Oh my fucking god. You would be a great detective too:

This is the actual thing.

“It’s not vague, it’s concrete and specific - the consensus of the intelligence community is that the Russian government was involved in concerted efforts to influence the election against Hillary Clinton.”

So you agree we haven’t been shown any concrete evidence of anything. “All of the intelligence agencies,” by the way, have not concluded anything either.

Okay — that’s the closest I’ve seen to some meat on this bone. If, for example, the Junior Trumps offered to get rid of the Magnitsky Act for a dump of Clinton emails, and had Trump’s authority to make that offer, a crime was committed.

Good point. It’s hard to argue the remnants of the Clinton coalition aren’t looking hard to blame something or someone, from Comey’s letter to Russian hackers or ... well anything, really, for her loss to possibly the worst human being ever to take the public stage.

“Pretty much consensus?” Yes, there is a vague, politically driven media consensus built on a whole lot of nothing, which is the problem.

First, I think I was pretty clear I have as much for contempt Trump as anyone, so you’re already arguing dishonestly.

And not one of those “dominoes” amount to “Russian election interference,”, do they?

Bush broke the world. Clinton was okay with that. She was okay with Wall Street breaking the world AGAIN.

Has no one noticed there is not one proven concrete instance of “Russia” doing much of anything, or at least anything effective, vis a vis “attacking our elections?”

YES.

The lowering-the-bar effects of the past election continue. In any sane world, Kushner, Pence, Kelly, DeVos, Pruitt (and on and on) would be notable for being monstrous, unacceptable selections for public service.

Good piece.

Whoa. So Nestlé is behind all this. The dystopic fiction writes itself.

Don’t tell my Republican parents!

Is there any way we know for sure that human beings aren’t subtly controlled by microorganisms or viruses or fungi?

Upload your most private photos to a massive consumer website?

For some of them it feels like it’s just a way to stand out by lowering the bar into the sub-basement. “Best at small scale public speaking, for a racist.” “Not that stupid looking, among racists.” That sort of thing. An under-utilized brand, because of course it’s the worst brand. But still.

Should somebody tell the wanna-Nazis that them announcing they like or not like something could only possibly nudge opinion in the opposite direction?