[quote=“therajraj, post:457, topic:218984, full:true”]
linking Putins motives to wanting Trump as POTUS is just some bullshit unfounded assertion.[/quote]
Nope. It is clear at this point that the hack originated with GRU/FSB. Each of the three cybersecurity firms (CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and Fidelis) that have studied the breach has independently identified Russian state actors. There is forensic evidence, tools known to the cybersecurity community as FSB/GRU implements reused here after having already played a role in the Bundestag operation. Guccifer can’t competently speak Romanian (but his English improved drastically over a short span of time…weird). There is much more evidence. Find it on your own if you remain unconvinced.
What remains is the why. You pathetically suggest that the FSB might have mere anarchy on its mind. Perhaps this would be plausible if it were not the case that Trump is objectively good for Putin. Manafort’s ties to Kremlin interests are deep and strong. Likewise Page and Gazprom. But whatever specific arrangements of [pro-Putin advisors] + [intellectual/psychological deficiencies internal to Trump’s mind] are pushing him to make a policy of fatuous geopolitical confusion, the policy itself is all the evidence we need.
In other words, a presidential candidate is…
A. Being specifically aided by an irruption of Russian cyberwarfare into domestic electoral politics
While
B. Explicitly casting aspersions on NATO’s Article 5 in an unprecedentedly stupid display of ignorance of more than half a century of geopolitical reality
…and you have the unimaginable gall to pretend that we can’t figure out how and why it all adds up. Why don’t you stick to obsessively fantasizing about being an “alpha” and leave the rest to the adults.
[Quote]
If anything Clinton with her email scandal has demonstrated she would be a better candidate for Russia’s interests. [/quote]
Putin disagrees.
[Quote]
“Tom is a Commissioner on The Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency.” -the expert in the articles LinkedIn [/quote]
See above. Independently verified by three firms. Specific and compelling evidence. Yadda yadda.
I already explained in detail how these things are unalike. In fact they are so unlike that the word “unalike” is on its own inadequate in its ability to capture the extent to which the two are distinct, and you are debasing this argument by attempting this pathetic defense. Remember? About our own diplomatic services abroad? About how, even if explaining American laws to the people for whom they were written were “meddling,” such a workshop would not be in the same universe as an irruption of military cyberwarfare into our domestic electoral politics with one party/candidate as a target of theft…and go fuck yourself for trying to pretend that you remotely believe otherwise.