emptywheel

I remember when NYT reporters argued with me that the docs were authentic because the Clinton campaign didn’t say they weren’t authentic.

The docs were real. They were released in such a way as to 1) troll 2) attract a great deal of attention 3) obsess the press.

Both a name in metadata and a classification mark are either content or metadata, depending on legal/analytical approach.

I would argue it's far less than some of what we know about.

I don't think you appreciate how the RU metadata was added then.

And I'm saying I think you misunderstand how these deceptions worked together.

I seem to recall that one of the DCCC documents was edited to make it appear to be something else and was tweeted out by @ten_gop.

G2 pretended DCCC docs were Clinton foundation ones (and misleadingly screencapped). Don't know if it was tweeted out by @Ten_GOP or not.

Yes, I seem to recall because it was one of the reasons ten_gop was suspect for me long before confirmed Russian.

Do you have the original link/release?

this was one of the first articles, it has a tweet shown in it but I remember seeing others at the time. researching http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/09/hot-dnc-pay-tor-play-ambassadorships.html …

Oh, yeah. That's a particularly special case of a release.