Russia's Influence On The American Election

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

ledvedderman said:

And honestly, if the last two items there (17 agencies/senate action) don't do it, you're literally choosing not to see what's going on in a conscious way. 

I'm still listening.
You debate the same as H2M, quite striking at first read but as you get further into the paragraph it dwindles and loses the point.
On and on it never ends, endless agencies cry foul and say Russian had influence but never say how.  

Stop trolling. Read the declassified intelligence report that I posted a link to pages back. If you're too lazy to scroll, borrow someone's google machine.

Halifax2TheMax

Merkin Baller said:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878413313188802560

Lol

@PJFan, will you post Trump's tweet and shut up about Russian meddling not happening now? Trump just admitted that it did.

Lerxst1992

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

ledvedderman said be

And honestly, if the last two items there (17 agencies/senate action) don't do it, you're literally choosing not to see what's going on in a conscious way. 

I'm still listening.
You debate the same as H2M, quite striking at first read but as you get further into the paragraph it dwindles and loses the point.
On and on it never ends, endless agencies cry foul and say Russian had influence but never say how.  

Comey released a planted evidence story of an investigation of Clinton nine days before the election that dropped her poll numbers three percent. The renewed investigation lasted less than a week, and coincidently, all 650,000 new emails contained no new information. But the damage to her was measurable.

While this was ongoing, the CIA had proof Putin was personally involved helping the GOP nominee, and Obama decided to do the "right thing" and not release this information.

If you all who think dominant news stories don't impact voter actions, there is no precedent of a single news story dominating the last nine days of an election as the FBI Clinton story did in the days leading up to the 2016 election.

At the very least, the Putin story would have removed the Clinton FBI story from the news the last nine days, and taken the unprecedented heat off of her. It probably would have made the GOP look like traitors days before a presidential election.

Conservatives can pretend this had no impact on who now is POTUS. But they would be lying to the mirror. And I didn't even mention the damage done by the fake russian imminent indictment story five days before the election. Until now.

Merkin Baller

Why are people arguing with the troll? 

gimmesometruth27

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

josevolution said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

josevolution said:

The Russians hacked and the trumpsters are ok with it but you can bet your bottom $ that if Russia hacked into our electricity grids they would be the 1st Americans crying how could this happen ! The Elections were just a trial run for Russia ! 

Truth or Propaganda?

Why are you here you need to be posting in the truth thread since you lap up every turd that comes out of orange Bafoon's mouth as truth ! 

I am here because Russia had zero influence on the election until proven otherwise.  Also your avatar was pretty cool when it used to be moving.  What happened? Why has it stopped?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/putin-russia-hacking-us-election-trump-hillary-clinton-report-a7805541.html

gimmesometruth27

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS!!! 
As soon as there is some credible evidence I will start my investigation.  Can you provide some?

no you don't want to get to the bottom of anything. putin could call you up on the phone, show up at your house and tell you face to face that he ordered hackers to harm clinton and help trump and you would not believe it. you would keep asking for proof, and in the face of undeniable proof and admissions of guilt, you would still not believe it. stop saying otherwise.

Kat

Evidence is mounting that Russia took 4 clear paths to meddle in the US election

It was September 2015 when the FBI first noticed that Russian hackers had infiltrated a computer system belonging to the Democratic National Committee.

It was the first sign that Moscow was attempting to meddle in the presidential election.

Nearly a year later, further reporting and testimony from current and former intelligence officials have painted a portrait of Russia’s election interference as a multifaceted, well-planned, and coordinated campaign aimed at undermining the backbone of American democracy: free and fair elections.

Now, as FBI special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional intelligence committees continue to investigate Russia's election interference, evidence is emerging that the hacking and disinformation campaign waged at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin took at least four separate but related paths.

The first involved establishing personal contact with Americans perceived as sympathetic to Moscow — such as former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and early Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page — and using them as a means to further Russia's foreign-policy goals.

The second involved hacking the Democratic National Committee email servers and then giving the material to WikiLeaks, which leaked the emails in batches throughout the second half of 2016.

The third was to amplify the propaganda value of the leaked emails with a disinformation campaign waged predominantly on Facebook and Twitter, in an effort to use automated bots to spread fake news and pro-Trump agitprop.

And the fourth was to breach US voting systems in as many as 39 states leading up to the election, in an effort to steal registration data that officials say could be used to target and manipulate voters in future elections.

[Un]witting agents

cont'd at

http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
That is a well rounded article. The below paragraph from the article is quite striking.  If the Democrats and people couldn't differentiate between fake news that is the same as being baited by a tweet - a type of person  Hillary thought should not be in power.
In early January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report documenting the results of the investigation former President Barack Obama had requested into Russian election interference. The report said that while Russian operatives did not change vote tallies, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an elaborate effort to propel Trump to the presidency — not only via hacking but also through the dissemination of “fake news” aimed at undermining Clinton and boosting Trump.

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
That is a well rounded article. The below paragraph from the article is quite striking.  If the Democrats and people couldn't differentiate between fake news that is the same as being baited by a tweet - a type of person  Hillary thought should not be in power.
In early January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report documenting the results of the investigation former President Barack Obama had requested into Russian election interference. The report said that while Russian operatives did not change vote tallies, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an elaborate effort to propel Trump to the presidency — not only via hacking but also through the dissemination of “fake news” aimed at undermining Clinton and boosting Trump.

So you agree that Russia interfered in our elections?

PJfanwillneverleave1

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
That is a well rounded article. The below paragraph from the article is quite striking.  If the Democrats and people couldn't differentiate between fake news that is the same as being baited by a tweet - a type of person  Hillary thought should not be in power.
In early January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report documenting the results of the investigation former President Barack Obama had requested into Russian election interference. The report said that while Russian operatives did not change vote tallies, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an elaborate effort to propel Trump to the presidency — not only via hacking but also through the dissemination of “fake news” aimed at undermining Clinton and boosting Trump.

So you agree that Russia interfered in our elections?

I agree that according to old declassified information that it seemed to be the case.
As for now the case still can't put a finger on exactly how the moment the interference became a loss for Hillary.

ledvedderman

Early January is old information?

PJfanwillneverleave1

ledvedderman said:

Early January is old information?

Yes. People demand realtime information.

CM189191

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS!!! 
As soon as there is some credible evidence I will start my investigation.  Can you provide some?

That is literally the opposite of how an investigation works

ledvedderman

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

ledvedderman said:

Early January is old information?

Yes. People demand realtime information.

Once something happens and is figured out, it's a fact. Facts from the past don't change. 

Smellyman

Lerxst1992 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

ledvedderman said be

And honestly, if the last two items there (17 agencies/senate action) don't do it, you're literally choosing not to see what's going on in a conscious way. 

I'm still listening.
You debate the same as H2M, quite striking at first read but as you get further into the paragraph it dwindles and loses the point.
On and on it never ends, endless agencies cry foul and say Russian had influence but never say how.  

Comey released a planted evidence story of an investigation of Clinton nine days before the election that dropped her poll numbers three percent. The renewed investigation lasted less than a week, and coincidently, all 650,000 new emails contained no new information. But the damage to her was measurable.

While this was ongoing, the CIA had proof Putin was personally involved helping the GOP nominee, and Obama decided to do the "right thing" and not release this information.

If you all who think dominant news stories don't impact voter actions, there is no precedent of a single news story dominating the last nine days of an election as the FBI Clinton story did in the days leading up to the 2016 election.

At the very least, the Putin story would have removed the Clinton FBI story from the news the last nine days, and taken the unprecedented heat off of her. It probably would have made the GOP look like traitors days before a presidential election.

Conservatives can pretend this had no impact on who now is POTUS. But they would be lying to the mirror. And I didn't even mention the damage done by the fake russian imminent indictment story five days before the election. Until now.

You need to post more often

JC29856

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
That is a well rounded article. The below paragraph from the article is quite striking.  If the Democrats and people couldn't differentiate between fake news that is the same as being baited by a tweet - a type of person  Hillary thought should not be in power.
In early January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report documenting the results of the investigation former President Barack Obama had requested into Russian election interference. The report said that while Russian operatives did not change vote tallies, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an elaborate effort to propel Trump to the presidency — not only via hacking but also through the dissemination of “fake news” aimed at undermining Clinton and boosting Trump.

So you agree that Russia interfered in our elections?

John Bonifield, it is you?

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
That is a well rounded article. The below paragraph from the article is quite striking.  If the Democrats and people couldn't differentiate between fake news that is the same as being baited by a tweet - a type of person  Hillary thought should not be in power.
In early January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report documenting the results of the investigation former President Barack Obama had requested into Russian election interference. The report said that while Russian operatives did not change vote tallies, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an elaborate effort to propel Trump to the presidency — not only via hacking but also through the dissemination of “fake news” aimed at undermining Clinton and boosting Trump.

So you agree that Russia interfered in our elections?

John Bonifield, it is you?

No, sorry to disappoint. But you know, one false narrative doesn't negate the other 13 being investigated. You must be back since your handler is leaving the country, right?

How's the pizza?

JC29856

Greenwald
BUT CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.

Halifax2TheMax

?

cottagesteeze

JC29856 said:

Greenwald
BUT CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.

Any reference to which stories, or is Greenwald just attempting to blanket every Russia story as redacted? Because that's not the case..