Yes, because the truth is a weapon being used against us by wicked enemies, and therefore we must suppress it. Nevermind there's no evidence said enemy has anything to do with it.
Edit: Fixed link.
Clipboard error, my mistake. Here is the background link I meant to be there. Still, "pretty well known?" Perhaps you meant "It was attributed without evidence early in the campaign..." Or possibly "If we accept that Russian intelligence makes sure to brag openly about their responsibility for attacks within the attacks themselves, then..." Unless you've got evidence that hasn't been produced publicly as far as I know, what you're offering here is nth-hand hearsay. Unconventional unwisdom. Scapegoating of convenient enemies meant to distract from revelations about the truth of what's gone on in the course of this campaign.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, someone Russian had given the material to Wikileaks. Do you mean to claim the leaks themselves are unreal or illegal to read or treasonous to see?
Yes, because the truth is a weapon being used against us by wicked enemies, and therefore we must suppress it. Nevermind there's no evidence said enemy has anything to do with it. Edit: Fixed link.
The truth is the truth, no matter where it comes from. politicians love to attack the messenger and ignore the message when they don't like it.
You just posted a link to an article about relations between the Philippines and China. It's also pretty well known Russia helped Wikileaks
Clipboard error, my mistake. Here is the background link I meant to be there. Still, "pretty well known?" Perhaps you meant "It was attributed without evidence early in the campaign..." Or possibly "If we accept that Russian intelligence makes sure to brag openly about their responsibility for attacks within the attacks themselves, then..." Unless you've got evidence that hasn't been produced publicly as far as I know, what you're offering here is nth-hand hearsay. Unconventional unwisdom. Scapegoating of convenient enemies meant to distract from revelations about the truth of what's gone on in the course of this campaign.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, someone Russian had given the material to Wikileaks. Do you mean to claim the leaks themselves are unreal or illegal to read or treasonous to see?