That bolded part I absolutely agree with you on, particularly the "to any meaningful degree" bit. Their level of influence in the election is basicly whatever RT and Sputnik news churned out. Hacking a political party's data was serious, sure, but Hillary was already an unpopular candidate before the leak. A lotof the actual fake news stories that got retweeted and shared during the election, wasn't Russian IIRC, but Romanian. It's a cottage industry, apparantly and the motive for sending out those stories were purely economically motivated by those Romanian teens wanting to make several thousands of bucks off of ads for their fake news sites.StCapps wrote:If they had any evidence other than speculation we wouldn't call it fake news. It isn't fake news that Russia wanted to influence the US election, but it is fake news that they have proof of Russian meddling in the election to any meaningful degree that they are willing to share with the public. The difference between us and you, is that we don't jump to conclusions about the former existing just because the latter was the case.
Last part of your post's honestly confusing, though. You're not sure that Russia wanted to influence the US election, because it is fake news that achieved it "to any meaningful degree"? Shouldn't it be the other way around?