5 ms·
Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with every
by dave_sullivan 10y ago
Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant.
What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.
- anjc 10y agoSo just to be clear, you have zero evidence to back up your assertion.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoIt wasn't his assertion. The user who made the assertion posted evidence that you can respond to if you like.
- igivanov 10y ago"Who benefits?" The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed. "evidence" You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?
- Cuuugi 10y agoJust admit you hate Trump. It makes these rambling thesis' based on NO EVIDENCE easier to defend.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lanevorockz 10y agoApart from paranoid in one side, you seem paranoid in the other. This case is almost a complete set of emails so it's unlikely it's a hack. Most probably a whistleblower, potentially Seth Rich. Now the question, does it matter ? If the emails are legit it is the only thing that counts.