Thomas Walkom (Star) - Forget the Moscow conspiracy theory. Donald Trump won
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
An attack on a US political party is an attack on the United States. In particular it is an attempt to subvert the US election, US democracy, and the US Constitution.It was an attack on the Democratic Party, not the United States.
"Interference" is word used by the CIA director to describe the Russian attack which both the CIA and the FBI now say was intended to help elect Trump.
By Putin.No, Drama Boy, I'm saying the false assertion that the release of the emails "tainted" or "interfered" with the election results is "fake news."
Let's review:
-- The Democrats got hacked.
By Putin through Assange-- The hacked emails became public.
Nope, totally false. No charges laid even after FBI investigations and even Trump says they are nice people.-- The hacked emails confirmed that the Clintons are corrupt.
Yes the stopped Sanders. Stupid mistake, but that's politics.-- The hacked emails confirmed that the Democratic Party was working to torpedo Bernie Sanders' campaign and had a rather cozy relationship with the news media.
She wasn't head of the democrats at the time.-- The hacked emails revealed shenanigans such as Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign (according to Fuji, Brazile should be charged with "espionage.")
Even if she was, its not a big scandal, its not even that big a deal.
If you don't know what kind of questions are coming at presidential debates you're really not qualified for the job.
The joint statement by US intel agencies revealed this info. Backed up by statements by the White House.-- It was widely speculated that the Russians were the ones who hacked the emails. Hillary Clinton made quite an issue about that point during one of the candidates' debates.
Nope, he made the above mentioned statement. That information went into intel briefings for both Trump and Clinton.-- President Barack Obama knew about the hacking and the possibility the Russians were behind it and did nothing.
Yes, because Putin wanted Trump elected, not Clinton.All of this is a problem for the Democratic Party.
The fact that we are still discussing whether Putin hacked Clinton to get Trump in power shows both that lots of people are still unaware and also marks the fact that the CIA/FBI statements blaming Putin only came out after the election. Same with the claim that Putin helped put Trump in power, nobody made that claim until last week.It's not a problem for the democratic system. Voters knew what had happened and were fully aware of the speculation about the Russians and proceeded to make their decisions about who to elect as president.
Only with the aid of Putin's hacking.The voters elected Trump.
Correct, but irrelevant to this discussion about Putin hacking Clinton to put Trump in power.The voting wasn't hacked. The votes weren't tampered with.
[/QUOTE]Trump was the legitimate winner. The Democratic Party's IT issues and ethical lapses are a problem for the party but they have no bearing on the validity of the results.
Nope, Trump was elected with the aid of cyber warfare by Putin and targeted at Clinton.
The election was not clean.
That is an extremely misleading statement.Nope, Trump was elected with the aid of cyber warfare by Putin and targeted at Clinton.
There is no evidence of vote tampering or of the voting being hacked. The Russians did not "aid" the electoral college vote tally.
The Russians and Wikileaks may very well have tried to influence what voters thought of the candidates. Voters were aware of that possibility at the time they voted.
Trump was elected because voters in most of the states thought he was the better candidate.
Elections are supposed to be free and fair. Foreign interference undermines that.That is an extremely misleading statement.
There is no evidence of vote tampering or of the voting being hacked. The Russians did not "aid" the electoral college vote tally.
The Russians and Wikileaks may very well have tried to influence what voters thought of the candidates. Voters were aware of that possibility at the time they voted.
Trump was elected because voters in most of the states thought he was the better candidate.
There was no interference. The voting wasn't hacked. Nor is there any evidence of any foreigners tampering with the vote count.Elections are supposed to be free and fair. Foreign interference undermines that.
Voters knew about the Wikileaks revelations and the possibility that Russia had hacked the Democratic Party's emails. As with all of the revelations that emerged about both candidates during the campaign, they could accept or reject the information as they wished.
The vote was free and fair. Trump won.
If anything is hurting America's faith in democracy, it is the Democrats' ongoing efforts to try to have the results undermined for no real reason other than the fact they're poor losers.
By the way, I don't recall the Clinton campaign complaining about "foreign interference" undermining American democracy when world leaders were either endorsing Hillary or criticizing Trump.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nald-trump-francois-hollande-france/86552272/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/07/why-chinese-elites-endorse-hillary-clinton/
https://news.vice.com/article/trump...to-the-real-possibility-of-a-trump-presidency
O
OnTheWayOut
What law is this that you think was broken?In any case an illegal attack on the United States.
Of course none of that matters since there was no Russian hacking, it was a leak from a disgruntled DNS staffer who was pissed that they shafted Bernie. But the truth does not fit your agenda so keep barking up that imaginary tree.
The DNC was hacked. The CIA called that"interference". That's the exact word they used: "interference".There was no interference. The voting wasn't hacked.
You don't want to admit it was interference because you don't want to admit that the election was tainted.
No, that is exactly the findings of the CIA, FBI, NDI and the white house.That is an extremely misleading statement.
Straw man argument.There is no evidence of vote tampering or of the voting being hacked. The Russians did not "aid" the electoral college vote tally.
The argument is about Clinton's credibility being attacked by Putin's hacking of Clinton's email, not tampering with vote machines.
That is a straw man argument.
It was assumed it was wikileaks, not the Russians for most of the election, even after the White House statement and the Joint Statement by the 16 US intel agencies.There was no interference. The voting wasn't hacked. Nor is there any evidence of any foreigners tampering with the vote count.
Voters knew about the Wikileaks revelations and the possibility that Russia had hacked the Democratic Party's emails.
The confirmation it was Putin didn't come until after the election and the confirmation that Putin was targeting Clinton to aid Trump just came out last week.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
They haven't confirmed anything. They have said they believe Russia was responsible.It was assumed it was wikileaks, not the Russians for most of the election, even after the White House statement and the Joint Statement by the 16 US intel agencies.
The confirmation it was Putin didn't come until after the election and the confirmation that Putin was targeting Clinton to aid Trump just came out last week.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
Voters knew that was a possibility at the time they voted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...ir-putin-hillary-clinton-emails/#515b7737fe61
https://www.cnet.com/news/clinton-camp-accuses-russians-of-releasing-dnc-emails/
Indeed, U.S. intelligence officials were saying in October that they "remain confident" that Russia was behind the leaks.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/
Voters had the option to accept or reject that information at the time they voted.
And let's be clear: To the extent that the leaked emails were a factor (and the polling suggests they weren't), it wasn't the "hacking of Clinton's email" that hurt Clinton's credibility. It was what was in those emails -- the confirmation that the Clintons are corrupt and the Democratic Party was up to no good.
So does rigging the nomination process, and colluding with the press to give one candidate an advantage.Elections are supposed to be free and fair. Foreign interference undermines that.
The nomination process wasn't rigged. The Russians hacked confidential information.So does rigging the nomination process, and colluding with the press to give one candidate an advantage.
To build on my point from yesterday, here are articles from October from the New York Times and the Guardian. Both confirm that senior intelligence officials and the White House were convinced that the Democratic Party's emails were hacked by the Russians and the White House was considering a "proportional" response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html?_r=1
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
Yet, at that time, the Democrats were insisting the election was fair and that the candidates had an obligation to accept the results.
None of the known facts have changed since October. The only thing that changed was that the Democrats thought they were headed for a massive victory back in October and were subsequently defeated.
That's the only difference. The Democrats simply can't accept that voters in most states preferred Trump over Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html?_r=1
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
Yet, at that time, the Democrats were insisting the election was fair and that the candidates had an obligation to accept the results.
None of the known facts have changed since October. The only thing that changed was that the Democrats thought they were headed for a massive victory back in October and were subsequently defeated.
That's the only difference. The Democrats simply can't accept that voters in most states preferred Trump over Clinton.
Again, you miss the same basic points.To build on my point from yesterday, here are articles from October from the New York Times and the Guardian. Both confirm that senior intelligence officials and the White House were convinced that the Democratic Party's emails were hacked by the Russians and the White House was considering a "proportional" response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html?_r=1
1) Putin's involvement was only confirmed by the CIA/FBI sources after the election
2) Putin's goal of effecting the election in order to aid Trump was only announced last week.
The Clinton emails were first and foremost framed as released by 'wikileaks', which made them appear non-political. This was very clever of Putin, as it gave them the air of legitimacy.
During the election Trump used the emails to infer that Clinton was criminally irresponsible with state secrets, starting the 'lock her up' chants.
Had we known at the time that Putin released those emails to put Trump in power non of that would have been able to play. By the time Obama and the joint statement came out in Oct Trump was able to ignore or deny those claims, as most of the 'despicables', like you, had now decided that Clinton was a crook.
If those emails were branded Putin hacks instead of wikileaks Trump's 'lock her up' arguments about Clinton being a crook would never have existed.
Total nonsense.If those emails were branded Putin hacks instead of wikileaks Trump's 'lock her up' arguments about Clinton being a crook would never have existed.
The White House and security officials were blaming Russia back in October and the conclusion that Putin must have been personally behind the hacking isn't based on anything more solid now than what was known in October.
Let's remember what the election officials and cyber experts were saying in October: that it is "virtually impossible or some other outside group to influence the election outcome."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/
"Virtually impossible" seems pretty definitive to me. And nothing has changed since then.
At the time, Hillary Clinton said it would be "denigrating" American democracy for a presidential candidate to not accept the election result as legitimate.
The only difference between then and now is that the Democrats lost. Nothing else has changed.
Yes, your claim is total nonsense.Total nonsense.
The White House and security officials were blaming Russia back in October and the conclusion that Putin must have been personally behind the hacking isn't based on anything more solid now than what was known in October.
There is no evidence to back up this claim that nothing new has been discovered in the last 3 months.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.htmlWASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.
They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.
How is that New York Times story any different from this one in October?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html?_r=1
All of the pertinent facts were known before the vote. The only difference between October and now is the Democrats lost, whereas in October they thought they were headed to a blowout victory.
