floridafan
Verified User
They are speaking of a single indictment, Comrade, an indictment of 13 people. Not of all the hundreds of other russians who were involved. Now what did Trump do to punish the Russians, my little ignoramus?
The next step in the investigation.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
They are speaking of a single indictment, Comrade, an indictment of 13 people. Not of all the hundreds of other russians who were involved. Now what did Trump do to punish the Russians, my little ignoramus?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
It’s up to someone to prove the election was impacted.
Or stop claiming that it was, how’s that?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Back to square one lol.
First prove the Russians did something besides arm some trolls with Twitter memes. Because that, in off itself is properly called ‘an annoyance’ in terms of geopolitics.
Then we’ll talk about the appropriate sanctions.
Russia, Iran, China are conducting cyber warfare against the US.
floridafan
Verified User
Every single intelligence agency has confirmed that Russians attempted to influence our elections. Millions upon millions were spent to do so. Now whether they were able to influence 1 vote or a million votes, we do not know, but we do know what they tried to do. That in itself should not go unpunished, yet Trump refuses to do anything.
In effect. by doing nothing, he has encouraged them to try even hared in the next election. Your kind doesnt even care, yet had it been Clinton instead of Trump you would be demanding impeachment.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
But that isn't what you said. You said: "What Mueller said was the Russia cyber attack had no effect on the election."
Mueller said no such thing, and Rosenstein was commenting on the latest indictment, nothing else.
That's a Grade F, sorry.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
And I will continue to claim Russia had no effect on the election until proven otherwise.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Again with Rosenstein/Mueller: from the Russian indictments, they determined the Russian objective was to sow discord.
What’s up with this? I thought you guys liked Mueller.
floridafan
Verified User
Prove to us that they had no influence- your personal opinion means shit.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Bloody hell lol.
If you want to claim the Russians effected the election—even when Mueller doesn’t make the claim, then prove it or shut up about it.
floridafan
Verified User
Show us where Mueller said that Russia didnt affect the election, you lying cunt!
floridafan
Verified User
AND influence the election, comrade!
The effort was so small ..it's hard to prove either way..it was a blip on the electoral noise machine..here is 538
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/
my view on the effects of Russian interference is fairly agnostic. I tend to focus more on factors — such as Clinton’s email scandal or the Comey letter (and the media’s handling of those stories) — that had easier-to-prove effects. The hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC (which may or may not have had anything to do with the Russians) potentially also were more influential than the Russian efforts detailed in Friday’s indictments. Clinton’s Electoral College strategy didn’t have as much of an effect as some people assume — but it was pretty stupid all the same and is certainly worth mentioning.
But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything: The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all.
Perhaps there are more clever methodologies that one could undertake. For instance, if we knew which states the efforts were concentrated in, we might be able to make a few additional inferences. Maybe some of that information will come to light as the result of Mueller’s probe and further investigative reporting. For the time being, however, we’re still somewhat in the dark.
Who gives a rat's ass whether Russia succeeded in impacting our election or not.
They tried...and the abomination elected should be at least pretending to care.
But he will not do anything of substance to prevent Russian attempts to influence our elections...because he thinks it might bring further question to the legitimacy of his election.
He definitely cares a LOT more about himself than this country. And if he has to sell the country down the tubes in order to look even a tiny bit better...he will do it in a New York second.
Look at the Clinton campaign. She managed to lose despite being a heavy favorite.
She was sick / took a lot of time off for fundraising / did not defend the "blue wall" / Deplorables /no message /
no outreach past identity politics / Email scandal- chronic lies about it.
Trump out hustled her -that's the bottom line
She was sick / took a lot of time off for fundraising / did not defend the "blue wall" / Deplorables /no message /
no outreach past identity politics / Email scandal- chronic lies about it.
Trump out hustled her -that's the bottom line
Democrats are furious. Leaders of the U.S. intelligence community have no doubt that Russian trolls, bots and hackers are planning to meddle in the midterm elections this fall, and to date President Donald Trump has not instructed his cyber generals to hit back.
This was the upshot of Senate testimony Tuesday from Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and chief of U.S. Cyber Command. He was repeating a warning voiced by intelligence community leaders earlier this month. Asked if he has been directed by the White House to counter the coming Russian offensive in cyberspace, Rogers responded that he has not.
In this hyper-partisan moment, it's understandable that the remarks of the NSA director will be used as a cudgel. In Trump, the Russians got what they paid for, the argument goes. But like most matters of Russia policy, it's a bit more complicated.
Rogers was responding in part to a question about whether he had been told to try to stop Russian hackers at their "point of origin." That means offensive cyber operations designed to shut down, overwhelm or monitor the servers and networks Russia uses to hype fake news, hack Americans and sow chaos in U.S. politics.
These would be some of the most sensitive operations conducted by the U.S. government. In such cyber warfare, the rules of escalation and engagement are still not clear.
continued
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ar-with-russia-might-not-end-well-for-the-u-s
This was the upshot of Senate testimony Tuesday from Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and chief of U.S. Cyber Command. He was repeating a warning voiced by intelligence community leaders earlier this month. Asked if he has been directed by the White House to counter the coming Russian offensive in cyberspace, Rogers responded that he has not.
In this hyper-partisan moment, it's understandable that the remarks of the NSA director will be used as a cudgel. In Trump, the Russians got what they paid for, the argument goes. But like most matters of Russia policy, it's a bit more complicated.
Rogers was responding in part to a question about whether he had been told to try to stop Russian hackers at their "point of origin." That means offensive cyber operations designed to shut down, overwhelm or monitor the servers and networks Russia uses to hype fake news, hack Americans and sow chaos in U.S. politics.
These would be some of the most sensitive operations conducted by the U.S. government. In such cyber warfare, the rules of escalation and engagement are still not clear.
continued
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ar-with-russia-might-not-end-well-for-the-u-s
Any Trump supporter who still charges Hillary Clinton with being a liar...out to hang his head in shame.
Trump is the most blatant liar ever to infest the Oval Office. He lies about matters great and small...because he seems unable NOT TO LIE.
I doubt it had any effect.. the Russian efforts were tiny. They were restricted to the internet..compare that to the news coverage, Hillary seen as weak (sickly and out of touch ( fundraising for millions / Wall st speeches..i
In fact Bernie would have beaten her if she did not have the entire Party apparatus behind her.
Look at it as a usual campaign ( forget the tiny effects of bots) and there are plenty of reasons why she lost