[thomask0]

Most of the things i've came across that are being brought up as bombshells are actually incoming mails from outside the campaign.

Plus there is a number of things that are being put out of context like the Hillary hates Everyday Americans thing, where it's clear from the context that it is just about the phrasing

[gravypod]

There are a lot of things that are horrible in these leaks. For example, here are four: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...

From those four, the following are "verified" by the OP of this thread.

    - 5205: The Clinton's seem to have had access to the questions to a debate.
    - 4178: The Clinton's seem to have been advised about the investigation into their emails from someone in the DOJ. 

These are two out of 4. I'll edit this if someone links other articles and I'll check them across this link.

[thomask0]

The DOJ status hearing is one of the perfect examples of something out of WikiLeaks that was way blown out of proportion by tweeting first, ask questions later.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/11/nbc-reporter-sug...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/10/trump-...

On the debate thing, a Bernie senior aide came out and said that she gave guidance to Sanders campaign too. The most nefarious scenario would be that Brazile gave questions to Clinton to prop her up. The less nefarious scenario would be that Brazile from her DNC position tried to get the best out of both candidates to not embarrass the DNC.

Note that Brazile and CNN are still denying she could have gotten access to the townhall questions. I agree though that networks should not put themselves in these kind of conflict of interests, by hiring a political commentator that is paid by the DNC at the same time, or a former campaign manager that is still on the payroll of said campaign like Corey Lewandowski.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trai...