I have no idea whether the Russian Intelligence Service manipulated the US Presidential Election. It does seem like the kinda thing that they might try to do. But conversely the American Intelligence “community” is hardly a credible source…President-Elect Trump makes a fair point when he says these are the same people that told the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
While it is true to say that there is a massive disparity in the “electoral college” vote and the “popular” vote, it is equally true to say that Hillary Clinton was a useless candidate who has seriously betrayed the most vulnerable people in the United States.
The most enduring part of this Election and its Fall Out is that USA is a hopelessly divided nation. A “Divided Nation” is arguably a better result for the Russians than a simple Trump victory.
Could an “Intelligence Service” actually manipulate a political party into Government? And maintain its place in Government?
Hmmmm….how else do we explain Sinn Féin in Government? How else do we explain the lack of open-ness to deal with historic murders? And the influence of informers?
Keeping An Eye On the Czar of Russia 
Fitz, I think your comment about the weakness of HRC as a candidate is fair. However in fairness to her she did win the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes (and rising) or by a full 2 percentage points. No losing candidate has “won” by so much and many winning candidates have failed to win by anything like so much (Eisenhower ’56, Kennedy, Nixon in ’68, Carter, Bush Jnr ’00, to name but a few). The losing margins in the 3 key states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were really so eyewateringly small – 22,000, 10,000, 44,000 (and falling) respectively – that even small factors will have been crucial to the outcome. In this instance I do believe that the actions of the FBI Director 10 days out from the election and the undermining leaks facilitated by the Russians were pertinent to the eventual outcome and gave the victory to Trump.
Oh I think the FBI Director DID cost Hillary votes. I have sympathy with that position and I should have said this in original post.
I have less sympathy with the popular vote/electoral college dilemna….Clinton amassed big totals in Some places, notably California….but this is the American system
In any federal system, there has to be a measure of balance to facilitate smaller states.
But the bottom line is that the worst and least qualified candidate beat Clinton.
Have to agree with your last point although not sure about the Electoral College. In an ideal world (where does it exist?) every vote should count the same, whether in Michigan or California.
I look at it another way.
Part of my problem with Europe is the dominance of Germany, France, Britain, Italy etc…..the likes of Latvia, Malta, Ireland, Slovenia etc are peripheral.
Likewise, California, New York, Texas would marginalise Delaware, New Hampshire, Wyoming etc if it was just about population size.
I thought I read somewhere that the 3/4 States that Jill stein had forced a recount, Trump increased his vote? By several thousand in one state if I recall.
Whether one wants to believe serial liars like the CIA is neither here nor there. If outside countries used the media to ‘influence’ US voters to the detriment of Clinton is again par for the course. After all the US has been interfereing in other countries elections for some time now. From the main media I observed it seemed that they were heavily stacked against Trump so what odds if other media evened things up a bit. Btw, the pro Clinton media and others keep banging on about these ’emails’ etc; they’ve yet to actually address what the emails contained. If the shoe was on the other foot there’s no doubt the media would’ve hammered Trump with the said emails.
The Clinton cabal reeks of all sorts of corruption and doublespeak. And on the ‘scandals’ produced against both sides I will categorically state Trump is the lesser of two bad candidates. Just on other footnote, it is noticeable that Clinton and her cheerleaders are leading this new campaign concerning ‘fake news’. It seems she and her ilk haven’t learned anything and continue to want to bully and control what people say. If anyone can’t see the irony that the BBC,CNN,Clinton and all the rest of the ‘good side’ are complaining about fake news then I give up. The more they try to control what we say,read and hear, the more people will despise and rile against them.
There is nothing new about “fake news”.
BAllymurphy Massacre, McGurks, Bloody Sunday, Guildford Four, Birmingham Six….Orgreave Colliery, Hillsborough, Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And the BBC and the Media bought into it.
And spread it.
I keep thinking that Hillary Clinton is a bit like Bonnie Prince Charlie. She seems to have deserted her followers. LEft them to their fate as Charlie did after Culloden.
I dont see how Trump can last four years. Impeachment or Boredom will get to him.
This Presidency is a poisoned chalice. The Winner will be punished with one term.