Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.
After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.' Indeed, nobody even tries. All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)
To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information. Some states called the feds out on the attacks. It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.
I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'. That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country. Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.
We differ on this, but it's hard to explain my position if you don't heed any of the mainstream media sources. I read both sides, from Fox/Breitbart to Politico/Rawstory. I want as many details as possible.
I do feel that the emails being released did cost Hilary x number of votes. She deserved it, whatever, but we both have to agree that at least say, 100 people changed their voting outcome because of that revalation. Even though that is statistically insignificant, it was an effect. Can we both say at least 5 percent of Hilary voters turned? Even at 1 percent, this is still a whole lot of people. That, in my opinion, is a tainted result. And that doesn't speak to the effect of the bots on social media platforms; some people take social.media as a straight up news source. If they did this, and it seems like they did, I'm saying they didn't half step, they did this right. They wouldnt risk global outrage without the trade off being worth it. And we have other intelligence agencies giving us (US intell) Intel they deemed suspicious about Trumps guys. Unbidden. So the communications were so suspicious that our allies felt the need to point them out.
If it matters, our intelligence agencies have all agreed Russia participated.in a state sponsored effort to change the results of the election. Also, it all leaks so far, but the leaks suggest that Trumps surrogates had contact with Russian intelligence agents, without declaring said communications. Anything else I would point out is admitted hearsay, there are a few more kernels of truth to pick out. From one wizened head to another, I really think we will find Trump reached out to get assistance from Russia with the election. Trumps ties to the Russian underworld (check it out) make me more inclined to believe the whispers, those are actual facts. This is actually the reason why the thing about Obama wiretapping cropped up, they were indeed surveiling the tower, but becuase they were eavesdropping on the disproportionate amount of mafia figures residing in the hotel. Which is suspicious.
What source are your using to make the claim that Russia did something to influence the election? I think this is a fake news story from Hillary camp since last November. It started a few minutes after Hillary realized she lost the election she was told was rigged to make her win by a pre determined number. In fact the number was reversed to send a clear message to Hillary..
Maybe you really think the Russians did something so can you please cite or source your claim? Thanks!
This is the most official thing I could find, but do know this is a popular opinion amoung the non Trump camp. We see the fact that this investigation has kept going on for so long despite Comey being decidedly partisan (read Hillary email disclosure). If there was nothing, we wouldn't be hearing about it still.
This is a statement from
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statementI don't know how.you feel about Wikipedia. In this case they are citing Senate testimony, here is the link to the article..it is seemingly non partisan, but maybe I am not the best judge. See for yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_electionsLet me.cite a bit for the sake of ease:
December 2016 CIA report
On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that "individuals with connections to the Russian government", previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta.[61] The agencies further stated that Russia had hacked the RNC as well, but did not leak information obtained from there.[62] These assessments were based on evidence obtained before the election.[63] According to an unnamed official, the intelligence community did not believe that Moscows efforts altered the outcome of the election.
Now before you comment on the fact they concluded there was no effect, understand that this is dated, and the investigation was reopened and is still.in progress. Which is.what I mean about it being interesting this is still going on. This apparently warranted a second look.
Next cite:
During a House Intelligence Committee hearing in early December, the CIA said it was certain of Russia's intent to help Trump, but the FBI said "its not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals".[75] On December 16, 2016, CIA Director John O. Brennan sent a message to his staff saying he had spoken with FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and that all agreed with the CIA's conclusion that Russia interfered in the presidential election with the motive of supporting Donald Trump's candidacy.[76]
January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment
On January 6, 2017, after briefing the president, the president-elect, and members of the Senate and House, U.S. intelligence agencies released a de-classified version[83] of the report on Russian activities. The report asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections. The agencies concluded that Putin and the Russian government tried to help Trump win the election by discrediting Hillary Clinton and portraying her negatively relative to Trump, and that Russia had conducted a multipronged cyber campaign consisting of hacking and the extensive use of social media and trolls, as well as open propaganda on Russian-controlled news platforms.[84] A large part of the report was dedicated to criticizing Russian TV channel RT America, which it described as a "messaging tool" for the Kremlin.[85]
There is alot more of this. You don't have to take it from Wikipedia if you don't want to, I understand the mistrust of that particular source, but these are jumping off points.for independent research (the best kind). I'm not trying to lie.to you guys, or deceive. Being sincere, it truly looks fishy to me. With that being said, I don't believe in a nefarious 'deep state'. I do believe it exist, and if it does, it is most likely conservative (military types tend toward conservatism, can we agree?) But it serves the country, not a party. It literally exist at the behest of the country. Please believe.I understand they do some amazingly fucked up shit, in the name of security. But this is directed outward, not one of the myriad plots to.militarize society (different conversation).