Most important piece in the article cited above: "A bit of conjecture”
And another one: "This is guesswork”
More speculation: "One crucial unknown”
Actually, more than 90% of this article it is conjecture and guesswork, in my opinion. The part about Nixon was factual. The claim that our country was attacked by Russia is pure nonsense.
I think we can safely assume that Trump and members of his administration want/wanted to do business and deals with Russia. They have a history there. I am TOTALLY OKAY WITH THAT. It beats the hell out of going to war with them. THEY HAVE NUKES AND SO DO WE.
I think we all know that the powers that be in the USA funneled their money and support to HRC before the election, and that they fully expected (along with our corporate media) for HRC to win. And Russia likely assumed the same. I know I did.
And based on HRC's prior actions and statements, I think Russia did not like the idea one bit, since she clearly wanted to shoot down their planes in Syria and start up a war with them in Ukraine. That, plus her history of war-making, is a very large part of why I did not like her.
Therefore, I find the idea that Russia would engage in actions (election fraud) that would really piss off the next likely president of the USA to be totally unbelievable. I would think Russia would realize that HRC would use it as a basis for war.
The evidence that we currently have (actual evidence, not bullshit claims) indicates that the DNC and Podesta emails came from a DNC insider who leaked them, and not from Russian hackers.
Towards the end of the article he stated: "We don’t know yet what unfolded, and raw intelligence is often wrong."
He got that part correct.
This is just one example of the crappy ass journalism going around the USA since HRC lost the election. This nonsense, like the WMDs in Iraq nonsense in 2002, could be used as a basis for another war of aggression, this time on Russia. And they have nukes.
I CALL BULLSHIT ON ALL OF THIS.