Election Reform

For a moment let's just assume that "supported by a hostile foreign government" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and can be shown by indisputable evidence. I doubt that's true, but let it pass.

The point I made was that the hostile foreign government, amorally pursuing its own interests, will sometimes find that its interests are served by the truth.

If WikiLeaks did not have a good track record, then you could have catalogued numerous instances in which WikiLeaks had publicly put its imprimatur on a document release, but the documents had turned out to be spurious. Your silence on that score speaks volumes.

Of course, my question was about specifically the Podesta emails. Even if WikiLeaks has always been right before, this could be their first mistake/hoax. Even if WikiLeaks had repeatedly lied, they wouldn't possess reverse infallibility, and this particular release might be the stopped-clock one that was valid. That's why I asked for specifics about the purported Podesta emails -- so far, without result.

And, of course, Land Shark is quite correct that the smearing of WikiLeaks is irrelevant to the point in the OP, that post-election inquiry has only a limited ability to correct election fraud. If your point is that even a hand recount of paper ballots wouldn't correct biased reporting that preceded the election, well, yes, I think everyone can agree with you on that.