes with the messages/agenda they want to push, which is propaganda. Regardless of whether or not Russia has a direct influence of the release is unknown, but it becomes propaganda nonetheless.

My personal opinion is that Assange is virtually inseparable from Wikileaks and appears to have a god complex, using the platform as his mouthpiece on his view of the state of things while enjoying the comforts of avoiding consequence.

By that measure, the New York Times, Fox News, Washington Post, CNN, and Wall Street Journal are all propaganda.

they have their moments. they all tend to be good at cheerleading war, for example. msnbc fired phil donohue for being against the iraq war. last election, the washington post (in)famously ran a glut of anti-sanders material in a short time span (16 articles in 16 hours, i believe it was).

You see there was that little thing called the Iraq war.

>My personal opinion is that Assange is virtually inseparable from Wikileaks and appears to have a god complex, using the platform as his mouthpiece on his view of the state of things while enjoying the comforts of avoiding consequence

Except around eight years of imprisonment now. It being a relatively nice imprisonment doesn't change what it is.

does anything necessarily need to be 'untrue'? (a lot of propaganda is 'true')