On 12/16/2016 10:02 AM, jim bell wrote:

   From: Razer [1]<rayzer@riseup.net>
   On 12/15/2016 11:48 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Julian Assange: ‘Our Source Is Not the Russian Government’


   >He said that MONTHS ago.
   >He was just repeating it for the illiterates who need to see it on a
   Right-Wing TeeVee channel.
   >Ps. Handjob & braitfart are a little slow. Like most lIbertards and
   Fascist alt-Righturds
   >Vicious, but really, REALLY slow.
   > [2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassa
   dor-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-ha
   nded-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
   If anything, I don't think it's primarily the right-wing who are
   actually believing the "Russia hacked the election" story.  I think
   that story is at least designed, in part, for such people as an
   audience, hoping that they will 'bite'.  Instead, I think it is the
   Hillary-supporters and other left-wingers who are putting out this
   implausible story.

   I think you're confusing Progressive-Liberals with "Left-Wing".
   Progressive-Liberals aren't to the 'left' of anything except perhaps
   John McCain. It's mainly the Clinton crowd hanging onto the "Russia did
   it" trope. Hillary Clinton is certainly NOT "Left". She's a corporatist
   warmonger. Most of the people I know who I consider 'left' consider
   elections a sham that reinforces existing systems and don't
   participate. Others may have voted in the primaries for Sanders, and
   disillusioned despite warnings from anyone who knew anything about the
   Democrats and Bernie (just ask anyone in Vermont how 'left' Sanders
   is), stood down and didn't vote, or perhaps voted for Stein.

   I don't mean that it is entirely implausible that Russia (or many
   others) hacked the DNC/Podesta sources.  But Russia as the ONLY
   potential bogey-man, and as if we can ignore other sources, that's
   currently a left-wing story.   The MSM repeats this daily, even hourly.
    They've been looking for things to blame Hillary's loss on for weeks,
   and have generally given up other stories.
   It will probably be eventually  found that some state-supported person
   within Russia had the capability to obtain these emails, and quite
   possibly did so, and would have been willing to release them to
   Wikileaks (or others).

   I don't really think the Russian government cares whose president of
   the US at all as long as the person isn't nutjob enough to push the
   button as soon as they're inaugurated. They have their own country to
   run. I also just read that Russia is no longer in the big five military
   spenders. They aren't looking to stir up a war. That's the US modus.
   Rr

   But that is not inconsistent with the idea that Wikileaks eventually,
   and actually, got these emails from a different source:  The current
   claim that people within the DNC did that, is quite plausible.
               Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:rayzer@riseup.net
   2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html