“Its 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 releak 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.
What part of by any means necessary did you not comprehend, Boogietard? The gloves are off.
Hillary Clinton, the murderess of Benghazi, will not been getting her carpet cleaned in the White Hut. If reinjecting the substance of Judicial Watch's May 18 discovery into the electoral process by sensationalizing it with the flow of "Wiki Leaks" that was goining on in October/November - then I say, GOOD, and thanks to whoever was clever enough to do it and make those FACTS temporarily relevant in the minds of the desensitized sheeple herd again.
Mission Accomplished.
Now, we move on to the conservative salvage operation for the Republic - and that includes making it clear that the proliferation of this sort of nature-abominating amoral "culture" ala the subversive application of state-established power...
MAGA
DRAIN THE SWAMP!