To say that "Russian interference affected vote totals in 39 states" is a lie, or, at best, an unsubstantiated opinion without basis in fact, if you read the article the person quoted linked to for their latest waltz through alternate reality. Better yet, read the article that the article links to, because Esquire is not exactly an arbiter of all things political.
I hate to sound pedantic here, but this is not the first time I have called out this particular user without mentioning them by name for either misstating the truth (but perhaps innocently enough, the last time) or else flat out misrepresenting it, as in this case, and the sad part is that it probably won't be the last if this pattern holds. I'd like it to not hold, which is why I'm going a bit out of my way here.
Misleading and lying only every once in a while is still misleading and lying. Credentials do not negate that; if anything, they amplify it. The truth is still the truth, whether obfuscated by someone who Knows How To Do This or not. Someone who does Know How To Do This has a greater responsibility to stick to the truth than someone who doesn't.
Also, charmingly enough, because I don't know whether to feel flattered or tell them to go find their own gig, this same person recently cribbed my words to describe what topic matter they cover and why they cover it, while being completely incorrect about the second part of that because the first part is completely different from what I do.
Yes, really. Comments are disabled; discuss under your own locked post, because I have nothing further to add to this.