"The ‘argument’ that Russians were opposed to Hillary therefore they were out to stop her, ought to be viewed in the context of all the others of whom she had made enemies- the Syrians for example, Libyans, Honduran campesinos, Haitians of all sorts. China too and Serbia.
And that is not to mention Americans- Democrats for example of many hues. Trade Unionists who remembered her role as a Wal Mart director, Sanders supporters who had every reason to feel cheated and bitter and were much better placed to hack these emails than anyone in Russia.
Looking for suspects on the basis of motive is a mug’s game here.
But the real story remains the ones- for there are many- that this wild goose chase is designed to divert our attention from: the content of the emails.
Which reminds me: is anyone still claiming that any of these emails is fraudulent? Are the friends of Podesta still claiming that wikileaks forged emails?
I suspect not, which relocates discussion where it ought to be around the substance of these revelations.
And the debt that is owed to those, whoever they may be, who put this information where it ought to be: in the public forum, assisting the American People to make up their minds in an election in which they were repeatedly told that the issue was whether one candidate was fit for office, had the character or experience the office required or represented ‘dark’ forces and special interests.
After all Trump, by election day was almost embarrassingly naked- every woman he had ever offended, every stupid thing he had ever put on the record, every contradiction, every charge against him, every allegation was widely aired in all the media. Nothing was hidden, nothing could be- the media was united in the Trump Hunt. Journalists who had never spoken truth in the presence of power, suddenly started asking tough questions.
Has this been forgotten?"A thoughtful comment from themgt (accepting the basic analysis):
"I’d just like to make a point – an alternate analysis was Russia did this to discredit our elections / sow internal discord. And in fact, if you were a clever Russian leader deciding how to proceed with electoral cyber/propaganda-war, there might have been a “two birds with one stone” whereby hoping to actually influence the election (or at least appear to do so) would be the best way to heighten internal discord.
This doesn’t whatsoever exclude that Russia may have preferred a Trump win, but that specifically to have parts of US bureaucracy, elites, media, and polity all attacking each other over semi-valid concerns like gasoline Russia has poured on the fire, would probably be a happy result indeed for Putin."The bottom line in all this 'analysis' is still, and always, that any 'evidence' can be spoofed. Any of it. No matter how sophisticated the analysts pretend to be, smart hackers can create evidence to point wherever they like. Not only can they do that, but they would do it. There is also no way to distinguish an insider leak from a hack (remember the blaming of North Korea for the Sony leaks?!).
Clintonistas might also want to ask themselves the question why Putin's motive is so clear to them. He would have wanted Trump because he didn't want WWIII. Anybody not in a straitjacket would agree with Putin. I note in passing that WWIII would be the single most devastating climate-change operation in what's left of human history.
"The CIA’s Absence of Conviction" by Craig Murray:
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened."Some anti-war group should erect a statue to Seth Rich, who gave his life to save the world. Rich fully accounts for the DNC leak, and the Podesta hack was just a phishing attack to obtain his password that could have been done by anyone.
"Peter Van Buren: Freedom’s Just Another Word".
"Stop the CIA Coup". If you are looking for a group of scoundrels with a long and well documented history of lying to cause destabilization of governments . . .
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
"Why can't Russia be like the US? US never ever interferes in elections of other countries".
"“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”"