>>Yes, that is a hoax.
Oh baloney.
It’s sloppy/inaccurate/dishonest attribution, but the substance of the “reporting” (DOCUMENT CONTENT) was accurate - and, in the context of the pending election - effective!
For all we know, somebody from wiki leaks (or pretending to be from wiki leaks) did re”leak” the documents 5 months after Judicial watch got them by court order.
And the SUBSTANCE of the “leak”: 100% TRUE, was it not?
Not really much darker that 9NEW’s little white “oops”/lie... right?
“It’s sloppy/inaccurate/dishonest attribution...”
So it is false. The writer is making stuff up and putting in his stories. If you don’t like the word “hoax”, fine, but the source for this story is an anonymous website that is known for putting out false information, which you have just admitted.
“For all we know, somebody from wiki leaks (or pretending to be from wiki leaks) did re”leak” the documents 5 months after Judicial watch got them by court order.”
So wikileaks is leaking things to an anonymous liar with a website nobody ever heard of before he happened to put out a story that pizzagate people picked up with and spread all over the internet? Yeah, right.....
“And the SUBSTANCE of the “leak”: 100% TRUE, was it not?”
So the “fake but accurate” defense? Dan Rather, is that you?
I notice you won’t even try to defend the other 100% fake story he posted. Don’t think nobody notices the lengths you go to defend this, your only source for what you really want to believe, while at the same time completely ignoring the fake stories he put out that you simply can’t defend.