There are always irregularities, especially when you want them to see.
Well, that's a question. Russian opposition was funded by State Department at the time.
but he still resented the fact that she, as US Secretary of State, criticized his election.
He resented that US was trying to undermine him and Russia in general. So he undermined the undermineers in return.
Criticism is not meddling by any standard other than his own.
For fuck's sake. It was not just criticism, US has been fermenting revolutions in all Russia's allies at one point or other, flat out buying dictators in russian sphere of influence, lying about their ICBM defense in Europe. NATO moving, Criticism my ass
She broke no Russian laws.
Putin did not break any american law.
So he used Hillary Clinton as a scapegoat to explain the popular revolt against him.
He did not try to scapegoat her. He responded to her in kind. And no, despite to your proclamations, US did still does the meddling.
During the 2016 election in the US, he actively participated in a US presidential election in a way that broke many laws, most recently leading to indictments of Russian citizens by Mueller and additional sanctions by the US government. That went beyond criticism. THAT was meddling.
I am aware of such indictments. no need to appear as if I am not.
See
Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton
Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.
Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.
Ah, so you still don't understand. I wasn't saying that Putin had no right to be angry and resentful. Nor was I saying he had no right to react. I was saying that he had no right to react in the way he did--by meddling in the US election that went way beyond just criticizing. He was not responding to her in the way that she responded to him.
You really really need to educate yourself on the subject of US undermining democracy when it suits them.
He actually ordered Russian military and intelligence agencies to intervene directly.
Says who?
Not only that, but we now know that he had these agencies intervene in other Western elections, including the Brexit vote and the presidential elections in France.
Says who?
You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.
No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.
I suppose it's useless to point out to you that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, yet you still insist on using it to defend a conclusion. As for being aware of the "bad behavior", you need to be more specific. There was no credible evidence of any US meddling in Russia's 2011 election. No one denies that the US has a history of overthrowing governments it didn't like during the Cold War, as did Soviet regimes. None of that by either side was justifiable behavior.
Yes, it's useless, because it's false.