[jerhinesmith]

I've been struggling with this a lot. Granted it's pretty much all speculation, but if it is a state actor that is giving Wikileaks this information, and if said state actor was trying to influence the election, I question the responsibility of Wikileaks. It could also be (and I'm aware of this) simply that they're exposing information on "my" candidate, in which case maybe I'd feel differently if was the other way around.

I'm glad this was posted on HN, because I'm looking forward to a (hopefully) more informed discourse than I found on Reddit.

[Mikeb85]

Given that most of the leaks are emails from a single party, when said party was known to use a weak email server, which was known to have been hacked at one point, my guess is that it could be anyone, and doesn't need to be a 'state actor'.

PS. Have you seen the Podesta emails? They range from hilarious to pretty disturbing.

[NoGravitas]

I'm definitely grateful for his risotto tips.

[jcranmer]

I've poked a bit at the Wikileaks emails. My conclusion is that the email release is designed not to understand the emails in any sort of context but rather to be selectively quote-mined. The use of Courier can obscure the fact that the message is a quadruple-forwarded quote, as well as hide what was highlighted in the original HTML versions of emails. The lack of any attempt to reconstruct threading makes this worse than even the new IETF mailing list archive for trying to read email archives--and that is a bar I didn't think could be cleared.