>> The Russian hacking is one of them.
I think this discussion is just entirely an effort to confuse liberals, which it has done easily.
What is the "hacking" we're talking about, exactly? There are at least two important, but different components:
1. There is the situation where Podesta and Clinton failed to protect their email, something they were obligated to do -- and that Republicans DID do. As a result, THE FACTUAL emails of John Podesta were all over the news media. No one made up lies about them. They were just out there.
2. There are so-called "fake news" stories, which are, bottom line, websites spreading bullshit. They come in both liberal and conservative editions, and I would add they don't all come from "Russian" intervention. I would not be surprised at all to learn that the Clinton campaign used some of these same tactics.
So, when we talk about "hacking" is that item 1 (factual emails of the DNC released to the public), item 2 ("fake news stories planted by anyone, which might include Russian operatives or even Clinton operatives), or is there something else?
It is funny to me if you are considering "hacking" to include the release of emails that are actually what this nitwit Podesta said. If you're talking about fake news stories, I'm not sure that can properly be called hacking. It is more like setting up a website. Which you and I could both do before midnight if we wanted to. |
