Russian election Interference thread

[Blizzard]

I expect the Soviets/ Russians to hack us to their advantage.

I do not expect our president to accept or profit from this to their advantage.

In other words, if this hand feeds you, great, but you to bite it like a rabid monkey at some point.

I generally fall into this camp as well.

I expect the Russians, Chinese, and every other country to attempt to hack us to their advantage; just as I expect us to do the same.

But here are my questions:

What is the definition of "influence" here? Does it imply fraudulent votes being cast? I don't see anyone making that claim. They ran some ads?

So, the Russians hacked some accounts, etc. Did those acts alone truly have any measurable impact on our elections? If so, how? What influence was truly leveled?

Let's suppose there was influence of some kind (again, what does this really mean). Is this significantly different than Facebook, YouTube or (insert your social media site here) determining what articles or ads they will allow? Don't late night talk show hosts also "influence" viewpoints? We see the media carrying it's bias as well, not just with their op eds but even in the articles they run. Isn't that a greater influence? Where is that line drawn?

Due to our scale and global reach, economically and politically, everyone is a stakeholder in our elections; businesses, countries, individuals, etc. As a result, many people and organizations try to influence that vote directly and indirectly - from Greenpeace and PETA to Mobil and the NRA. But, in the end, only our citizens cast a vote.

Ultimately, casting a vote is tantamount to caveat emptor. We hope voters pay attention to the candidates and issues, do their research, etc. We hope votes are cast based on the ideals, issues, etc. that they value. We hope that voters take their responsibility seriously. That said, there is no requirement to do any of those things. There is no intelligence minimum required to vote. There is no requirement to be informed. There is no requirement to vote. As a result, there are countless ways voters can be "influenced".

So, at it's core, this argument really seems to be about whether people are either accountable for their actions or not. If they come to a different conclusion than you or I, or the self anointed, does that mean they can't be trusted with such an important responsibility? Maybe no one should get to run ads anymore. Or, maybe, we just get the government we deserve?

 

[Grunt]

Those who choose to remain willingly ignorant of the facts concerning those they support are to blame. I don't blame Russia, I blame the non-hackers who don't do their due diligence in knowing those they support or don't. I don't accept anything as gospel without doing a lot of research on it -- regardless of who the source is. People are lazy which leads to willful ignorance! They are way more to blame than Russia.

 

[Topkick]

That, my friend, is a fair question.

To follow up on this question, I'd just say that any intervention in our election was before Trump was the sitting president. So, now that Trump is, do we just not seek world peace and good relations because of what happened then? That seems like a conservative approach and wouldn't a true progressive welcome change from how it's always been?

 

[Dame]

I still think that Russia was just trying to sow hate and discontent in the last election, and were just as surprised as the rest of the world was when President Trump won.

The original works too. LOL.

 

[BloodStripe]

To follow up on this question, I'd just say that any intervention in our election was before Trump was the sitting president. So, now that Trump is, do we just not seek world peace and good relations because of what happened then? That seems like a conservative approach and wouldn't a true progressive welcome change from how it's always been?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, but if you allow outside influence in the election once, you are establishing precedence. What you do afterwords in the name of world peace is bogus and b.s. If Trump colluded with Russia, he should be impeached. The toughest thing for this investigation is finding impartial agents to run it. The media has blown this up and the current political landscape makes finding these agents near impossible.

 

[DA SWO]

Do you think that the ‘war on radical Islamic terrorism’ is a more clear and present danger to the US than Russia is?

Yes, and I think China is a greater threat then Russia.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

As much as I loathe Putin and cronies, I find it deeply unsettling that I mistrust the Clinton's, DNC, and the MSM, just as much as the Kremlin (if not more). The Russians, vodka fueled mass murdering retards aside, basically pulled back the curtain and showed everyone how the sausage was being made by the DNC and accomplices. The irony of having Russians showcase the corruption behind the DNC and Clinton campaign is in itself mind-boggling.

Collusion or not, the country needed a change in leadership from the DC elite and got it. The swamp needs to drained and have it's denizens locked in concrete and glass exhibits.

 

[CQB]

An interesting development for me, (though others may well be in the mix), was that Wikileaks, referred to as Organisation 1, requested the information from the Russian hackers & not as I thought was they who approached him (Assange). I guess if you're locked in a cupboard, you'd want to get even with the person who put you there.

"If you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days perfable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after."

The quote is in the hard copy edition but I can't post a link as it's behind a paywall.

 

[Topkick]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, but if you allow outside influence in the election once, you are establishing precedence. What you do afterwords in the name of world peace is bogus and b.s. If Trump colluded with Russia, he should be impeached. The toughest thing for this investigation is finding impartial agents to run it. The media has blown this up and the current political landscape makes finding these agents near impossible.

I guess I could've been more clear. First there is still no real evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. If it comes about, there should and will be repercussions. If Russia interfered, that is something Trump will have to deal with but it's not his doing. No matter, we should always be seeking an end result of world peace and good relations. Or, do we throw our hands up and say, fuck it, Russia will always be our enemy?

 

[ThunderHorse]

The great outrage of yesterday on twitter was this stuff, Nate Silver pushed on a smart tweet about it:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1018292530692190208

 

[amlove21]

@Diamondback 2/2 , PM sent.

The administration has painted themselves into a corner. President Trump has used the "witch hunt" schtick for so long in order to drive the narrative away from any personal wrong doing that there's no going back now.

I guess I don't know what I expect- of course the White House won't talk about this issue and the President won't take any action. How could they? If the White House decided to condemn the cyber attacks then they give legitimacy to an investigation they've been running a coordinated and extensive IO campaign against. All that time undermining our justice department, the counsel, talking about fake news, character assassinations on any number of individuals; all for naught if they take action. AND it would alienate the base, heaven forbid.

So, the President won't ask for extradition of those indicted, cause honestly, he just hadn't thought of it and it "puts him in a weak position". And really, it was the DNC's fault anyway for not having better defenses like the RNC did.

The indictments don't matter because we do the same thing.

Russia will continue to actively and repeatedly conduct cyber attacks on America; they're the most active and successful, even ahead of China. We have a chance to strike back publicly here and get a W and it looks like we aren't going to do that. That's a foul. Somehow this narrative includes partisan politics- Russia's main goal is to divide the nation, hurt our democracy (successful so far by way of the election) and weaken us on the international stage. Russia is succeeding in their main goal on this one.

The President is weak on cybercrime and Russia. He's in over his head in a room with Putin. He's grossly mishandled the Russian interference in our election and continues to do so for whatever reason.

 

[Poccington]

Seriously, people should read the indictment.

- A US citizen, running for Congress, contacted Guccifer 2.0 requesting dirt on their opponent... And recieved it.
- Roger Stone, a man who was in contact with high level members of the Trump Campaign, was talking to Guccifer 2.0.
- Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 were talking and actively coordinating on when to drop data bombs.
- The Russians hacked a State Board Of Elections and stole the personal data on roughly 500,000 voters.
- The Russians hacked a US company which sells voter registration software and then sent spear fishing emails to over 100 election administrators in Florida districts.

The indictment lays out how the interference in 2016 wasn't just a campaign by Russia to influence voters or generally cause mayhem through their info campaigns. It involved multiple attempts to get inside voting infrastructure in the US.

The Mueller investigation into that interference can't be called a "Witch Hunt" when he keeps finding witches.

 

[Poccington]

After watching his testimony (Coupled with the content of his text messages) I'm not buying it for a second. And when you're in a position such as this, oft times, you can influence things with WHAT YOU DON'T DO as well.

Based on how long this entire shit show has taken, I am beginning to seriously doubt him, or anyone else for that matter, will be prosecuted.

When you declare your CINC guilty and should face impeachment, before a single person is even interviewed, pretty much says it right there.

A perfect example of how this agent's credibilty is a contradiction in terms:

Strzok added that during the 2016 campaign, he had information that “had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

What didn't he do though?

Like I said previously, new facts may come to light that change things but as it stands... He was the FBI agent pushing to investigate Clinton more aggressively and kept his mouth shut when he was fully aware of the fact that members of the Trump Campaign were being investigated for possible collusion with Russia.

Those are two glaring issues where if his work was truly influenced by his political beliefs, he'd have acted in the completely opposite manner.

Yeah, uh, not believing that horse manure one bit.

Excellent, thoughtful, rational and well structured attempt at discussion.

An interesting development for me, (though others may well be in the mix), was that Wikileaks, referred to as Organisation 1, requested the information from the Russian hackers & not as I thought was they who approached him (Assange). I guess if you're locked in a cupboard, you'd want to get even with the person who put you there.

"If you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days perfable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after."

The quote is in the hard copy edition but I can't post a link as it's behind a paywall.

Julian Assange has got to be sweating bullets right now.

The Ecuadorians are getting quite vocal about kicking him out of their embassy and Mueller has made it crystal clear that he has proof Wikileaks were in the thick of it with the Russians in 2016. I'm sure the Brits would be more than happy to take him into custody and ensure he gets on a flight back to the US.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

 

[Devildoc]

The Mueller investigation into that interference can't be called a "Witch Hunt" when he keeps finding witches.

If Mueller was investigating Russian interference in US elections and Russian influence, he'd be scoring. If Mueller has spent a year investigating "Trump campaign collusion" and has so far largely bupkis except for some peripheral players, then what can we assume?

 

[amlove21]

If Mueller was investigating Russian interference in US elections and Russian influence, he'd be scoring. If Mueller has spent a year investigating "Trump campaign collusion" and has so far largely bupkis except for some peripheral players, then what can we assume?

That Russia committed a successful state sponsored cyber attack to undermine our democratic election process?

I wouldn’t call the indictments ‘bupkis’, nor would I call the sum of all those indictments ‘bupkis’.

 

[DA SWO]

That Russia committed a successful state sponsored cyber attack to undermine our democratic election process?

I wouldn’t call the indictments ‘bupkis’, nor would I call the sum of all those indictments ‘bupkis’.

The one thing I don't understand is why Putin no longer likes Hillary?

Syria?

The amount of money Russians threw at the foundation is substantial, to suddenly throw her under the bus puzzles me.

 

[amlove21]

The one thing I don't understand is why Putin no longer likes Hillary?

Syria?

The amount of money Russians threw at the foundation is substantial, to suddenly throw her under the bus puzzles me.

That’s a really good question and it’s one I can’t even begin to guess.

Maybe they saw an opportunity for the most divisive choice? No idea.

Random shower thought- if Russia hacking the DNC during the election was a good thing because it exposed the evils of the DNC, the Clinton’s, and the ‘rigged election system’, why doesn’t the Mueller investigation get the exact same treatment?

If there was no collusion, but in the end we exposed a much bigger problem with more than 15 indictments, more coming, etc- why isn’t that a good thing?

 

[Devildoc]

That Russia committed a successful state sponsored cyber attack to undermine our democratic election process?

I wouldn’t call the indictments ‘bupkis’, nor would I call the sum of all those indictments ‘bupkis’.

That Russia committed a successful state-sponsored cyber attack to undermine our democratic election process is no bueno, should be investigated, with a subsequent dropping of the hammer (though the indictments are stupid and a waste of time and money). I do wish Trump et al., would be harsher in that respect. Hold them accountable. I don't think it was a DNC thing or a Trump thing or a GOP thing, it was a Russia thing.

The indictments Mueller has handed out with regard to the Trump campaign collusion is tantamount to wanting to stop a speeding car knowingly carrying trafficked persons and carrying a cache of illegal guns and coke but actually charging for 10 over the speed limit.

I will allow that if Trump has any knowledge of collusion then he has demonstrated he has so many levels of firewalls so far that linking him to collusion is still a fairy tale...

 

[Devildoc]

If there was no collusion, but in the end we exposed a much bigger problem with more than 15 indictments, more coming, etc- why isn’t that a good thing?

I think that would be a good thing. Maybe it's time to broaden the scope of the investigation instead of honing on Trump. I really think the Trump collusion thing is going to be the left's version of Obama's birth certificate....