What may be an interesting exercise to do, would be to compare the final printed version of this story with the version contained in the email.
That wouldn't help because the writer said the article hadn't gone to the editors yet.
I'm too lazy right now to look for it and take them line by line, but I would like to see the results of anyone that did so.
I've read the first 5 paragraphs. I'll bold the only difference between the WikiLeaks version and the actual article online.
"In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “
to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win.
That’s what will happen." But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a
dinner at George Clooney’s house and a
concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.
The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.
By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC,
which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.
In the first five paragraphs, I don't see anything which is suspicious.
EDIT: The very next paragraph is written slightly different from the original draft, but not in any way which suggests a better look for the DNC. Looks more like editor changes.
EDIT 2: As far as I can tell, the next five paragraphs (7-11) are written exactly the same.
In conclusion, I don't see any evidence the DNC twisted the article for their benefit.
Exactly who was going to steal their work? The DNC?
If you share the article, then other reporters can get wind of the investigation and write an article themselves.
