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

[ProVobis]

They had to take out Rubin first.

Rubio

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I would rather have a full and open and true picture of both Clinton and Trump. But we didn’t get that, did we? Imagine a trial where only on side got to present evidence. Would you call that a fair trial, even if the evidence presented was very embarrassing?

Huh? The Russians were favoring Trump because Hillary took a hard line against Russia. Plus they saw (as we are all seeing now) that the election of Trump was more likely to cause chaos in a Western democracy that they wanted to discredit. So having Trump elected and having the world see the chaos and disfunction that results allows them to point to the US and say “See? Western democracy is not so great!”.

Hillary took a hard line against Russia.

Yeah. Right.

They wanted 50% of American uranium, but she would only sell them 20%.

But she exacted a HEAVY PRICE … it cost them $145 million in … speaking fees.

[Read “Clinton Cash”.]

Seriously???

 

[dvdjs]

Hillary took a hard line against Russia.
They wanted 50% of American uranium, but she would only sell them 20%.

You do realize that the story that you parrot on the uranium sales is bogus, don’t you?

 

[dvdjs]

More importantly, who can ‘prove’ it, and/or actually show how it was done.

You might find this testimony illuminating.
intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-trid-033017.pdf

 

[pepipop]

You might find this testimony illuminating.
intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-trid-033017.pdf

Thanks.

However, this is the latest from the CIA files, via wikileaks - so how can anyone prove that Russia, was solely responsible for Clinton losing the election to Trump - IF they did anything at all.

It’s impossible for anyone to accurately measure how voters were swayed to vote, by what, OR by whom. Yeltsin hired US strategists to assist him in winning, a democratic election, in Russia - indicating the tactics used to win a ‘democratic’ election would also have been being used by both parties, the Dems and Repubs, as per usual, i.e. both trying to drum up ‘factual’ dirt/perceptions, of the opposite party, to get more votes.

How the election result can then be qualitatively blamed solely on Russia, IMO is absolutely impossible to ascertain - that’s even before any of the ‘hacking’ CAN be blamed on Russia in the first place. By the looks of it, it could have been anyone - the opposition being the most likely culprit.

Wikileaks’ Latest Release Of CIA Cyber Tools Could Blow Cover On Agency Hacking Operations

ndtv.com/world-news/wikileaks-latest-release-of-cia-cyber-tools-could-blow-cover-on-agency-hacking-operations-1675967

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thanks.

However, this is the latest from the CIA files, via wikileaks - so how can anyone prove that Russia, was solely responsible for Clinton losing the election to Trump - IF they did anything at all.

It’s impossible for anyone to accurately measure how voters were swayed to vote, by what, OR by whom. Yeltsin hired US strategists to assist him in winning, a democratic election, in Russia - indicating the tactics used to win a ‘democratic’ election would also have been being used by both parties, the Dems and Repubs, as per usual, i.e. both trying to drum up ‘factual’ dirt/perceptions, of the opposite party, to get more votes.

How the election result can then be qualitatively blamed solely on Russia, IMO is absolutely impossible to ascertain - that’s even before any of the ‘hacking’ CAN be blamed on Russia in the first place. By the looks of it, it could have been anyone - the opposition being the most likely culprit.

Wikileaks’ Latest Release Of CIA Cyber Tools Could Blow Cover On Agency Hacking Operations

ndtv.com/world-news/wikileaks-latest-release-of-cia-cyber-tools-could-blow-cover-on-agency-hacking-operations-1675967

I don’t think anybody seriously contends that Russia actually affected the outcome of the U.S. election. So far, the only argument seems to be that Russia TRIED to do it by releasing the hacked DNC emails.

But personally, I’m not even persuaded yet that the Russians actually did the hacking or the release to Wikileaks. All I have heard so far is that there wasn’t any true hacking; that Podesta accepted a “phishing” inquiry that let someone in who was using some kind of software that the Russians sometimes use. But others use it too.

I am not aware of anything that actually proves the Russians did it. Maybe they did, and maybe U.S. intelligence knows some things we don’t that prove it. But at this point, as a public matter, it’s not proven.

As to any Russian preference for Clinton or Trump, I can see arguments for each and against each. Trump had opened the possibility of a better relationship with Russia, and that’s true. Putin could have thought Hillary a warmonger and Trump a non-interventionist. But Putin might have also thought he had Hillary “bought” with that 150 million or whatever it was, and might reasonably have believed he could “keep her bought”.

But one thing’s hard to deny. If Putin actually wants a better relationship with the West, he shot himself in the foot if he was the “hacker”, because he actually managed to turn the American left anti-Russian; something that they haven’t been since 1917.

 

[lynnvinc]

You do realize that the story that you parrot on the uranium sales is bogus, don’t you?

Yeah, I just wonder where people get these crazy stories. Probably the same place they get the climate change denialist stuff, Hillary had a body double, there was a terrorist massacre in Bowling Green the media failed to cover, Obama was born in Kenya, and Zesta crackers contain dope (that one is from a tabloid story I read some 45 years ago, which I think also implicated some brand of peanut butter, as well ).

 

[dvdjs]

Thanks.

However, this is the latest from the CIA files, via wikileaks - so how can anyone prove that Russia, was solely responsible for Clinton losing the election to Trump - IF they did anything at all.

Is anyone interested in proving that Russia was responsible, let alone “solely” responsible for Trump’s victory over Clinton? I have not heard that from anyone. Where does that come from?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is anyone interested in proving that Russia was responsible, let alone “solely” responsible for Trump’s victory over Clinton? I have not heard that from anyone. Where does that come from?

Wishful thinking.

 

[dvdjs]

Wishful thinking.

No. This effort to emphasize the politics rather than the interference from Russia is pure deflection from those who seem to be interested in covering up rather than investigating and mitigating future interference.

 

[lynnvinc]

…But one thing’s hard to deny. If Putin actually wants a better relationship with the West, he shot himself in the foot if he was the “hacker”, because he actually managed to turn the American left anti-Russian; something that they haven’t been since 1917.

That’s actually what one scholar lamented – how the whole thing is harming our relationship with Russia, and if better relations is what Putin wanted, it surely did backfire.

But others have pointed out that what Putin seems to have wanted to do is cause chaos and dissension within Western countries, also to break up alliances among them, like by weakening NATO. They point out that being an old guard KGB man from the Soviet empire times, Putin greatly laments the break up of the Soviet Union and either wants to get parts of it back, or break up Western nations.

I don’t think the majority of the American left was pro-communism or pro-Soviet Union (which was authoritarian), even if they were bleeding hearts that wanted to help the poor and elderly, etc. If you recall Kennedy had a showdown with Khrushchev.

But it is sort of weird that the Right now seems pro-Russia. Of course that wouldn’t be pro-communist, but rather pro-authoritarian. Which is very weird, since the Right claims to be for individual liberties and state and local rights, etc. But it does seem that many think authoritarianism is our American value, that we are here to serve and protect the president, r/t vice versa. Or authoritarianism seems to equal freedom in their minds. Or something I can’t quite figure out. It was very weird when that Congressman Yoho said Nunes works for the President (but later retracted that after being criticized).

Let’s just imagine for a moment if any of the other Republican candidates had become the nominee and won the election (Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Santorum, etc) – any one of them. What would be the state of things today? Of course Democrats would have been sore, but I think there would not hardly be this much division.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think the Russians caused her to lose

I think that very few are saying that. But that does not detract from the seriousness of Russia’s actions.

 

[TMC]

More importantly, who can ‘prove’ it, and/or actually show how it was done. Not just the rhetoric that the ‘Russians hacked and released emails, etc.’… but how actually did leaking this information, if it occurred, then translate into Americans changing their votes.

The MSM was much, much more negative towards Trump, than Hillary, worldwide. So, does that infer that the MSM is over and out and should be shut down. Seems to be the case from the analysis given, of the hacking, that the majority of US people are getting their news from the internet and that MSM coverage had no effect, whatsoever.

So the consensus being the votes were changed, by Russian hacking, due to people getting their news from social media and believed everything they read, and did no further research nor did they read the MSM outlets off the internet. Not forgetting, of course, all those voters that were forced to watch RT.

The FBI, NSA and CIA claim to have proof, and they are working with the Senate as the Senate also investigates. I will take the word of the US Senate, US intelligence and US law enforcement against the word of Putin. Of course, we still need to see all the facts, but its hard at this point not to conclude that the Russians attempted to interfere in our election.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No. This effort to emphasize the politics rather than the interference from Russia is pure deflection from those who seem to be interested in covering up rather than investigating and mitigating future interference.

Nobody is covering anything up. This Russia business is going to be milked until the cow falls dead. So far, it’s a big nothing.

And what “mitigation” do you think is going to keep Russians, Iranians, Chinese or anybody else from gathering intelligence from the U.S. when it can, and using it to advantage, if it thinks it can?

Maybe Podesta simply needs to be told not to accept emails from sources he doesn’t know. But then, I think everybody but him knows that already. Probably now everybody at the DNC knows it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The FBI, NSA and CIA claim to have proof, and they are working with the Senate as the Senate also investigates. I will take the word of the US Senate, US intelligence and US law enforcement against the word of Putin. Of course, we still need to see all the facts, but its hard at this point not to conclude that the Russians attempted to interfere in our election.

Wait and see. When all the testimony is heard (most of which we’ll never hear) and all the opinions rendered, the Dems will claim it proves the Trump organizations was in league with Putin and the Repubs will claim it proves nothing. But there won’t be any clear indication that the Russians changed a single vote, and I doubt either side will claim that it did, any more that the FBI or NSA says it does now.

But I’m sure, in the future, the Dems will get better software to keep the Russkies out of their communications and the Repubs will get better software to keep the Dems out of theirs.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s actually what one scholar lamented – how the whole thing is harming our relationship with Russia, and if better relations is what Putin wanted, it surely did backfire.

But others have pointed out that what Putin seems to have wanted to do is cause chaos and dissension within Western countries, also to break up alliances among them, like by weakening NATO.

So you are saying that Putin is acting inimically towards the West to weaken NATO? I’m trying to figure out how that makes sense.

They point out that being an old guard KGB man from the Soviet empire times, Putin greatly laments the break up of the Soviet Union and either wants to get parts of it back, or break up Western nations.

Mindreading now. Cewl.

I don’t think the majority of the American left was pro-communism or pro-Soviet Union (which was authoritarian), even if they were bleeding hearts that wanted to help the poor and elderly, etc. If you recall Kennedy had a showdown with Khrushchev.

But it is sort of weird that the Right now seems pro-Russia. Of course that wouldn’t be pro-communist, but rather pro-authoritarian. Which is very weird, since the Right claims to be for individual liberties and state and local rights, etc. But it does seem that many think authoritarianism is our American value, that we are here to serve and protect the president, r/t vice versa. Or authoritarianism seems to equal freedom in their minds. Or something I can’t quite figure out. It was very weird when that Congressman Yoho said Nunes works for the President (but later retracted that after being criticized).

Let’s see, trying to work *with *Russia rather than against Russia, trying to make ties between us rather than war, is advocating Russia’s internal structure? Seems to me that bringing nations closer, as through trade, has been a mainstay of US dipllomacy since Nixon.

Let’s just imagine for a moment if any of the other Republican candidates had become the nominee and won the election (Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Santorum, etc) – any one of them. What would be the state of things today? Of course Democrats would have been sore, but I hardly thing there would be this much division.

Since none of those candidates would have stood up to the PC MSM, of course the Dems would not be freaking out the way they are over Trump, whom they can’t get their thumb over at all.

 

[St_Francis]

The FBI, NSA and CIA claim to have proof, and they are working with the Senate as the Senate also investigates. I will take the word of the US Senate, US intelligence and US law enforcement against the word of Putin. Of course, we still need to see all the facts, but its hard at this point not to conclude that the Russians attempted to interfere in our election.

What proof do they have? The FBI was denied access to investigate the servers, and so far the only investigation that has been done is by a private firm hired by the DNC, Crowdstrike.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think anybody seriously contends that Russia actually affected the outcome of the U.S. election. So far, the only argument seems to be that Russia TRIED to do it by releasing the hacked DNC emails.

But personally, I’m not even persuaded yet that the Russians actually did the hacking or the release to Wikileaks. All I have heard so far is that there wasn’t any true hacking; that Podesta accepted a “phishing” inquiry that let someone in who was using some kind of software that the Russians sometimes use. But others use it too.

I am not aware of anything that actually proves the Russians did it. Maybe they did, and maybe U.S. intelligence knows some things we don’t that prove it. But at this point, as a public matter, it’s not proven.

As to any Russian preference for Clinton or Trump, I can see arguments for each and against each. Trump had opened the possibility of a better relationship with Russia, and that’s true. Putin could have thought Hillary a warmonger and Trump a non-interventionist. But Putin might have also thought he had Hillary “bought” with that 150 million or whatever it was, and might reasonably have believed he could “keep her bought”.

But one thing’s hard to deny. If Putin actually wants a better relationship with the West, he shot himself in the foot if he was the “hacker”, because he actually managed to turn the American left anti-Russian; something that they haven’t been since 1917.

There may also be a claim that Russia helped to release fake news and Russia was behind bots? I could be wrong and sorry if I’m mistaken but did lynnvinc comment about this? Although I don’t know what such evidence and proof there is for that? There were
anti-Trump bots and was there fake news about Trump during the election campaign? If there was, who was releasing that?

I don’t think there is proof that was in the DNC emails has been tampered with in terms of what they actually say.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What proof do they have? The FBI was denied access to investigate the servers, and so far the only investigation that has been done is by a private firm hired by the DNC, Crowdstrike.

Have you heard about this regarding Crowdstrike?

Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report

WASHINGTON —
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.

voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

What proof do they have? The FBI was denied access to investigate the servers, and so far the only investigation that has been done is by a private firm hired by the DNC, Crowdstrike.

So the FBI is just taking the DNC’s word for this? And why would the DNC deny the FBI access to its servers unless there was something on them they didn’t want the FBI to see?

Weirder and weirder.