What do you think it means?
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016
It looks like Tim Kaine is already nervously trying to spin things and do preventive damage control.
13;47;45;21 Generally, if people are engaging in cyber-attacks against United States to steal documents and then use them to destabilize an election, why would you assume that the content, ‘Oh, but we’re gonna be scrupulously honest about not tinkering with the content.’ In fact, I would plead the working assumption should be the reverse. Hold on a second here—if you’re trying to influence an election at the end, why would we assume any of it’s true? One of the bits of email concerned me and it was an email that talked about the fact that there was some deal that I was gonna be VP a year in advance. That is completely false. I finally concluded that I had a more than 50-50 chance of being on the ticket 48 hours before I was I was put on the ticket. So either the person sending that email didn’t know what he or she was talking about or the content of it was manipulated. That’s the one email with respect to me and I can tell you it’s categorically untrue, so I gotta wonder about the whole body of these emails. You know, what is the truth to untruth ratio? And I’m not sure you can conclude… // 13;48;52;12 KAINE: There was, I actually read of one example yesterday, but actually I’m reading too many stories and I can’t pin down which one it was—somebody saying, ‘I don’t think I ever sent that.’
Kaine's been saying hacked Wikileaks emails might not be accurate, so asked him whether he had any examples or had heard if one wasn't real pic.twitter.com/G2S38VS0TM
— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) October 20, 2016
Don’t forget to comment and share!