What exactly was hacked?

^^^ All utter boll0x, I`m afraid.

Note, there is no `official` accreditation; it` all `a source`, which the Clintonistas are jumping upon, and repeating often, hoping that it will somehow become true. It`s not, and it won`t. I repeat; there has been NO official statement confirming or refuting any such claims. What has been happening is that some younger, lefter-leaning members of the CIA have been seeding these stories, while every older and more responsible CIA agent is saying `there`s no proof ANYONE was hacked`.

There may well have been hacking, but it`s just as likely to have been a spotty geek in his Mum`s spare room as to have been the Russians. All of the e-mail leaking during the campaign were released by Wikileaks; head honcho, Julian Assange, has declared very publicly that the Russians were NOT his source. The most likely story, one that fits the facts (but not the bleating of losers), is that it was an inside job, with one of Clinton`s team being responsible. All very simple and straightforward, but this is the fourth attempt at undermining the result, following on from, risible attempts at recounts in which Trump GAINED votes, blaming FBI boss James Comey, and now trying to pressurise members of the Electoral College into going against the will and demands of the voters from their states, by actually choosing to elect someone other than Trump when they gather to do the `official` bit, next week.

In summary, that article is a perfect example of the spin, deflection and insider-dealings which the American public so joyously rebelled against last month, with not a word of hard, official fact to be found  in it. Never mind that, eh, comrades!


detraveller; to answer your points in order

We don`t KNOW if anything was hacked, or whether it was leaked. Big difference.
Obama`s announcement is nothing but hypocritical grandstanding, as it turns out he `knew` about this `Russian hacking` 18 months ago, and chose to do NOTHING!!! Seems they were so confident of a Clinton victory, they weren`t in the slightest concerned about any possible hacking. Which, of course, is a fantastic example of what a terribly weak and ineffective President Obama has been.

Zero evidence, or even claims, that the actual voting was being in any way `altered`. Pre-election comcerns were aired, as the company that supplies the electronic booths is part-owned by one of Clinton`s biggest supporters, George Soros.

There were leaks from a number of Democratic staffers, but the  majority of them were from Clinton`s Campaign Manager, John Podesta`s account. Numerous other little episodes revealing all sorts of shenanigans, from the accounts of maybe half a dozen other people, including some DNCers.


`...and the implication is that those leaks resulted in Hillary losing?`...`

Well, yes, but this is their FOURTH different attempt to undo the unthinkable, so we`d normally call it `straw clutching`.

As king donald said ...

This is the same CIA that contended that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

That's all there is to be said, really.

No evidence, but somebody said he had WMDs.

No evidence, but somebody said the Russians hacked accounts and influenced the election.

Remember  -   CHILE , Bay of Pigs(cuba) Dominican republic, Panama  - Just saying