[ClearCase_guy]

This entire conversation s made possible by intentionally sloppy language by the Left.

Hacking an election? That would mean electronically changing vote tallies to affect outcomes. Russia didn’t do that. Everyone — EVERYONE — agrees with that.

Hacking an election? WikiLeaks told people the truthg about Hillary’s emails. Was Russia involved in WikiLeaks? Probably not. But the Left likes to be concerned about that possibility.

But is that second definition (”telling the truth”) synonymous with “hacking an election”?

On what planet?

[Bryanw92]

>>But is that second definition (”telling the truth”) synonymous with “hack

Tucker had a D congressman on last night and Tucker backed him into a corner where he said that the only hacking was “Russian trolls” who lied on the internet and people believed them. So, he said that we need “reforms” to stop that. Tucker asked for details of the reforms: ban trolls, ban Russians, keep citizens from reading the Internet?

[Lou L]

Hacking an election? WikiLeaks told people the truthg about Hillary’s emails. Was Russia involved in WikiLeaks? Probably not. But the Left likes to be concerned about that possibility.

Even still, releasing e-mails--many of whose content was significantly buried by left-leaning media outlets--has no guarantee to sway a US Presidential Election. There's simply too many variables involved, including human nature.