News & Current Events
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-18T13:12:14-05:00 — #1
An interesting article on the topic of "Russiagate"
Creator of NSA’s Global Surveillance System Calls B.S. On Russian Hacking Report
It is rather amazing to see rather clearly from the outside that the "Russiagate" matter is nothing but fake news. This former NSA top official says that the National Security Agency would have the digital evidence if the Russian government had indeed hacked the Democratic National Committee’s computer, or in any way influenced the outcome of the last US presidential election.
But, no such evidence has been produced in all the months since this "story" was created, as the CIA director John Brennan and FBI director Comey seemingly conspired with the DNC in order to discredit and get rid off President Trump.
alex_vaughn — 2017-11-18T16:44:28-05:00 — #2
In case, you’ve not gotten the unfortunate message. Trump won the election. This seems to be just a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the manifest successful interference by Russia in the election.
gao_lu — 2017-11-18T19:38:58-05:00 — #3
By the Democrats? Seems most unlikely. What am I missing?
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-19T03:15:23-05:00 — #4
Is not this fact the reason for the election losers to come up with this hoax in order to "reverse" the "non-Russian influenced" election?
Also, would it not be rather strange that the most exceptional and greatest country in the world, chief example of democracy and security is unable to protect their democratic elections and ends up with an election they normally criticize so heavenly if it happens in so-called "banana republics" ??
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-19T12:06:54-05:00 — #5
This was great news actually. It means the criminal liar Hilary Clinton didn't win. That is a big win for the United States.
Successful interference? And what interference are you referring to? Putting out of fake news by the Russians? The same thing we do in other countries? Give me a break there is NOTHING to see here.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-19T12:53:17-05:00 — #6
the fake news did come from the CIA - FBI - DNC sources which used the mainstream media under their jurisdiction to feed it to the public trying to get people railed up against the elected president .
bill_coley — 2017-11-19T15:09:39-05:00 — #7
If Hillary Clinton, who was judged to have spoken true or mostly true statements about 50% of the time, and about 70% of the time if "half true" statements are included, is a "criminal" liar, what kind of liar is Donald Trump, who was judged to have made statements that were mostly false, false, or pants-on-fire false about 70% of the time, and who has, by one accounting, made more than 1,600 false or misleading statements since he took office ten months ago?
"The same thing" here, David, is not just Russian operatives planting fake news stories on social media (stories which many Trump voters believed, by the way). It's also Russian operatives holding meetings with paid or volunteer Trump campaign representatives (meetings which those Trump campaign representatives never seem to remember until compelled to do so by an email chain or some other form of evidence).
Since you believe Russian interference in our election was "the same thing" we see in other countries, please provide links to news stories that reported foreign candidate campaign representatives meeting - and then forgetting that they met - with Russian operatives during their campaigns because the Russians offered dirt on the political opponents of those foreign candidates.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-19T17:00:13-05:00 — #8
You are mixing meetings with interferance in the election. That's not honest.
gao_lu — 2017-11-19T17:37:53-05:00 — #9
Honestly does not seem to be very important to a certain political sector as can clearly be seen here:
I suppose someone actually believes this tripe.
bill_coley — 2017-11-19T19:26:02-05:00 — #10
But it is honest, David. YOU limited potential Russian interference by your reference to it as "putting out fake news by the Russians." In response, I contended that said interference was more than "fake news." It was pro-active propositioning of the Trump campaign by Russian operatives, propositioning that including offers of information that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to (Donald Trump)," information of which the Russian operative wrote, "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” It was propositioning to which Donald Trump Jr. responded within minutes of his receipt of it, "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
That's not just "meetings," David. That's intentional Russian efforts to participate (interfere) with the American presidential election, and the Trump campaign's welcome of those efforts.
A thoughtful, reflective analysis, Gao Lu. The depth of your engagement with these issues can't be measured, it can only be quoted...
gao_lu — 2017-11-19T19:53:51-05:00 — #11
Snipe the character when you have lost the argument as you will. Hillary is a crook. Russiagate is a hoax. Anxiety in a certain political sector is embarrassing.
bill_coley — 2017-11-19T20:09:19-05:00 — #12
More crisp and insightful commentary. Deeply researched, provocatively presented, impervious to objection. Gao Lu, you offer a careful and studied argument to which none of the "tripe" believers in that "certain political sector" can hope to respond. Had you offered any more evidence to support your assertions, FaithLife no doubt would have had to bring additional servers online to store it all. Well done.
gao_lu — 2017-11-20T04:55:12-05:00 — #13
That is increasingly evident, more even than I realized.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-20T09:45:47-05:00 — #14
First of all, that is called opponent research and not illegal nor is it interference by the Russian Government. Second, it has yet to be proven the extent of which this even occured.
Actually the opposite has been proven. Did you see the social media attorneys? Russia was workign just as much against trump in their fake news cycles. They are trying to spread discord in America not elect Donald Trump. Of course I am sure you ignored that because it doesn't fit your narrative.
How exactly is that election interference? Did they change ballots? Did they hack polling locations? No sir.
bill_coley — 2017-11-20T11:28:43-05:00 — #15
"Opposition research," per se, is not illegal. But foreign national provision of "thing(s) of value," and said national's efforts to "direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person" are. SEE THE RELEVANT STATUTE HERE. It's not difficult to argue that Russia's offer to provide information that "would incriminate Hillary" and "be very useful" to Trump was both an offer of a "thing of value" and an expression of willingness to "participate in the decision-making process" of American voters. "Opposition research" is something campaigns pay for, or pay their own staff people to conduct; it is therefore a "thing of value."
But even if it's not illegal, such actions were clearly interference. Election interference is not limited to changing ballots or hacking polling locations. Interference is simply unauthorized involvement in or interruption of the electoral process.
- If a traffic accident blocks the route you normally take to work, forcing you to take a different route, did that accident interfere with your drive to work? Yes. You got to work - perhaps still on time - but the accident DID interfere.
- In football, do officials ever throw flags for pass interference on caught passes? Yes. Because even though the receiver caught the ball, the defender's actions were still his unauthorized involvement in the receiving process.
Russian provision of "thing(s) of value" in the 2016 campaign were interference because it was an unauthorized involvement in the campaign, whether that involvement had any specific consequence or not.
As our intelligence community concluded - and within the last two weeks re-affirmed - among the objectives of Russian involvement in the 2016 election was to help Donald Trump get elected.
Thanks, David. I've been wondering why I ignored that.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-20T12:06:17-05:00 — #16
Well are you denying that you ignored it? Or are you really that dishonest?
bill_coley — 2017-11-20T12:29:24-05:00 — #17
I neither admitted nor denied that I "ignored" your assertion about the intentions of Russia's meddling. Just as you have neither admitted nor denied that by not responding to them in your latest post, you "ignored" my analysis of what I contended are relevant portions of federal law regarding illegal provision of "things of value" by foreign nationals.
As for your assertion that "Russia was working just as much against Trump in their fake news cycles," and that "They are trying to spread discord in America not elect Donald Trump."...
- It's possible that they were doing BOTH - sowing discord/chaos AND seeking the election of Donald Trump. Those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
- According to the American intelligence community, Russia in fact wanted to help elect Donald Trump; overall, they were not "working as much against Trump" as working for him. I'm sure you saw the DM exchange between Don Jr and Wikileaks, part of which included this amazing admission:
“If we publish them [one or two of Donald Trump Sr's tax returns] it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality. That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”
What does that mean? It means working against Trump could have ulterior motives.
Not usually. Are you?
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-20T13:33:10-05:00 — #18
That they ran A campaign. Yes. They also ran a Hilary campaign, you realize this right?
Nope. But you either are routinely or just dillusional to what reality actually is.
bill_coley — 2017-11-20T14:53:55-05:00 — #19
It doesn't matter what I realize. What matters is what our intelligence community has already realized (and reported), as well as what congressional investigators and special counsel Robert Mueller will come to realize by the end of their respective inquiries. To-date - whether you and I realize it or not - the evidence of Russian meddling in the election to help elect Donald Trump is overwhelming.
But prove me wrong. Please post links to news stories that reported Clinton campaign representatives' meetings with Russian operatives - email and DM exchanges, as well, if those were also reported. As a bonus, you might even include a list of all the meetings with Russians that Clinton campaign reps seemed to forget until reminded of them by a document or being under oath.... I can provide all those things about the Trump campaign's interactions with the Russians. So since you claim the Russians were working equally to elect Clinton, surely you'll now provide links to stories to prove it.
"Routinely dishonest" or "just delusional." Goodness. I just can't decide which I hope I am!
But speaking of delusional, how about the Trump supporter in THIS VIDEO, who tells a CNN panel, "if Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him 'Hold on a second, I need to check with the president if it's true.'" (starts at about the 2:50 mark)... But I suppose he could just be "routinely dishonest," couldn't he?... Discernment is SO necessary if we're to survive the complexities of the modern age.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-20T14:58:51-05:00 — #20
Nobody questions this, you know that right? That's not the question. The question is was there so-called collusion. And meddling is a very misleading term. Influence is more appropriate. It is also misleading to say interfere.
next page →