One can argue that the means of obtaining the information (hacking) is relevant, but I'm not sure if that's something I'd accept without examination.
For example, the DNC email leaks showed that the DNC was working with Clinton. However, when those emails were sent, it was mathematically impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton when only counting primary/caucus-assigned delegates (not counting super-delegates at all). The emails were in response to Sanders (mostly his supporters) pushing super-delegates to change their pledged vote.
The emails were accurate, in that they showed the DNC supporting Clinton directly. But they were from a time where Clinton had just become the presumptive nominee, and it is reasonable to expect the party to offer support to the presumptive nominee in preparation for the general election. They were misrepresented as showing the DNC supporting Clinton while Sanders was still a viable candidate with a reasonable chance of winning the nomination.
I say all of this as a disappointed Sanders supporter who knew that he was running a tough race in a party he had just joined without much support from the party's rank-and-file members.
In this case it sounds like the NSA has several assumptions:
A. That Trump winning was worse than Clinton
B. That what Russian state-actors do is somehow more "bad" than what American state-actors do
C. That the people of America should be prevented from knowing certain things that "us smarter people in power" can handle, so that they vote for the person "We know is best."
C is pretty scary when you think about it. And I for one, certainly don't trust the militaristically-minded never-tried-marijuana lets-do-polygraph tap-everything-and-ask-questions-later people at our acronym agencies to be more objective judges of long-term good than the average citizen.
Let's (humans) work on stopping asteroids and climate change rather than fight over lines on maps.
If this is the case, why not pull a Comey and release this information before the election?
> B. That what Russian state-actors do is somehow more "bad" than what American state-actors do
Since the NSA is an American agency, it follows that they think themselves less "bad" than the equivalent Russian agency. If they thought themselves worse, why not help Russia?
> C. That the people of America should be prevented from knowing certain things that "us smarter people in power" can handle, so that they vote for the person "We know is best."
Again, if they thought Clinton was the better option (your stated assumption from point A), why wouldn't they release information that appears to show that Russia is sympathetic to Trump before the election?
I'm saying this article quotes the NSA using language condemning what Russia allegedly did.
I'm saying, if we want to condemn this type of behavior we should:
A) Define why it is bad in a general sense (not in the context of a controversial president)
B) Ensure that if we agree it's an morally unacceptable or malicious process, that our acronym agencies do not do this same behavior to other countries (otherwise we are hypocrites and they will quite rightly feel they have justification to retaliate in kind)
And my last paragraph suggests that those in positions of authority are too-close-to-see-it, and that perhaps these distinctions on what is "cyber warfare" and what is "revealing the truth" should be made by congress in unambiguous and neutral fashion.
Speaking of dirty tools, it's disheartening that the NSA was adept at gathering data from randos, but not at following Putin's plans.