sigh Come on man. If you'd just stopped at the question mark, you'd have a civil, if somewhat pithy comment that could potentially trigger some sort of conver

sigh Come on man. If you'd just stopped at the question mark, you'd have a civil, if somewhat pithy comment that could potentially trigger some sort of conversation. Instead you punctuate with foul language and insults, effectively nullifying your comment. I know this stuff is polarizing and frustrating, particularly when you think there's bias or hypocrisy at work. But you can do better. In this particular case, there's a very interesting potential debate that can be had about the ethics of leaks, the timing of leaks, the dangers posed by these types of leaks (e.g., actors with an agenda using "leaks" to release data that's biased or groomed to fit an agenda), the ethics of nation states supporting independent actors engaging in these types of activities... Incidentally, to address your question, if it had been Trump... I'll admit it, it might bother me less. I wish I could say it wouldn't, because in reality, it'd be no different: an unaccountable, likely biased actor, who appears to be blatantly working to manipulate the election from the safety of a foreign embassy. Whether they're manipulating it to push the electorate toward Trump or Hillary doesn't make that any less questionable...