The combined assets of all of these agencies failed to find any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. (snip) They have nothing.These arguments seem compelling to me. Plus, I don't see how could it be in Russia's interest to help elect a guy who promised to strengthen the U.S. military, and now seems to be doing exactly that?
Everyone involved in this story thought that Hillary Clinton was sure to win the election. (snip) The Russians thought that Hillary was the certain winner, and if–a big if–they carried out a primitive phishing expedition into Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s email account, and subsequently sent the DNC emails to Wikileaks, it was to cause trouble for Clinton after she became president.
Likewise, British intelligence and the other agencies mentioned by the Guardian thought there was no doubt but that Hillary would win. How could they curry favor with the new administration, expected to be Obama’s third term? By feeding negative information about the opponent.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
John Hinderaker of Power Line has another "take" on the "eavesdropping on Trump operatives by foreign agencies" story. He tries to understand the alleged actions of Russians and NATO allies from a Clinton-is-sure-to-win perspective. See what he writes: