(07-13-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you think JFK made it swampier when he nominated his brother for AG. Not exactly unprecedented. At least the Trump family is not in a cabinet post.

Ahh, but the Kennedys are saints. Because they were charming and had "vigah", their sins are not sins at all. It's really quite simple!

Oh c'mon.

George and OO, do you really think that relying on a POTUS's actions 50+ years ago is a good leg to stand upon when trying to defend the actions of today? Sure, it shows that there once was precedent, but then nepotism laws were put in place to stop that sort of thing. OO's deflection does nothing to justify why it's OK today - all it does is to try and deflect.

Not at all -- and I'm not defending anything. I was just getting in an opportune dig at Kennedy idolatry, which is something I've disliked for longer than I've even heard of Donald Trump. It is just an aside on my part on my part -- not in order to deflect others from present-day topics, but just because I felt like saying it.

(07-13-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you think JFK made it swampier when he nominated his brother for AG. Not exactly unprecedented. At least the Trump family is not in a cabinet post.

Ahh, but the Kennedys are saints. Because they were charming and had "vigah", their sins are not sins at all. It's really quite simple!

Oh c'mon.

George and OO, do you really think that relying on a POTUS's actions 50+ years ago is a good leg to stand upon when trying to defend the actions of today? Sure, it shows that there once was precedent, but then nepotism laws were put in place to stop that sort of thing. OO's deflection does nothing to justify why it's OK today - all it does is to try and deflect.

A much stronger one would be pointing out the credentials and qualifications that Ivanka and Jared have that make them appropriate people to hold their jobs/titles.

We routinely stand on actions of previous presidents to ratify or deny actions of today. We quote Lincoln and Jefferson. So one from only 50 years ago is not a stretch. Your side is demanding a justice who will bow to precedent, now you want to ignore precedent.


Jared et al have strong credentials in management of large enterprises. you make it sound like they were dragged out of the student union to serve.

I guess they are in compliance with the nepotism laws, else there would be lawsuits, right?

I think it is OK today because they are good competent people. Having a loudmouth father doesn't affect their competence.

(07-13-2018 11:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  And frankly, a boorish, racist, nativist, anti-intellectual populist demagogue is nothing new in American politics. (Or politics, really.) The fact that this one won the presidency is new

You forgot Jackson.

(07-13-2018 03:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you think JFK made it swampier when he nominated his brother for AG. Not exactly unprecedented. At least the Trump family is not in a cabinet post.

Ahh, but the Kennedys are saints. Because they were charming and had "vigah", their sins are not sins at all. It's really quite simple!

Oh c'mon.

George and OO, do you really think that relying on a POTUS's actions 50+ years ago is a good leg to stand upon when trying to defend the actions of today? Sure, it shows that there once was precedent, but then nepotism laws were put in place to stop that sort of thing. OO's deflection does nothing to justify why it's OK today - all it does is to try and deflect.

Not at all -- and I'm not defending anything. I was just getting in an opportune dig at Kennedy idolatry, which is something I've disliked for longer than I've even heard of Donald Trump. It is just an aside on my part on my part -- not in order to deflect others from present-day topics, but just because I felt like saying it.

I did appreciate the way you spelled "vigah."

Anti-intellectual? Lazy? I love the way y'all keep presenting opinion and/or rumor as fact. But you sure leap to the defense if it is returned in kind about one of your icons.


BYW, I remember the Democrats being upset about the amount of golf Eisenhower played.

I remember them being upset by the cost of going to the ranches of Bush and Reagan, but nary a peep about marths's vineyard or hawaii.

(07-13-2018 03:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anti-intellectual? Lazy? I love the way y'all keep presenting opinion and/or rumor as fact. But you sure leap to the defense if it is returned in kind about one of your icons.


BYW, I remember the Democrats being upset about the amount of golf Eisenhower played.

I remember them being upset by the cost of going to the ranches of Bush and Reagan, but nary a peep about marths's vineyard or hawaii.

And I remember Republicans being upset about how much golf Obama played and then falling for lies about how expensive a trip to India was.

You're trying to address a criticism of Trump (that he is lazy) not by addressing whether or not he is, in fact, lazy, but by pointing out that Democrats criticized other presidents. That has nothing to do with the claim that Trump is lazy.

And yes, that is opinion, but I have evidence (number of golf games player and reported daily schedules) to back up my opinion that Trump is lazy.

Looking just at his routine schedule - he often doesn't hold his first meeting until 11 AM because he has "Executive Time" from 8:00 to 11:00 AM in the Oval Office, but reports say he pretty much spends that time watching TV, tweeting, and chatting it up. He then returns to his residence around 18:00.

As the article I link to below shows, most other POTUS' either got in much earlier and ended their scheduled day around the same time, or ended their official day much later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42610275

And that doesn't touch on how much leisure time he has taken doing things like golfing.

As a general rule, I think we'd all be better off if presidents played far more golf.

(07-13-2018 03:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you think JFK made it swampier when he nominated his brother for AG. Not exactly unprecedented. At least the Trump family is not in a cabinet post.

Ahh, but the Kennedys are saints. Because they were charming and had "vigah", their sins are not sins at all. It's really quite simple!

Oh c'mon.

George and OO, do you really think that relying on a POTUS's actions 50+ years ago is a good leg to stand upon when trying to defend the actions of today? Sure, it shows that there once was precedent, but then nepotism laws were put in place to stop that sort of thing. OO's deflection does nothing to justify why it's OK today - all it does is to try and deflect.

Not at all -- and I'm not defending anything. I was just getting in an opportune dig at Kennedy idolatry, which is something I've disliked for longer than I've even heard of Donald Trump. It is just an aside on my part on my part -- not in order to deflect others from present-day topics, but just because I felt like saying it.

Ahhh... A George version of the Monty Python standard line "And now for something completely different"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU

(07-13-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 03:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anti-intellectual? Lazy? I love the way y'all keep presenting opinion and/or rumor as fact. But you sure leap to the defense if it is returned in kind about one of your icons.


BYW, I remember the Democrats being upset about the amount of golf Eisenhower played.

I remember them being upset by the cost of going to the ranches of Bush and Reagan, but nary a peep about marths's vineyard or hawaii.

And I remember Republicans being upset about how much golf Obama played and then falling for lies about how expensive a trip to India was.

You're trying to address a criticism of Trump (that he is lazy) not by addressing whether or not he is, in fact, lazy, but by pointing out that Democrats criticized other presidents. That has nothing to do with the claim that Trump is lazy.

And yes, that is opinion, but I have evidence (number of golf games player and reported daily schedules) to back up my opinion that Trump is lazy.

Looking just at his routine schedule - he often doesn't hold his first meeting until 11 AM because he has "Executive Time" from 8:00 to 11:00 AM in the Oval Office, but reports say he pretty much spends that time watching TV, tweeting, and chatting it up. He then returns to his residence around 18:00.

As the article I link to below shows, most other POTUS' either got in much earlier and ended their scheduled day around the same time, or ended their official day much later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42610275

And that doesn't touch on how much leisure time he has taken doing things like golfing.

OK. Trump is not lazy, and it is, in my opinion, a lie to say so. Lazy people don't amass fortunes over decades, Lazy people don't do nearly as much as Trump. I am a lazy person, so I know.

One of the jokes that was made about me, and later by me, was how would we know when OO has retired?

I may have slept late today, compared to other people, and watched a little TV, and had breakfast at 11, but I also made a real estate deal in the high six figures. I wonder what I could do if I wasn't lazy. Maybe I could be a billionaire. Or president.

BTW, I don't golf. never saw the sense in it. I did try it at one time, around 1989, played about 20 rounds lifetime. Done with that. Parred a hole once. On the green in two, two-putted from 4 feet. Chipped in once from 75 yards, for a 13. I am just as good at golf as I am at bowling. I can shoot a 126 in either sport.

I don't know what if anything you do in your spare time, but if you do anything at all - fishing, western dancing, piano lessons - that does not make you lazy. My nephew fishes. What a waste of time. If only he spent that time in the office, lazy so and so. Also, I hear a lot of businessmen say the golf course is where they make their best deals. I wouldn't know. Only deal I ever made on a golf course was an agreement to quit early.

Find something real to complain about. Should be plenty of material. How about those collusion meetings he goes to, to get his instructions from Vlad? Now there is a waste of time. Or maybe you could detail his plans to sell arms to North Korea after he starts a war. You KNOW that's real. Some guy in Vermont said so.



Sheesh.

July 13, 2018:

Trumpity Drumpfity spun a full pirouette,
Dangling from a string like a marionette,
As he prepped for his big audition on Monday
For the role of Buffloon in the Moscow ballet.

Trumpity Drumpfity took tea with the Queen
As Goosey-fur was unmasked on the TV screen.
A dozen more Russkies indicted by the Mule
Three days before Puddin’ gets to play with his tool.

Sometimes, there's just so much news that you can't resist the power of the Muse.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

(07-13-2018 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  And frankly, a boorish, racist, nativist, anti-intellectual populist demagogue is nothing new in American politics. (Or politics, really.) The fact that this one won the presidency is new

You forgot Jackson.

Touche.

And now the EU has joined Canada in the new Axis of Evil...

(07-13-2018 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:24 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday with a litany of alleged offenses related to Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails, state election systems and other targets in 2016.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced the indictments, said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628773789...n-dnc-case

what does this have to do with Trump and the conspiracy theorists thoughts of collusion with Russia?

That's what I thought.

Another nothing burger. More Russians indicted who will never be brought to trial. Twenty-five down, 100,000,000 to go.

hey, I'll stipulate that the Russians tried to meddle. They bought Facebook ads for both candidates and ran most of them after the election. Apparently they are not very good at this.

YOU show me how even one vote was affected and who it was cast for, and how it changed the election. YOU show me any evidence of the noncrime of collusion. Did Trump call Vlad one day and offer him Estonia if only he would publish Donna Brazile colluding with Her Majesty to rig the primaries.

It's bewildering to me how invested you are in the idea that the meddling was no big deal, even though our intelligence agencies and analysts agree that it was. Here is Dan Coats, Trump's own DNI, saying in the noted left wing journal, National Review, that we are "literally under attack"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...red-again/

Regardless of whether it affected the outcome of *this* election or if there was blatant collusion with the Trump campaign, this is something that needs to be addressed. The fact that Trump and so many of his supporters are downplaying and denying it is shameful.

I'm thankful that at least a few Republicans like Coats are putting their country before their party.

(07-16-2018 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:24 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday with a litany of alleged offenses related to Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails, state election systems and other targets in 2016.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced the indictments, said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628773789...n-dnc-case

what does this have to do with Trump and the conspiracy theorists thoughts of collusion with Russia?

That's what I thought.

Another nothing burger. More Russians indicted who will never be brought to trial. Twenty-five down, 100,000,000 to go.

hey, I'll stipulate that the Russians tried to meddle. They bought Facebook ads for both candidates and ran most of them after the election. Apparently they are not very good at this.

YOU show me how even one vote was affected and who it was cast for, and how it changed the election. YOU show me any evidence of the noncrime of collusion. Did Trump call Vlad one day and offer him Estonia if only he would publish Donna Brazile colluding with Her Majesty to rig the primaries.

It's bewildering to me how invested you are in the idea that the meddling was no big deal, even though our intelligence agencies and analysts agree that it was. Here is Dan Coats, Trump's own DNI, saying in the noted left wing journal, National Review, that we are "literally under attack"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...red-again/

Regardless of whether it affected the outcome of *this* election or if there was blatant collusion with the Trump campaign, this is something that needs to be addressed. The fact that Trump and so many of his supporters are downplaying and denying it is shameful.

I'm thankful that at least a few Republicans like Coats are putting their country before their party.

Like so many on the left, you are unable to separate the idea of "Russian meddling" from "Trump/Russia collusion".

Read my first sentence again.

I don't downplay the "meddling", ineffective as it was. It just has nothing to do with what Mueller is tasked to investigate, collusion between Trump and Russia to subvert the course of an election.

By all means, investigate Russia, indict Russians, and take steps to minimize or eliminate future meddling. Good ideas, good actions. Ahead full speed. Yes, we need to strengthen our cyber defenses before someday the Riussians or somebody else control our elections. As far as i can see, the weak point is the humans, who cannot avoid phishing expeditions or who insist on keeping servers in the john.

But you can indict 10,000 Russians, and it will have no meaning for the collusion theory some cling so bitterly to. Because that theory is inane. It is held together with chewing gun and tape, and the imaginations of many on the left.

Some are remarking on the efforts that ensued after Trump made his speech. Sure, let's put that into the narrative. Maybe Flynn overheard Trump talking to Putin on their double secret sat phone, and heard him tell Vlad, "wait for my signal that I will make in a nationally televised speech. You will know it when you hear it. THEN start hacking".

yeah, sure.

So get this. I will say it plainly, once again, for the Nth time. The collusion theory is the nothingburger. That is not the same as saying the Russians didn't try to medddle. Russian meddling should not be allowed, nor should Canadian meddling or Wikileaks medding, or Fijian meddling, but the meddling in 2016 had little if any effect on the election. Nobody has found even one voter who says they were influenced by whatever was exposed in those emails to change their vote from Clinton to Trump. Have you met one?

Your insinuations about me are noted as the bitter ravings of a delusional ideologue. I am not a Republican anyway, nor did I vote for Trump. I will next time, though.

Far, far more damage was done to Hillary by the two minutes of the "deplorables" speech than by all the russian meddling. I still hear lots people talk about "deplorables'. I see T-shirts about it. I never hear even one person talk about her emails except democrats wailing about the vast right-wing conspiracy. Apparently the only email that damaged her at all was Brazile giving her the debate questions, and that only PO'd Sanders backers.

(07-16-2018 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:24 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday with a litany of alleged offenses related to Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails, state election systems and other targets in 2016.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced the indictments, said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628773789...n-dnc-case

what does this have to do with Trump and the conspiracy theorists thoughts of collusion with Russia?

That's what I thought.

Another nothing burger. More Russians indicted who will never be brought to trial. Twenty-five down, 100,000,000 to go.

hey, I'll stipulate that the Russians tried to meddle. They bought Facebook ads for both candidates and ran most of them after the election. Apparently they are not very good at this.

YOU show me how even one vote was affected and who it was cast for, and how it changed the election. YOU show me any evidence of the noncrime of collusion. Did Trump call Vlad one day and offer him Estonia if only he would publish Donna Brazile colluding with Her Majesty to rig the primaries.

It's bewildering to me how invested you are in the idea that the meddling was no big deal, even though our intelligence agencies and analysts agree that it was. Here is Dan Coats, Trump's own DNI, saying in the noted left wing journal, National Review, that we are "literally under attack"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...red-again/

Regardless of whether it affected the outcome of *this* election or if there was blatant collusion with the Trump campaign, this is something that needs to be addressed. The fact that Trump and so many of his supporters are downplaying and denying it is shameful.

I'm thankful that at least a few Republicans like Coats are putting their country before their party.

Like so many on the left, you are unable to separate the idea of "Russian meddling" from "Trump/Russia collusion".

Read my first sentence again.

I don't downplay the "meddling", ineffective as it was. It just has nothing to do with what Mueller is tasked to investigate, collusion between Trump and Russia to subvert the course of an election.

Of course you are trying to downplay meddling - your response to indictments that were almost entirely about meddling and not collusion is to set up your straw man collusion scenario where Trump is having secret meetings with Putin and if that's not proven, the whole thing's a farce.

But much more importantly, the POTUS is still trying to downplay it, even as he meets with Putin. (Without any aids present!) Republicans would be shouting treason if this was Obama or Clinton we were talking about.

And yes this is what he was tasked to investigate - the fact that collusion and meddling more generally have become intertwined is because of the actions of the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.

And regardless of motive, why is Trump trying to weaken NATO, weaken the EU, damage ties with the UK, Canada, and Germany? Is that in US national and strategic interests? No. Is it in Russian national and strategic interests? Absolutely.

Why he's doing that I don't really know. *All* the theories seem far fetched, but so is the reality. I would never have believed you if you had described today's reality to me a couple years ago.

The Russians meddled. They have for some time and will continue to do so. So do several other countries. So do we, to them. If you’re not, then you’re not trying. When you catch them you prosecute them. What I can’t understand about the left is the consistent minimizing of the risks that Hillary and her staff took with classified information, given that reality. It’s like it didn’t get to be a problem until Hillary lost the presidential election. And don’t go talking about how the two are unrelated. It’s the same disregard for information security that has characterized the Clinton organization since Sandy Berger smuggled classified information out in his socks. It didn’t bite them over Berger or the server, thanks to Bill and Lynch and “grandchildren” and Comey, but it bit them this time.

We know the above. What we don’t have is any indication that actual votes were tampered with. And so far we have no indication of any conspiracy between “the Russians” and the Trump campaign or administration. So don’t go conflating.

And it’s not like busting Comey, Manafort for not filing disclosure forms ten years ago is going to stop future hacking by “the Russians” or anyone else.

It’s sort of like the fact that global temperatures are rising gets conflated into Al Gore’s “hockey stick” in an effort to induce hysteria.

(07-16-2018 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:24 PM)At Ease Wrote:  https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628773789...n-dnc-case

what does this have to do with Trump and the conspiracy theorists thoughts of collusion with Russia?

That's what I thought.

Another nothing burger. More Russians indicted who will never be brought to trial. Twenty-five down, 100,000,000 to go.

hey, I'll stipulate that the Russians tried to meddle. They bought Facebook ads for both candidates and ran most of them after the election. Apparently they are not very good at this.

YOU show me how even one vote was affected and who it was cast for, and how it changed the election. YOU show me any evidence of the noncrime of collusion. Did Trump call Vlad one day and offer him Estonia if only he would publish Donna Brazile colluding with Her Majesty to rig the primaries.

It's bewildering to me how invested you are in the idea that the meddling was no big deal, even though our intelligence agencies and analysts agree that it was. Here is Dan Coats, Trump's own DNI, saying in the noted left wing journal, National Review, that we are "literally under attack"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...red-again/

Regardless of whether it affected the outcome of *this* election or if there was blatant collusion with the Trump campaign, this is something that needs to be addressed. The fact that Trump and so many of his supporters are downplaying and denying it is shameful.

I'm thankful that at least a few Republicans like Coats are putting their country before their party.

Like so many on the left, you are unable to separate the idea of "Russian meddling" from "Trump/Russia collusion".

Read my first sentence again.

I don't downplay the "meddling", ineffective as it was. It just has nothing to do with what Mueller is tasked to investigate, collusion between Trump and Russia to subvert the course of an election.

Of course you are trying to downplay meddling - your response to indictments that were almost entirely about meddling and not collusion is to set up your straw man collusion scenario where Trump is having secret meetings with Putin and if that's not proven, the whole thing's a farce.

But much more importantly, the POTUS is still trying to downplay it, even as he meets with Putin. (Without any aids present!) Republicans would be shouting treason if this was Obama or Clinton we were talking about.

And yes this is what he was tasked to investigate - the fact that collusion and meddling more generally have become intertwined is because of the actions of the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.

And regardless of motive, why is Trump trying to weaken NATO, weaken the EU, damage ties with the UK, Canada, and Germany? Is that in US national and strategic interests? No. Is it in Russian national and strategic interests? Absolutely.

Why he's doing that I don't really know. *All* the theories seem far fetched, but so is the reality. I would never have believed you if you had described today's reality to me a couple years ago.

My whole point is that collusion IS a farce, not that meddling is. Can you separate the two? Seriously, can you?

My examples are just to display how inane some of the thinking on your side is. I guess I am being too generous when I call it "thinking".

But if you don't like my examples, give us some of your own, that illustrate what you think happened.

C'mon, JAAO, what is the narrative that has Trump colluding With Russia to have mostly innocuous emails published and for what end? Is he so smart that years before the election he knew that publishing those emails would swing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to him? If he can predict that far ahead, we need him in the WH.

This is such a blend of revenge and paranoia as to be incredible.

Just can't seem to keep my mind from humming this tune today. Big hit in 1966, my freshman year at Rice. Wonder why.

Pull the string and I'll wink at you, I'm your puppet
I'll do funny things if you want me to, I'm your puppet
Mm. I'm yours to have and to hold
Darling, you've got full control of your puppet
Pull them little strings and I'll kiss your lips, I'm your puppet
Snap your fingers and I'll turn you some flips, I'm your puppet
Mm, your every wish is my command
All you got to do is wiggle your little hand
I'm your puppet, I'm your puppet I'm just a toy, just a funny boy
That makes you laugh when you're blue I'll be wonderful, do just what I'm told
I'll do anything for youi'm your puppet, I'm your puppet
Just pull them little strings and I'll sing you a song, I'm your puppet
Make me do right or make me do wrong, I'm your puppet.
Mm, treat me good and I'll do anything
I'm just a puppet and you hold my string, I'm your puppetyour walking, talking, kissing, loving puppet
I'm hanging on a string,
I'll do anything, love you 'n' kiss ya

(07-16-2018 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Russians meddled. They have for some time and will continue to do so. So do several other countries. So do we, to them. If you’re not, then you’re not trying. When you catch them you prosecute them. What I can’t understand about the left is the consistent minimizing of the risks that Hillary and her staff took with classified information, given that reality. It’s like it didn’t get to be a problem until Hillary lost the presidential election. And don’t go talking about how the two are unrelated. It’s the same disregard for information security that has characterized the Clinton organization since Sandy Berger smuggled classified information out in his socks. It didn’t bite them over Berger or the server, thanks to Bill and Lynch and “grandchildren” and Comey, but it bit them this time.

We know the above. What we don’t have is any indication that actual votes were tampered with. And so far we have no indication of any conspiracy between “the Russians” and the Trump campaign or administration. So don’t go conflating.

And it’s not like busting Comey, Manafort for not filing disclosure forms ten years ago is going to stop future hacking by “the Russians” or anyone else.

It’s sort of like the fact that global temperatures are rising gets conflated into Al Gore’s “hockey stick” in an effort to induce hysteria.

We actually do have evidence of Roger Stone (Trump campaign) coordinating with Gucifer 2.0 (Russians), if I remember the news correctly.