krypto2000 said:

I do think the DNC hacks were beneficial to you and I, even if it did lead Trump to being in power as a result. More transparency is good, period. However if it's only transparency on one side it might lead people to believe a skewed picture. I mean do you honestly think the DNC is any more or less shady than the RNC? I don't, I doubt you do either, but with only one side being released it certainly seems to me that many now do.

---

krypto2000 said:

And to the burglary analogy again. Sure, there's always known unknowns and unknown unknowns, but you have to work with what you have. Are you going to say, "well, if someone shimmied down the chimney to steal the TV we wouldn't be able to detect it so we should continue to entertain the possibility of a second break in" or are you instead going to focus your investigation of the stolen TV towards the guy who has the key and jewelry? If you've exhausted that guy and turned up no TV then maybe look elsewhere; if we exhaust the Russian leads and cannot find a source of the leak then look elsewhere. It seems you are proposing we should look everywhere except the most prominent leads we have first though on the possibility that there might have been a second attack no one has yet discovered.

---

koods said:

Assange was overtly out to get Clinton.

---

koods said:

Combined with their private communication with the trump campaign offering help and giving them advanced notice of releases, their bias is unquestionable.

---