If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? The fact itself is what's interesting.

If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? The fact itself is what's interesting. I get that an entity could be more interested in uncovering facts about one party than another but in this particular case, the fact was that the Democratic Party was acting "unethically" in some people's eyes. If they hadn't been then it wouldn't have "influenced" people's opinions. Another way to look at it: that entity didn't annotate the emails, the content of the emails was enough to anger people. I'm not try to fork this into a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in what other users of this site think, particularly those who think differently than I do.