Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.
After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.' Indeed, nobody even tries. All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)
To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information. Some states called the feds out on the attacks. It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.
I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'. That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country. Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.
We differ on this, but it's hard to explain my position if you don't heed any of the mainstream media sources. I read both sides, from Fox/Breitbart to Politico/Rawstory. I want as many details as possible.
I do feel that the emails being released did cost Hilary x number of votes. She deserved it, whatever, but we both have to agree that at least say, 100 people changed their voting outcome because of that revalation. Even though that is statistically insignificant, it was an effect. Can we both say at least 5 percent of Hilary voters turned? Even at 1 percent, this is still a whole lot of people. That, in my opinion, is a tainted result. And that doesn't speak to the effect of the bots on social media platforms; some people take social.media as a straight up news source. If they did this, and it seems like they did, I'm saying they didn't half step, they did this right. They wouldnt risk global outrage without the trade off being worth it. And we have other intelligence agencies giving us (US intell) Intel they deemed suspicious about Trumps guys. Unbidden. So the communications were so suspicious that our allies felt the need to point them out.
If it matters, our intelligence agencies have all agreed Russia participated.in a state sponsored effort to change the results of the election. Also, it all leaks so far, but the leaks suggest that Trumps surrogates had contact with Russian intelligence agents, without declaring said communications. Anything else I would point out is admitted hearsay, there are a few more kernels of truth to pick out. From one wizened head to another, I really think we will find Trump reached out to get assistance from Russia with the election. Trumps ties to the Russian underworld (check it out) make me more inclined to believe the whispers, those are actual facts. This is actually the reason why the thing about Obama wiretapping cropped up, they were indeed surveiling the tower, but becuase they were eavesdropping on the disproportionate amount of mafia figures residing in the hotel. Which is suspicious.
