Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

[BoomBoomMancini]

Military service is military service whether you are drafted or sign up voluntarily.

So someone who dips out of a draft during wartime is the same as someone who decides not to enlist during peacetime?

Yeah, okay.

Besides, why is it relevant what other people did or didn’t do? We’re not talking about them and it’s not like I was praising them as models of patriotic virtue anyway. If you want to start a thread called “Bill Clinton was a draft dodger” I’ll post in agreement. But stop trying to muddy the waters when the topic is Trump by pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of DNC mole. And don’t throw around accusations of hypocrisy unless you’re prepared to back it up.

 

[Sojourner003]

I think actual treason charges are unlikely but this isn’t going to go away.

It will more like be considered a RICO violation. And you are right; it isn’t going away.

 

[michaelArc]

The poll is too broad to be meaningful.

What kind of “interfere”?

Did the Russians spy on political candidates? That would be interference, which makes no difference whatsoever.

Did the Russians change the result of the election by causing votes to be counted that did not exist or by causing votes that did exist to not be counted? That would be interference, which would make a massive difference and DOES matter.

Did the Russians hack the DNC and reveal the contents of Hillary’s email server, exposing to the American people the truth of her irresponsible handling of American intelligence? That would be interference, which probably would make a difference, but would also be an act of service to the American people. The revelation of truth is a good thing.

Which parts of these possible “interferences” happened, and which did not? I think that’s a better poll question, rather than “Did the Russians interfere in the 2016 election”.

 

[mary_bobo]

The Russians … yeah … Representative Maxine Waters of California, a Democrat, wants to know why the Russians want to invade Korea … [she thinks Korea and Crimea are the same thing.].

I think you are giving her too much credit.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I will answer the poll when there is proof that the Russians actually did something to intefere with the election.

Everyone here thinks russia did or didn’t do it and no side has proof either way. WIth no proof one should always give the accussed the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ProdigalSun]

This is one of the most interesting remarks so far. Cheney publicly emphasizing that that Russian interference could constitute an act of war means anyone who assisted or worked with Russia may have committed treason. This sentiment has been slowly coming out from conservative quarters, and with the continued silence from Flynn people seem to know where this whole thing is headed.

I can see how cheney could be right here. Problem is no one knows who exactly did what so I would say it is hard to go to war under those circumstances!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And how have you been, Sen. McCarthy? I guess it is true that the parties have swapped positions. Now, it’s the Democrats blaming everything on the EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Russians.

Generally, McCarthyism is seen as a bad thing. Is it now acceptable because it’s being pushed by the left?

One thing I still haven’t seen an answer to: In what way did Russia supposedly “interfere”?

I will look up the title of the book, but Ann Coulter wrote a book about the late Senator McCarthy.

Probably Trump read it.

 

[lynnvinc]

I haven’t read every post, but has someone located evidence that it was actually the Russians who released the DNC emails?

Logical guess is not sufficient.

The NSA and FBI said they knew it was the Russians, but I forgot how they knew (and I don’t think they revealed exactly how they knew…you know how secretive those types are).

Basically what they said was that:

A) Russian interference was definite (and in fact they were surprised that the Russians made it so obvious),

B) but whether there was “coordination” from the Trump campaign was still under investigation and not yet ascertained.

Note that A does not prove or even imply B. That’s why this post is only about A, even tho it might be interesting to speculate about B, we should all be careful not to make claims about B.

I think I linked the transcript, but here it is again; you can look and see: washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.f2d7f6a5e424

---

It has occurred to me that some people here at CAF tune into some weirdo bizarro-world fake news sources that come up with off-the-wall claims – maybe Fox, maybe Breitbart, or…I don’t even know all of them and have tuned them out long ago because of their fallacious claims re climate change. They just aren’t to be trusted on anything.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I will look up the title of the book, but Ann Coulter wrote a book about the late Senator McCarthy.

Probably Trump read it.

Should I just give up hope on getting any clarification of what you meant when you said I was using “different criteria” a few pages back?

I’m sorry to be a bit of a bulldog about this, but I kind of hit my limit today with people disingenuously accusing me of being a Clinton supporter when A) I’m not B) I wasn’t talking about Clinton in the first place and C) even if I was, it would have nothing to do with what I actually said.

If you’re going to take potshots, either have the courage to defend them or the grace to withdraw them.

 

[Abynissa]

Manafort-Linked Accounts on Cyprus Raised Red Flag
NBC

LIMASSOL, Cyprus — A bank in Cyprus investigated accounts associated with President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, for possible money-laundering, two banking sources with direct knowledge of his businesses here told NBC News.

Manafort — whose ties to a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin are under scrutiny — was associated with at least 15 bank accounts and 10 companies on Cyprus, dating back to 2007, the sources said. At least one of those companies was used to receive millions of dollars from a billionaire Putin ally, according to court documents.

Banking sources said some transactions on Manafort-associated accounts raised sufficient concern to trigger an internal investigation at a Cypriot bank into potential money laundering activities. After questions were raised, Manafort closed the accounts, the banking sources said.

Offshore banking in Cyprus is not illegal, and the island has long been known as a hub for moving money in and out of Russia. Several U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about Manafort’s business dealings in Cyprus.

 

[JonNC]

It will more like be considered a RICO violation. And you are right; it isn’t going away.

Oh, I think the Clinton’s might be closer to a RICO investigation.

 

[Sojourner003]

Oh, I think the Clinton’s might be closer to a RICO investigation.

I guess we’ll see.

 

[Sojourner003]

Manafort-Linked Accounts on Cyprus Raised Red Flag
NBC

LIMASSOL, Cyprus — A bank in Cyprus investigated accounts associated with President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, for possible money-laundering, two banking sources with direct knowledge of his businesses here told NBC News.

Manafort — whose ties to a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin are under scrutiny — was associated with at least 15 bank accounts and 10 companies on Cyprus, dating back to 2007, the sources said. At least one of those companies was used to receive millions of dollars from a billionaire Putin ally, according to court documents.

Banking sources said some transactions on Manafort-associated accounts raised sufficient concern to trigger an internal investigation at a Cypriot bank into potential money laundering activities. After questions were raised, Manafort closed the accounts, the banking sources said.

Offshore banking in Cyprus is not illegal, and the island has long been known as a hub for moving money in and out of Russia. Several U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about Manafort’s business dealings in Cyprus.

Chris Hayes is reporting on this now if you are interested

 

[JonNC]

I guess we’ll see.

One thing for sure: the level of corruption or alleged corruption is commensurate to the level of power in Washington. Time to reimpose the strict enumerated powers and the 10th amendment

 

[Reuben_J]

Throw em all in jail! We have no evidence, unlike a woman I know, but lets make up theories and throw them in jail. Evidence doesn’t matter anymore and even then you can get out of jail by beinng a confused old lady who happens to be runninng for President.

A good one, Mike.

 

[Reuben_J]

There it is, then. Everybody who is acting strangely is in league with the Russians. And anybody who doesn’t recognize that those people are acting strangely is in league with the Russians as well. And nobody who is acting strangely or refusing to recognize that they’re acting strangely should be able to investigate anything. Only those who express conviction that Trump is in league with the Russians regardless of there being no evidence that there was, should be allowed to investigate.

Obviously, that would disqualify Clapper, Comey and just about anybody but Schiff, Pelosi, Waters, and Schumer.

I agree.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course it is. What people refer to is the degree of strength of that mandate, and as I’ve said, Trump’s is not as strong as, say Reagan’s, but he clearly has a popular mandate

I have not gone through all the posts but Jon is right. Mandate has to be understood in the context of the election system of how the President is elected. And when he did, he got the mandate, whatever it is, to rule and to be President.

In that sense it makes no meaning to speak about popular votes, other than just pure academic, since it did not affect and influence anything as regards to his win.

 

[Reuben_J]

Lock 'em all up.

Or, build a border wall and call America “prison”!

You cannot be serious. Really? How do you get to this conclusion?

 

[Abynissa]

Trump’s business network reached alleged Russian mobsters
USA TODAY

To expand his real estate developments over the years, Donald Trump, his company and partners repeatedly turned to wealthy Russians and oligarchs from former Soviet republics — several allegedly connected to organized crime, according to a USA TODAY review of court cases, government and legal documents and an interview with a former federal prosecutor.

**The president and his companies have been linked to at least 10 wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering.
**
Trump told reporters in February: “I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia. I have no loans with Russia at all.”

Yet in 2013, after Trump addressed potential investors in Moscow, he bragged to Real Estate Weekly about his access to Russia’s rich and powerful. “I have a great relationship with many Russians, and almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump said, referring to Russians who made fortunes when former Soviet state enterprises were sold to private investors.

Five years earlier, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. told Russian media while in Moscow that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets" in places like Dubai and Trump SoHo and elsewhere in New York.

New York City real estate broker Dolly Lenz told USA TODAY she sold about 65 condos in Trump World at 845 U.N. Plaza in Manhattan to Russian investors, many of whom sought personal meetings with Trump for his business expertise…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have not gone through all the posts but Jon is right. Mandate has to be understood in the context of the election system of how the President is elected. And when he did, he got the mandate, whatever it is, to rule and to be President.

In that sense it makes no meaning to speak about popular votes, other than just pure academic, since it did not affect and influence anything as regards to his win.

As long as you stick to the definition and understanding Jon gave for “mandate” meaning “authorized to act as President”, what you just said would be true. But the meaning that some people assign to the word “mandate” is related to a large margin of victory and implicit support of the large portion of the electorate for specific policies. None of that is true for Trump. He neither had a large margin of victory nor can it be said that his policies have a majority of the voters supporting them. But he did have a mandate in the more limited sense.