barbos
Contributor
I don't see him providing any evidence. As for me, I remember starting a thread about how one of the member of the opposition was dropping (privately) the Clinton's name. It's way more evidence than Mueller have on Trump&CoI doubt every fact. If you want to make a claim, you'll have to provide evidence for the claim.
- - - Updated - - -
It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.
Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.
See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?
Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.
You never provided proof of your conspiracy theory, while he backed up his claims with evidence.
I know, you honestly believe your shit. Does not make it reality though.Arguing about what constitutes a "narrow" victory isn't going to change any of that, and I'm not sure why you thought it would.
Last edited: