With respect to the emails of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, Her Presidential Campaign Chair, I am focused upon only: (1) the First Amendment; (2) the lack of integrity of "our" government and "our" media; and (3) the sheepleness and/or disinterest of many too easily-duped/led Americans. (None of us. Other Americans.) Therefore, this essay assumes that the Russian government ordered hacking of the computers of the DNC and Podesta. (BTW, FYI: Seth Rich's brother is trying to raise money to investigate the murder: https://www.gofundme.com/SethRich)

First, only the computer hacking was illegal: Although politicians and media have made more of this than of publishing instructions for making nuclear weapons on the internet, the information on the computers of the DNC and Podesta was not government information, let alone classified. Second, please keep separate (a) acquiring information illegally; and (b) making available to prospective U.S. voters accurate, non-classified, information about the election campaign of a candidate for POTUS. (BTW, Democrats have referred to the hacks themselves on MSNBC as an invasion of the U.S. by a foreign power and as an act of war, without contradiction or question from MSNBC personnel. After I started drafting this, Cheney chimed in to the same effect. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.)

Had Russia just sat on the information obtained by the hacking, no one could or would have claimed interference with an election. Although the PTB have been doing their best to blur and conflate issues, what politicians and media have been calling interference with a U.S. election is making available to prospective U.S. voters accurate, non-classified, information about the election campaign of a candidate for POTUS. This is political speech, which merits the highest level of First Amendment protection. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)

Good grief! Is First Amendment protection of political speech headed for the same black hole as the Fourth Amendment? And no one pushes back against calling that interference with an election, not politicians, not media, not their audience! I cannot emphasize the following enough: RELEASING TO AMERICANS ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRIMARY AND/OR GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS IS IN NO WAY INTERFERING WITH A U.S. ELECTION. RATHER, CLAIMING THAT RELEASING TO AMERICANS ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRIMARY AND/OR GENERAL CAMPAIGN OF A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS IS A "BIG LIE" THAT "OUR" GOVERNMENT AND "OUR" MEDIA HAVE BEEN TELLING US OVER AND OVER.

The principle is sometimes translated and abbreviated as the pithy saying: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." {snip}

The phrase {the Big Lie} was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6]

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)

Golly, why does all that seem so familiar?

In case anyone realized how bizarre the claim of the PTB is, President Obama asserted that releasing accurate information that disfavors only one candidate is what constitutes interference with a U.S. election. Really? Publishing information that disfavors only one side is the definition of interfering with a Presidential election? Then, every speech, every newspaper, magazine and internet article, every broadcast, every message board post, etc., praising or endorsing only one candidate interfered with the U.S. primary and general elections of 2016?

Yikes! That means most of the US belongs in prison, starting with establishment media. And what an ironic assertion, coming from the President whose administration put the final nail in the coffin of the fairness doctrine! (https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/1/how_the_media_iced_out_bernie; https://berniesanders.com/press-release/why-the-bernie-blackout-on-corpo... https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine )

Golly, if our government knew anything at all about collecting data from private individuals in foreign nations or about interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations, it would never be saying such ludicrous things, would it? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-hi...) And, inasmuch as these claims of interfering with an election do both threaten First Amendment freedom and sound like resuscitating the fairness doctrine, why has "our" (snort) "watchdog media" been parroting these claims? Wouldn't we expect media to be challenging claims that either inhibit free speech or revive the fairness doctrine?

Meanwhile, the bi-partisan Big Lies disappeared Big Truths from the national conversation. Poof! One Big Truth is that Podesta is distasteful at best, "coincidentally," like many other Hillary campaign officials, surrogates and supporters, starting with Bubba and Mark Penn. (E.g. e.g., Halperin, Mark and Heilemann, John, Game Change, Harper Collins, New York 2010; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/10/game-change-bill-clinton-_n_417...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/hillary-supporter-cuomo-o_n_809... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillar... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jun/11/backstory-behin... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2008/0...)

Another Big Truth is that a number of employees of the DNC (Dishonored National Committee) violated the charter of their employer and deceived and betrayed millions of Americans. Disgraced Debbie, Discredited Donna and every other DNC employee who participated in promoting Hillary over Senator Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary should have been fired the very day the emails became public.

Instead, only Sanders delegates prevented Disgraced Debbie from having her moment at the Democratic National Convention; and her "resignation" was announced simultaneously with her hiring by the Hillary campaign. Discredited Donna, of course, was elevated to Acting Chair of the DNC. Finally, Discredited Donna and the other DNC employees who violated their employer's charter remain employed. And none of the foregoing seems to bother "co-chairs" Tom Perez or Keith Ellison, even a little. ETA: When I posted this essay this morning, I may have spoken keyboarded too soon about Perez and Ellison, or not. We shall soon see. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/embattled-dnc-asks-all-staffer...

Summing up, the following are Big Lies:

1. Hacking a computer of a private U.S. person or organization is invasion of the United States by a foreign power and therefore an act of war.

2. Releasing truthful, but negative, information about the campaign of one candidate for POTUS equals interfering with a US election.

3. Nothing revealed by the emails of the DNC and Podesta is worth discussing for more than a minute and a half because Big Lies numbered 1 and 2, above, use up the oxygen in the room.

And, in conclusion, EEEEKKK! Russia! (P.S. The Fifties want their boogieyman back.)