There is a growing number of posts using NYT articles to convict Trump and his consultants of breaking all kinds of laws by its various actions with Russia, and even winning the election because of Russian hacking. Ive gone through every article, and any sources the articles used to try and get a clear picture of what they say happened. What I've come up with is a tsunami of words: "Former American officials say" "... according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence" (why in God's name are these people transmitting classified information and then publishing it in a newspaper????) "According to a former senior American official....The details of the meetings were not clear, but the contact appeared to contradict testimony Mr. Sessions provided Congress during his confirmation hearing" And that's just the beginning of a long article in the NYT that is trying to prove a case against Trump and his appointees using innuendo, unnamed sources and rumors unsubstantiated by evidence. This is a classic progressive tactic; destroy reputations using rumors willingly spread by a compliant press. About all this data allegedly indicting the White House; "The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday."http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intell... And as for the hacking of voting machines to give Trump the win, we have this scientific report: Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.” However, Nate Silver, founder and editor-in-chief of the highly regarded, statistics-driven news site FiveThirtyEight, tweeted a quick analysis, claiming that this statement did not survive what Silver called a “basic sanity check.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/closer-... I wonder what would happen if (when?) the tables turn and the national press turns again to the right....
While I tend to agree with your sentiment regarding our Russian "average Joe" counterparts, Putin, and his regime, don't fall into the same affable category. Not really certain Putin, can simply be voted out, and both his credentials, and policies indicate Putin desires a return to Soviet domination of eastern europe ... minimally.
Fifty years from now our kids and grandkids could well be dependent on Russia for food! I drive by the St. Mary's River most days on the way to work. The Salmon and Trout aren't coming back no matter what efforts are taken, including putting lime in one of the tributaries to neutralize the run off from acid rain. The best theory that I have heard so far is that the two or three dairy farms up river that are growing GMO corn for their cows.... the run off from those crops can make it nearly impossible for Salmon and Trout spawn to survive. http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/466314-russia-says-no-gmo-seeds.html Russia Says No to GMO Seeds
I see the Russians attempting to defend themselves from NATO encroachment- as do all Russians. It was agreed , post-glasnost, that NATO wouldn't do that if the USSR pulled in its horns. NATO has been railroaded into expansionism by local Eastern European wannabe warlords like that ass in Georgia- Saakashvili. When Trump said that NATO needed an overhaul- I hope that he was serious - and that Article 5 was top of the list. It needs much finer definition- so that local dictators, the Saakashvilis, Netanyahus, Erdogans- can't suck the world into poseurs' aggression followed by war.
