For those who have asked, there *is* a plausible explanation for the observations below: Namely that Wikileaks receives their data in PDF form, OCR's the files to extract text, then re-formats the text to resemble email messages. In such an instance a V could well be misinterpreted as a Y, and an @ for a ©. But this hardly gets Assange & Co. off the hook, as it means they receive the data in a format (PDF) that renders meaningless their claim to have authenticated each and ever file/email message/what have you. This is in addition to the fact that Wikileaks are either thieves or the associates of thieves (the difference between thievery and espionage in this case is slim to none), and Wikileaks, unlike legitimate intelligence services, operates without any transparency or oversight whatsoever. All this means is that Wikileaks bears the burden of proof, and nothing about Wikileaks justifies giving the benefit of the doubt.
There was something a little too perfect about a Huma to Hillary email referencing an earbud at a time when the alt-right minions of Trump are trying to make an issue of it, and this "leak" of a half-assed forgery in support of that effort... really, words fail me. I've been laughing on and off about this for 12 hours.
© 2015-2016 Andrew Aaron Weisburd