I don't mean in the traditional way: By fear-mongering about war to get people excited to vote.
-
-
-
I mean experts in intelligence and/or cyber stating that Russia's influence was dominant. Maybe it was--we don't know yet.
-
Tho Clinton now blames Comey, not Putin. The email investigation, of course, was about legally released emails and investigation into them.
-
Here's the thing: Except for security people who looked at voting cyber years ago, most who did this year didn't know how devolved voting is
-
It was crystal clear in comments they had never worked a precinct, seen how they're tallied up, seen party observers get printouts
-
More importantly, they drummed up a hypothetical (albeit real) fear Putin would hack election, even while proven vote suppression happening
-
We may one day find that vote suppression made the difference in WI and NC.
-
Then on the other side, the CI people introduced us to kompromat. As if there's not an English word for that: rat-fucking.
-
Not to say Putin's involvement wasn't important. But things that proved critical--playing up Hillary scandal and down Trump's--rat-fucking
-
As I've noted, Roger Stone, a close Trump aide, was rat-fucking when Putin was still in law school. Did he & Putin work together? Maybe.
-
But I can assure you, Roger Stone did not need Putin to teach him how to corrupt democracy. Just ask Eliiot Spitzer if you don't believe me.
-
I raise this for two reasons. 1) Fearmongering abt foreign issues w/o addressing homegrown fragility and corruption got us into this mess.
-
2) Even if Putin did have a big role, if he did, it worked because of all that prior work.
-
Finally: Hillary was running v Trump. Not Putin. But she spent energy talking abt what a thug Putin is not what a fraudster Trump is.
-
Remember that powerful moment in Hillary's Convention where those defrauded by Trump U spoke? It disappeared as we beat up Putin instead.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You mean like Comey?
-
No. I mean commentators. Comey fucked up royally. But he did it as part of his job.
-
his job says not to announce even an "ongoing investigation" unless he has enough proof for charges. He violated hatch act!
-
I doubt he violated Hatch Act (which is toothless in any case). He did violate lots of DOJ rules though.
-
you are defending something indefensible.
-
No. I'm dealing w/law. I screamed very loudly abt what Comey did (as I've been screaming abt Comey since Dems rushed him through)
-
I also scream, btw, when FBI makes similar leaks about far less powerful people, like people accused of terrorism.
-
They are only supposed to report when they have sufficient evidence for an indictment.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.