The “Russia hacking” flap has nothing to do with Russia and nothing to do with hacking. The story is basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the political fallout from the nearly 50,000 emails that WikiLeaks planned to publish on July 22, 2016, just 3 days before the Democratic National Convention. That’s what this is really all about. Russia didn’t hack anything, it’s a big diversion that was conjured up on-the-fly to keep Hillary’s bandwagon from going down in flames....
Once they figured that their presidential bid could go up in smoke, they decided to act preemptively, pull out all the stops and “Go Big”....Counterpunch
Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?
Mike Whitney
Witch!
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the Putinphiles, on one side you have Trump and his sycnopaths who have been shown to be constant liars on anything, big or small, being the only ones claiming Putin is an angel and Clinton the evil witch. On the other side, you have the entire US intell community and now, votes in the House 419-3 and the Senate 98-2, across all party, ideology, and regional lines,that have seen the evidence and all have concluded Putin's guilt.
ReplyDeleteAnyone still questioning this really should consider moving to Mother Russia. Unfortunately, they obviously don't have the gonads to do that so we're left that anyone reading the horseshit of these nitwits should fully understand they are ill. These people being associated with MMT is going to be big hindrence to MMT ever being accepted more widely as credible. Unfortunate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, you have the entire US intell community and now, votes in the House 419-3 and the Senate 98-2, across all party, ideology, and regional lines,that have seen the evidence and all have concluded Putin's guilt.
ReplyDeleteLike the relevant people saw the evidence for WMD in Iraq, or the shooting of MH17, or the supposed attack on the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin? Or before that the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, or the sinking of the Maine in 1998?
And then there are all the still open cases where the official reports and investigation lead to more questions than they answer.
I believe nothing the people in power say without very hard evidence that could not be manipulated.
Everyone should consider all the information available and ask the obvious questions, e.g, about intent, motivation and ability, as well as why another party would engage misrepresentation and what their history in doing so may be.