i think the overarching narrative would be that Obama stood down knowing what was happening, likely because he thought HRC had it in the bag and logically that was the safer course. the other overarching narrative is that when Obama is nice to Russia he's a pussy and when he's hard on them he's risking WW3, according to the GOP. it doesnt matter what he does. haters gonna hate.



aaaaaaand there is the response i figured would come.

how could he have done it legally? with "proof"? likely he couldn't.

how could he have done it running only on motive and using about 5 braincells? putin wanted trump to win and not HRC. he knew it was coming. anyone with a brain knew it was coming. countermeasures can be preemptive, counter strikes require proof.

how that all works out in reality and legally, i could give a fuck. i'd iron out the wrinkles with you but honestly what's the point?

you going to admit Obama did the best he could? i'd eat my fucking sock.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 13 2018 01:11pm

If the best Obama could have offered America was the same shit I was posting on PARD back before the election, then yes it would have backfired horribly and been a disaster without proof. Mitch McConnell gave him good advice not to try anything.
We had all the public knowledge at the time to speculate pretty reasonably that Putin was getting poetic justice for Hillary's denouncing of him and active measures to disrupt the Russian elections from 2011. Besides the motive and means with known capable russian hackers, it was just too proportionate and matched too neatly with the slights Hillary had dealt to Putin, their personal beef. That alone made it pretty obvious. But that is not a basis you can sell to the american public.

I don't really know what Obama could have done preemptively about DNC hacking except tell them to work on their security more. The DNC is a private entity and Obama can't force them to improve their cybsecurity.

This is wikileaks. So much for politically unbiased transparency.

to be honest this is all word salad to me. like i said if he did anything he'd be an enemy of the state and instigator of WW3 on HRC's behalf. if he does nothing its because he is weak and a convenient scape goat to haul back out when needed.

you can boast all you want about your own predictions and put us all to sleep with legalities, doesn't change what i mean a fig. i'd say its terribly obvious but then again there are too many fucking morons in this sub that dont seem to think half of what i find obvious as such. without idiots life isn't half as entertaining i suppose.

House republicans were setting up impeachment for Rosenstein and had the document on the house floor the very same moment he went on the record with these indictments, how curious.

Organisation 1 = wikileaks correct?

Assange just has a hard on for hillary. Dude is a loser.

>posing as Guccifer 2.0
its quite notable that Mueller's filing is the first indication that the special counsel has given about the FBI's knowledge whether Wikileaks knowingly colluded with the Russians, and the FBI says they did not

I don't feel like looking up the news reports from 2016, so I can't recall at what point people were speculating whether Guccifer was Russian or working on behalf of the Russians. But yes, so far(as far as I know) there's no allegation wikileaks, or the Americans listed, knew they were collaborating with Russian intelligence. They were indeed collaborating though.

I think it's notable that we see Wikileak's bias in that document though. Just goes to show you how anti-establishment zealots will happily attach to far-right figures over status quo ones.

I don't think their bias is too surprising. We'd already seen evidence of it, so its not exactly a shock, but even before that it wasn't hard to figure Julian Assange had a massive raging hate boner for Hillary who reciprocated in kind. He was indeed very happy to attach to anti-establishment right wingers, but its not like he didn't have good reason both when it came to his personal crusade of transparency and his own vendetta with the "Can't we just drone him?" woman. If Julian Assange was a Sikh, Hillary was Indira Gandhi. Its kind of a tired old subject, but maybe it will help shatter some delusions of people who think that there are any idealist martyrs and purist iconoclasts in this world, instead of being a cynic who knows everyone poops.

But while the left will seethe at the evidence of Wikileaks bias against them, the big new detail we got in that report was the confirmation from Mueller that the Russians were always 'posing as Guccifer 2.0' when they communicated with Wikileaks. Its going to be very hard for anyone to pretend that there was a knowing conspiracy with Julian Assange when the Mueller investigation has dumped on the theory. But it might take a few weeks of people calming down before the full implications of this indictment floats to the top of the chaotic brew