Some interesting bits here — which folk will accept or reject largely based on preconceived notions. The idea that the Russian hacking is less about supporting Trump and more about hurting Clinton (whether is because she's seen as a more strategic threat or because Putin is personally cheesed at her or both) makes a lot of sense.
One passage not specifically about Russia was of note:
'Officials from two European countries tell Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official says members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.'
For what it's worth, I don't think that Trump actually disbelieves the intel he is being briefed with. He's questioning / denying the Russian hacking because that's what he does to anything that an adversary / competitor says about him. And in Trump's case it's couched in a personal attack, which is also standard. It's not "I don't believe …" or "Top officials are uncertain …" but "She doesn't know …" It's classic Trump.
He may very well be in denial, or he may be being fed info from others that causes him to doubt. But I can easily believe that he would believe the briefings implicitly and not let them affect his political attacks if he felt it was to his advantage.
'Officials in Western Europe say they are dismayed that they now feel compelled to gather intelligence on a man who could be the next president of the United States but believe they have no choice. Moscow is seen as a direct threat to their interests—both in its aggressive efforts to reshape global alliances and for its power to damage Western Europe, which obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Should the United States, the last remaining superpower, tilt its policies away from NATO to the benefit of Russia, the alliance between America and Western Europe could be transformed in unprecedented ways. And so, for perhaps the first time since World War II, countries in Western Europe fear that the American election, should Trump win, could trigger events that imperil their national security and do potentially irreparable harm to the alliances that have kept the continent safe for decades.'
This is perfectly believable, save that i have no doubt that they "gather intelligence" on all top candidates, and will continue to gather intelligence on the winner so long as they are in office. As one does, and I'm sure we do the same.
But Europe's concerns over a President Trump backing out of the NATO "deal" are completely legit. Heck, I could see Trump (et al.) thinking this would be a great opportunity to sell a lot of natural gas to Europe if Russia starts putting the screws on them. He has very little regard for alliances or relationships of any kind, it certainly seems, if he doesn't see an ongoing benefit to him and his image. And I would certainly expect Russia to consider how they can use that.
Why Russia is backing Donald Trump
Inside Vladimir Putin’s complex gambit to weaken NATO.
Wow, that sure is some quality red baiting there, and from the useless Eichenwald to boot. Palmer and McCarthy would be proud, surprised that Eichenwald wasn't standing up in front of congress with a list of co-opted State Department members. But, since we are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the first Red Scare, I guess what was old is new again.