Here is the conclusion of a New York Times article on the hacking of the DNC e-mails:
For the people whose emails were stolen, this new form of political sabotage has left a trail of shock and professional damage. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a key Clinton supporter, recalls walking into the busy Clinton transition offices, humiliated to see her face on television screens as pundits discussed a leaked email in which she had called Mrs. Clinton’s instincts “suboptimal.”
I don’t know where the truth is in all this, but I do know we may be missing the real point. Don’t say stupid things in e-mails.
At least a month before the election the public knew of the hacking and possible Russian involvement. Too bad it didn’t get as much attention then, as it does now in the context of sour grapes.
To say now that the release of, of, of what? influenced voters is a stretch. Clinton damaged herself with her e-mails. I doubt Trump needed much help and the DNC blew it’s credibility to hell sticking it to old Bernie. Wikileaks claims it did not receive the hacked e-mails from any government, including Russia.
I don’t know what the hell was in any e-mails and I bet the same is true for virtually all voters and I bet the vast majority made up their mind who was going to get their vote long before they ever heard of e-mails.
By DAMIAN PALETTA
Wall Street Journal Updated Oct. 7, 2016 7:13 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The U.S. intelligence community took the extraordinary step Friday of directly accusing the Russian government of trying to interfere in the coming U.S. elections by purposefully leaking emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and other entities.
The intelligence agencies, in a joint statement, alleged the hacks were directed by the most senior officials in the Russian government.
“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.
So, did Russian hackers do us a service by making the e-mails available given the mainstream press believes the source of such information is not a primary consideration?
New York Times December 16, 2016
“Although this context is new, the general principle, I think, isn’t,” said David Lauter, the Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times. “The fact that it’s coming from an unsavory source doesn’t mean that the information isn’t accurate.”
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said he did not regret the publication’s coverage of the hacked emails.
“I get the argument that the standards should be different if the stuff is stolen and that should influence the decision,’’ he said in an interview. “But in the end, I think that we have an obligation to report what we can about important people and important events. There’s just no question that the email exchanges inside the Democratic Party were newsworthy.”