SSCI Finds Russians Interfered in 2016 USA Election

[Zzzptm]

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Released just a few hours before a major US holiday because it's uncomfortable information. Nevertheless, it contradicts Putin's and Trump's position that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence also found that the US intelligence community did good work in determining the Russian involvement in the election and that the intel wasn't influenced by questionable sources (meaning the controversial Steele Dossier).

This finding comes not from a source hostile to Republican leadership, but from high-ranking members of the party itself. It arrived in a way calculated to minimize its impact, but arrive it did.

The SSCI has not yet released a finding on whether or not the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign.

Those are the facts as neutral as I can put them - now we can discuss.

[Typhon]

To my knowledge, President Trump never definitively stated that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election medaling.

[Sicko FanAtic]

To my knowledge, President Trump never definitively stated that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election medaling.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/

While true there was never a "definitive statement" there was a good deal of "brushing it aside" perhaps?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Typhon]

^^^^^^
Brushing aside and stating something are 2 completely different things.  Your link does not reveal a recording or a tweet where Trump said Russia did not meddle, because it never happened.

[Billy Underdog]

It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)

[Charger]

Well I don't think that's a real surprise that Russia might have played a role (how big and how important that's anyone's guess) in the election...hell I think they have been trying to influence elections all over the world for years now with their hacks and what nots...

Did the russians involvement got Trump elected? No...absolutely not...but I don't think anyone in their right mind would even think that though...

Also was Trump aware of any Russian involvement during his campaign? No...if someone in his staff would have been involved (which I also doubt but knowing politics it is certainly possible) they would have made it sure that the candidate would not have any knowlage of any wrong doing (or questionable partnerships or what ever) so that they can have 100% plausable deniability.


On a side note Russia also involved in the presidential elections here in Finland. Some hackers from Russia had more than 10000 twitter bots and some false media posting comments and fake news about ALL candidates...So yeah...it's nothing uncommon...but is it Russian goverment sanctioned stuff? Who knows...probably not.

[Axefiend]

Pfffft, Russia. what is it, 1980 around here?

[Zzzptm]

^ Re. Finland: Russia likes to stir up trouble at all extremes. Some countries, the extremists on the left are more radical. Others, the extremists on the right are the ones that are more likely to start stuff. Russia doesn't care.

There was Russian agitation that spurred on antifa activists in the USA, but their violence/brazenness did not equal that of the white supremacists in the USA in recent years.

And, yes, I do think that getting the white supremacist vote out was a key part of GOP success in 2016. It's also a strong reason that younger voters are becoming very active in opposing GOP policy and candidates.

[Typhon]

It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)

So sticking with the facts is reaching for straws now.  

[Sicko FanAtic]

What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Zzzptm]

It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)

So sticking with the facts is reaching for straws now.  

Now, one could hardly accuse Mr. Trump of sticking to facts...

I see it differently, as regards support for the current president. He's got no real ties to senators or congressmen in his party, no relationships that have developed over the years, so it's all ideological or nothing with them. And while he's got stronger support in the House than in the Senate, it's still a split within the party that the party itself can't patch back together. As for the Senate, the several moderate GOP senators will essentially torpedo any move that's too far to the right for their tastes.

Supreme Court nominee, for example. If it's a nominee that can't speak convincingly about Roe v Wade as established law, move on, then that nominee will not get past the Senate. I'd guess that only a moderate Republican judge with the ability to swing ever so slightly would get through prior to the next session of Congress.

But for the hardest supporters for Trump, there are quite a few facts that are uncomfortable to accept and then reconcile with their standards. This is a man who has confessed to an attitude of general sexual harassment, who cheated on multiple wives, and had that affair with the actress that's got him in a legal mess. How is this guy family-friendly? Lots of anti-abortion rights groups are counting on him to stack the court with judges that will overturn Roe. If he appoints a guy that won't do the job, what point do they have in supporting Trump any more, beyond "he's not a Democrat." If his trade squabbles kill markets for US goods, the farmers and businessmen that lost those markets are going to have to reconcile their support with their economic state. Do they support him and accept their loss as a sacrifice for the nation, or do they move support to another guy that will get their markets back?

I think the GOP may see a challenger to Trump in the 2020 elections, should Trump make it that far. If the Democrats win big in 2018, and they might just, then it might be possible that Trump resigns in disgust.

[Typhon]

What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?

No, not saying that.  I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016. 

[Sicko FanAtic]

What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?

No, not saying that.  I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.

Aha! Derp on me.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Typhon]

But for the hardest supporters for Trump, there are quite a few facts that are uncomfortable to accept and then reconcile with their standards. This is a man who has confessed to an attitude of general sexual harassment, who cheated on multiple wives, and had that affair with the actress that's got him in a legal mess. How is this guy family-friendly?

Even if any of this were true (I'm sure some is and some is not), now you are reminding me of the 1990s when a lot of people (mostly republicans) were upset because then President Clinton may have been screwing around on his wife.  Coincidentally, another President who had the economy running great.  I didn't give a damn about that stuff then, and I don't give a damn about that stuff now.

[Typhon]

What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?

No, not saying that.  I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.

Aha! Derp on me.

No problem buddy.  I probably should have highlighted the specific part of Zzz's post that I was responding to.