It is unfortunate that the news would have been too close to the election, so I have some understanding why some news organizations handled the story they did.
I liken this to the Google, and other tech companies, interviewing process. It is better to miss out on a good hire, than hire (or elect) someone that was a false positive for good. So based on reasonable doubt or suspicion, a story like this should cause anyone connected to be considered not a good choice for government employment anywhere since it could cause the US to be taken advantage of by any relevant other countries.
They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.
> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
>I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible.
You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble.
>I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart.
Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though.
>See my first point.
Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation.
>I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
I liken this to the Google, and other tech companies, interviewing process. It is better to miss out on a good hire, than hire (or elect) someone that was a false positive for good. So based on reasonable doubt or suspicion, a story like this should cause anyone connected to be considered not a good choice for government employment anywhere since it could cause the US to be taken advantage of by any relevant other countries.