When incriminating things came out on Hilary via Wikileaks (which has been a credible advocate of government transparency for over a decade), Hilary's defense was just to cry "that could have come from Russia!" ...instead of addressing the leaks themselves. The mainstream media, who was clearly in Hilary's corner in this election (and tried to create hysteria throughout the election on anything that would discredit Trump), formed the unsubstantiated narrative that "maybe Trump is colluding with Russia to win the election".
First, there is zero evidence that Wikileaks has anything to do with Russia. Second, the "Trump colluded with Russia" narrative goes no deeper than "Trump seems to have no problem with Putin, and vice versa".
Overall, I think it is the opinion of people like myself and possibly Joe (though I can't speak for him) that jeopardizing US relations with Russia only to divert attention from email leaks was highly irresponsible and morally questionable. In addition, the lengths to which the Clinton Establishment (including the media) went to divert attention away from the leaks themselves and onto their speculated sources made it even more questionable. The leaks revealed, among other gems, that the DNC had conspired to crash the candidacy of Bernie Sanders (by intentionally spreading misinformation), that Hilary had been supplied with debate questions before several debates, and that the mainstream media consulted the DNC for prompts several times before writing stories on Hilary.
Instead of addressing the corruption, it was like the DNC and Clinton campaign just said "HEY! Where'd you get that!" This headline is satirical but sums up my thoughts on the whole issue pretty well:
"Scientists Confirm Truth Still True Even If Russian Hackers Find It"