Clinton's campaign manager: Russia helping Trump

[Devout Centrist]

You red avatars are so out of touch. Most people don't give a s--t who leaked the emails, whether it was the Russians. What people care about is WHO WROTE THEM, are those people were the Democratic political operatives.

Gets your heads out of your asses and just acknowledge that your party may be just slightly divided.

Yes, they wrote idiotic work emails, it's typical. But who gave them to Assange? Everyone has a source; Wikileaks is just a messenger, a mere paper boy given what they receive or find. Could they have done this all by themselves? Perhaps, but unlikely. Much more likely is someone passed them the information.

[Devout Centrist]

Interesting motivation for Russia: They don't necessarily want to help Trump, but they do want to show they can and will disrupt our political system just as they feel Americans disrupted Putin's authority and political power back in 2011 and 2012.

[Devout Centrist]

More evidence indicates direct Russian involvement to help Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?smid=tw-share

Note that metadata on the wikileaks email hack indicates that the information went through Russian computers

The original story about the leaks gets stuck on A10, but a defensive piece for the DNC paper of record's friend Hillary gets A1 press. Typical liberal media bias in action, folks.

In any event, this distracts from the main story: that Democrat officials stacked the decks in favor of Hillary. That Democrat officials maligned Sanders about his Jewish faith. That Democrat officials, including the interim DNC chair, did not like Sanders. And that the DNC and their Pravda papers and media outlets of record coordinated over and over and over again to drive a left-leaning narrative down the throat of the American voter.

Who's pushing a conspiracy now?

[Devout Centrist]

So, gentlemen, you have two options.
1. You admit that dnc server was hacked by Russians.  Consequently you must  admit that
1.1. Clinton emails were also hacked when she visited Russia. Clinton is a criminal, a traitor to be indicted and jailed.
1.2 . Your President is a nonentity who permitted Russian agent Trump  to run for president and win the looming election.
1.3. Your FBI director is as incompetent as a rail (this simile is my patented invention)  and must be ousted asap.
2. You reject the idea of Russians hacking dnc email as stupid and improbable. In this case you can safely continue supporting Clinton, crooked as a dog's hind leg (this figure of speech is not mine, feel free to use it)

How does 1.1 follow 1? How does 1.2 follow 1.1 and 1?

You're so quick to point out the "corruption" in the decadent USA, yet you wouldn't know corruption if it slapped you in the face.

[Devout Centrist]

More evidence indicates direct Russian involvement to help Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?smid=tw-share

Note that metadata on the wikileaks email hack indicates that the information went through Russian computers

The original story about the leaks gets stuck on A10, but a defensive piece for the DNC paper of record's friend Hillary gets A1 press. Typical liberal media bias in action, folks.

In any event, this distracts from the main story: that Democrat officials stacked the decks in favor of Hillary. That Democrat officials maligned Sanders about his Jewish faith. That Democrat officials, including the interim DNC chair, did not like Sanders. And that the DNC and their Pravda papers and media outlets of record coordinated over and over and over again to drive a left-leaning narrative down the throat of the American voter.

Who's pushing a conspiracy now?

Read the wikileaks e-mail. The e-mails pretty much link the Washington Post and the NY Times to the DNC.

"Pretty Much"

Nice try.