Yep, I agree with most of what you say here — the situation requires a fair amount of both Occam’s…
Brendan Carmody

I don’t think anyone who is currently freaking out about the hacking would be as hung up on it had A. Hillary won anyway and B. the hacking been at Trump. I don’t even think it would be a story if it was against Trump, actually. The media would bury it and laugh it off as typical right-wing conspiracy mongering and/or sour grapes, and probably sexism to boot.

Do I think it’s okay that/if Russia tried to hack us? No, of course not. But I also think it’s not as big a deal as people make it out to be — like this is the first time in modern history one country tried to meddle in the politics of another. Obama was blatantly campaigning against Netanyahu in 2015 for Pete’s sake.

And I also don’t buy that the Russians were explicitly on Trump’s side, either. I think that’s a narrative that shifted from “Russia intends to sow chaos in the US political system” to, once Hillary lost, “Russia intended to get Trump elected.” I went over it in a long article: the narrative only changed once Trump won even though the hacking stories had been out there for months.

Finally, I think the idea that the spies are trying to bring down Trump is legit. The spy community has an agenda, and Trump is a radical departure from it. Many status quos around the world are in jeopardy, and thus the work and “turf” of a great many intelligence community officials are also in jeopardy. For whatever reason, there are factions in the spy community that despise Trump. And this is not an extreme or conspiratorial statement, either: recall that most Clinton partisans were shrieking about how the FBI was totally out to get her when it reopened the case into her emails just a few weeks before the election.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.