Yeah, that was convincing.

Now maybe people will start to understand that wikileaks is closer to a Russian game of influence than a truth-telling/seeking organization.

I wish there were more to corroborate this. Clearly Russia is trying to get trump elected.

Not the yellow silly kind.

Russian material that they've said they had....

Sorry, I am not taking Assange's word for anything. If he told me it was noontime, I'd check my own watch.

I think the only reason that he's still in that embassy is because Vlad is paying his "rent."

If you charge that Wikileaks published phony documents, then, IMO, the burden is on you to show it.

What happened here is that phony documents were published by someone else; then Fox News, hoping to augment its own minimal-to-nonexistent credibility by borrowing that of Wikileaks, falsely attributed the documents to Wikileaks.

Takeaways:
1. Clinton did not say "bucket of losers" about Bernie's supporters. That lie was probably being pushed by Trump supporters who continue to try to drive a wedge between those who were pro-Clinton in the primary and those who were pro-Bernie.
2. Th departure of Roger Ailes from Fox News has not changed anything fundamental at the "We distort, you comply" channel.

You're the one making that assertion, there--and don't tell me "Faux Snooze."

They GOT those documents in that condition. Who changed 'em?

All Signs Point to Vladimir. And all tools look like Assange, or someone who took direction from him.

Rather Malcolm Nance did, and I just wrote about it here on DU. He stated that the Security agencies were concerned that they might try to influence the elections by altering the emails after first having gained the public's trust with some of the leaked emails which could be authenticated. Now it appears that he was right and good for him. That's him taking a bow there in the OP's tweet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512416455

To raise the Titanic ( maggots campaign).

Pervs of a feather.

"pervs of a feather"

faux news approved and edited by the russian government.

Hillary does not talk like that...and come on you could tell whoever wrote them (Russians) had knowledge that Hillary won the primary and was the candidate...stupid person wrote them.

What is the evidence they were altered? A campaign denying it is not serious evidence. The way people speak in public is not the way they write emails or speak in private.

For instance, with the DNC leaked e-mails - here.

The trouble with lying is that once you're caught, you're caught. Fool me once ...

You're taking documents delivered to wikileaks by Russian intelligence at face value. In this country, you have to prove guilt, not innocence.

Protip: your hero is a scumbag who is trying to get Trump elected.

They are altered. It is clear. In fact Megyn Kelly had to apologize for reading from them.

they've been busted fabricating shit before

Since we know Wikileaks does this, why shouldn't we assume they're altered unless proven otherwise?

I have been worried about the Wikileaks thing - not just what was released but what else they might have. I think anyone would look bad if all of their private and/or campaign e-mails are released - it shows the sausage being made. And it could be especially damaging to Hillary because people already think she is not trustworthy, thanks to the media pimping that narrative.

If some of the docs are not real then it is impossible to know what is and it will discredit everything wikileaks releases.

They are apoplectic that this bullshit nothing burger has already been ignored while their boy Donald keeps proving why only total fucking idiots believe there's an actual "choice" to be made in this election.

That is all.

Of course they're gonna doctor up docs with phony crap.
Take a handful of genuine yet innocuous stolen mails
mix em up with similar looking but damning contrived nonsense.
Bingo, instant rightwing conspiracy.

She's not going to do a single thing to distract from that. Maybe after the debate/at the debate, but not right night. Hell, now that the floodgates have opened on every claim of sexual harassment/assault against Trump, this story will probably be forgotten (which is more or less has).

Perhaps her best course now would be complete candor about the political motivation: "This horrible tape of Donald Trump, and the reaction to it even from longtime Republicans, highlights the point that the American people have a right to full information about those who would lead them. That's why, unlike Donald Trump, I've released my tax returns. I see now that, on the same principle, it was a mistake for me to refuse to release these transcripts. While people are discussing the latest Trump revelation, I'll be assembling a collection. I'll release it one week from today because I don't want to distract from Trump's disgusting remarks about women."

With everyone so preoccupied by the Trump scandal, it might be a good time to do a news dump.

if she ignores your advice, I'm sure.

with the presidency in the last 30 days of an election and take the focus off of Trumps failures? Now you are a Hillary supporter, right?

Why would she do that so...the press who want a horse race could misinterpret remarks and make trouble...those were private talks for business...it has nothing to do with the presidency.

What did Putin do, hire a fanfic "author" to alter the documents?