• spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes, an opinion by experts. It is an opinion, but not one that can be dismissed without competing opinion from others of equal credential.

        Correct, but it also cannot be regarded as irrefutable evidence.

        Hillary was never going to win, because she was a bad candidate, and her disastrous campaign was the nail in the coffin.

        And, like Trump, she will never admit that she made any mistakes.