monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You could start a new thread about that, but the one with the most influence and reactionsc(including 'heavy diplomatic disturbances') was the so-called "criminal case of Lisa F." in early 2016.
Then of course the Russian relations of the extreme right-wing party "Action for Germany" (AfD), ... ... ...

Edit:
Ooops, sorry! You wrote "attribute" - those above are proven facts. My bad

You'll either have to find what you missed or content yourself with your ignorance, something I'm sure you've had to deal with over these long years.

It is not often I read the entirety of a long piece without skipping, but I did your link. Thank you, very interesting. Disturbing but interesting.

Oh good grief Charlie Brown, it was a simple question.

I do require evidence. Short of becoming a hack expert overnight and then traveling to Moscow and Washington to interview Putin and his puppet myself, I'll have to rely on evidence brought forward by someone else than me.... Like evidence brought forth by the intell agencies of the US of A.

So the question is not: do you trust the talking heads? The question is - always and by necessity -- which talking head do you trust on topic X, and which ones don't you trust? That is the only relevant question, also for you.

You chose to trust Trump and Putin on this issue. I chose to trust the CIA, the FBI and the NSA on this issue.

Oh, and I trust Bernie Sanders.

I can't what? Bite you?

That particular jibe always puzzles me. I know it supposed to be homoerotic, but I'm thinking it must be sadomasochistic too, and even if there no sexual context involved, would you really want a clown to bite you?

I don't happen to be a clown and I don't even like them. I really don't like you, but still I wouldn't bite you...I would probably contract a disease.

But thanks for playing.

Just tell me the evidence that was brought to you.

I don’t trust anyone anymore, which is why I need proof before I trust.

Julian Assange showed me emails that made it easy to believe that the DNC colluded with the media to cheat Bernie out of the nomination.

Judicial Watch was finally able to get documents released that prove the FBI lied about a meeting between Clinton and Lynch—what was it, the DAY before Lynch was to decide if charges would be brought against Clinton???

So, feel free to put the FBI on the list of institutions I don’t trust.

Documents are proof to me.

I blame you and people like you...entirely.

This highlights a problem hyper-skeptics find themselves in: on many topics, they cannot possibly collect evidence by themselves (too expensive, requiring too much expertise) and therefore they must rely on the evidence collected by someone else in order to form any judgement... but they cannot do so because "they don't trust anyone"... So how do they square the circle? Very simple: they just believe the evidence that confirms what they originally thought, and disbelieve the evidence that contradicts what they originally thought. Like that, they don't have to change their mind ever.

For example, when the US intell agencies concluded that Putin ordered a campaign to get Trump elected, Lash decided to doubt them, out sheer of convenience. Believing such reports would be impossible for her, as it would mean that Lash herself behaved as a useful idiot to Trump and his Russians backers, and that she was fooled by them...

Now, if there's one thing no hyper-doubter will ever doubt, it is the extent of his or her own intelligence. :-)

Not quite Lucy.

This is a little game snood likes to play.

I’m sure you cast about irrationally trying to blame anyone except those Clinton campaign operatives who intentionally and successfully colluded with “journalists” to elevate Donald Trump to pied piper status in the campaign.

They intentionally elevated Trump and colluded with the media to isolate Bernie from fair, unbiased coverage. That and ran a stupid campaign.

They are directly the cause of Trump’s election, no matter what lame-ass spin is applied.

I require proof.

I've posted this link elsewhere but it fits with your classic definition

link to podcast links to more on the research that's been going on in this area at the podcast description/partial transcript

Naah... You require self-esteem, which is why you're quite happy to ignore evidence that you behaved as a useful idiot to enemies of your country, who've spread doubt, anger and confusion among US voters in order to get their favorite candidate elected. You are incapable of accepting that fact because it is too damaging to your self-esteem.

If nothing else, my ability to stand alone, comfortably expressing distinctly minority opinions, must be evidence to even the most casual pop-psychologist that my self-esteem is quite intact.

I agree, but the point I am making is that your self-esteem is only intact because you conveniently ignore anything that could damage it.

And this whole issue highlights a problem partisan hypocrites find themselves in.

Putin ordered the Kremlin to interfere with our election: I can buy that based on pretty clear evidence and what's been going on in the world for quite some time.

Putin wanted the interference to ensure a Trump victory: Not that sure there's solid evidence of that. If his goal was simply to create a loss of faith in our election process and an enormous political brawl, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. However, he probably did prefer one candidate over the other. It would be strange if he didn't. Which one he preferred is not precisely known, but it wouldn't be shocking if it were the erratic, amateur. Big deal. He probably preferred Obama to McCain for the same basic reason. If so would that have tainted Obama?

What we don't know with the certainty provided by hard cold facts is whether Trump made a deal with the Russians: "You help me win, and I will lift the sanctions." For example.

Here's where the hypocrisy part comes in. Liberals want the mere fact that Putin tried to interfere to enrage the American population. They want this anger and loathing to rub off on Trump because the assumption is Putin wanted him to win. However, when Obama interfered in an Israeli election did they find that unspeakable or are only US elections sacrosanct? Was the candidate Obama preferred over Bibi tainted by that preference? Should he have been in the eyes of Israelis? Does anyone really believe that the candidate in question didn't know about the preference and that had he won he would not have cooperated with Obama more than Bibi had, that this was, in fact, expected by Obama?

Liberals probably rationalized Obama's interference as a necessary and righteous blow against the racist Zionist regime of Bibi and his bigots. That plenty of Russians might highly approve of any efforts by Putin to screw with a country they see as their international adversary doesn't seem to have ever occurred to those who approved of Obama's interference.

As for quid pro quo, well, that isn't what would have happened! The guy Obama preferred had the same vision for Israel as our president. They were natural allies is all. He would never have given Obama something that wasn't necessarily and immediately in the best interest of his country. Something like lifting sanctions on the US imposed by Bibi for Obama's interference. Something like that would put Israel in jeopardy!

I don't have a problem with a double standard that favors the US. We get to do what we want but not anyone else. Liberals though, very clearly, do have a problem with this concept, but just not when its applied by one of their own.

No, it's just actual votes cast in voting booths that are the cause of the Trump presidency. Your vote helped him. You're to blame (not solely mind you; there were plenty of people equally foolish).

Bingo!

I trust we'll know that pretty soon.


Israel constantly interferes in US politics, too. But these two are allies, at least in theory... It's different when an outright adversary does it, and with the stated aim to weaken the US democracy.