What exactly are we accusing the Russians of doing concerning our election?

[vienna]

I'd been waiting to see what the other views might be on the original post by Platapus (good points, all, Platapus). I tend to view some of the efforts by investigative, legislative, and, sometimes, judicial entities to be more of a definitive and precedent-setting exercise. Sometimes you have to go through a process, not to reach a fully satisfactory conclusion, but, rather to define and codify the proper actions and limits to be the framework if a transgression or particular similar situation should occur in the future. The impeachment of Bill Clinton, although a seeming waste of time, effort and money to many, served the function of providing a fleshed-out guide of how a full, modern impeachment process should be conducted. An opportunity was missed in the 1970s when Nixon resigned rather than face full impeachment; it would have been a great learning experience for the US government and the citizens on the country on how to deal with a truly criminal impeachment case...

As far as the current Russian situation, there is also a great learning process opportunity. First of all, let's just get rid of the partisan aspect of the matter: we all know that if Obama or Clinton were facing the current situation, the same people who are decrying the efforts to investigate the election influence/tampering now in effect would be the loudest and most ardent in demanding just such investigations, so let's discard petty partisanship. Secondly, let's discard the Trump factor: as I have long stated, none of the investigations or reports have in any way directly linked Trump personally to any of the possible corruption allegations; all he had to do was just not say anything and let the process play out; if he's going to get nicked on anything, it will be due to his efforts, after the facts, to either obstruct justice or, if he is found to have proactively taken part in possible cover-up efforts, to have engaged in criminal conspiracy and/or subornation. while we're at it, let's leave Russia specifically out of this, as well...

The situation is this: allegations have been made of possible efforts by a foreign government, or their actors, to either influence or tamper with a Presidential election. Allegations are also some US citizens and/or other vested individuals in the US, either for personal financial or political gain, may have colluded with and assisted in the efforts by a foreign government to affect the election. The extent of or involvement in these efforts is not fully known nor are the means used to attempt to accomplish any of the goals. Some of the US citizens alleged to have colluded in the effort to affect the election are currently, or have been, officials in some of the highest and/or most sensitive levels of the government. The scope and means in which the efforts were undertaken are serious breaches of the security and integrity of the US election process, the means actually rising to the level of outright criminality. Without the politics or partisan colorings, the above charges, on their own, are very serious allegations worthy of serious scrutiny, if not full prosecution, in the end. The results of Legislative hearings, the investigative probes, and, if necessary the judicial holdings, will set the standard for what is or is not acceptable conduct in regards to the election process and will expose any flaws and breaches in the system so they can, hopefully, be remedied. There really hasn't been any comprehensive review of the electoral system since the days of the first paper ballots; technology, and its benefits and flaws, is very new territory. When the Constitution was enacted, the degree and pervasiveness of current technology was absolutely unimaginable, yet we continue as if we still live in a time without instant communication and the ability to use technology to corrupt the election process. If we don't act now to get to the bottom of the problems of and with our election systems, if we kick the can further down the road, the next instance of someone or something tampering with the most basic and fundamental cornerstone of our democracy could have a far more serious and dangerous result than we are now facing. It may seem like a waste of time and effort, but the expenditure needed to address a far greater crisis later on may be much more than we can muster. Its like a roof: either fix the leaks and cracks now or be faced with having to replace the roof later on, or, worse, having the roof fall in on you...

As a by-the-way, if there is any doubt of the very real possibility of foreign efforts to influence or tamper with the last Presidential elections, there is this:

Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election --

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/...2016-election/

The NSA has not denied the origin, authorship, or accuracy of the document; in fact, the person who leaked the report has been arrested and has confessed to copying and passing on the report. Here is a link to the actual document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...arphishing.pdf

If there is any doubt of the need to settle the issue of foreign interference in the 2016 Elections and/or the active participation of US citizens in same, the above document should severely lessen any doubt. Who knew the greatest possible danger to the election process would come, not from home-grown "dead voters" but, rather, from foreign entities using modern technology? I don't know about anyone else, but the integrity of the election process is too important to just gloss over...




<O>

[ikalugin]

Interference or influence?

[vienna]

That's what investigation(s) will have to determine and that's why they are necessary...




<O>

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by vienna

That's what investigation(s) will have to determine and that's why they are necessary...




<O>

So there are reasonable reasons to believe that we interfered in the elections? From what I remember the official narrative was that there was no interference, if we use OP's terminology.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

So there are reasonable reasons to believe that we interfered in the elections? From what I remember the official narrative was that there was no interference, if we use OP's terminology.

Which official narrative? If you mean Russia's, that is already suspect and open to serious question; it is analogous to the police and investigators accepting the word of a bank robbery suspect as the absolute final truth; you might have to consider the suspect has more than a little incentive to lie...

If you mean the narrative of the Trump associates and their motivations, I refer you to the above paragraph...

If you mean the narrative of the data and activities surrounding the questions of influence or interference, I refer you to the multitude of reports and documents fully indicating something serious has occurred which warrants further investigation, if only to put to rest any questions and to ensure, if there has been any wrongdoing, it is appropriately addressed, and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence...

This attempt to shift the question from the actual core issues to a quibble over "influence" or "interference" is little more than a weak ploy to deflect from the issue; it is essentially a newer take on the old "What is is" question. It strongly gives the impression of, failing to adequately argue the facts or core issues, a fallback has been made to turn the argument from the substantive to the stylistic: we can't win the argument, so let's talk about the suits they're wearing. Weak...

If you really want to know if its influence or interference, I have a really great new suggestion: let's investigate properly and get a definitive answer...




<O>

[ikalugin]

Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.

Which official narrative?

The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?

If you mean the narrative of the data and activities surrounding the questions of influence or interference, I refer you to the multitude of reports and documents fully indicating something serious has occurred which warrants further investigation, if only to put to rest any questions and to ensure, if there has been any wrongdoing, it is appropriately addressed, and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence...

This attempt to shift the question from the actual core issues to a quibble over "influence" or "interference" is little more than a weak ploy to deflect from the issue; it is essentially a newer take on the old "What is is" question. It strongly gives the impression of, failing to adequately argue the facts or core issues, a fallback has been made to turn the argument from the substantive to the stylistic: we can't win the argument, so let's talk about the suits they're wearing. Weak...

If you really want to know if its influence or interference, I have a really great new suggestion: let's investigate properly and get a definitive answer...

First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus and there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.

Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing. As does for example Somalia.

Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).

[vienna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.

...

Oh, I assure you, I am most calm and measured in my demeanor; I have nothing to worry about other than the need to get to the truth of the matter, which can best be got at by investigation...

..and I have not made any personal attacks against you specifically, just the methodology of argument employed; if you take this as a personal affront, there is little I can do about it: bad argument is bad argument...

Originally Posted by ikalugin

...

The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?

...

No, but the NSA has:

From post #16 above --

...

As a by-the-way, if there is any doubt of the very real possibility of foreign efforts to influence or tamper with the last Presidential elections, there is this:

Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election --

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/...2016-election/

The NSA has not denied the origin, authorship, or accuracy of the document; in fact, the person who leaked the report has been arrested and has confessed to copying and passing on the report. Here is a link to the actual document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...arphishing.pdf

If there is any doubt of the need to settle the issue of foreign interference in the 2016 Elections and/or the active participation of US citizens in same, the above document should severely lessen any doubt. Who knew the greatest possible danger to the election process would come, not from home-grown "dead voters" but, rather, from foreign entities using modern technology? I don't know about anyone else, but the integrity of the election process is too important to just gloss over...

The provenance of the document is known and acknowledged; none of the agencies involved in the investigation of the leak, most notably the NSA, has expressed any doubt as to the authenticity of the document nor have they denied its actual existence. Other non-governmental intelligence experts have affirmed the document is real and have used the most elemental of clues to do so; the NSA has even acknowledged the copy was made on one of their internal machines through the very, very simple means of verifying the 'yellow dot' codes virtually all modern printers and copiers are required by US law to provide on all documents processed by those machines. So, we have the acknowledgement the document is a copy of an internal NSA report, we have the tacit acknowledgement, by virtue of the FBI arresting the 'leaker', that an actual theft of an official government document has occurred, and we have the fact neither the NSA nor any other investigative agency has openly or furtively denied the origin, content, or authenticity of the document. I fail to see a real substantive doubt anywhere in the mix. Can you provide documented, substantive evidence of any of the above to be false or would you like to have time to, you know, investigate?...

Originally Posted by ikalugin

...

First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.

Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing.

...

Still falling back on the weak leg: give us something solid...

Originally Posted by ikalugin

...

Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).

Please be so kind as to be specific: what in the above, specifically and substantively, can you point to as being totally false? I have, at the very least, provided cites and sources and have done actual research for my comments, something your 'apples/oranges' arguments are sorely lacking. It is time to show your hand...

As I said at the top, I am not emotional about this, far from it; I am calm, confident of the substance of my arguments and evidence and am not fearful of defending the specifics. If you feel honest, open, factual presentations are a personal affront to you, there is nothing I can do about it; you, however, can aid your cause by giving actual, specific counters to what you fell is erroneous or false; arguing semantics is not a strong argument...




<O>

[Razoleg]

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.

[Rockstar]

I grew up on the tail end of being taught to hide under our school desks in the event of nuclear war with Russia.

Some on the other hand claiming to be older are to this day very much influenced by the propaganda they grew up with and still see Russia as a threat to their manhood.

[Rockstar]

Your Truth Dollars will support all of your government investigations that will be needed to get to the bottom of the accusations!

[August]

Originally Posted by Razoleg

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.

Funny I've thought that exact same thing about your country too although it certainly proved insufficient to prevent the USSR from collapsing.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Razoleg

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.

You've stumbled on the ugly truth! Russia, solely responsible for the survival of the world! Sacrificing her very international reputation for the good of all. Probably not true, but certainly no more untrue than all the Russia haters like to portray.

Let's make a movie! If these Russia haters want to believe a lie we might as well make some money!

[Platapus]

It is part of the US culture that we have to have an adversary. Our MIC and very economy depends on it. Honestly, our culture depends on it. We are a fearful culture. But what made the US great is that we managed to turn fear into funding.

Terrorists are a good adversary but they are small, isolated threats and don't lend themselves to needing high cost military equipment to feed the MIC

North Korea is easy to hate, but they are still the JV when it comes to adversaries. No real growth there

Iran is always one of our favourites, but they don't seem to be doing much but trying to fix their own domestic problems. They just won't come out and play with us. So unfair.

China? China is too busy making money while trying not to act too capitalistic. China likes making money and won't do anything as long as they are still in the manufacturing driver's seat. As soon as manufacturing moves to Africa, we can start worrying about China.

Who to hate? Who to hate? That's the question.

Mexico? Nah they are no national threat and we don't want to really end the war on drugs. Almost as much money can be made fighting drugs than can be made supplying them. Lots of money in for profit prisons.

Canada? Too cold and I like their beers

Germany? Been there done that. Twice. No money

France? Well if it were up to me...

Hmmm

Russia. Hey, there is always Russia. Best thing that happened to the US was the cold war. Great for science and great for the economy and we still have a generation that was taught to hate them commies.

So what if technically Russia aint commie any more, it will be good enough. If Russia was commie enough for me, they are commie enough for the younger generation!

Sorry Russia, You are still our BFF Best Frenemies for Ever.

Just play along this time and we can both make money.

Too cynical? Meh

[Razoleg]

Yes, definitely. This is how some people have been taught in my country - if there's nobody to blame but yourself, then it's usually shifted to those pesky aliens and/or Americans. Some hard Stalin-loving commies still think that way.

Still, out of all the countries in the world I find we have the sacred task of keeping the whole thing from collapsing in on itself (because we've technically advanced so much in the business of trying to kill each other that eventually these weapons have to serve a "higher purpose" of hunting down ISIS and the like). Just like we vetoed Israel, Britain and France when they started the war against Egypt and it almost went nuclear. Just like we both pulled our forces back in Korea, because it was getting nowhere, and just like the Caribbean Missile Crisis ended with a talk, not with exchange of WMDs.

Frenemies is the right term. When SHTF I believe we'll be in the same foxhole, just like the first 2 world wars. Until then, agreed, let's make the dosh off all these shenanigans and throw piles of dung at each other. It doesn't stick, I would hope to believe.

P.S. Let's make a movie. Still love your K-19, would hope that someday my country would make one about brave US submariners (at least about those that served in the pacific), however lately it's been a giant marathon of "NKVD saves the day in 1941 by catching evil assassin ninja Nazis in Stalin's bedroom" kind of thing.

[Mr Quatro]

I have a plan ... lets only let two qualified people run for office, Republican or Democrat, male or female, white or black, that no matter which one wins America wins with them.

Don't like that plan?

Plan two ... we use the old European and still used today in some countries way of telling who has voted by dipping the right thumb into a bottle of ink, but now we add a little radioactive particles that can easily be scanned as proof that you have voted.

My earlier posting is still true they just want to prove that they are more intelligent than we are without having to resort to missiles, rockets, planes, tanks and bombs.

The problem is not going to go away ... They won't stop. They are breeding copy cats as we speak.