Well, I’ve read the unclassified Russia hack release and agree with others that there’s not much there. No proof offered supporting various claims made - is that because all the substantiating evidence is classified or what? No explanation given. Russia is engaged in broad based covert/overt propaganda campaigns against people/states/organizations they don’t like or view as inimical to their interests - and that’s surprising how? The USSR was doing the same thing 50 years ago - China does it today, maybe more extensively than Russia does - there’s nothing revelatory here. Does anyone believe the PRC’s Confucian centres are anything other than nonsense spewing propaganda plants serving the interests of the Middle Kingdom's Marxist mavens and engaged in who knows what other covert activity behind the illusion of ‘educating’ the West about the putative glories of China? If there are they’re idiots.The report went on in great deal about the destabilizing disinformation being spread by RT, Putin’s propaganda media arm - but again, this is surprising how? Did the crap coming from RT influence some voters? No doubt - but would anyone who’d listen to a bogus propaganda outlet like RT be likely to vote for Clinton? Absolutely not. Sanders maybe, not Clinton. Is something like RT a problem regardless? Yes - definitely - but the USSR was doing the same thing 50 years ago by different means - there’s nothing new about this other than the fact that the internet and social media amplify the possible dangers - and no doubt that’s troubling - but again, in essence, nothing surprising here. The Washington Post recently went with an article hyperventilating about Russia hacking I think it was Vermont’s utilities system - the Post pimped the story aggressively - turned out to be complete garbage - a retraction was published with much, much less pimping - the intended damage had been done - delegitimize Trump - the story was nothing more than politically motivated disinformation - how is what the Post did any different from what RT does? It’s different only in this sense - it’s much worse, because no one in their right mind views RT as a reputable news source but millions of people believe the Post is reputable - much worse.
But of course the key issue of the report concerns whether the ‘hack’ etc etc were intended to get Trump elected - the report makes several claims about this but none of it is supported by evidence. Putin clearly I think wanted pay back against Hillary for her suggestions of wrongdoing re his election in 2011 - she was clearly I think a target, the key target - but wanting to embarrass or hurt her does not equate to preferring Trump as president and therefore actively working to get Trump elected - everyone expected Hillary to win - for the Russians to expect otherwise is absurd - I think they would have been just as surprised by Trump’s win as everyone else - they obviously would have been very excited by it because it represented the ultimate payback for Hillary - it does not at all necessarily follow that the goal was to get Trump elected. And the report offers no proof that repudiates that premise. Regardless, if the DNC and Podesta hacks caused damage, why? Because they confirmed the truth: the Clinton foundation was an influence peddling scam, Hillary was a corrupt, dissembling bitch with zero political skills, and the MSM and the liberal elite are joined at the hip for the purposes of promoting a progressive agenda - the people motivated to vote against the Obama/Clinton miasma already understood these things without benefit of the hacks. In the end, I think the purpose of what Russia did was, once Hillary won, to discredit that victory as much as possible in order to foment rage and discontent - in other words, to do exactly what the left is doing now re Trump. That’s funny in a very disturbing and disconcerting sort of way.
The one incendiary claim made in the report was that Putin preferred Trump because his business dealings with Russia would make him ‘pliable’. That’s a pretty strong claim to make without evidence to support it - and I really have to question why you’d put a claim like that in the report without benefit of the supporting evidence. Having said that, it is a big concern I have with Trump - his conciliation towards Russia is obvious - what motivates it is not. Putin needs America as a foil, an enemy in order to bolster his image in Russia - so in that sense being on better terms with Putin makes no sense - but there are tactical geopolitical games here one could play that do make sense - is that what Trump is doing? No idea - need more info - without more info it’s simply a wait and see scenario - could go horribly wrong - might not.
