This isn't a criminal case, it's an election we're talking about. If the information is valid and you want to be neutral at least in regards to what information you consider, you therefore consider it.
I am all for our government and even corporations fighting against identified Russian
propaganda when discovered, but if the question is whether I vote for a person and valid negative information is presented about that person, I consider the information even if it was stolen.
That said, it seems odd to me that those emails would convince someone that the appropriate response was voting for Donald Trump (a festering pile of ****), when someone could just as easily sit home or vote third party.
If we're being consistent, why are we comparing the emails to imprisoning sex slaves?
That aside, what is so bad about those emails that someone who wanted to vote Democrat generally but disliked Hillary would be pushed to vote for Trump ("against" Hillary) as compared to voting third party or sitting home (protest vote/non-vote)?
Wasn't the main thrust that they suggested a campaign to unfairly undermine Sanders in the primary, that they plotted dirty attacks such as getting a reporter to ask Sanders if he's an atheist, etc?
There was also this....
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails-fundraising.html
....but hey, I think Citizens United was a terrible decision and that campaign funding needs to be completely reworked: much bigger limits on private donations, plus a public guarantee that at various points, the top X candidates get funding matching the leading candidate, for each party. Make sure they get less private donations and reduce the incentive to try to buy out an election by making sure the underdog gets pulled up to the leaders' contribution level on the public dime.
