Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit
>>That's not as much of an either-or decision as you seek to portray, the third option is neither.
Neither doesn't really work. CIA say it wasn't a leak. Wikileaks say it was. And you sounding very clever say that neither is right? What would "neither" mean? Or are you suggesting that both are so lacking in credibility that there is no evidence either way. If so, please give some examples of where Wikileaks has lied or passed out false information. I'll be waiting.
>> If they had been digging as deep in GOP leaks as Democrats they would have had more credibility
You presume that there are available equivalent leaks for the Republicans as well. Given leaks of this scale are rare, you'd need to provide some reason why you think this is so. Wikileaks are a place for people to leak information to. They don't magic up a bunch of emails at will. There were very notable circumstances for the DNC leak - internal corruption, a popular candidate (who might have beaten Trump) being sabotaged by staff who were supposed to be neutral... On the Republican side, you already knew most of the Republican big wigs wanted to oust Trump. I mean they even discussed disregarding the result of the primaries openly. Where is your evidence that Wikileaks was passed leaked Republican emails and deliberately sat on them? Because that's what you're claiming with the above.