[gragas]

>Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests.

I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents.

I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.

[mcphage]

> I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.

Unfortunately, you weren't given the opportunity to find out how corrupt the RNC and the Republican party were before you voted in November. But that's okay, half the picture being blocked from view I'm sure is just like seeing the whole picture, right?

[ItendToDisagree]

Your post quoted: "So it's better to hide the truth from voters if that means voters knowing the truth is in Russia's interest?

How is being more informed a bad thing?"

Where did you 'clearly say' it was in Russia's interests for the GOP to win? It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up and no leak of RNC corruption could ever be big enough to sway you anyway.

[maxlybbert]

I think the argument is "knowing information that is truthful, even if it's incomplete."

[gragas]

My bad, I was referring to another comment thread.

>It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up

I'm just interested in making the most informed decision I can.

[dredmorbius]

In a court of law, rules of evidentiary procudure apply such that one side is not unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged, by unequal law or process.

No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal.

An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play.

One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that.

Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst.

A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.