Entangling the Russian hackers with the contents of the leak is unfortunate and counter-productive. Yes, Democrats should be pissed that DNC was taking sides against Sanders. But at the same time, the "leak" is not some whistleblower dumping the emails, it's a deliberate act of cyber warfare by a foreign nation (most likely... not that it can ever be proven beyond all doubt). These are two completely separate issues, but they are also very easy to use to try to deflect each other:
When someone raises an issue that DNC was taking sides, he or she can get rebuked with "Are you in cahoots with the Russians? Why do you let them interfere in our elections?"
When someone raises concern over Russian hacks, he or she gets rebuked with "What about the DNC dishonesty, don't attack the messenger!"
I for one think these lines of argumentation should be banned. When discussing the content of the leak, talk about the content. When discussing the hacking, talk about the hacking only.
Anyway, I wonder, if it is Russian hackers, why would it be restricted only to DNC or Hillary? Could it be that they have also hacked RNC or Trump's campaign emails (or at least tried), but have simply not chosen to reveal those. Independent hacking groups like Anonymous (if it exists) would probably release everything they can get their hands on, but state actors would know the value of keeping some things secret and releasing only the parts that benefits them. For example, the famous phone call where Victoria Nuland says "fuck Europe" was not released in its entirety, only the small part that might have hurt EU-US relations.
If Trump or RNC was hacked, and there are traces of it, would they make it public, or just cross their fingers and hope nothing gets released? Does it put Trump in a possible position of being blackmailed by Russia later on?
