Anyone who doubts wikileaks is working w/ Putin: read KURT EICHENWALD Now.

[Jim Lane]

41. Thanks, that's an informative follow-up

As I said, the evidence wasn't direct but rather circumstantial, supporting but not compelling the inference. The Post article gives additional evidence that supports an alternative inference.

As the Post notes, however, the open question is merely how the subject came to Trump's attention initially. There's no question that, at the time he made his false charge against a Clinton aide, the truth was readily available to anyone with an internet connection, who could go back to the accurate Wikileaks report. Trump and his staffers didn't do that. Either they cared so little about accuracy that they didn't bother confirming the accusation with the readily available source, or they went to the Wikileaks site, saw that the charge was false, and cynically went with it anyway.