> that "Russians" hacked the election
That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim.
The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.
That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim.
The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.
I think the more likely objective (assuming the Russians were behind this, which for the time being is a fair assumption) is that they wanted to delegitimize a President Clinton. Everyone thought she would win. I think it's a bold claim to make that the Kremlin set out on a campaign to elevate an obtuse philanderer in a field of 16 who ignores any semblance of political norms. Rather, I think they just wanted to further tarnish Clinton's image, as President, as a corrupt establishment figure.
The DNC problems are part of a long term reshaping of US political identities. The Russia issues are a serious near-term national security concern.
And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one.
I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.