Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

[Horatio Parker]

Syria and Saddam's Iraq were Baathist and Soviet client states.

Without Russia and Iran, Assad would be toast.

"Client state" is a bit of a stretch, especially for Iraq. Right now, for sure, Syria is holding on because of Iran/Russia.

Iraq was hardly a client state to the Russian. Baathis Iraq was probably neutral/strategically allied with the Soviets.

The US was the country that armed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, including with chemical weapons, which we provided intelligence for them to deploy on the front lines (a lot of parallels with the trench warfare of WWI and Iran-Iraq).

I admit don't know exactly what qualifies as a client state, but during the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviets supplied Saddam with weapons.

To my mind, that, coupled with the Baathist socialist ideology, is close enough.

 

[funinspace]

The W Admin's policy in Afghanistan was the equivalent of taking penicillin until you started feeling better and not taking the entire bottle as directed. The chance of victory was long since lost. Not that it would have been easy, but leaving it to the local war lords... not that good of an idea.

I was going to try for an analogy that would be more fitting than your penicillin one, but I realized how hard it would be to make an analogy for this fucked up Afghan anthology.

I think the penicillin is the best analogy because it indicates the point of no return. Obama didn't have a chance. The Taliban bacteria was allowed to develop immunity and wasn't going anywhere now. The US lacked the money, will, and determination to swing Afghanistan back under Obama, so it was pretty much go in and do what could be done on a budget.

The problem with the penicillin analogy is that it wasn’t a simple event with a simple solution like penicillin. You made me do it, a new friggin analogy:

It would be more like Mr. Government arriving at the emergency room with double pneumonia and in septic shock. The ER doctors have to insert a ventilator to keep Mr. Government alive. By the time they have Mr. Government stabilized he is already experiencing kidney failure. Mr. Government remains alive and stable but isn’t improving. They try a CPAP treatment to see if Mr. Government can be off the ventilator. But is of no use, and they have to put him back on the ventilator. The Hospital administrator, Mr. Shrub, wanders thru the ICU after about a month (He was appointed by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Dick). In Mr. Shrub’s wandering, he thinks he is adjusting the music volume knob and reduces the ventilator FiO2 level of Mr. Government from his necessary 0.45 down to 0.21. Mr. Government oxygen saturation level slowly dragged down to 80%. In the meantime, Mr. Shrub fires most all of the ICU doctors, and forgets to bring in some new ones. Sometime later the new hospital administrator, Dr. Obama, steps in and goes OH SHIT as Mr. Governments oxygen saturation level is almost down to 70%. He gets new ICU doctors to tend Mr. Governments needs. Once Mr. Government is stabilized, Dr. Obama sees no further improvement in the patient. So Dr. Obama orders up a portable ventilator setup. He orders robotically controlled mechanical braces for Mr. Government. And a modern Frankenstein is born. Look it walks, it appears to have life; it’s ALIVE and can walk in the hospital halls.

After a couple years, Dr. Obama gets a new hobby and starts playing with the small Lybia on the beach and rocks. Eventually, the robotically controlled mechanical braces starts wearing and needs repair. Dr. Obama seems distant and disinterested. So the ICU doctors put Mr. Government back in the ICU bed and go back to the simpler roll away ventilator they always use in ICU. And there Mr. Government lays, 16 long years after it all started.

 

[funinspace]

"Client state" is a bit of a stretch, especially for Iraq. Right now, for sure, Syria is holding on because of Iran/Russia.

Iraq was hardly a client state to the Russian. Baathis Iraq was probably neutral/strategically allied with the Soviets.

The US was the country that armed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, including with chemical weapons, which we provided intelligence for them to deploy on the front lines (a lot of parallels with the trench warfare of WWI and Iran-Iraq).

I admit don't know exactly what qualifies as a client state, but during the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviets supplied Saddam with weapons.

To my mind, that, coupled with the Baathist socialist ideology, is close enough.

Well to be fair, it was a crazy time. At first the USSR tried to stay neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, but later went back to full support of Saddam. It was kind of like the Putin-Trump bromance regarding Syria, but with the shirts kept on as Ronnie didn't do a luv feast thing with Gorbachev.

 

[zorq]

But the manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump.

The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set.

Yeah, that's my impression too.
I remember watching long time ago some news about Pakistan, how they are not good and why, and I remember agreeing with them. Then same about Russia is bad, blah blah blah invaded Georgia that time I think (not sure though). But the thing is, I happened to be better informed about Russia than these TV heads, and I knew they were talking utter bullshit. Then I thought what about Pakistan? how do I know they are not talking utter nonsense about them too?

Are you SURE you were better informed than the talking TV Heads? Apparently the Georgian-Russian war of 2008 was the first war in which an Information War was conducted (by Russia of course) at the same time as a Conventional War.

For example, William Dunbar, a reporter for RT TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign."

Russia was actively hiding the truth AND lying in that war and pretty much every other conflict they've been involved in for at least a decade. Maybe re-evaluate the things you THINK you know and consider alternatives. Someone you trusted in the past may not be trustworthy any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_war_during_the_Russo-Georgian_War

 

[barbos]

Yeah, that's my impression too.
I remember watching long time ago some news about Pakistan, how they are not good and why, and I remember agreeing with them. Then same about Russia is bad, blah blah blah invaded Georgia that time I think (not sure though). But the thing is, I happened to be better informed about Russia than these TV heads, and I knew they were talking utter bullshit. Then I thought what about Pakistan? how do I know they are not talking utter nonsense about them too?

Are you SURE you were better informed than the talking TV Heads? Apparently the Georgian-Russian war of 2008 was the first war in which an Information War was conducted (by Russia of course) at the same time as a Conventional War.

For example, William Dunbar, a reporter for RT TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign."

Russia was actively hiding the truth AND lying in that war and pretty much every other conflict they've been involved in for at least a decade. Maybe re-evaluate the things you THINK you know and consider alternatives. Someone you trusted in the past may not be trustworthy any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_war_during_the_Russo-Georgian_War

Yes, I was definitely better informed than MSM which invited ossetians and thought they would be supporting their views on conflict.
And I was definitely more informed than some money begging late TV talking about anti-antisemitism in Russia.
To be fair, Russian TV is not that informed when they talk about US too. But they are better than US ones, I have to admit that. US media is uniformly clueless.

 

[repoman]

just read in the WaPo :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-conservative-news-crack-up-things-just-got-real-for-some-partisan-personalities/2017/03/23/87641024-0f42-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.814088fb5190

Fox let Napolitano make his claims about Obama’s alleged recruitment of British agents at least three times last week before anchors Shepard Smith and Bret Baier knocked down the story Friday.
The delayed pushback by Fox may have had a larger dimension. Fox’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, is seeking to acquire a majority interest in the Sky TV satellite service in Britain — a transaction that requires British government approval. Such approval conceivably could have been jeopardized if Fox hadn’t distanced itself from Napolitano’s reporting, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters suggested. (Fox’s parent company has denied any connection between the Sky deal and Fox News’ retreat on Napolitano’s claims.)

So, while for other reasons Napolitano may be wrong (I don't know enough), Fox News probably made a business decision to sideline him.

THIS IS WHY multinational corporations are bad news for national interests and sovereignty. Fifth Columns are not just muslims. They are fucking everywhere.

 

[zorq]

Are you SURE you were better informed than the talking TV Heads? Apparently the Georgian-Russian war of 2008 was the first war in which an Information War was conducted (by Russia of course) at the same time as a Conventional War.

For example, William Dunbar, a reporter for RT TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign."

Russia was actively hiding the truth AND lying in that war and pretty much every other conflict they've been involved in for at least a decade. Maybe re-evaluate the things you THINK you know and consider alternatives. Someone you trusted in the past may not be trustworthy any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_war_during_the_Russo-Georgian_War

Yes, I was definitely better informed than MSM which invited ossetians and thought they would be supporting their views on conflict.
And I was definitely more informed than some money begging late TV talking about anti-antisemitism in Russia.
To be fair, Russian TV is not that informed when they talk about US too. But they are better than US ones, I have to admit that. US media is uniformly clueless.

Sigh, I was hoping for some indication of introspection...

The lack of such tells me that you really are 100% sure that you know more about conflicts happening thousands of miles away than hundreds of journalists who are actually there and actively researching the events... or you didn't bother to reevaluate the things that you think must be true.

 

[barbos]

Yes, I was definitely better informed than MSM which invited ossetians and thought they would be supporting their views on conflict.
And I was definitely more informed than some money begging late TV talking about anti-antisemitism in Russia.
To be fair, Russian TV is not that informed when they talk about US too. But they are better than US ones, I have to admit that. US media is uniformly clueless.

Sigh, I was hoping for some indication of introspection...

The lack of such tells me that you really are 100% sure that you know more about conflicts happening thousands of miles away than hundreds of journalists who are actually there and actively researching the events... or you didn't bother to reevaluate the things that you think must be true.

Researching? you mean parroting what "researchers" in the White House say.
Introspection my ass.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, I was definitely better informed than MSM which invited ossetians and thought they would be supporting their views on conflict.
And I was definitely more informed than some money begging late TV talking about anti-antisemitism in Russia.
To be fair, Russian TV is not that informed when they talk about US too. But they are better than US ones, I have to admit that. US media is uniformly clueless.

Sigh, I was hoping for some indication of introspection...

The lack of such tells me that you really are 100% sure that you know more about conflicts happening thousands of miles away than hundreds of journalists who are actually there and actively researching the events... or you didn't bother to reevaluate the things that you think must be true.

FYI, I'm fairly certain barbos is Russian, with contemporary Russian contacts and knowledge. Hence, while his friends there may not be investigating anything, they do have a daily interaction with the data. Well, as much as any of us really know about our own government.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is the problem. Trump is waging an all out war against truth in general. While that's new here in the US it's been a mainstay in Russian and Eastern European politics for a long, long time. Aiding this is the rather "Chomskyesque" (for lack of a better word) view that US foreign policy is imperialistic and does nothing of value. This kind of lock step group think from the left side of the aisle aids in this kind of assault on truth, in that is also maintains that American interests are always evil and never tell the truth. In either view, anything that contradicts their ideology is "fake news". Both betray actual healthy skepticism.

 

[barbos]

This is the problem. Trump is waging an all out war against truth in general. While that's new here in the US it's been a mainstay in Russian and Eastern European politics for a long, long time. Aiding this is the rather "Chomskyesque" (for lack of a better word) view that US foreign policy is imperialistic and does nothing of value. This kind of lock step group think from the left side of the aisle aids in this kind of assault on truth, in that is also maintains that American interests are always evil and never tell the truth. In either view, anything that contradicts their ideology is "fake news". Both betray actual healthy skepticism.

Stop comparing/associating him with what Russia has or had. Trumpism has no precedent in Russia or Eastern Europe. Trump is an mentally deficient idiot with a lot of psychological issues who managed to get elected. You are giving him too much credit with this war on truth.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is the problem. Trump is waging an all out war against truth in general. While that's new here in the US it's been a mainstay in Russian and Eastern European politics for a long, long time. Aiding this is the rather "Chomskyesque" (for lack of a better word) view that US foreign policy is imperialistic and does nothing of value. This kind of lock step group think from the left side of the aisle aids in this kind of assault on truth, in that is also maintains that American interests are always evil and never tell the truth. In either view, anything that contradicts their ideology is "fake news". Both betray actual healthy skepticism.

Stop comparing/associating him with what Russia has or had. Trumpism has no precedent in Russia or Eastern Europe. Trump is an mentally deficient idiot with a lot of psychological issues who managed to get elected. You are giving him too much credit with this war on truth.

I think you may at least partially misunderstand me. I don't think that Trump does this consciously. Obviously there has been some influence on his campaign from the Russian interests he's hired (ala Manafort), but his natural tendency to lie and lie so fast it's difficult to keep up with, and in turn to simply sow doubt and misdirection is right out of the Russian playbook. This isn't difficult to observe. One can see it has been employed in various other places around the world as well, including Ukraine. Just do a bit of research on it if you're unfamiliar. I don't think Trump is smart enough to do that, he's just a strong man that lies like he breathes. It happens to fit in well with that type of game plan. Include Russian interests influencing him, and it all fits right in. Trump has also had a soft spot for Russia since the '80's. Putin is a man that mixes his business and politics and Trump admires that, just as Trump admires strength. No, he's no genius of anything. He's no business man, he's no strategic savant. He certainly isn't a good negotiator. He's passable at one thing only that I can see really. Being a reality TV star. That does aid him in this fuckery, to be sure.

 

[barbos]

Stop comparing/associating him with what Russia has or had. Trumpism has no precedent in Russia or Eastern Europe. Trump is an mentally deficient idiot with a lot of psychological issues who managed to get elected. You are giving him too much credit with this war on truth.

I think you may at least partially misunderstand me. I don't think that Trump does this consciously. Obviously there has been some influence on his campaign from the Russian interests he's hired (ala Manafort), but his natural tendency to lie and lie so fast it's difficult to keep up with, and in turn to simply sow doubt and misdirection is right out of the Russian playbook. This isn't difficult to observe. One can see it has been employed in various other places around the world as well, including Ukraine. Just do a bit of research on it if you're unfamiliar. I don't think Trump is smart enough to do that, he's just a strong man that lies like he breathes. It happens to fit in well with that type of game plan. Include Russian interests influencing him, and it all fits right in. Trump has also had a soft spot for Russia since the '80's. Putin is a man that mixes his business and politics and Trump admires that, just as Trump admires strength. No, he's no genius of anything. He's no business man, he's no strategic savant. He certainly isn't a good negotiator. He's passable at one thing only that I can see really. Being a reality TV star. That does aid him in this fuckery, to be sure.

You bought "Russia did it" narrative completely without any critical analysis. And you are the one who should do research, not me. Any russsian who mildly interested in the topic and speak english knows more than you do simply because he has access to other side arguments.

Trump lies, but it does not mean everything he says is a lie, and it does not mean his "opponents" among democrats are always telling the truth either. I do believe that this hysteria about russians has very little basis in reality. Russian "CIA" neither wanted nor expected Trump to win, this alone makes any kind of extra-ordinary contacts with Trump a waste of efforts on their part. Democrats are really overdoing it. Yes, there were contacts, and some people in Trump gang should not have forgotten to mention it, but the nature of these contacts was completely innocent and in some cases even not worth remembering. On the other hand some of the accusation against Trump are really interesting in that they look made up, I am talking about Russian bank-email-server-gate. I honestly believe the whole russian hysteria was created by Clinton campaign, they calculated that linking Trump with russians could help them with few extra points, and they still keep doing it. That's not to say that russians were completely impartial, they clearly did not like Clinton, but they they had perfectly fine reasons to dislike her.

 

[J842P]

Americans should read and understand this post.

 

[braces_for_impact]

OK. Barbos, apparently you didn't completely misunderstand me.

You bought "Russia did it" narrative completely without any critical analysis.

No. You are assuming I performed no critical analysis because my findings didn't support your conclusion.

Any russsian who mildly interested in the topic and speak english knows more than you do simply because he has access to other side arguments.

Blusterin' bullshit! What if they're Russian and don't speak English? What if they live closer to Russia, like Sarah Palin? Does this give them the benefit of clearer analysis? No, and you know that.

Trump lies, but it does not mean everything he says is a lie, and it does not mean his "opponents" among democrats are always telling the truth either.

This is obvious and given and provides no insight.

Russian "CIA" neither wanted nor expected Trump to win, this alone makes any kind of extra-ordinary contacts with Trump a waste of efforts on their part.

This isn't demonstrated by available data. It's very obvious they preferred Trump over Hillary, and for obvious reasons. Also, even if they weren't successful in getting Trump elected (I don't think they thought they'd actually be that successful either) doesn't mean that several of their goals were not still completed.

Yes, there were contacts, and some people in Trump gang should not have forgotten to mention it, but the nature of these contacts was completely innocent and in some cases even not worth remembering.

Yeah, they "forgot". In the nature of any large campaign, there are bound to be innocent encounters with Russian agents, as you claim, that have no nefarious reasoning behind them. Of course this doesn't mean that they all were so innocent. Indeed, the behavior alone of the Trump campaign betrays their motives in this matter, but even without their odd behavior, and even without the fact that you can't swing a dead cat around Trump without hitting a Russian, there is plenty of data pointing towards a problem. Also, the Trump campaign doesn't have to engage in active collusion with Russia in order to benefit from an unauthorized intrusion in the U.S. democratic process.

On the other hand some of the accusation against Trump are really interesting in that they look made up, I am talking about Russian bank-email-server-gate.

Oh, well they look made up, then lets just forget the whole thing!

Look, I could provide many links to Russian interference in foreign elections in the past. We have cold hard fact of a large cyber campaign in support of Trump, including the use of a troll army, bots and fake stories posted to social media before the election. Fake Facebook sites posted from Albania and Macedonia. Russian created stories that eventually loop back to conspiracy sites like Infowars and Breitbart. We have other intelligence sources collaborating much of this data. Of course we have the Wikileaks debacle. There's a lot of information to be had, but I suspect this is a waste of time with you and this is why.

I honestly believe the whole russian hysteria was created by Clinton campaign, they calculated that linking Trump with russians could help them with few extra points, and they still keep doing it. That's not to say that russians were completely impartial, they clearly did not like Clinton, but they they had perfectly fine reasons to dislike her.

All Russian hysteria created by the Clinton campaign? Do you buy the Trump line that they're doing this to cover up for a badly run campaign, even though that doesn't even make logical sense as a motive? Most of the really concerning stuff didn't percolate in the public consciousness until the election was already decided. So, it's not like the Clinton campaign could get a re-do out of this.

Even if one were to not believe the Russians attempted to interfere in the election, there isn't a shred of evidence that the Clinton campaign was involved, much less the Obama administration. I think you bought the "Clinton did it" narrative completely without any critical analysis.

 

[Elixir]

I honestly believe the whole russian hysteria was created by Clinton campaign

That sure does make one wonder... how do you explain the undeniable fact that people around Trump have been routinely lying about their contacts with Russian oligarchs? Why not just lay it out plainly so people can see that it's all innocent? After all the election is over, they won. No need to keep lying about their involvement if it's all innocent. We have every sign of a cover-up going on right now, with Nunes heading up an investigation and running in a panic, straight to the subjects of that investigation before advising the committee he supposedly heads up. They couldn't make this look any more fishy if they tried, and there is no Hillary to conveniently blame for that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I honestly believe the whole russian hysteria was created by Clinton campaign

That sure does make one wonder... how do you explain the undeniable fact that people around Trump have been routinely lying about their contacts with Russian oligarchs? Why not just lay it out plainly so people can see that it's all innocent? After all the election is over, they won. No need to keep lying about their involvement if it's all innocent. We have every sign of a cover-up going on right now, with Nunes heading up an investigation and running in a panic, straight to the subjects of that investigation before advising the committee he supposedly heads up. They couldn't make this look any more fishy if they tried, and there is no Hillary to conveniently blame for that.

Don't forget the Deep State, waging war against Trump so they can have their war against Russia.

 

[beero1000]

To be honest, there are some people in the forum whose knee-jerk support for certain topics or organizations is enough to get me to completely discount their opinions on it. Cheer-leading so hard for something that has such obvious issues just makes me suspicious, even if those concerns aren't validated in the end.

Introspection is important.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The latest from HRCHQ(or CIA/Deep State HQ):

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1646686

Trump was promised .5% of Rosneft and aid in exchange for lifting sanctions. The deal went down last April at the Mayflower Hotel in DC.

 

[barbos]

OK. Barbos, apparently you didn't completely misunderstand me.



No. You are assuming I performed no critical analysis because my findings didn't support your conclusion.

No, I conclude you performed no critical analysis because you have no access to other side arguments, and no, RT is not a good source for that. They are mostly counter-propaganda tool

Any russsian who mildly interested in the topic and speak english knows more than you do simply because he has access to other side arguments.

Blusterin' bullshit! What if they're Russian and don't speak English? What if they live closer to Russia, like Sarah Palin? Does this give them the benefit of clearer analysis? No, and you know that.

Blusterin' bullshit is when Colbert (I love the guy) shows an evidence which is audio of bunch of russian speakers talking over the phone with english subtitle which literally may be correct but in reality does it does not say what american public is told it says.

Trump lies, but it does not mean everything he says is a lie, and it does not mean his "opponents" among democrats are always telling the truth either.

This is obvious and given and provides no insight.

It't not supposed to, it provides context.

Russian "CIA" neither wanted nor expected Trump to win, this alone makes any kind of extra-ordinary contacts with Trump a waste of efforts on their part.

This isn't demonstrated by available data.

You have data that someone had (prior to election) data that Trump had a chance? If Russian "CIA" are so good as you imply then we all are in deep trouble.

It's very obvious they preferred Trump over Hillary, and for obvious reasons.

Again, you show signs of suffering from Clinton propaganda. You assume that what it says is true.
We know that russian media was not so much pro-Trump as anti-Clinton, yes, for obvious reasons, because both she and Obama were mean and talked trash about Russia. As for russian "CIA" we don't know what their preference were or are, but I really doubt they wold have been wasting their time on something so unlikely as Trump winning.

Also, even if they weren't successful in getting Trump elected (I don't think they thought they'd actually be that successful either) doesn't mean that several of their goals were not still completed.

Again, you assume they had goals regarding these elections.

Yes, there were contacts, and some people in Trump gang should not have forgotten to mention it, but the nature of these contacts was completely innocent and in some cases even not worth remembering.

Yeah, they "forgot". In the nature of any large campaign, there are bound to be innocent encounters with Russian agents, as you claim, that have no nefarious reasoning behind them. Of course this doesn't mean that they all were so innocent. Indeed, the behavior alone of the Trump campaign betrays their motives in this matter, but even without their odd behavior, and even without the fact that you can't swing a dead cat around Trump without hitting a Russian,

Have you tried to swing a dead cat around Hillary without hitting a russian? Maybe you should try in order to have a fair reference point for comparison.

there is plenty of data pointing towards a problem. Also, the Trump campaign doesn't have to engage in active collusion with Russia in order to benefit from an unauthorized intrusion in the U.S. democratic process.

Democrats are throwing shit at the wall and hoping it to stick. I can buy a theory that some people in russian government may have been semi involved in making Hillary's life harder but I am not gonna buy your theory that Trump campaign was colluding with them.

On the other hand some of the accusation against Trump are really interesting in that they look made up, I am talking about Russian bank-email-server-gate.

Oh, well they look made up, then lets just forget the whole thing!

What thing? In my opinion the thing which should be investigated first is something which actually happened and that thing I mentioned happened, people have in fact claimed having "evidence" of links between Trump and russian bank.

Look, I could provide many links to Russian interference in foreign elections in the past.

Well, maybe, But I can provide 10 times more links of CIA interference in foreign elections in the past

We have cold hard fact of a large cyber campaign in support of Trump, including the use of a troll army, bots and fake stories posted to social media before the election.
Fake Facebook sites posted from Albania and Macedonia. Russian created stories that eventually loop back to conspiracy sites like Infowars and Breitbart. We have other intelligence sources collaborating much of this data. Of course we have the Wikileaks debacle. There's a lot of information to be had, but I suspect this is a waste of time with you and this is why.

Well, according to CIA documents leaked by Snowden, US does that too.

I honestly believe the whole russian hysteria was created by Clinton campaign, they calculated that linking Trump with russians could help them with few extra points, and they still keep doing it. That's not to say that russians were completely impartial, they clearly did not like Clinton, but they they had perfectly fine reasons to dislike her.

All Russian hysteria created by the Clinton campaign?

Not all, just this election related.

Do you buy the Trump line that they're doing this to cover up for a badly run campaign,

It's not his line, it's my line.

even though that doesn't even make logical sense as a motive? Most of the really concerning stuff didn't percolate in the public consciousness until the election was already decided. So, it's not like the Clinton campaign could get a re-do out of this.

Democrats still need to run in the future.

Even if one were to not believe the Russians attempted to interfere in the election, there isn't a shred of evidence that the Clinton campaign was involved, much less the Obama administration. I think you bought the "Clinton did it" narrative completely without any critical analysis.

Not true, I have some shreds. Hillary herself admitted that she thought Putin hacked her because she disliked her. This suggests that Hillary disliked him very much back to begin with. In any case, unlike you I don't pretend having evidence I merely have a plausible hypothesis.