The Democratic Party is doing incalculable damage to itself by shapeshifting into the party of baseless conspiracy theories, groundless accusations, and sour grapes. Hillary Clinton was already the most distrusted presidential candidate in party history. Now she's become the de facto flag-bearer for the nutso-clique of aspiring propagandists at the CIA, the New York Times and Bezo's Military Digest. How is that going to improve the party's prospects for the long term?
It won't, because the vast majority of Americans do not want to align themselves with a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future but want to devote all their energy to kooky witch-hunts that further prove they are unfit for high office.
The reason Hillary Clinton lost the election is because she is a polarizing, untrustworthy warmonger. Period. Putin had nothing to do with it.
And the same rule applies to the major media that has attached itself leech-like to this pathetic fairy tale. Here's a clip from the Times headline story connecting FSB-agent Trump with the evil Kremlin:
"American intelligence agencies have told the White House they have 'high confidence' that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee. "
"The attack on the congressional committee's system appears to have come from an entity known as 'Fancy Bear,' which is connected to the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to an official involved in the forensic investigation...- Advertisement -
"Clinton campaign officials have suggested that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could be trying to tilt the election to Mr. Trump, who has expressed admiration for the Russian leader." (Computer Systems Used by Clinton Campaign Are Said to Be Hacked, Apparently by Russians, New York Times)
If there was a Pulitzer Prize for fear-mongering innuendo or spurious accusations, the Times would win it hands-down. As it happens, readers have to delve much deeper into the article to find this shocking disclaimer:
"But the campaign officials acknowledge that they have no evidence. The Trump campaign has dismissed the accusations about Russia as a deliberate distraction..."
They got nothing. NOTHING!
All they have is a few anonymous agents who refuse to identify themselves speculating on alleged hacking incidents that (they surmise) were the work of Vladimir P. Strangelove in his remote Soviet Cyber-war bunker. That's not even enough material for a decent spy thriller.
But, of course, all this bunkum about "Fancy Bear" and "Russian military intelligence" and the "high confidence" of (unnamed) US intelligence agents is enough to scare the hell out of many readers and leave them with the impression that the Kremlin is up to its old Cold War tricks again. The Times editors are wise enough to know that it's quite easy to tap into 40-years of anti-Soviet brainwashing and convince the gullible sheeple that Washington and Moscow are still mortal enemies. It would have been helpful if the Times had given the story a bit of context; that is, pointed out that the US has relentlessly expanded NATO eastward establishing military bases in all of the former Soviet satellite states, toppled the Moscow-friendly regime in Ukraine, and built nuclear weapons sites in east Europe just a few hundred miles from Moscow.
The Times writers might have also noted that this latest propaganda campaign against Russia could very well be the result of Moscow's triumph over US-backed militants in Syria that are facing a decisive defeat due in large part to Russian involvement. In other words, the Times and the other US propaganda organs are functioning as they always do, whipping up public sentiment against the "evildoers" so Washington can drag the country into another imperial war of expansion. The whole "hacking" mantra fits perfectly with the Pentagon's hybrid war strategy which manipulates information in order to shape public perceptions and gain support for another round of genocidal violence in some far-flung location. (Raqqa, perhaps?)