PP, you ask: “So you think Russia did or didn't hack DNC & Podesta emails?”  That question does not lend itself to a simple yes-or-no answer but the short simplistic answer is 'Yes'. The Russians probably did hack the emails in question'. I believe that because I believe that if they could they would, but I do not believe that that answer addresses nearly everything which I believe you imply by asking it.  

 I have from early on thought that the electoral issues concerning Russian influence in our elections have been hyped to the extreme and almost entirely for purely political reasons regardless of the facts of the case. I acknowledge my strong cynicism regarding our law enforcement agencies and the various intelligence agencies within our national government. This cynicism affects my thinking regarding what I am told by any government agency or entity. I do not automatically believe anything they put out and I do not automatically give them any benefit of any reasonable doubt in a world where doubting or absolutely disbelieving what they have put out in the past has turned out to be justified over and over again as further information about an issue is released or is discovered or is leaked and it is proven that we were lied to. Have you seen any of the several videos of people who claimed on television to have inside information or were otherwise in a position to know that there was proof of their allegations of Russian guilt only to testify under oath later that they did not have any verifiable evidence of the claims they made. Cloudstrike is not the only one. As a term of art, what would you call the claiming of damning proof of a damning allegation against another country from a national podium when you had no such proof? I would call it chickenshit political propaganda. 

There are multiple possible situations but the first point of departure on your question is whether those emails were in fact hacked or were they directly downloaded. You know the questions and allegations regarding the possibility that they were not hacked but were instead downloaded. I know you have vociferously rejected them. They include the analysis by the computer expert who had a major hand in setting up the NSA’s spy systems, the fact that the FBI never examined the computers involved, the fact that they accepted a compromised security firm’s preliminary report and never asked for or received a final report, that there was at best a sloppy incomplete investigation of the murdered DNC worker who had access to the computers involved. And the list goes on. These are all facts and/or open questions. These questions, when asked, lead many who have strong opinions that lead to one narrow answer that confirms their contrary bias on the subject. They then ridicule and dismiss these questions as the work of the fevered mind of a “conspiracy theorist”. A true conspiracy theorist, in the derogatory sense that the term is used, would stress these points but someone looking for honest answers would ask them too. 

 Multiple things can be true at the same time regarding hacking of emails. It is entirely possible that information on a computer can be both downloaded by one entity and hacked by another.  It is also possible that a computer can be hacked by multiple entities. In this case it is likely, IMO.  Can you imagine an ethically challenged operative of the Republican party who was capable of hacking those computers, or hiring someone who could hack them, doing so. Would there be a safer place to secretly and anonymously release those rightfully damaging emails then to Wikileaks? The link I posted says that under oath a representative of Cloudstrike testifies that Cloudstrike cannot prove whether the emails were in fact hacked and so it follows by simple logic that they cannot prove who or what agency hacked them. So, if they cannot prove the emails were hacked but believe that they were, can they prove  that they were not hacked by multiple entities? I have from early on thought that the electoral issues concerning Russian influence in our elections have been hyped in one direction only and to the extreme for purely political reasons regardless of the facts of the case. I acknowledge my strong cynicism regarding our law enforcement agencies and the various intelligence agencies within our national government. I do not automatically believe everything they put out and I do not automatically give them any benefit of doubt when reasonable doubt exists in a world where doubting or absolutely disbelieving what they have put out in the past has turned out to be justified over and over again as further information is released or is discovered or is leaked.

That said, Let’s assume for the sake of thinking through my answer, that the Russians did in fact hack the emails. [This would not be proof at all that they gave them to Wikileaks, maybe they hacked and then did so or maybe they hacked but didn’t]  An important thing we can know is that if the Russians did in fact hack the emails it proves that Hillary’s computer, supposedly protected by Cloudstrike, could be hacked. It does not require a fevered mind to conclude that there are other entities who could also have done so including the intelligence agencies of quite a few countries and probably some private firms and probably by some individuals working in their mother’s basement.  Do you believe that Russians being the leaker for the purpose of affecting our national politics, even if they did successfully hack, is the only possibility?  Netanyahu, as only one alternative possibility, comes to mind as a clear example of the leader of a foreign country who is very powerful and influential in the United States, who has openly interfered in our politics, and who favored Trump for President,   Do you doubt that Israel has the capability to hack anything the Russians can hack? Can you imagine any other country besides Russia having motive of disrupting our political system if it only requires clickbate to do so? Do you think that various of our allies do not spy on us as we spy on them? And, do you doubt that Netanyahu, as an example of only one of many political actors all over the world, is a person who is apparently completely comfortable with using scumbaggery to take whatever action favors his or his country’s situation as he sees it?  Can you imagine that such a person might even exist in the Democratic Party?

My biggest concern is the propagandistic way that news about this and many other important issues is reported. If we stipulate for the purpose of pursuing a point, that Russia is proven to be the guilty party in the release of the actual real but embarrassing emails, should we then condemn them as being uniquely evil?  Does that do any real good?

 Following is your opening to indict me as a Trump apologist even though I have consistently opposed almost everything he has done as President and most everything I know regarding what he has done as a human being. I am not in this case apologizing for Trump, I am being critical of some of the many stories used to demonize him.  The following is a list of significant geopolitical actions taken by Trump in the first year and a half or so of his administration. This was a time when he was being demonized  in ways that obstructed positive diplomacy with a country which could be pushed to join the self-serving international bullies or outright war mongers in this country in escalating differences which mostly amount to who will have unrestricted access to the worlds resources on their own terms and otherwise for only cynical political reasons by many and done so to the detriment of both our internal and international politics. Trump was and still is being characterized as a compromised lapdog boot licking toady tool of Putin. I was, and remain, against most of the actions listed below and I would expect that you, or any fair minded person, would agree that Putin was against every one of them and would have prevented them if he could have, but why would an opponent of Trump interfere with an affective narrative.

“Trump has evicted Russian diplomats, sanctioned Russian officials, put missiles practically on Russia’s border, sent weapons into Ukraine, lobbied European nations to drop Russian energy deals, left the Iran agreement, torn up the INF Treaty, rejected Russia’s offers on banning weapons in space and banning cyberwar, expanded NATO eastward, added a NATO partner in Colombia, proposed adding Brazil, demanded and successfully moved most NATO members to buy significantly more weapons, splurged on more nukes, bombed Russians in Syria, overseen the largest war rehearsals in Europe in half a century, condemned all proposals for a European military and insisted that Europe stick with NATO.” 

 "We can permit the shrinking of the public space to continue until a good program is put in place because nothing can threaten the very possibility to act when "we" want something badly enough'.

 I have tried to compose a cogent response but I do not understand what you are saying in that statement nor in much of the rest of you comment so I cannot agree  with or debate it. I will say though what I think, which is that both Greenwald's position and Chomsky's are presented well and Levine comes down on the side of asking and trying to understand why young people did not turn out as opposed to just shaming them for not doing what we might believe they should have done and what we fear they will do again. I personally am very empathetic to Greenwald's position but have decided to vote pragmatically, this time, for the reasons Chomsky warns we must.  

What is odd? Is it odd that some people thinks that our government has different rights and obligations within it own country boundaries towards its own citizens from those regarding its dealings with other countries all over the world?  Lawrence points out the obvious which is that we try through sanctions to starve enough people and cause enough other troubles that they will carry out regime change without us even having to bomb. We are running out of new sanctions to apply, and support by aligned countries for so many of those sanctions appears to be slipping. 

Is there anything in the article that you agree with? As to your question, I do not like what is happening to the Uighurs. I am against it and do not think I have ever expressed anything which should make someone suspect I would be for it. What action do you think the U.S. should take to help the UIqhurs? Are all options on the table?  What do you think about the U.S. helping the Saudis starve the Yeminis? For it or against it? 

What it means to say is, as I read it, quite well summarized in the title and quite well supported in the article.