In all of the reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of John Podesta's emails, how often you do actually see aspersions cast upon their authenticity? Pretty much never especially since there has been no real denial of it by the parties involved starting with Podesta himself. What the mainstream media tends to do instead is to just ignore them. Their excuse is that the "outrageous" things Donald Trump says crowds out whatever could be in the WikiLeaks revelations.
However, now we do have a reporter who makes an incredibly weak case that some of the WikiLeaks emails could be fake. He is Douglas Perry of The Oregonian who initially asserts How Russian disinformation could be driving the Hillary Clinton WikiLeaks email scandal before finally undermining himself.
The Clinton campaign is comparing the hack to the 1970s' Watergate scandal, which started with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters by operatives for President Richard Nixon. "We're witnessing another effort to steal private campaign documents in order to influence an election," Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin insists. "Only this time, instead of filing cabinets, it's people's emails they're breaking into ... and a foreign government is behind it."
That foreign government is Russia, which appears to have lined up behind Trump's insurgent candidacy.
We have seen by how easily Podesta's Twitter account was hacked due to incredibly lax security. However, since Perry is on the roll, let's not stop him in his abolute claim that it was Russia that hacked Podesta:
If Putin is indeed putting his thumb on the scale, the result might not simply be the carefully timed drip-drip-drip release of hacked emails. Russia's intelligence services are well-known purveyors of disinformation, which means carefully faked emails might be included in the WikiLeaks dumps. After all, the best way to make false information believable is to mix it in with true information.
Really, Doug? So where is the false information mixed in with the authentic stuff?
There is, however, at least one good reason to believe the WikiLeaks docs so far have been legit: there's been no smoking gun.
And after all that silly speculation, Perry undermines his own case by claiming that the WikiLeaks docs "so far" have been legit. As for no smoking guns, actually there have been a series of smoking guns. Just ask Donna Brazile who was recently revealed to have sabotaged Bernie Sanders by feeding a debate question in advance to the Clinton campaign.
