Originally Posted by bollywood:
“I assume from your posts that you didn't read what was in the emails, or you read them and think, in some erroneous way that they didn't affect her. Or you wouldn't ask.
This isn't a thread about 'what was in the emails.'
It's a thread about who hacked.
I suggest you read the news articles for background to this topic.”
And they have access to the truth based on what exactly?
Let's entertain the thought that Russia did hack the emails.
What difference does it make if they revealed truths which the public would otherwise not have been aware of?
Russia wouldn't have made people vote the way they did, they would have only 'interfered' with the election in respect to revealing information which the public should have had access to to inform their decision making process in the first place.
Hillary and her Democrat friends are complaining that the emails were exposed for the public to consider? Well boo hoo. If they hadn't done anything which would giver the public reason to not vote for Clinton then there wouldn't be a problem.
Then add to the fact that Hillary Clinton used a private email server which put her in a vulnerable position in the first place. It was what the investigation about her was about in the first place. The emails were hacked because of her own doing. That's why email protocol needed to be respected.
If Russia did hack the emails then they were doing the public a service whether that was their intention or not, which is something the American media should have been doing. There has been no scrutiny whatsoever by American journalists. It's only due to people like Snowdon and Assange that the public have been provided with information which is actually useful and informs the American public at all with anything which is important.
So when you suggest to the poster that they should read news articles if they want to find the truth, that's such lopsided advice, as if the last year has told us anything is that the American media are in bed with the Clintons and the Democratic Party. And by a quirk of fate we may never have known that if it wasn't due to the release of the emails.
The news articles you speak of are conceived by the purveyors of most of the 'fake news' which the establishment is currently getting their knickers in a twist over. But the fake news has been the 'news' which has been cheerleading Hillary Clinton for over a year.
It hardly matters who hacked them. What matters is what information was revealed in the emails. That isn't to condone the practice of hacking, it's to say that what information is revealed is far more important. Or should be seen to be. You can't just undermine that information based on who's revealed it. It's either true or it isn't. If it's true then the public made a decision on that information.
If the content of the emails wasn't true, then that'd be a different story and then they would have a valid reason to complain about the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was based on the revelation of true facts, then isn't that how it should be?
They're crying about secrets they wanted to remain hidden from the public being exposed. How can anybody have any sympathy with that?