Oh lordy. Did we not want to know the truth about a public figure? It was a service to all voters to have a full understanding of the person and the party and shenanigans and unlawful misdeeds. That kind of sunshine is always welcome and I would go as far as saying that people in government have no expectation of privacy and that secrecy at those levels is highly dangerous to liberty because 99% of the time it is used to cover up misdeeds or incompetence. Whether that extends to Mr. Podesta, I'm less sure, but after what they did to Bernie Sanders, I'm not shedding any tears for those people. They're scum. And it is the utmost good that Clinton lost the election--we can't survive that kind of corruption or we end up as a dictatorship.
Meanwhile, the elected President and his party are demanding the names of people involved in climatology and are passing acts to let them reduce individual named government employees' salaries to $1 per year.
Avoiding that "corruption" really did a whole lot of good with the actual, literal wannabe serial-assaulting autocrat who is in office, you're so very right.
Both have been extensively reported and are well-understood. In the interest of fairness that Trump and his cronies do not deserve, they claimed significantly after-the-fact that the former request for the names climate workers was "not authorized." This is a lie, and a bad one, and the truly damning thing is that they think--perhaps even correctly--that the lie will be taken by their listeners. "Alternative facts" (hat-tip to Trump's mouthpiece Conway for that gem) are the measure of the autocrat: make the people doubt everything to exhaust them, to instill the notion that there is no truth, and to prevent them from focusing on what you are actually doing. It provides cover when suspicions are actually aroused by something you are doing to fade away, and then it is as if it never was.
