[gamblor956]

No, but knowingly releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet.

Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.

[cheeseomlit]

This is the first I've heard that the DNC/Podesta emails were forged, do you have a source for that?

And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards. If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's something I'd want voters to know about.

[gamblor956]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...

[cheeseomlit]

This is in regards to emails leaked from a journalist David Satter by Fancy Bear, the article doesn't say those were published by Wikileaks and I couldn't confirm elsewhere that they were. The article does mention:

>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.

While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:

>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident forgeries".[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails

In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)

[AnaniasAnanas]

> releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet

The few emails that I checked had a valid dkim signature.

[megous]

Technically, if you hack a mail server, you'll get access to DKIM private keys. I would only trust these mails DKIM signature if I personally received them prior to the breach.

Otherwise it's a very weak proof.

[saltyfever]

Clinton's people would've come out and said if any of the emails were forged. They didn't.

[megous]

That'd be just a damage control decision. It's not a verifiable claim for outside observers just from the DKIM keys.