Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Russian Interference Is a Hoax, Part II

 

When the DNCLeaks “hack” happened in July of 2016, I took one look at the story and then my I/T gears started working internally. I immediately saw it for what I still believe it is today: An angry Bernie fan working for the DNC who saw what was happening and downloaded every PST (email collection) file on the servers to a USB drive and handed it over to WikiLeaks.

When you are talking about tens of thousands of emails, that is a massive quantity that takes a long time to stream across a network, and the DNC would have had to have some pretty stupid I/T folks not to notice it. Simply copying the files to a USB Drive would be simpler and much quicker, and almost impossible to catch in the act.

I have even posited on Ricochet that the DNC knows precisely who did it, but keep it a secret in order to continue to dupe the gullible (and overwhelmed by HateTrump) people with the Russian Interference Hoax.

Enter the far-left magazine “The Nation”. Known for their love of all things Leftist, you can find wonderful stories on their site such as “Andres Magana Ortiz’s Deportation Is Indefensible. Help Reverse It.” and “Why Donald Trump Needs Muslim Women” and my favorite, “How Do I Contain My Rage at the Patriarchy?”

The Nation has just posted a story titled, “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

They have done an intense study of the DNCLeaks story and have found zero evidence of any hack, Russian or otherwise. The Guccifer claim is a Hoax, as I suspected, and they conclude that the theft of the DNC Emails files was an inside job.

Here is the main point of the story, sorry for the Spoiler:

There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Please click the link above and read the story. I applaud their bravery, because they will be savaged by the Left for telling the truth. In fact, the DNC Goon Squad has already replied to the Editors:

Editor’s note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with a response, writing, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

I think it would be wonderful if Ricochet would finally put to bed the arguments about the Russian Interference Hoax. Thirteen months and still no proof, no evidence, that the Russians did anything, anywhere, to anyone, to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election. It was a total fabrication by Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook, and kept alive by the DNC, the MSM, and the HateTrumpers.

Let’s Ban The Hoax!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 28 comments.

  1. Profile photo of Guruforhire Member

    Everybody involved said it came from inside the DNC.

    • #1
    • August 12, 2017 at 7:40 pm
    • Like7 likes
  2. Profile photo of Matt Bartle Member

    I recall seeing something similar a little while back – the time stamps showed a rate of file copying that had to be to a local device. If it was done over the Internet, especially internationally, it would have taken far longer to get the files.

    It shouldn’t have taken a year for someone to notice this! But kudos to the Nation for publishing it – it’s kind of shocking that they did.

    • #2
    • August 12, 2017 at 7:47 pm
    • Like7 likes
  3. Profile photo of skipsul Moderator

    It has struck me as more than mildly amusing that ultimately the “Russian Hack” charge in no small part relies on the widespread knowledge that Hillary herself had a homebrew email server in her own home. The established fact of Hillary’s home server leads the public to believe that the DNC must have been just as negligent by way of correlation of the two. In other words, Hillary’s actual incompetence lends credence to the DNC’s alleged incompetence. As you illustrate above, this is a mistake, but one which suits the DNC’s Russian drum beating all too well.

    The first rule of looking for massive, or even minor data loss is to always look for the insider. They have the best access and opportunity. And even if the data was siphoned off remotely, the odds are extraordinarily high that it was still an insider, just one who provided access to the outsiders. But it’s still easier to drop the data you want or need onto a USB stick and walk out the door.

    • #3
    • August 12, 2017 at 7:54 pm
    • Like13 likes
  4. Profile photo of Gary McVey Member

    I’m on record here as saying that Russiagate is baloney. They didn’t hack the election, they didn’t fix the election; even Dem bigwig David Axelrod said “Comey and Putin didn’t tell Hillary not to campaign in Wisconsin”.

    Having said that, anyone who went on foreign affairs or politics sites is familiar with a certain kind of pro-Russian troll, and it’s clear that many of them do work in what amounts to a disinformation factory that seeks to influence American and western opinion. This is not “hacking the election” but it’s not pure as the driven snow either. Some of the most crackpot trilateralist fantasies out there were tirelessly posted (well, at least during weekday hours in Moscow) by sock puppets pushing the idea that Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon landing and Amazon would fake the 2016 election, or that half the US Senate own sex dolls. This is the sort of thing that is normally dismissed as childish “fun”, and it’s not exactly like the US never sought to influence a foreign election, but it means we can’t 100% say that Russia didn’t at least try to use the internet to mess with us. Let’s not be naive.

    But let’s not be morons either. Russiagate, as the press describes it, is baloney.

    • #4
    • August 12, 2017 at 8:24 pm
    • Like12 likes
  5. Profile photo of Hypatia Member

    Are you kidding me about that “Editors’Note”? So, uh, how many intelligence agencies reached this conclusion ,again? Well, maybe only 2: Clapper’s and Comey’s.

    Why is Clapper still at large, after testifying under oath that he hadn’t spied on Congress, then having to admit, uh, yeah, we did. I forgot, ok?

    Why is Comey stil showing his smug face? Remember his prepared statement for Congress? He didn’t disclose that he himself had leaked a conversation with Trump–he wasn’t gonna let us in on that  unless he had to! After 3 weeks of leaving the country in the dark about it.

    oh, but hey, the DNC is right. If we can’t trust those guys, who can we trust?

    • #5
    • August 12, 2017 at 8:26 pm
    • Like7 likes
  6. Profile photo of skipsul Moderator

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Are you kidding me about that “Editors’Note”? So, uh, how many intelligence agencies reached this conclusion ,again? Well, maybe only 2: Clapper’s and Comey’s.

    From Scott Adams:

    Remember when all seventeen intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with our elections?

    Turns out it was only four.

    Do you know how you get four agencies to agree on something of this nature? It’s easy. One publishes an opinion and the other three loyal agencies assume it is credible, so they support it. Do they all do independent investigations?

    I kinda doubt it.

    Based on my experience on this planet, probably one intelligence agency out of seventeen investigated and told the others they did a great job of it. Still, you can’t ignore even one intelligence agency that did an investigation and is totally positive Russia interfered with the election. That’s still credible information.

    Wait, did I say “totally positive”? Here’s a quote from CIA Director Mike Pompeo from this past week: “I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community.“

    Is confident the same as totally positive? And are “the Russians” the same as Putin?

    Personally, I use the word “confident” when I’m not 100% sure, when I think the evidence all points one way. Coincidentally, that is exactly what confirmation bias looks like too – all the signs point in the same direction. They just happen to be false signs. And it seems to me that a good non-Russian hacker could make a hack look like it came from anywhere.

    • #6
    • August 12, 2017 at 8:30 pm
    • Like9 likes
  7. Profile photo of JcTPatriot Thatcher
    JcTPatriot Post author

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But let’s not be morons either. Russiagate, as the press describes it, is baloney.

    Not “the press”, Gary:

    “What’s disturbing to us is experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here.”

    He said that Sunday, July 24, 2016 and it is a lie. The MSM immediately picked it up and ran with it, added “Donald Trump colluded” to the story Hoax later.

    None of this has anything to do with the usual tomfoolery that They Do To Us, and We Do To Them, and Everybody Does To Everybody around election time. I am talking about these liars who say that Hillary Lost because of Russian Interference. I personally believe that Russia would have preferred Hillary, since she is far closer politically to Putin than Trump, but I am not going to go out making up stories about my beliefs.

    • #7
    • August 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm
    • Like7 likes
  8. Profile photo of Gary McVey Member

    JcTPatriot, I agree with more than 99% of what you just said, and as Ronald Reagan put it, (at least on this issue) we’re 99 percent allies, not 1 percent opponents. I endorse the whole comment. I’d make a little exception for the last sentence. Putin hated Hillary’s moralistic foreign policy, and he has contempt for failure, which the architects of Libya and the Reset Button represented. Putin is not “left” in any meaningful way–Hillary’s and Mook’s pro-gay rights stands are poison to him–whereas it doesn’t take any sinister thinking to perceive Trump’s willingness to junk establishment views on globalism or nationalism as being welcome to a lot of people, Russian, American, or you name it. That doesn’t say anything bad about Trump, or uniquely opportunistic about Putin.

    • #8
    • August 12, 2017 at 8:50 pm
    • Like7 likes
  9. Profile photo of Bob Thompson Member

    JcTPatriot:

    Editor’s note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with a response, writing, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

    Why would the DNC have any credibility on this? Remember they did not call in any official investigative law enforcement or counter-intelligence agency. CIA or FBI would not be much better.

    • #9
    • August 12, 2017 at 9:38 pm
    • Like8 likes
  10. Profile photo of JcTPatriot Thatcher
    JcTPatriot Post author

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot:

    Editor’s note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with a response, writing, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

    Why would the DNC have any credibility on this? Remember they did not call in any official investigative law enforcement or counter-intelligence agency. CIA or FBI would not be much better.

    Precisely. Even their response to the hoax is fake. Just a vague “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded” as their only backing up of their claims.

    It’s just lies on top of lies on top of lies.

    • #10
    • August 12, 2017 at 9:41 pm
    • Like7 likes
  11. Profile photo of TempTime Member

    Good post, JcT. Thanks.

    • #11
    • August 13, 2017 at 12:06 am
    • Like4 likes
  12. Profile photo of Randy Webster Member

    It just goes to show how evil those Republicans are; they got a mole inside the Democrat electoral machine who abused his trust.

    • #12
    • August 13, 2017 at 3:04 am
    • Like5 likes
  13. Profile photo of Guruforhire Member

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot:

    Editor’s note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with a response, writing, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

    Why would the DNC have any credibility on this? Remember they did not call in any official investigative law enforcement or counter-intelligence agency. CIA or FBI would not be much better.

    Precisely. Even their response to the hoax is fake. Just a vague “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded” as their only backing up of their claims.

    It’s just lies on top of lies on top of lies.

    That is the thing that pisses me off the most.

    The “report” (if we can even really call it one), only said “it seems like some [redacted] they would do.” I maintain and have maintained since i read it that everybody involved should be fired for intellectual inadequacy and incompetence. They did a bad job. UNLESS there is something significant in the classified version.

    Based upon a total lack of evidence, their “conclusions” lack a sound basis.

    • #13
    • August 13, 2017 at 4:00 am
    • Like3 likes
  14. Profile photo of Kozak Member

    From the horses…… mouth

    Van Jones: Russia is “Nothing burger”

    • #14
    • August 13, 2017 at 5:44 am
    • Like4 likes
  15. Profile photo of Kozak Member

    JcTPatriot:I think it would be wonderful if Ricochet would finally put to bed the arguments about the Russian Interference Hoax. Thirteen months and still no proof, no evidence, that the Russians did anything, anywhere, to anyone, to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election. It was a total fabrication by Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook, and kept alive by the DNC, the MSM, and the HateTrumpers.

    Let’s Ban The Hoax!

    At this point it seems to violate the COC rule on Conspiracy Theories.

    • #15
    • August 13, 2017 at 5:47 am
    • Like5 likes
  16. Profile photo of blood thirsty neocon Member

    (cough) Seth Rich!

    • #16
    • August 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    • Like1 like
  17. Profile photo of OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    JcTPatriot, I agree with more than 99% of what you just said, and as Ronald Reagan put it, (at least on this issue) we’re 99 percent allies, not 1 percent opponents. I endorse the whole comment. I’d make a little exception for the last sentence. Putin hated Hillary’s moralistic foreign policy, and he has contempt for failure, which the architects of Libya and the Reset Button represented. Putin is not “left” in any meaningful way–Hillary’s and Mook’s pro-gay rights stands are poison to him–whereas it doesn’t take any sinister thinking to perceive Trump’s willingness to junk establishment views on globalism or nationalism as being welcome to a lot of people, Russian, American, or you name it. That doesn’t say anything bad about Trump, or uniquely opportunistic about Putin.

    I agree, Putin also hates Hillary for her DIRECT interference in Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections. He was highly insulted by this brazen act of realpolitik stupidity. Other than being Marxists, they have few points of actual agreement.

    • #17
    • August 13, 2017 at 9:25 pm
    • Like1 like
  18. Profile photo of JcTPatriot Thatcher
    JcTPatriot Post author

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    JcTPatriot, I agree with more than 99% of what you just said, and as Ronald Reagan put it, (at least on this issue) we’re 99 percent allies, not 1 percent opponents. I endorse the whole comment. I’d make a little exception for the last sentence. Putin hated Hillary’s moralistic foreign policy, and he has contempt for failure, which the architects of Libya and the Reset Button represented. Putin is not “left” in any meaningful way–Hillary’s and Mook’s pro-gay rights stands are poison to him–whereas it doesn’t take any sinister thinking to perceive Trump’s willingness to junk establishment views on globalism or nationalism as being welcome to a lot of people, Russian, American, or you name it. That doesn’t say anything bad about Trump, or uniquely opportunistic about Putin.

    I agree, Putin also hates Hillary for her DIRECT interference in Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections. He was highly insulted by this brazen act of realpolitik stupidity. Other than being Marxists, they have few points of actual agreement.

    I didn’t say Putin wants to sleep with Hillary, I said that it seems to me that he would prefer her politics to Trump’s politics, that’s all. So if he wanted to influence the election, it would be to help soft-on-communism Hillary win over hardcore Capitalist Trump.

    • #18
    • August 14, 2017 at 6:18 am
    • Like1 like
  19. Profile photo of Randy Webster Member

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):
    I didn’t say Putin wants to sleep with Hillary,

    Some things shouldn’t be mentioned even in passing.

    • #19
    • August 14, 2017 at 6:22 am
    • Like2 likes
  20. Profile photo of Old Bathos Member

    The same Obama appointees/Deep Staters who helped concoct Russiagate “confirmed” without any physical inspection (recall the DNC forbade it) that there was a hack.

    I see no reason why Congress, the White House and/or DOJ cannot identify the “intelligence agency” officials who told the DNC they were hacked and how they possibly knew that without any contact with the server or explanation how that volume of data could have been removed within the known time frame.

    • #20
    • August 14, 2017 at 8:28 am
    • Like2 likes
  21. Profile photo of OccupantCDN Coolidge

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    JcTPatriot, I agree with more than 99% of what you just said, and as Ronald Reagan put it, (at least on this issue) we’re 99 percent allies, not 1 percent opponents. I endorse the whole comment. I’d make a little exception for the last sentence. Putin hated Hillary’s moralistic foreign policy, and he has contempt for failure, which the architects of Libya and the Reset Button represented. Putin is not “left” in any meaningful way–Hillary’s and Mook’s pro-gay rights stands are poison to him–whereas it doesn’t take any sinister thinking to perceive Trump’s willingness to junk establishment views on globalism or nationalism as being welcome to a lot of people, Russian, American, or you name it. That doesn’t say anything bad about Trump, or uniquely opportunistic about Putin.

    I agree, Putin also hates Hillary for her DIRECT interference in Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections. He was highly insulted by this brazen act of realpolitik stupidity. Other than being Marxists, they have few points of actual agreement.

    I didn’t say Putin wants to sleep with Hillary, I said that it seems to me that he would prefer her politics to Trump’s politics, that’s all. So if he wanted to influence the election, it would be to help soft-on-communism Hillary win over hardcore Capitalist Trump.

    Putin’s view of the 2016 election was probably not that different from the consensus… It was an inverted primary – both parties selected everyone’s last choice to run. I agree that Putin would have slightly preferred Hillary because she’s soft on communism and corrupt. Trump has been on nearly every side of nearly every issue, predicting what his policies would be, years in advance, problematic for any intelligence service.

    This is why I believe the Russians did nearly nothing to interfere in the election – from their viewpoint there wasn’t a candidate that was clearly preferable. IF they had carried out any projects, it would be designed to keep the government divided. So that the Hillary administration would have to be domestically focused, rather than to endure more of Hillary’s “Internationalist Interventionist Excellent Adventures” … They saw that movie in Libya, and didnt need a sequel.

    • #21
    • August 14, 2017 at 9:45 am
    • Like2 likes
  22. Profile photo of Percival Thatcher

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    I didn’t say Putin wants to sleep with Hillary, I said that it seems to me that he would prefer her politics to Trump’s politics, that’s all. So if he wanted to influence the election, it would be to help soft-on-communism Hillary win over hardcore Capitalist Trump.

    Hillary would have kept the anti-fracking regime in place. She wouldn’t have okayed selling LNG to Eastern Europe. In addition to all that there is the little matter of all the stuff the FSB downloaded from her private server ( a far more lucrative target than DNC emails). Putin figured like everyone else figured that Hillary was a shoo-in.

    • #22
    • August 14, 2017 at 11:43 am
    • Like3 likes
  23. Profile photo of Spin Coolidge

    The forensic analysis upon which this is based is flawed. The Forensicator contends that just under 2GBs of data was moved in a short period of time, based purely upon time stamps on files stored in .rar files. While he might be correct, you have to make a lot of assumptions about how the data was moved to come to that conclusion.

    I think it is important to recognize the difference between three notions:

    A – The Russians hacked the DNC

    B – They did so to affect the outcome of our Presidential election

    C – Trump, or someone in the Trump campaign, helped them.

    For my part, I am confident that A is true, if for no other reason than they are a prime state actor when it comes to international cybercrime. They are hacking everyone, and everyone within the cybersecurity community knows it.

    There is no evidence for B or C, so we can say that it they untrue until there is.

    But let’s not blindly suggest that A is not true just because we don’t think B and C are true.

    • #23
    • August 16, 2017 at 8:21 am
    • Like1 like
  24. Profile photo of Bob Thompson Member

    Spin (View Comment):
    For my part, I am confident that A is true, if for no other reason than they are a prime state actor when it comes to international cybercrime.

    Gosh, that’s about equal to the evidence available to and the level of confidence expressed by the CIA. Now if we could get the NSA to say ‘Yes, we have records of this hack and it was the Russians’, we then would have a legitimate cause for confidence.

    • #24
    • August 16, 2017 at 8:52 am
    • LikeLike
  25. Profile photo of Spin Coolidge

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    For my part, I am confident that A is true, if for no other reason than they are a prime state actor when it comes to international cybercrime.

    Gosh, that’s about equal to the evidence available to and the level of confidence expressed by the CIA. Now if we could get the NSA to say ‘Yes, we have records of this hack and it was the Russians’, we then would have a legitimate cause for confidence.

    We have legitimate cause to worry about state actors involved in cyber crime. China, North Korea, and Russia are the primary offenders. This is well known in the cyber-security community. It is unfortunate that many have trouble separating this from their political opinions about the current President.

    As I’ve said many times: however seriously we take the threat of cyber crime, from any source, we don’t take it serious enough.

    • #25
    • August 16, 2017 at 9:00 am
    • Like2 likes
  26. Profile photo of Bob Thompson Member

    Spin (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    For my part, I am confident that A is true, if for no other reason than they are a prime state actor when it comes to international cybercrime.

    Gosh, that’s about equal to the evidence available to and the level of confidence expressed by the CIA. Now if we could get the NSA to say ‘Yes, we have records of this hack and it was the Russians’, we then would have a legitimate cause for confidence.

    We have legitimate cause to worry about state actors involved in cyber crime. China, North Korea, and Russia are the primary offenders. This is well known in the cyber-security community. It is unfortunate that many have trouble separating this from their political opinions about the current President.

    As I’ve said many times: however seriously we take the threat of cyber crime, from any source, we don’t take it serious enough.

    I agree. I wish we had a definitive statement from the NSA on this specific DNC intrusion.

    • #26
    • August 16, 2017 at 10:56 am
    • Like1 like
  27. Profile photo of Spin Coolidge

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    For my part, I am confident that A is true, if for no other reason than they are a prime state actor when it comes to international cybercrime.

    Gosh, that’s about equal to the evidence available to and the level of confidence expressed by the CIA. Now if we could get the NSA to say ‘Yes, we have records of this hack and it was the Russians’, we then would have a legitimate cause for confidence.

    We have legitimate cause to worry about state actors involved in cyber crime. China, North Korea, and Russia are the primary offenders. This is well known in the cyber-security community. It is unfortunate that many have trouble separating this from their political opinions about the current President.

    As I’ve said many times: however seriously we take the threat of cyber crime, from any source, we don’t take it serious enough.

    I agree. I wish we had a definitive statement from the NSA on this specific DNC intrusion.

    Maybe. I had a conversation with a local FBI agent (out of Seattle, actually, so reasonably local) and we talked about why firms don’t release information regarding these sorts of attacks. The simple fact is, they don’t want other hackers to know that the methods and tools have been compromised. They want others to use the same techniques so they can be caught. That’s why we will get rudimentary information at most: “Malicious Actor A used Spearphising technique B to accomplish Y.” You add to that how hyperpoliticized this specific issue is (by everyone, not just the media, not just the Trump supports. Everyone), and it’s impossible to tell up from down unless you are willing to set your prejudices aside.

    So maybe at some point in time we’ll get a lot more detail. But it probably won’t be for years, when the techniques used have become obsolete and nobody cares about it. Some former NSA muckedy-muck will write a book or something.

    • #27
    • August 16, 2017 at 11:46 am
    • LikeLike
  28. Profile photo of Gary McVey Member

    Trying to analyze Putin’s actions as “a man on the left” would make no sense. He’s a Game of Thrones thinker who sees America’s continuing dominance as an eternal thorn in Russia’s side. That’s our issue with him, pretty much the only one. He and his supporters are pro-business, comfortable with capitalism (crony capitalism, to be sure…but we’re not exactly simon-pure either), and enthusiastic about private property.

    On the social issues: You’re not going to find any affirmative action in today’s Russia. He thinks women have their place–in the kitchen and the boudoir. Putin’s the most prominent anti-gay rights politician in the world. He’s committed to his tacit deal with the Russian Orthodox Church.

    He’s no natural ally of Clinton’s. We should leave that theory out of our list of likelihoods.

    • #28
    • August 16, 2017 at 12:02 pm
    • Like2 likes