@gulfgal98 I WAS a Bernie guy and caucused for him as a lower level delegate in Washington State. I ended up voting for Jill Stein, as I did in 2012. I can't imaging ever voting GOP, but my experience in the primary and following the news ever since has convinced me that we dodged a bullet and the lesser evil won. I doubt I will ever vote Dem again. At this point I would settle for as many establishment folks as possible (both Dem and GOP) leaving government disgraced or convicted, and that seems to have been happening since the election.

Yeah, gjohnsit, maybe they are being replaced by a different flavor of corruption (we don't know that), but if those that are currently in government are as demonstrably corrupt as they appear to be, good riddance, I say. At least the new people may not be as connected and expert at the art of corruption.

I am having a hard time trying to understand just how releasing information to the American people is subverting democracy. The same bunch of screamers from the MSM and the Democratic party yelled about how releasing the Nunes memo would expose our democracy to our enemies. Well, it didn't. We the American people have been paying for these freaks in DC preventing us from knowing what is happening. It is way past time for transparency.

The American people are sick and tired of fariy tale emanating out of the MSM and Democratic party. Hey Dems and MSM, what have you done for the American people lately?

Yeah, I am angry and frustrated by all the dog poop that has been flying around, so here is my list. Three things here:

(1) So far the only Russian collusion that I have seen has been between Hillary Clinton and the Russians, both during the Uranium 1 transaction (remember Bill's half million dollar speaking fee in Moscow?) and the compilation of the fake Steele dossier, of which not one allegation contained therein has been verified.

(2) Whomever hacked or leaked the DNC emails and those of John Podesta is irrelevent to allegations of Russian interference. The DNC is a private organization which has told the members of its own party they are free to rig elections however they wish. As a private organization, they do not enjoy the governmental protections any greater than any other private organization or individual. Further, the DNC refused to allow the government examine their server. By doing so, they lost any claim of validity for Russian hacking charges. I would hardly say that the DNC is an organization worthy of starting a war with Russia.

(3) I have yet to see any valid claim that Russia was able to change votes in the 2016, nor have I seen any proof that Russians cast ballots in the electoral college.

@MrWebster
Paragraph 3 - "Atlantic Council"
No need to read further.

Looks like the Resistance leading up to the election is going full speed ahead with the Russia hysteria. Clinton gets an extended interview with Maddow. The two articles from the NYTimes and WaPo. And now Putin is after the Boy Scouts

Why the Russians might hack the Boy Scots next

I did watch an TYT clip on youtube that was against Trump's declassification because of national security reasons. Signal Intel would be compromised. They have been absolutely horrible on anything Russia. I figure with TYT and people like Marcy Wheeler that they understood it was basically career and financial suicide to doubt the Russiagate narrative.

I have come to conclusion that to buy into the Russian hysteria is to buy into the neocon and neoliberal agenda. For example, how can one believe in Russian evilness and not then increase military budgets to fight them and internal police powers. Or support as TYT does, the secrecy of the deep state.

But it seems the narrative is changing. The US and Europe have gone from specific charges like changing votes to a universal menace. Now Putin wants to "hack" the Boy Scouts. What next? Efforts to counter Russians during camping trips? Badges for exposing others for being Russian stooges. This reminds me of how the real German Nazis produced children books on the Jewish menace. The Russians have become to American and European media and political elites what the Jews were to the German Nazis. The charges have become religious and I would would say emotionally racist. There is no room for logic or rationality.

@CB  
the New York Times giving the lede a pair of cement shoes and sending it to sleep with the fishes.

NYT Admits That Its "Mountain of Evidence" For Russian Collusion Is Smaller Than A Molehill

The New York Times spends 10,000 words in some 199 paragraphs on the alleged 'Russian influence' in the U.S. election.

The Plot to Subvert an Election - Unraveling the Russia Story So Far

For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack —hacked emails, social media fraud, suspected spies — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.

The long piece is a repetition of unproven intelligence claims, spin around a few facts and lots of innuendo. Few readers will ever digest it in full.

That is why this sentence appears near the top in paragraph 5 of a total of 199 paragraphs:

President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.

One-hundred-and-seventy-eight paragraphs later, near the end of the piece, we read the opposite and learn that Trump is indeed right:

Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.

The "mountain of evidence" claimed in paragraph 5 turns out to be "no public evidence" in paragraph 183 near the end of the piece. But 99% of the readers will not walk through the whole mess and the 1% that do will likely miss the contradiction.
...

@jorogo

"a confusing tangle of unfamiliar names and cyberjargon"

-or-

"a mountain of evidence"

You seem to be either confusing, or confused.