At a rally on Saturday, the former president announced he would tell the Russians “to do whatever the hell they want” to states delinquent in their bills.
Thanks; that was an interesting read. However, it needs to be read closely…
according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
…an assessment is an opinion as to their authenticity – i.e., they may or may not be real.
Contrast that with the FBI agent’s more cautious approach.
The bottom line is, even with Russian interference, Hillary would’ve easily won the presidency if she was a decent candidate and ran a competent campaign. Neither is true, so she chose to use alleged Russian collusion as an excuse when she lost.
The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.
Yes, an opinion by experts. It is an opinion, but not one that can be dismissed without competing opinion from others of equal credential.
Hillary would’ve easily won the presidency if she was a decent candidate and ran a competent campaign.
Absolutely agree, although I think it’s ‘more true’ stated the opposite direction: even without Russian interference, Hillary was never going to win, because she was a bad candidate, and her disastrous campaign was the nail in the coffin.
Trump is absolutely compromised by Putin. The Kremlin leak in 2021 confirmed that, but that story also flew under the radar for most people.
It would have been nice to have 2 terms of Sanders, and be ready to move on to a younger candidate now, but now he’s too old as well. Oh well.
Thanks; that was an interesting read. However, it needs to be read closely…
…an assessment is an opinion as to their authenticity – i.e., they may or may not be real.
Contrast that with the FBI agent’s more cautious approach.
The bottom line is, even with Russian interference, Hillary would’ve easily won the presidency if she was a decent candidate and ran a competent campaign. Neither is true, so she chose to use alleged Russian collusion as an excuse when she lost.
Yes, an opinion by experts. It is an opinion, but not one that can be dismissed without competing opinion from others of equal credential.
Absolutely agree, although I think it’s ‘more true’ stated the opposite direction: even without Russian interference, Hillary was never going to win, because she was a bad candidate, and her disastrous campaign was the nail in the coffin.
Correct, but it also cannot be regarded as irrefutable evidence.
And, like Trump, she will never admit that she made any mistakes.