Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "" video.

Here's a very simple thing you can do when someone says that Russia hacked the election. Ask how Russia's alleged hack (because we still haven't been presented with evidence, let alone proof) of the DNC and Podesta tipped the election in Trump's favor. The hack alone wouldn't have done it, so it must have been the contents of the hack, which I won't rehearse here. If it's the contents of the hack, and Russia is responsible, then Russia still deserves censure for meddling in our electoral process, but the ultimate responsibility lies with Clinton, whose "private" actions, practices, and views, detailed in the emails, voters found disenchanting. But there's another problem to the MM's Russia-hack argument. The problem is that they hardly covered it. How many outlets ran stories about the Clinton camp's (illegal) coordination with Super PACs? How many ran stories about her comments in paid speeches to Wall Street and other interests? Not many and not often. The MM's coverage was superficial and sympathetic to Clinton. The argument I kept hearing against covering the content of the hacked emails was that we already knew everything in them. They were bland, just the same old HRC. The one exception I can think of is Fox News, sadly. But that probably did little to sway the results of the election since most of the people who watch Fox weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. So we're left with a situation where the hack caused Clinton to lose even though the contents of the hack weren't widely publicized (I would even go so far as to say that they were suppressed) and even if they were, Clinton supporters argue, the contents weren't scandalous, which means that Americans voted for Trump over Clinton merely because a foreign entity hacked the Democrats, which, do I even have to say it? is absurd.
2