Please quote the relevant part in your answer.

Duly quoted. also made mention of another interview which could be construed as referring to an American deep state.

Why do I find myself agreeing with Putin for the first quotation?

@AndrewGrimm Probably because to a large extent, that is how it is, and to a large extent that is how a democracy survives. Being president is, and is supposed to be, different than being an emperor.

""So, if this theory is correct and that can't be ruled out, then what could be easier, in this day and age, than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means to organize some attacks? And then pointing the finger at Russia." Sounds almost as easy as denying any involvement (regardless of evidence) because it's possible the US is covering it up because they potentially covered up for the JFK assassination 55 years ago. I'm sure the conspiracy theorists love this explanation.

@StianYttervik Are you insinuating that Putin is an emperor? In Europe we mostly have prime ministers who don't have a time limit of how long they can serve. The Russian people are free to replace him if they want. But up to recently he had an approval rating of over 80%.

@JMac So you are in effect calling 70% of the U.S population conspiracy theorists.

He didn't say about US deep state in this speech. In fact, this speech was nearly fully russian-oriented - about inner politics. All mentioning west was only some words in the end - about russian answer to US exiting INF and general standoff with the west. The only another foreign politics theme(also rather short, some sentences) was about strengthening of Russia-China ties and growing trade volumes.

@dan-klasson I don't believe so, no. I did not say that only conspiracy theorists would believe that either. I am saying that it fits very well with conspiracy theorist thinking. "Your government may have done other covert operations to influence politics, therefore the easiest explanation is that Russia is being framed". It plays into the "it's all a conspiracy by your own government" card; which seems pretty obviously beneficial to Russia. It just doesn't seem like it's any "easier" than the explanation that Putin was trying to shift all blame from Russia onto the US deep state.

@JMac, Muller's team is searching for evidence for almost a year. Different other comissions and activists is searching. And what evidence do they discover? According to a standoff between Trump's funs and Trump's haters, it looks like a black pr and mud throwing, than an investigation.)

@JMac Just the use of the word conspiracy theory shows your clear bias and conformist thinking. Shift what blame exactly? Are you referring to the so call meddling in U.S elections? To this day we have seen absolutely ZERO evidence of this. Anybody I debate this with always end up saying the CIA said so. That's your "evidence".

@uhoh I believe he did so I'll try to update later, bit busy atm.

@dan-klasson most other European PM's do refrain from murdering the opposition though.

@Orangesandlemons Why would a president with an approval rating of 80% want to murder the opposition? What would be the motive? But more importantly, where is the evidence? Personally I have nothing against conspiracy theories. But in your case it makes absolutely no sense.

And you believe that 80% approval figure, eh?

@dan-klasson No, I was not insinuating anything towards Putin. I was merely explaining that checks and balances are basically the distinction between an emperor and any other sort of national leader. But fortunately, I am not Russian, nor am I in Russia - so if I wanted to insinuate anything regarding Putin, I could do so without fearing to be falsely accused of something horrible, dragged through the courts and put in jail for an indefinite amount of time. Chew on that for a while.

@CGriffin Yes I do because western approval ratings agencies came up with the same numbers and, if you had bothered to Google it, you would have seen that not a single U.S mainstream media outlet refute those numbers. Sorry to disrupt your black and white world mindset. But hey, you never know, it could be an international conspiracy.

@StianYttervik That's a bit simplistic isn't it? What do you call a country where corruption (a.k.a lobbyism) is legal?

@dan-klasson It is a bit rich to defend the Russian Federation that it is not at all autocratic, it is merely correctly handling corruption. All reason should point to the reverse conclusion. It is incorrectly dealing with corruption, and as a result it is quite autocratic. (oligarchical in fact)

@dan-klasson because he murderous? I mean, they are objectively being murdered.

@StianYttervik I'm not defending the Russian Federation. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States. My point is that the Russian government corruption might be slightly different from the U.S one, but in practice it's not that far off. 3 Americans hold more wealth than half the U.S population. How is that not oligarchical?

@Orangesandlemons You keep sprouting that conspiracy theory. How about instead of labeling it as an objective fact, you present me with actual evidence of what you claim? And while you're at it, throw in a motive.

@dan-klasson what conspiracy theory? that members of the Russian opposition get murdered? Heres one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov . How about Litvinenko? Whilst not a politition, he was a critic of Putin who got poisoned by Plutonium, so undeniably Putin.

@dan-klasson It is not oligarchical because their assets were not handed to them 30 years ago from the ruins of a nation state. Just because you are a friend of an official, doesn't mean you can expect to receive a huge oil and gas company. That is a slight difference.

@StianYttervik Well jeez. Perhaps that's because it was the Soviet Union that collapsed and not the United States. So what's the real definition of oligarchical then? Let's see: "a form of government run by a small number of people such as wealthy landowners, royalty or powerful military figures". Which directly doesn't apply to the U.S, but if you factor in that the U.S presidents that get elected directly represent these people, and those who don't stay in line gets assassinated. It pretty much fits the bill perfectly.

Well I should mention there's the vice president, whom many considered the person who actually pulled the strings in that administration, named Dick Cheney. Who was the CEO of Halliburton.

@dan-klasson "Which directly doesn't apply to the U.S, but if you factor in that the U.S presidents that get elected directly represent these people, and those who don't stay in line gets assassinated. It pretty much fits the bill perfectly" Source?