Russians Indicted by FBI for Interference in 2016 Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HCTC said:
Those two posts were cited because they demonstrate the Russian intention to impact the outcome of the election and the sophistication of their effort.
Click to expand...
But do they demonstrate either one? Does a 1.25 million expenditure in a billion-and-a-half race really demonstrate a serious intention to impact the outcome of an American election? Similarly the asserted million tweets put out by the St. Petersburg group during the campaign is nothing compared to the half-billion tweets DAILY on Twitter.

It wasn’t a serious effort at actually affecting the election. So what was the purpose? Was it a test for the future? Were they shaking out personnel to use in the future? Was it to additionally poison the political atmosphere in the U.S., perhaps so severe as to paralyze the government?

If I had to bet or die, I would bet the last of those because it’s the most likely to succeed. it already has in large part. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be funny. Mueller has probably already spent several times what the Russians spent, and will double and redouble that again. And the American media has probably quadrupled that or more.

What a waste! One has to agree that the Russians know how to make a ruble go a long, long way in immobilizing and confounding their enemies.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Does a 1.25 million expenditure in a billion-and-a-half race really demonstrate a serious intention to impact the outcome of an American election?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, there is no activity; no amount of money; no degree of criminality; no incursion of any kind that would cause you believe that Russian interference in the 2016 election is a serious matter.

The total financial investment that Russia made in an effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 election is not given in the indictment. However, as a point of information, Project Lakhta (which included the troll farm as well as activities such as the purchase of online advertisement in the U.S.) was registered in Russia in July, 2013, and the 1.25 million in U.S. dollars was their MONTHLY BUDGET. You do the math.

In the unlikely event that you are interested in getting information from the source document, here is a link to the FBI indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
 
Last edited:
I’m beginning to realize that the real danger in cyber attacks like we have experienced in regard to the American election process is that in spite of the destruction they do, they are bloodless - and so the American people do not demand a national security response. Trump hasn’t even instituted the sanctions passed by Congress!

The article that you posted is chilling.
 
HCTC said:
In my opinion, there is no activity; no amount of money; no degree of criminality; no incursion of any kind that would cause you believe that Russian interference in the 2016 election is a serious matter.
Click to expand...
Dead wrong. You should pay attention to what I have said over and over again instead of assuming that I don’t mean what I say.

I think the Russians have done a great deal of harm, and the effort, or at least the effect, is ongoing. I just don’t agree with you that the Russian “troll farm” affected the election outcome. If Clapper, Comey and Rosenstein don’t think so, why should I?

No, if you read the complaint carefully, you will see that the charge is NOT collusion with Trump or any other Americans. It is that the effort was intended to cause and exacerbate political dissention within the U.S. and to sow distrust among Americans.

And they succeeded spectacularly. The fact that the president has a permanent prosecutor attached to him supposedly to investigate “Russian collusion” where there’s no evidence of it, demonstrates that.

The Trump haters are just as big a bunch of willing fools as Putin figured them to be. But had Clinton won, it would be the same thing, just reversed.
 
HCTC said:
The article that you posted is chilling.
Click to expand...
And it’s dead right about one thing. It says:

“Without it, we’re left vulnerable to targeted Kremlin propaganda intended to manipulate, divide, and deceive America; our ability to ascertain truth and, with it, freely choose our own leaders will be compromised…”

We’re being had by the Kremlin, and the Trump hate group doesn’t even realize they’re patsies for it.
 
Devin Nunes, House Intel Committee Chairman
February 20, 2018

“…The facts are not bearing out to what the Democrats wanted it to be, because we have found collusion; we found collusion between the Democrats, specifically the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and the Russians, however it doesn’t seem to be like… nobody is interested in that collusion. We’ve also found felony leaks; nobody seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of the felony leaks, so, it’s part of what the House Intelligence Committee lead by the Republicans are trying to get to the bottom of, despite, we’re up against a lot of odds. We’re not getting any help from the Democrats and we’re not getting any help from the mainstream media…”
 
Last edited:
Ya, Nunes says a lot of stuff, such as saying he would recuse himself from the Russian investigation but then not doing so.
 
There is no so-called “Russia investigation” the way you’d suggest, beyond looking into the illegal actions of the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Get a grip. The Democrats have been screaming “Russia, Russia” toward Trump for over a year and them and the media have perpetuated the idea of a “Russia investigation” which has garnered ZERO evidence when all along it was THEM and THEIR CANDIDATE that colluded with Russia. You can’t even make this up.
 
Last edited:
But then we have “Uranium One” … with Russia. $145 million to Clinton.

Read “Clinton Cash” for details.
 
So how are those sanctions against Russia overwhelmingly passed by Congress coming along?
 
Why is it ok to use Clinton Cash but not the dossier?

I am so confused.
 
ProVobis said:
So how are those sanctions against Russia overwhelmingly passed by Congress coming along?
Click to expand...
Slowly, it appears. Shortly after the election, the Association of European Businesses, and the German government asked Trump not to enforce it because it would harm their economies. The sanctions were, of course, passed in the heat of a now-somewhat-discredited hysteria about “Russian collusion” and interference in the election. Trump’s position has always been that it’s an unconstitutional infringement on executive power, and it may well be.

The core of the “sanctions” is blocking people and businesses from doing business with Russian “oligarchs” who have close connections with the Kremlin, or those who do a significant amount of business with them. That, of course, would be all successful Russian businessmen and businesses because you can’t be successful in Russia without those connections.

Regardless, Tillerson has recently announced that they’re very close to coming up with a list of those who they really are going to sanction. Undoubtedly it will be unsatisfactory to Democrats, no matter what. The Europeans may think differently about that, but we’ll never hear about it if they do.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Trump’s position has always been that it’s an unconstitutional infringement on executive power, and it may well be.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but it’s not outside of Congress’s authority. And besides he signed it into law.
 
ProVobis said:
You may be right, but it’s not outside of Congress’s authority. And besides he signed it into law.
Click to expand...
It can’t be both. It can’t simultaneously be an unconstitutional infringement on executive power and be within congress’ authority.

And his signing it does not mean he agrees with it. I think he said so at the time.
 
Your point might be valid if he signed it under duress. Is that what he’s claiming?
 
ProVobis said:
Your point might be valid if he signed it under duress. Is that what he’s claiming?
Click to expand...
It’s not my point. It’s his. He indicated, when he signed it, that he thought it was legislative overrach. It would have passed without his signature anyway, and he knew that too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top