You say that you want confirmation of the information/emails? During the campaign you only had that when leaked emails were used in a positive light however, after the election and Hillary's loss, you now have the confirmation you seek about all the emails.
You say that WikiLeaks information regarding their source is "unprovable", question: do you hold that same standard to any news outlet who uses "unnamed sources"? If so, then much of today's news would need to be reclassified as pretty much tabloid news rather than journalism. They don't expose their "unnamed sources" any more than WikiLeaks has. The emails and the information exposed are true, this is in no way part of the newly termed "fake news". I recall someone asking me if I had heard about the gunman who went into an Austin or San Antonio pizzeria after the nut in N.C. -- turns out, that second "report" was actual fake news, nothing of the sort ever happened in Austin or San Antonio.
As I mentioned about WikiLeaks record earlier, they have a 100% accuracy record of the information they release. You haven't mentioned anything to question that.
As far as WikiLeaks source, I understand what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree with it at this moment. For me, at this moment, there seems to be more than enough evidence to question the Dems accusation that it was Russia and that there is no other way for them to have received the information but from the Russians. So at the moment, I think we can agree to disagree on this specific point. 
|
