I have waited for the other shoe to drop, and it hasn't, and now looks like it won't.
Didn't James Clapper, head of national security, suggest Russia's attempt to hijack the election came out of propaganda, disinformation, and fake stories?
The natural question should have been, What propaganda were we fed, what disinformation, what fake stories?
It doesn't take a genius to see that if the propaganda was directed at helping Trump, it was aimed at hurting Hillary. So, are we saying some of the bad things said about Hillary were no more than propaganda and disinformation?
I see a dearth of discussion on this. I haven't run across a single news story discussing it. Perhaps it is being discussed, and I'm just missing it? I wonder why the topic should not be all the rage, instead of missing altogether. Could it be that if the media fell for the stories, they aren't going to be running to point them out? Or, is it that the media figures all the propaganda was limited to the hacks on the DNC and RNC? That was the sum total of any disinformation and propaganda.
Or, it is that public and media, both, just don't stop to think? They just have not considered what it means to say that the Russians planted propaganda and disinformation in front of us.
If Clapper and the Intelligence Community's report didn't spell out which news stories amounted to disinformation, we ought to be asking them. And, we ought to be looking back at all the things that were said about Hillary, and wondering which stories might have duped us. A good portion of our electorate will not be open to doing that. Suggest to them that some of the bad things said about Hillary might have been false, and you'll hit a brick wall. They won't accept one hair or penny of it.