[COBOL2Java]

Okay, so the rationale is: If the voters hadn't known what Hillary was really like, more of them would SURELY have voted for her, but they learned what she is like from her emails, and it must have been the Russians because, well, they're like that... so we should all vote for Hillary because if the truth hadn't been leaked, surely she should have won.

That's the rationale.

---

Their argument is even funnier than that: You see, they claim that the Russians hacked the DNC and the RNC emails. They leaked damaging Hillary info but withheld Trump's info so as to keep his image positive. You see? That's how Hillary lost!

Some problems with that:

1. Hillary Clinton and Podesta were running their campaign on unsecured email servers
2. Reince Priebus, as soon as he learned of the possibility the DNC's servers may have been hacked, notified the FBI. They did an investigation and found that the RNC's servers were NOT hacked
3. If the DNC emails were hacked, it was because of Hillary's and Podesta's stupidity in not securing their servers
4. Hillary didn't lose because of Russian hackers; she lost because she was a lousy candidate

[COBOL2Java]

...she also lost because she was an unlikeable candidate whom no one wanted.

[Kozy]

And stupid

[Sam Gamgee]

So hacking only means breaking in. My question is how much time did they have access to the DNC servers? Were they able to extract anything? If so what did they extract of value? Obviously the Democrats know exactly the answer to this. So where is the proof that it was what Assange had in hand?