concerning electioneering:
i find the obama camp's take on it dubious at best, and childishly reactionary with serious geopolitical consequences at worst.
1) it places too much emphasis on the lowtech spearphishing done against podesta, in a seemingly desperate attempt to link it with prior, more sophisticated attacks that really were done by russia, despite a missing firm link between the two seperate events.
Even IF the spearphishing WAS orchestrated by russian intelligence, there is a lot of emphasis being placed on the effect of the dnc email dump in the outcome of this election. call me crazy if you want, but the rate of political slide in the states most influential to this outcome was already manifesting in 2008, and 2012. Hillary and Co. simply overestimated their hand. The dealer is not to blame here. The degree of contest in those states would still have been there had the dnc leak never happened.
2) If the outrage is over the use of propaganda to shape an election, then every election after ww1 is dirty.
3) if the anger is over the hacking of the dnc for dirt, why be angry now, and lenient when there was more evidence in the past instance from years prior, if not because of sour grapes in an election year?
need I remind everyone how clintons own foot in her mouth during a russian campaign year soiled a dedicated effort by obama to get better relations with russia? need i point out the hypocrisy of condemning russias reaction then, without condemning obama's reaction now, especially when the accusation is even more vapid and missing real substance than putin's accusations against clinton during the russian election were?
i mean, seriously.
no. not buying it. Putin is a snake, no bones about it-- but there just is not enough evidence and a whole lot of confirmation bias in this whole "russia's fault!" narrative.
it takes more than just known political liars (cia, nsa, fbi and pals) giving opinions here. facts need a bit more substance, and policy should be enacted based on facts.