Support NeoGAF

[Harksteed]

Manafort, #45's campaign manager, is currently in prison, and the money has a Moscow zip code.

Oh, I'm definitely not saying there isn't a ton of smoke. Hell, Jr. basically said he'd "love" to get help from the Russians so there's that. Just saying it'll be interesting what Mueller's conclusion will be.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

A campaign manager. One of many.

BTW, if you take that standard, Clinton's campaign manager's company was the one Manafort used to commit the crimes he was charged with, and it is under investigations

Better reinstate WWII sanctions against the Axis Powers while you're going back in time.

He also wanted to put out a bipartisan warning before the election, but couldn't get McConnell's support. Obama was concerned it would look like he was interfering in the election against Trump (and we all know it would've been spun that way).

I'm definitely disappointed he couldn't and wouldn't do more, though. I imagine that's a huge regret of his too.



lol, just because the malware is readily available doesn't mean just anyone can use it to effectively launch an attack, especially on systems as protected as our government's. This isn't some plug-and-play "type in the IP address you want to hack and press 'Enter'" type of deal. You can't hand over a complicated toolkit or set of libraries and just expect anyone to be able to use it at all, let alone effectively.

Anyway, the people in here who are still in denial or continue to want to downplay things certainly aren't going to change their minds with this news. I need to stop getting sucked into these threads. Not worth it. Happy 4th, everyone!

Same. I just got back in from playing smashball (water balloons) with the kids.

 

[TheMikado]

Everything is awesome. Trump was able to elude the NSA, FBI and CIA on his way to victory. Even you have to give him his props for pulling off such a feat.



Don't get mad at Trump because of the Obama administrations failures. They knew what was going on and did absolutely nothing. It is their fault for doing nothing. I guess they were so confident (along with the media) it was going to be her turn and they figured they didn't have to do anything? Hell if I know why you ignore something like that.

Not sure if this is a troll post but

No I’m mad at Trump for Trumps failures. Either Obama dropped the ball and totally screwed up on Russia’s involvement and Trump is a slime ball liar and disgrace of a president for trying to lie to the American people and say there was no interference. Or Trumps right and there never was any Russian involvement like he said and Obama’s totally innocent on that front.

 

[davepoobond]

Obama definitely could have done more, but imagine the shit storm at the time if he did -- the story today would continuously be Obama meddling in the election instead of Russia.

 

[Kataploom]

AFAIK, a lot of powerful entities in the world were trying to push against Trump, since he was gonna pull back many of obama "achievements" (say: Letting east get into West), but at the same time tried to gain his favor in order to avoid his iron fist... I read a lot of things by the time like that, even Venezuelan regime gave him 500 mil in his campaign, but in the end, he had his agenda...

In the other hand, he also had (and still have) basically all the world against him, so Hillary got as much support from every side of the world, so if it's about getting funded by "the enemy", I couldn't discard a bigger support for her than for Trump in the elections (and seeing how the things with the international left, specially in middle east and America has gone, I almost take it as a given...).

In conclusion: USA elections are always pushed by international entities, governments, etc. considering it's influence in the world, just like Russia, China, Iran, etc. and that includes candidates from both sides being funded or supported by them, thisis news says nothing new to me

 

[luigimario]

AFAIK, a lot of powerful entities in the world were trying to push against Trump, since he was gonna pull back many of obama "achievements" (say: Letting east get into West), but at the same time tried to gain his favor in order to avoid his iron fist... I read a lot of things by the time like that, even Venezuelan regime gave him 500 mil in his campaign, but in the end, he had his agenda...

In the other hand, he also had (and still have) basically all the world against him, so Hillary got as much support from every side of the world, so if it's about getting funded by "the enemy", I couldn't discard a bigger support for her than for Trump in the elections (and seeing how the things with the international left, specially in middle east and America has gone, I almost take it as a given...).

In conclusion: USA elections are always pushed by international entities, governments, etc. considering it's influence in the world, just like Russia, China, Iran, etc. and that includes candidates from both sides being funded or supported by them, thisis news says nothing new to me

So apart from Russia, which other country hacked the database of one of only two major political parties in the US? Which other country disseminated fake news with such headlines like "Clinton Pizza child sex ring"? Which other country was indited by 16 US intelligence agencies and members?

 

[Death Dealer]

It should also be worrying that the President of the United States dismisses 16 US intelligence agencies that confirmed Russia's meddling in the election but believes Putin's denial of any involvement..... That should be keeping American's up at night.....

16 intelligence agencies.....LOL

I don't believe the propaganda. For example, one of the 16 agencies mentioned is Coast Guard Intelligence. What the hell does a maritime intelligence agency know about Russian meddling ? Zippo.

The leaked DNC emails were the most important "x factor" in Trump winning. You know the one agency that would probably be in the best position to know what happened, the NSA, is only "moderately confident" Russia hacked the DNC.

The FBI still has never been given access to the DNC server. All of the information the govt has about that hack comes from a suspicious third party CrowdStrike. CS has little credibility.

VOA News published new information that “the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.”

https://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

Julian Assange has categorically said the Russians were not the source of the hacked emails. In an interview, he alluded to Seth Rich being the source. KimDotCom flat out said Seth Rich was the source. The circumstances of Rich's murder are highly suspicious.

As for Trump "believing" Russia, he's saying what he wants to say because he isn't going to let it derail his reengagement with Russia. If Trump agreed Russia tried to influence the election, the democrats would use it to call into question Trump's legitimacy. Some facebook ads didn't get him elected. There is no evidence they hacked voting machines or changed vote counts. Although the media has tried to imply that was possible.

And you don't think the US tries to influence foreign elections ? Obama demonstrably interfered in Israel's election.

President Obama's role during the Israeli elections was larger than reported, according to a pollster for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.

"What was not well reported in the American media is that President Obama and his allies were playing in the election to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu," John McLaughlin, a Republican strategist, said in an interview on John Catsimatidis's "The Cats Roundtable" radio show broadcast Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

"There was money moving that included taxpayer U.S. dollars, through non-profit organizations. And there were various liberal groups in the United States that were raising millions to fund a campaign called V15 against Prime Minister Netanyahu," McLaughlin said.

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...r-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

 

[infinitys_7th]

Better reinstate WWII sanctions against the Axis Powers while you're going back in time.

Strange that you say that when almost everything Manafort is charged with happened almost 10 years ago.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Oh so you can be both disappointed in Obama's handling of the situation AND still want an investigation into Russia's election meddling? This will be news to certain Trumpsters.

Not our fault #45 fans lack the intellectual dexterity to believe that one can both like and also be critical of Obama.

Also doesn't change the fact that y'all are still deflecting.

 

[nemiroff]

How did they get involved? What votes were changed?

No votes were changed, no voting system successfully hacked. And this we've know for more than a year. You wouldn't know this from mainstream media though, they are trying their best to not say it out loud.

This is basically about Russian troll factories that tried to sway the public mind by churning out social media comments to rile up the country. In my opinion social media itself had nothing to do with Trump's win, it was more about the Democrats (and also Republicans actually..) giving the middle finger to the majority of the country's voters..As simple as that.

What's worse, Russia being Russia trying to make Trump win, or the FBI being all in from the top to stop Trump. I know what I think..

 

[luigimario]

16 intelligence agencies.....LOL

I don't believe the propaganda. For example, one of the 16 agencies mentioned is Coast Guard Intelligence. What the hell does a maritime intelligence agency know about Russian meddling ? Zippo.

The leaked DNC emails were the most important "x factor" in Trump winning. You know the one agency that would probably be in the best position to know what happened, the NSA, is only "moderately confident" Russia hacked the DNC.

The FBI still has never been given access to the DNC server. All of the information the govt has about that hack comes from a suspicious third party CrowdStrike. CS has little credibility.


https://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

Julian Assange has categorically said the Russians were not the source of the hacked emails. In an interview, he alluded to Seth Rich being the source. KimDotCom flat out said Seth Rich was the source. The circumstances of Rich's murder are highly suspicious.

As for Trump "believing" Russia, he's saying what he wants to say because he isn't going to let it derail his reengagement with Russia. If Trump agreed Russia tried to influence the election, the democrats would use it to call into question Trump's legitimacy. Some facebook ads didn't get him elected. There is no evidence they hacked voting machines or changed vote counts. Although the media has tried to imply that was possible.

And you don't think the US tries to influence foreign elections ? Obama demonstrably interfered in Israel's election.



http://thehill.com/policy/internati...r-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

Well for the crowd that talks about how kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful to the flag, have no problem with Trump throwing the intelligence community under the bus, who, unlike Trump, are literally willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the country, and instead finds Putin more credible.

And you try to justify it with the "well USA did it so its ok when it happens to us" line. Using that logic, 9/11 was justified because america had killed thousands in the middle east/vietnam/africa etc? If Bin Laden said he wasn't responsible, despite what the 16 US intelligence agencies said, you would have believed him?

I know its not the same comparison, as no one was killed as a result of russian election meddling, but I'm just using your logic in other circumstances, like believing foreign enemy states over our intelligence agencies and justifying attacks against the US because the US has committed similar atrocities in other countries.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

• "lol memes and ads won't change my vote"
• "Why didn't Obama stop this? It's really his fault"
• "The US does this all the time to other countries, what's the big deal?"

Did I miss any others?

• The Russians made Donald Trump president. Not the decisions of over 200 million eligible voters.
• Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
• Donald Trump is a Russian puppet.
• Russia ran the most efficient interference operation in history where $2.4 billion was spent in a US presidential election.
• They sowed chaos with poorly written and designed social media ads.
• They leaked emails that reaffirmed pre-existing beliefs about Hillary Clinton or were spun as a non-issue by Clinton supporters.
• Bernie Sanders saw success because of Russian meddling.
• I don't like the fact that Pres. Trump won because of factors outside of my control so I'm going to spin his legitimate election as illegitimate until he leaves office.

 

[RPGCrazied]

But Trump repeatedly says its a witch hunt and its an excuse because Democrats lost the election?

Yeah, doesn't add up buddy.

 

[infinitys_7th]

No votes were changed, no voting system successfully hacked. And this we've know for more than a year. You wouldn't know this from mainstream media though, they are trying their best to not say it out loud.

This is basically about Russian troll factories that tried to sway the public mind by churning out social media comments to rile up the country. In my opinion social media itself had nothing to do with Trump's win, it was more about the Democrats (and also Republicans actually..) giving the middle finger to the majority of the country's voters..As simple as that.

What's worse, Russia being Russia trying to make Trump win, or the FBI being all in from the top to stop Trump. I know what I think..

Let's get to the truth of that matter here - Russia did deliberately interfere in the election, but they did so in ways that are virtually inactionable and have no quantifiable impact to sow distrust.

Hacking the voter registration? They did nothing beyond leaving a calling card. The system they got into had nothing to do with actual votes. It would have no impact on the election. Also, it happened in a solid red part of the US, so the data they got would have been useless anyway.

$10,000 in Facebook ads vs literal billions spent by Hillary and Trump on advertising? I would need evidence to show that $10,000 was orders of magnitude more effective per dollar than the actual campaign spending was, otherwise it looks like just a cheap stunt.

I think the actual goal of Russian interference was to create the whole "Russia hacked the election!!1!" meme. The Mueller investigation, the media obsession, all of it weakens the US. It's a way to create even more distrust between governments and citizens in a bipartisan fashion (Dems don't trust "muh Russian puppet Trump"; Repubs don't trust the intelligence community) and give the more authoritarian progressives ammunition to claim any kind of populist movement is the result of foreign powers "hacking the country".

In other words, this whole narrative having attention means Russia is winning.

 

[luigimario]

Number of things:
1. Trump's election victory is legitimate - no one is saying otherwise
2. 16 US intelligence agencies say they have reason to believe that Russia meddled in a number of different ways - Hacking DNC servers, spreading ClintonSexring news stories etc
3. Yes money spent was pennys relative to the party budgets, but they were well targeted and we saw some of these stories spread far and wide over social media - the clinton sex ring story being a prime example.
4. They were cheap also because troll farms in eastern/southern europe were being paid by the Kremlin to spread and disseminate fake news, and that would've been pretty cheap too.
5. Senate Intelligence BIPARTISAN committee concluded that Russia preferred Trump over Hilary
6. It should be concerning to all that the only person Trump has no attacked, and he has attacked everyone, from the US closest allies to disabled reporters and gold star families, is Putin, even when russian submarines were treading in US waters.
7. "USA has done it to other countries" rebuttal is an extremely dangerous line to use, as it can justify practically every atrocity against the US using the same logic.

So the one's still hand waving russian interference, atleast be honest and say that you don't care about it, because you're guy got elected, which is fair enough. End's justify the means.....

 

[rokkerkory]

Everyone believes this except house GOP and Trump.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Let's get to the truth of that matter here - Russia did deliberately interfere in the election, but they did so in ways that are virtually inactionable and have no quantifiable impact to sow distrust.

Hacking the voter registration? They did nothing beyond leaving a calling card. The system they got into had nothing to do with actual votes. It would have no impact on the election. Also, it happened in a solid red part of the US, so the data they got would have been useless anyway.

$10,000 in Facebook ads vs literal billions spent by Hillary and Trump on advertising? I would need evidence to show that $10,000 was orders of magnitude more effective per dollar than the actual campaign spending was, otherwise it looks like just a cheap stunt.

Look, I generally agree with this. I don't believe there's enough evidence to indicate that the interference had a measurable effect on the election results. I don't really see why that matters, unless you're arguing with someone who insists that Hilary would've won otherwise. You might find some here who would push that point, but I think that's a minority view of those on GAF.

And even then, it's still not an excuse to completely ignore what happened, or pretend it doesn't matter, by responding with "Yeah, so what, who cares? It didn't even work".

If China launched a warhead at us, and it missed its target and detonated outside of the range of a habitable area, resulting in 0 casualties, would we just pretend it didn't happen? If someone breaks into your house with the intent on murdering you and your family, and you manage to chase him off with your shotgun, would you be fine with letting him go without calling the police or attempting to have him arrested and brought him to justice?

Hacking the DNC servers and a DNC official's email account alone should be enough to call for some sort of action and consequences. All Americans should be angry about that. Same with the attacks on state registration systems (in particular, in Illinois where they successfully penetrated it and luckily were only able to download information rather than change anything). The massive disinformation campaign is just icing on the cake.

I think the actual goal of Russian interference was to create the whole "Russia hacked the election!!1!" meme.

I agree. If anything, the US's response should've been a united condemnation of Russian actions and a resolve to strengthen our online defenses, our social media platforms, and inform Americans of what happened with full transparency so that we're better prepared for next time. Instead, the president himself is leading the charge of the faction sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending this entire thing didn't even happen.

The Senate IC and FBI/CIA/NSA/etc reports are a good first step. Additionally, the American people deserve to have a full report from Mueller of the extent of Russia's activities (remember that's his mandate, it's not limited to specifically looking at "Trump/Russia collusion". It's to examine Russia's efforts in their entirety).

I have a feeling if Trump or Bannon or McConnell's emails were hacked, along with an RNC server, and President Clinton decided to ignore the issue and insist nothing happened, you and others wouldn't be "ho humming" about it.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Number of things:
1. Trump's election victory is legitimate - no one is saying otherwise

Sure they are.

The point of the innuendo and investigations is to make the facts fit what Trump's opponents already believe. They want to arrive at the conclusion that Pres. Trump was not elected fair and square. They're planting the idea that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to become POTUS, he's a compromised lap dog, and he needs to be locked up. Pres. Trump shouldn't be voted out or finish his term. He should be forced out.

Libs are being fake and hiding behind political correctness but the ulterior motive of taking Trump down is not subtle. It's not about getting to the bottom of what happened or preventing powerful countries from doing as they please in pursuit of their interests. People in charge have access to all the classified info they need. No one has the will to go to war over interference when nuclear powers are involved. It's about a soft coup.

 

[n0razi]

The Russians also prefered Bernie over Clinton as well. They were trying to cause conflict not side with one specific person.

Yes but if your goal is to "destabilize the US" I can't think of a better candidate then Trump

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Your post is a perfect example of disingenuously "framing the conversation":

Number of things:
1. Trump's election victory is legitimate - no one is saying otherwise

Democrats have questioned the legitimacy of Trumps candidacy and his election since the Primaries. "No one is saying otherwise" is an absolute lie.

The Illegitimate Victor - USNEWS.COM
One year on, Donald Trump is still an illegitimate president - The Guardian
Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate president - Associated Press
What Happens When a President Is Declared Illegitimate? - The Atlantic
Is Donald Trump the first real illegitimate president of the US? - blogs.Tribune

Those were easy to find: just Google'd President Trump Illegitimate and was able to scrape those off the front page. A few hours is all it would take to find 100s more articles, blogs, YouTube videos, news clips, social media posts, and even dedicated websites devoted to the idea that Trump was illegitimate. Democrats have actually called for him to be impeached.

2. 16 US intelligence agencies say they have reason to believe that Russia meddled in a number of different ways - Hacking DNC servers, spreading ClintonSexring news stories etc

Which agencies? We actually have several agencies as well as committees looking into these exact issues. This is a "9 out of 10 Dentists prefer Crest" sort of statistically manipulation. You're begging the question. 16 agencies? Why not 1,600? Unless you can also show me what evidence they've found, 16 agencies saying "they have reason to believe Russia meddled in a number of different ways" is in no way groundbreaking. We've all already known that. What is the evidence these agencies have brought forth to help us prove or disprove Russian meddling?

I am interested, by the way. I just don't care about "16 Intelligence agencies". It's a non-story that's being dressed up as some kind of breakthrough.

3. Yes money spent was pennys relative to the party budgets, but they were well targeted and we saw some of these stories spread far and wide over social media - the clinton sex ring story being a prime example.

4. They were cheap also because troll farms in eastern/southern europe were being paid by the Kremlin to spread and disseminate fake news, and that would've been pretty cheap too.

"Yes, you've confronted me with hard evidence that the Russian's interference wasn't as far and wide as Trump's political opponents loudly and aggressively claimed for months on end (oops), but it actually had a much further reach than you think because...reasons."

Have you conveniently forgotten that some of the Russian Facebook meddling was actually pushing Black Lives Matter, a pro-Hillary, pro-Democrat group? How do you rationalize that?

It's also strange that you wouldn't bring up how reviled Trump was in the media. Any time the media could highlight perceived negative behavior or preach Hillary or damage his message in some way, they did it. At best, the Russian meddling was just balancing out an extremely-biased news cycle in the USA.

So which is worse? Corporate-funded, politically-biased media campaign from US-sources attacking a candidate or a foreign entity funding media sources attacking a candidate? While you're thinking on that, I'll be over here tallying up the amount of negative things the media has published about Trump specifically to hurt his chances to being elected while you're scratching your head trying to equate some Facebook ads to the united front of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, USNews, New York Times, etc.

5. Senate Intelligence BIPARTISAN committee concluded that Russia preferred Trump over Hilary

The Electoral College concluded that America preferred Trump over Hillary, too. And who cares who Russia preferred? Is that a part of the investigation now? Can you really imagine the Russians being for Hillary? I think this has far more to do with Hillary than who her opponent in the race was.

As I mentioned before, the bots/trolls also posted stuff in favor of Left-aligned political movements. Russians were also trying to influence the Primaries and would've probably been fine with Bernie Sanders. I think the Russians would've preferred almost any candidate over Hillary.

6. It should be concerning to all that the only person Trump has no attacked, and he has attacked everyone, from the US closest allies to disabled reporters and gold star families, is Putin, even when russian submarines were treading in US waters.

Sticking with our "closest allies" is what got us into Vietnam, so I'd be careful with your rhetoric.

I don't draw conclusions based on who someone does or doesn't attack. Get out your yarn, thumbtacks, and polaroids and start pinning them to the wall, I suppose. "Who hasn't Trump attacked?" Start making deductions based on that and see how far it gets you.

7. "USA has done it to other countries" rebuttal is an extremely dangerous line to use, as it can justify practically every atrocity against the US using the same logic.

Agreed. I don't think it's a valid retort. I mean, it is true. Therefore, we should tone down our rhetoric if we're being honest with ourselves, right? If Russia interfered, that should be taken seriously, but the fact that we also have intervened plenty of times in other countries should make us angrier with our own Gov't failing to handle it properly than to get aggressive toward the country that did it. You know how the Cold War worked? We still shot down their planes and they shot down ours. We killed their spies and they killed ours. We sent in "advisors" and "supplies" and so did they. But war was never declared and there were many grievances and loss-of-life that were not rectified. One could argue that we saved more lives by avoiding nuclear war, but it doesn't mean the tactics were morally right. So, there's a certain point where you don't really get all up in arms about it because that's the game everyone is playing. I thought you knew about this dirty side of politics, though? It's written right there in our history books.

So the one's still hand waving russian interference, atleast be honest and say that you don't care about it, because you're guy got elected, which is fair enough. End's justify the means.....

Don't put words into other people's mouth, especially when it is the Left chanting things like "by any means necessary". I don't think anyone other than maybe Alex Jones and other fringe Right-wing sources would legitimately cheer if Trump collaborated with the Russians to beat Hillary. It demonstrates how little you think of your political opponents.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Yes but if your goal is to "destabilize the US" I can't think of a better candidate then Trump

Seems like it failed if that was the plan, because we are doing better than we have in decades.

Wars winding down, diplomacy instead of appeasement, fixing our mistakes in the ME, a roaring economy, and looking more and more like a ramp down in the War on Drugs.

 

[TheMikado]

I think the crux of the argument is:

Russia deliberately did some things to the US for a variety of reasons.

Instead of making a statement that attacks to American democracy will not be tolerated, we are debating about its effectiveness and pushing the narrative that illegal Russia interference doesn’t make Russia an antagonist to America. Que??

Illegal immigrates cross our borders and we have a zero tolerance policy.
Russia illegally interferes in our elections = well the crime didn’t have a real impact so it’s not that bad.

That’s kind of the point that’s being said here. The administration cant talk about being a nation of laws and then allow foreign entities to act illegally and act like it’s no big deal. I’d have more respect if you tough on both illegal immigrants and Russia or lax on both. At least there would be logic and consistency.

 

[rokkerkory]

So what is the GOP controlled everything doing to stop this from happening again? That is the real issue.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think the crux of the argument is:

Russia deliberately did some things to the US for a variety of reasons.

Instead of making a statement that attacks to American democracy will not be tolerated, we are debating about its effectiveness and pushing the narrative that illegal Russia interference doesn’t make Russia an antagonist to America. Que??

Illegal immigrates cross our borders and we have a zero tolerance policy.
Russia illegally interferes in our elections = well the crime didn’t have a real impact so it’s not that bad.

That’s kind of the point that’s being said here. The administration cant talk about being a nation of laws and then allow foreign entities to act illegally and act like it’s no big deal. I’d have more respect if you tough on both illegal immigrants and Russia or lax on both. At least there would be logic and consistency.

For starters, let's figure out what they did. Fair? The details are still missing, so why draw conclusions?

Next, was there other interference from other sources and other foreign entities? Perfectly fair question.

Lastly, is this the first time we've had interference of this scale? I'm genuinely curious, because if we're about to start impeaching people and changing up appointees, then I'd really like to make sure that we're doing this cautiously and in light of all the facts. If this is the first time there's been any foreign influence, then let's root it out and punish the aggressors. It would truly be a historical thing.

But if this has been going on for a while, therefore what we're witnessing is one corrupted party just not liking that the other corrupted party got elected, and that is fucking serious.

Are you willing to gamble all the chips on Trump being the bad guy and the only bad guy, even if it means you might be putting power into the hands of other bad entities? Genuine question. There have been corrupt, politically-biased Americans as well as foreign powers who've influenced this election. I think once it's all out on the table, Trump himself might be looking pretty clean, actually.

 

[TheMikado]

For starters, let's figure out what they did. Fair? The details are still missing, so why draw conclusions?

Next, was there other interference from other sources and other foreign entities? Perfectly fair question.

Lastly, is this the first time we've had interference of this scale? I'm genuinely curious, because if we're about to start impeaching people and changing up appointees, then I'd really like to make sure that we're doing this cautiously and in light of all the facts. If this is the first time there's been any foreign influence, then let's root it out and punish the aggressors. It would truly be a historical thing.

But if this has been going on for a while, therefore what we're witnessing is one corrupted party just not liking that the other corrupted party got elected, and that is fucking serious.

Are you willing to gamble all the chips on Trump being the bad guy and the only bad guy, even if it means you might be putting power into the hands of other bad entities? Genuine question. There have been corrupt, politically-biased Americans as well as foreign powers who've influenced this election. I think once it's all out on the table, Trump himself might be looking pretty clean, actually.

I think that’s perfectly reasonable to do, the problem is you have the person and his campaign who is being investigated actively discouraging the investigation and trying to discredit these same investigations.

We know Russia has a few operations which Mueller has already gotten a few indictments from but it would make asking the questions you propose a lot easier if there wasnt a constant suggestion that the investigation was a waste of time and should be closed down. That’s not even covering the attempts that were made to discover other countries who may have been involved and the administrations cries of “foul” and that the investigation should be limited to Russia. I agree with all your points but Trump won’t even help or concede to those before discredit the work that’s being done.

Maybe cooperation rather than discredment would make the process go easier and smoother and give everyone the answers they are looking for. This was never about getting Trump behind bars, this is about protecting our nation and anyone who participated in illegal activities needs to be taken to task.

 

[Red Mage]

Russia preferred either of the two who didn't want to get into a pissing contest over Syria. I am not surprised that they would run ads against the one that did.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think that’s perfectly reasonable to do, the problem is you have the person and his campaign who is being investigated actively discouraging the investigation and trying to discredit these same investigations.

We know Russia has a few operations which Mueller has already gotten a few indictments from but it would make asking the questions you propose a lot easier if there wasnt a constant suggestion that the investigation was a waste of time and should be closed down. That’s not even covering the attempts that were made to discover other countries who may have been involved and the administrations cries of “foul” and that the investigation should be limited to Russia. I agree with all your points but Trump won’t even help or concede to those before discredit the work that’s being done.

Maybe cooperation rather than discredment would make the process go easier and smoother and give everyone the answers they are looking for. This was never about getting Trump behind bars, this is about protecting our nation and anyone who participated in illegal activities needs to be taken to task.

I think many people -- on both sides -- do believe that it's "about getting Trump behind bars". If you genuinely don't feel that's the goal, I can respect that, but there are quite a few people who are concerned about exactly that: will this investigation put us on a path to impeach Trump?

If the goal is the truth, I agree that cooperation will help this all go smoother and our country can deal with it and move on. However, the intense hostility makes it feel like:

Also, while I don't think Trump is a genius, folks need to realize that he is a professional provoker and PR guy. The N. Korea thing where he said US will back out, the media went nuts, and then less than 24 hours later N. Korea begs "please, we'll meet any time or place". That's exactly the sort of sleazy, manipulative stuff that Trump is genuinely good at (even though many people see him as using these powers for evil). Are you really gonna disagree with me when I point out that Trump is good at being sleazy and manipulative? I think he's well aware that he won't be charged with anything related to the Russia investigation. He wants to play up the drama so that he will look even better when it comes out that he's not involved or responsible. He's certainly acting like a guy who believes that will be the case, right?

So while I agree that civility and cooperation would be best, Trump is running the show and trolling his political opponents while these investigations proceed. It's what he was elected to do: troll the media and the Democrats.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I think many people -- on both sides -- do believe that it's "about getting Trump behind bars". If you genuinely don't feel that's the goal, I can respect that, but there are quite a few people who are concerned about exactly that: will this investigation put us on a path to impeach Trump?

If the goal is the truth, I agree that cooperation will help this all go smoother and our country can deal with it and move on. However, the intense hostility makes it feel like:

Also, while I don't think Trump is a genius, folks need to realize that he is a professional provoker and PR guy. The N. Korea thing where he said US will back out, the media went nuts, and then less than 24 hours later N. Korea begs "please, we'll meet any time or place". That's exactly the sort of sleazy, manipulative stuff that Trump is genuinely good at (even though many people see him as using these powers for evil). Are you really gonna disagree with me when I point out that Trump is good at being sleazy and manipulative? I think he's well aware that he won't be charged with anything related to the Russia investigation. He wants to play up the drama so that he will look even better when it comes out that he's not involved or responsible. He's certainly acting like a guy who believes that will be the case, right?

So while I agree that civility and cooperation would be best, Trump is running the show and trolling his political opponents while these investigations proceed. It's what he was elected to do: troll the media and the Democrats.

Well he is a populist.

On another note, let's hope that China and the EU don't team up against the US on trade. The EU is smart though, so they should see that they shouldn't.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Well he is a populist.

On another note, let's hope that China and the EU don't team up against the US on trade. The EU is smart though, so they should see that they shouldn't.

I have a hunch: pay special attention to the USA's energy-production capability over the next decade. Make note of the fact that we are the #1 country for oil reserves now. Energy is becoming a bigger and bigger deal. Trade is one thing, but energy control is another thing entirely. No one would dare team up on the US if we're leveraging our energy production capabilities.

I don't disagree that some risky games are being played, but there is also some genuine payoff to it. US may be able to get the Western world off their dependency on Russian or Middle-Eastern oil. You think Europe would team up on us if we have oil?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Considering the timing, it was made to remind Trump not to try lesser the sanctions and pressure on Putin.

 

[Spheyr]

So long as we got a Republican back in power I don't care who was involved.

 

[Nicktendo86]

No votes were changed, no voting system successfully hacked. And this we've know for more than a year. You wouldn't know this from mainstream media though, they are trying their best to not say it out loud.

This is basically about Russian troll factories that tried to sway the public mind by churning out social media comments to rile up the country. In my opinion social media itself had nothing to do with Trump's win, it was more about the Democrats (and also Republicans actually..) giving the middle finger to the majority of the country's voters..As simple as that.

What's worse, Russia being Russia trying to make Trump win, or the FBI being all in from the top to stop Trump. I know what I think..

I was going to ask what does the interference actually mean in tangible action, your post seems to sum it up for me. Troll farms and social media posts.

I'm personally sceptical of the effectiveness of social media, in my experience it is little more than an echo chamber where people seek others with similar beliefs in order to reinforce their beliefs. People who were going to vote for Trump anyway were retweeting tweets from Russian bots and trolls to the timelines of others who were going to vote for Trump.

We see some of the reaction to Russian interference here in the UK with the brexit vote. Again I am very, very sceptical that they managed to actually have very much effect at all, I think most people tuned out of the whole campaign and voted the way they were going to anyway. Irreconcilable remainers like to use Russian interference as a sort of comfort blanket to tell themselves the vote was illegitimate, despite all of the advantages the Remain campaign had (incuding, irony alert, having President Obama come here to interfere, oh sorry, warn about the perils of voting leave).

 

[Harksteed]

So long as we got a Republican back in power I don't care who was involved.

what

 

[Corderlain]

The idea that Russia had any actual effect on the election is just false. Comey, the server, and the Clinton/DNC Bernie fiasco was what caused the electoral landslide. Everyone knew she was bad and they didn't have much of a choice due to the DNC.

 

[luigimario]

So long as we got a Republican back in power I don't care who was involved.

Yo man, I respect your honesty, even if it is through the anonymity of the internet....

 

[Super Mario]

I think the crux of the argument is:

Russia deliberately did some things to the US for a variety of reasons.

Instead of making a statement that attacks to American democracy will not be tolerated, we are debating about its effectiveness and pushing the narrative that illegal Russia interference doesn’t make Russia an antagonist to America. Que??

Illegal immigrates cross our borders and we have a zero tolerance policy.
Russia illegally interferes in our elections = well the crime didn’t have a real impact so it’s not that bad.

That’s kind of the point that’s being said here. The administration cant talk about being a nation of laws and then allow foreign entities to act illegally and act like it’s no big deal. I’d have more respect if you tough on both illegal immigrants and Russia or lax on both. At least there would be logic and consistency.

Attacks to American democracy? Let's see, we had a Presidential candidate that was corrupt, and proven in the emails. Had (and still has) almost an entire media system biased in her favor/her parties' favor. The primaries were rigged in her favor. This is just to name a few things. If these are your ideas of "Freedom of the Press" and "Democracy" then either your definition, or your morals are screwed up. Let's also remember that she erased her servers and smashed phones with a hammer. Yet, your biggest concern is that someone else brought this info to light? I'm concerned about your concerns.

The email server was first "hacked" in 2013. By your definition, this is the starting of Donald Trump working with Putin. A brash, media, mogul, billionaire went to the President of Russia and said "help me beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. I will grant you favors." This is how it went down, right? Now Trump is working for him to do what exactly? Where is the national security issue?

If Russia had hacked our voting machines, or TRULY did something to "interfere" that would be a problem. You can post all you want about them purchasing ads, posting "fake news," etc. Then that would mean almost everyone involved in the election process was also wrong. What is the standard of who is allowed to influence our politics or what is allowed to be posted and what isn't? Where is your strong defense of news like Trump being accused of inappropriate relations with a 13 year old? Where is your anger at any of the foreign donations taken by the Clinton foundation? What kind of laws do we have about what Facebook can advertise? I can definitively give you a more concise answer on our immigration law, which you believe is a good comparison of inconsistency.

Please find a different narrative than what Liberals tell you to say. Otherwise, it's going to be a long, hard, road for you between now and the end of Trump's Presidency in 2024.

 

[Death Dealer]

Well for the crowd that talks about how kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful to the flag, have no problem with Trump throwing the intelligence community under the bus, who, unlike Trump, are literally willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the country, and instead finds Putin more credible.

Many of the people criticizing the Intelligence community have also put their lives on the line. And some have themselves held very high level security clearances.

I don't put them on a pedestal. They're not infallible.

 

[TheMikado]

Attacks to American democracy? Let's see, we had a Presidential candidate that was corrupt, and proven in the emails. Had (and still has) almost an entire media system biased in her favor/her parties' favor. The primaries were rigged in her favor. This is just to name a few things. If these are your ideas of "Freedom of the Press" and "Democracy" then either your definition, or your morals are screwed up. Let's also remember that she erased her servers and smashed phones with a hammer. Yet, your biggest concern is that someone else brought this info to light? I'm concerned about your concerns.

The email server was first "hacked" in 2013. By your definition, this is the starting of Donald Trump working with Putin. A brash, media, mogul, billionaire went to the President of Russia and said "help me beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. I will grant you favors." This is how it went down, right? Now Trump is working for him to do what exactly? Where is the national security issue?

If Russia had hacked our voting machines, or TRULY did something to "interfere" that would be a problem. You can post all you want about them purchasing ads, posting "fake news," etc. Then that would mean almost everyone involved in the election process was also wrong. What is the standard of who is allowed to influence our politics or what is allowed to be posted and what isn't? Where is your strong defense of news like Trump being accused of inappropriate relations with a 13 year old? Where is your anger at any of the foreign donations taken by the Clinton foundation? What kind of laws do we have about what Facebook can advertise? I can definitively give you a more concise answer on our immigration law, which you believe is a good comparison of inconsistency.

Please find a different narrative than what Liberals tell you to say. Otherwise, it's going to be a long, hard, road for you between now and the end of Trump's Presidency in 2024.

Wait what? I'm so confused about what Hillary Clinton has to do with this at all?????
We have multiple agencies telling us Russia interfered illegally with our elections and I'm attempting to parse out the part in this thread or even my post where I mentioned Clinton.

I'm just utterly confused.
You're mixing actual information with tin-hat conspiracies which have absolutely ZERO to do with the topic.

Just to reiterate my point.
RUSSIA (The topic of the thread). Interfered in elections. (Not sure what this has to do with Clinton....??? Maybe you can explain that.)

FOREIGN AGENTS FUNDING POLITICAL ADS IS ILLEGAL. Its the law.
Why are you against upholding the law?

Specifically, as far as Facebook is concerned Russia exploited a hole in our 1974 law which does not include online communications, but DNC hack is illegal and their were other illegal actions by various russian groups.
Here are two good articles, but is appears at least some of them were illegal and crossed various campaign lines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...late-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.9284f1453434
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.68239cbbbad3

Again, attempting to deflect or derail the thread on what about this or that makes no sense in the context that I didn't bring they up at all. This thread is about Russia's interference which has been confirmed by multiple domestic intelligence agencies and the Senate. Lock up everyone who committed a crime.
PERIOD.

Russia election interference isn't a "liberal" narrative. Its a reality that most of the rest of the world lives in. Please come join us in reality.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Wait what? I'm so confused about what Hillary Clinton has to do with this at all?????
We have multiple agencies telling us Russia interfered illegally with our elections and I'm attempting to parse out the part in this thread or even my post where I mentioned Clinton.

I'm just utterly confused.
You're mixing actual information with tin-hat conspiracies which have absolutely ZERO to do with the topic.

Just to reiterate my point.
RUSSIA (The topic of the thread). Interfered in elections. (Not sure what this has to do with Clinton....??? Maybe you can explain that.)

FOREIGN AGENTS FUNDING POLITICAL ADS IS ILLEGAL. Its the law.
Why are you against upholding the law?

Specifically, as far as Facebook is concerned Russia exploited a hole in our 1974 law which does not include online communications, but DNC hack is illegal and their were other illegal actions by various russian groups.
Here are two good articles, but is appears at least some of them were illegal and crossed various campaign lines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...late-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.9284f1453434
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.68239cbbbad3

Again, attempting to deflect or derail the thread on what about this or that makes no sense in the context that I didn't bring they up at all. This thread is about Russia's interference which has been confirmed by multiple domestic intelligence agencies and the Senate. Lock up everyone who committed a crime.
PERIOD.

Russia election interference isn't a "liberal" narrative. Its a reality that most of the rest of the world lives in. Please come join us in reality.

You realize that the thread title also includes "preferred Trump over Clinton", right?

So if you're upset about people bringing up the accusations against Trump, then maybe the thread title has something to do with it?

 

[TheMikado]

You realize that the thread title also includes "preferred Trump over Clinton", right?

So if you're upset about people bringing up the accusations against Trump, then maybe the thread title has something to do with it?

You mean against Clinton?
The thread title is talking about Russia's interference in elections for a preferred candidate, it has nothing to do with the actions of either Trump or Clinton. Its about Russia's actions. That's the whole point of the entire thread.
I might as well bring up the Ancient Russia history or the formation of the senate structure of Ancient Greece if simply having the word in the title means its pertinent to the discussion. My question was asking to explain the relevance to Russia interference.

 

[GAFDooMsDaY]

The idea that Russia had any actual effect on the election is just false. Comey, the server, and the Clinton/DNC Bernie fiasco was what caused the electoral landslide. Everyone knew she was bad and they didn't have much of a choice due to the DNC.

Pack it up guys..you heard it here first..CORDERLAIN says "the idea that Russia had any actual effect on the election in just false". Who cares what the Senate has to say? Corderlain is clearly the expert in this matter.

 

[TheMikado]

So long as we got a Republican back in power I don't care who was involved.

what

Yo man, I respect your honesty, even if it is through the anonymity of the internet....

You know what, you can't even be mad at this comment. It's not even an attempt to justify mental gymnastics and just brutally honest.
Even though it is through the anonymity of the internet as someone said above, I could only wish we could see that type of honest and balls from others.

 

[luigimario]

Yeah we can't say what affect they actually had on the election, as we can't really quantify the influence of the massive misinformation campaign on certain, more vulnerable voters.

I'm also finding it a little distressing, that so many are willing to outright dismiss the intelligence community, who are laying down their lives for the country, for a person who did not do the same when given the opportunity. Isn't that far more disrespectful to the country than kneeling during the anthem?

 

[Corderlain]

Pack it up guys..you heard it here first..CORDERLAIN says "the idea that Russia had any actual effect on the election in just false". Who cares what the Senate has to say? Corderlain is clearly the expert in this matter.

The electoral college is the experts.

 

[Super Mario]

Wait what? I'm so confused about what Hillary Clinton has to do with this at all?????
We have multiple agencies telling us Russia interfered illegally with our elections and I'm attempting to parse out the part in this thread or even my post where I mentioned Clinton.

I'm just utterly confused.
You're mixing actual information with tin-hat conspiracies which have absolutely ZERO to do with the topic.

Just to reiterate my point.
RUSSIA (The topic of the thread). Interfered in elections. (Not sure what this has to do with Clinton....??? Maybe you can explain that.)

This isn’t true:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of e-mails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process.[4] According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.[3]:ii-iii,2[5][6][7] Although Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks,[8][9][10] there is strong forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations.[11] In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clappertestified that Russia also interfered in the elections by disseminating fake news that was promoted on social media.[12]

I was under the impression we were a country of laws, but whatever.

Sounds like it has something to do with Clinton. You are only concerned with the theft and sharing of content. You are not concerned with the substance of said content. It shows illegal activity, but you are only concerned with Russia's "illegal activity" (quotations because not yet proven illegal). You are not concerned she put our national security at risk by conducting high-ranking political business on a personal server. Yet you are certain Russia's involvement put our national security at risk. You are not concerned about the deletion of said content. You are not concerned with the FBIs bias in Clinton's favor. You are ONLY concerned with a foreign entity. I was under the impression we were a country of laws, but whatever. If it is determined that Russia broke laws, then take actionst them. Do you advocate for action to be taken against Clinton?

FOREIGN AGENTS FUNDING POLITICAL ADS IS ILLEGAL. Its the law.
Why are you against upholding the law?

Specifically, as far as Facebook is concerned Russia exploited a hole in our 1974 law which does not include online communications, but DNC hack is illegal and their were other illegal actions by various russian groups.
Here are two good articles, but is appears at least some of them were illegal and crossed various campaign lines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...late-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.9284f1453434
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.68239cbbbad3

"IT'S ILLEGAL". Only to be followed up by your own link:

Even with the craziness of unlimited campaign contributions flowing into our campaigns, Americans can still find out what content is being used on TV advertising. … You may not be able to find completely the source. … But on social media, there’s no such requirements

“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine. “If they had ads that just were making statements about immigration and gay marriage and there was no mention of a candidate,” they would not meet the FEC's definition of an independent expenditure, he said.

Common Cause filed complaints Thursday with the FEC and Justice Department regarding the ads. “We think there’s reason to believe these ad buys were illegal, but we can't state that definitively,” Ryan said.

Again, attempting to deflect or derail the thread on what about this or that makes no sense in the context that I didn't bring they up at all. This thread is about Russia's interference which has been confirmed by multiple domestic intelligence agencies and the Senate. Lock up everyone who committed a crime.
PERIOD.

Russia election interference isn't a "liberal" narrative. Its a reality that most of the rest of the world lives in. Please come join us in reality.

So no smoking guns. Especially nothing tying to Trump. We have smoking guns on Clinton. Where is your steadfast dedication to law? That is why it is a liberal narrative. The reality is Liberals are grasping for straws.

 

[TheMikado]

Sounds like it has something to do with Clinton. You are only concerned with the theft and sharing of content. You are not concerned with the substance of said content. It shows illegal activity, but you are only concerned with Russia's "illegal activity" (quotations because not yet proven illegal). You are not concerned she put our national security at risk by conducting high-ranking political business on a personal server. Yet you are certain Russia's involvement put our national security at risk. You are not concerned about the deletion of said content. You are not concerned with the FBIs bias in Clinton's favor. You are ONLY concerned with a foreign entity. I was under the impression we were a country of laws, but whatever. If it is determined that Russia broke laws, then take actionst them. Do you advocate for action to be taken against Clinton?

"IT'S ILLEGAL". Only to be followed up by your own link:

So no smoking guns. Especially nothing tying to Trump. We have smoking guns on Clinton. Where is your steadfast dedication to law? That is why it is a liberal narrative. The reality is Liberals are grasping for straws.

Yes, Clinton and Trump can share a cell if they are found guilty if it wasn't for the fact that Trump like to grab women by their vagina's without permission and Clinton seems to be afraid of SuperPredators.
The point is, IT IS ILLEGAL for foreign agents to meddle in elections. That's literally the intent of the law. Russia, may have found a legal backdoor that we need to close, but that is no guarantee they didn't break other laws in the process which it is believed they did. That's ignoring the hacking of a US political entity which is a foreign cyber attack.

The only reason I'm "only concerned" about Russia's interference is because THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT! It has nothing to do with Clinton's emails, or Trump calling Mexican rapists or whatever.
It's literally about Russia's actions towards US entities and citizens. I didn't even mention Trump in the post you quoted other than saying the Administration claims a commitment to law yet doesn't want to investigate Russian wrong doing.
Hilary was already investigated, it was allowed to continue, that's the point.

Some conservatives, (not even real conservative in my opinion) continue to deny a crime occurred and actively attempting to prevent investigations into wrong-doing. That doesn't sound like a group who believes in laws to me.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

You can really tell when folks are grasping for straws and struggling with cognitive dissonance when they can't help but shove "but her emails" into the discussion while using the lack of evidence about collusion as an excuse to ignore Russia's independent actions entirely.

Take a second and forget about Trump and forget about Hilary. Leave the whattaboutisms re: her emails and corruption to another thread. Make one about those "smoking guns" if you'd like. Just look at what happened without the tribal context:

- The servers for the campaign organization for one of our 2 major political parties were hacked
- High-ranking officials within that party were targeted with phishing attacks, resulting in one of their accounts being compromised
- All sorts of private data was released from the above attacks
- Roughly 2 dozen state voter registration systems were targeted, in at least 1 case resulting in voter roll data being accessed
- They waged a disinformation campaign to increase conflict between Americans and weaken faith in our democracy and democratic processes

Why are you not bothered by any of that? We know why Spheyr isn't bothered, but no one else has really given much of a straight answer.

 

[Spheyr]

Yo man, I respect your honesty, even if it is through the anonymity of the internet....

You know what, you can't even be mad at this comment. It's not even an attempt to justify mental gymnastics and just brutally honest.
Even though it is through the anonymity of the internet as someone said above, I could only wish we could see that type of honest and balls from others.

You may not know me, but "anonymous on the internet" doesn't really describe me

 

[Death Dealer]

I'm also finding it a little distressing, that so many are willing to outright dismiss the intelligence community, who are laying down their lives for the country

At least 99% of intelligence agency employees are bureacrats. The people in the clandestine services that are actually risking their lives doing covert work aren't the ones doing these assessments. And no, I'm not just going to take what they say as fact. They are some of the same people that said there was WMD in Iraq. Everything is political.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You can really tell when folks are grasping for straws and struggling with cognitive dissonance when they can't help but shove "but her emails" into the discussion while using the lack of evidence about collusion as an excuse to ignore Russia's independent actions entirely.

Take a second and forget about Trump and forget about Hilary. Leave the whattaboutisms re: her emails and corruption to another thread. Make one about those "smoking guns" if you'd like. Just look at what happened without the tribal context:

- The servers for the campaign organization for one of our 2 major political parties were hacked
- High-ranking officials within that party were targeted with phishing attacks, resulting in one of their accounts being compromised
- All sorts of private data was released from the above attacks
- Roughly 2 dozen state voter registration systems were targeted, in at least 1 case resulting in voter roll data being accessed
- They waged a disinformation campaign to increase conflict between Americans and weaken faith in our democracy and democratic processes

Why are you not bothered by any of that? We know why Spheyr isn't bothered, but no one else has really given much of a straight answer.

Who are you referring to? I think everyone is concerned. It's a matter of where does that concern need to be directed and where do we go from here.

There's an ongoing narrative that Trump collaborated with the Russians to fix the elections. That has been the accusation pretty much from the start. If we're all getting over that joke and are going to focus on what actually happened, then by all means let's proceed. By your own statements, Hillary and Trump have nothing to do with this report. So why does the thread title include "preferred Trump over Clinton" and why is the emphasis on the conclusion that Trump was helped and Clinton was hurt? If it has nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump, why does the topic keep returning to them?