Senate Says, "Hell yes, Putin wanted Trump for President

I will agree that Congressional investigations have gotten COMPLETELY out of the scope of their Constitutional authority.

Congress claims an implied power to gather information regarding legislation and to provide oversight to the Executive Branch (mostly because the House holds the purse.)

There was never any Constitutional intent that justifies this side-show political kabuki.

a reply to: seagull


True, a Russian influence campaign isn’t novel. Hacking the DNC and RNC (yes but why wasn’t their dirt released? Hmmm...) and Podesta, that is a crime. Russia, according to our IC, has also hacked into our infrastructure such as water and power grids. Is that what we expect from an ally? Sounds rather ominous and cyber warfare-like to me.

Now about the Russian Active Measures campaign against our democracy...

It would be a problem if, say, the Trump Campaign coordinated with Russia on this, or plans were made with Trump’s knowledge (or his campaign’s) and he/they did not report them to the FBI, stuff like that. But that’s Mueller’s job, and not the scope of the IC report.

It is also a problem if Trump is compromised by Russian dirt, ie money laundering criminal activity. See, if he’s siding with Putin after Putin attacks us and is currently attacking us, then maybe that isn’t a good thing.

Sure, lots of ifs and no links on my post, I know. I’m tired. It’s all out there though if you’re interested in why people are concerned about Trump and the Russians. Have at it if you will, if not, my linking it here is most likely a waste of time.

a reply to: AboveBoard

The U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election. In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

NBC News

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sine.nomine

So what's the problem again?

Nutshell,

Trump says "Putin says he didn't" do it. The administration taken no stand against further Russian influence.

Or, is that not a problem?

Start with Obama who stood down and did nothing to counter Russian influence.

Russia will attempt to undermine anyone perceived to have power in the US. In 2016 it was Hillary, the whole world expected her to win. In 2020 it will be Trump.

Wonder who Putin tried to undermine in 2012. Nobody because Obama told him in an off mic moment he will have more flexibility after the election, we only know because the mic was live when he leaned over and told Putin's guy. Mega massive Russian collusion by Obama. This explains why Obama stood down and let the Russians do whatever they wanted in 2016.

Maybe Trump should stage a live mic during their upcoming meeting and lean over to Putin and tell him the same thing Obama said, just for the trolls. I mean it was ok when Obama did it. Picture it now, Trump leans in then tells Putin "I will have more flexibility after the midterms" lol it would be epic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah

This does not mean that Trump had anything to do with Russia's attempts.

Right.

Why does Trump continue to take Putin's side? Why does the administration not denounce Russia's efforts?

Could it be because they like the results? More please. Do it some more. Undermining faith the U . S . democratic proces is good. More please.


I'm sure the Moscow meeting will go well.

Are you not trying to undermine faith in the democratic process right now with this thread?

Trump was democratically elected. The onus is on you, the Senate committee, and the ICA to prove that Russia directly influenced the vote. Which is going to be near impossible for people like me that were on board the Trump Train in 2015, before there was any indication that he could even win the nomination.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Get over it. Trump won!

Your Orwellian double-speak is stunning though ... the thread is arguing that Russia worked to undermine our election so reporting on the Senate's investigation into that is actually undermining our election and government?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sine.nomine

So what's the problem again?

Nutshell,

Trump says "Putin says he didn't" do it. The administration taken no stand against further Russian influence.

Or, is that not a problem?

Start with Obama who stood down and did nothing to counter Russian influence.

Russia will attempt to undermine anyone perceived to have power in the US. In 2016 it was Hillary, the whole world expected her to win. In 2020 it will be Trump.

Wonder who Putin tried to undermine in 2012. Nobody because Obama told him in an off mic moment he will have more flexibility after the election, we only know because the mic was live when he leaned over and told Putin's guy. Mega massive Russian collusion by Obama. This explains why Obama stood down and let the Russians do whatever they wanted in 2016.

Maybe Trump should stage a live mic during their upcoming meeting and lean over to Putin and tell him the same thing Obama said, just for the trolls. I mean it was ok when Obama did it. Picture it now, Trump leans in then tells Putin "I will have more flexibility after the midterms" lol it would be epic.

Might want to ask Mitch McConnell about his threats when Obama went to Congress about it before.
Biden: McConnell stopped Obama from calling out Russians

Biden said he and former President Barack Obama worried that without a united front of bipartisanship, speaking out before the election would undermine the legitimacy of the election and American institutions in a way that would play into the Russians’ larger ambitions.

“Can you imagine if the president called a press conference in October, with this fella, Bannon, and company, and said, ‘Tell you what: Russians are trying to interfere in our elections and we have to do something about it,’” Biden said. “What do you think would have happened? Would things have gotten better, or would it further look like we were trying to delegitimize the electoral process, because of our opponent?”

McConnell’s office disputed this account, pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking.

That missive, however, did not address Russia specifically, or the larger topic of influence beyond voting systems.

“The Obama administration requested that the Congressional leaders send this letter and they all did. It’s publicly available on the Internet for all to see,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell.

But a former Obama White House official on Tuesday afternoon echoed Biden's frustration with the Senate majority leader, pointing to the way Obama's White House chief of staff Denis McDonough described the dispute in an op-ed last summer.

“Our administration's interest in making sure the response was bipartisan wasn't for the sake of being bipartisan. It was necessary because we needed the buy-in from state and local election administrators (many of whom were Republican partisans and/or skeptical of federal government),” the official argued in an email. “Unfortunately, as is well documented, Senator McConnell was unwilling to help — only making matters worse.”

Things don't happen in a vacuum.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It's not really fair to claim that the Obama Administration "did nothing" is it?

Administration officials warning off their counterparts in the Russian govenrment; Obama directly warning Putin himself in person, the report and sanctions the day after Election Day ... that can't be construed as "nothing."

What can be called NOTHING or worse, however, is Mr. Trump's approach ... who keeps denying that these attacks even happened.

trump supporters don't care and they don't want putin to stop. they clearly need the help because they've done nothing to stop him from doing it again.

hell, he hacked into our power grid and trump did nothing.

he's weak.




here's a russian bot tracker - link

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Get over it. Trump won!

Your Orwellian double-speak is stunning though ... the thread is arguing that Russia worked to undermine our election so reporting on the Senate's investigation into that is actually undermining our election and government?

Seeing what you want to see again, Gryph?

Go on tilting at windmills.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Get over it. Trump won!

Your Orwellian double-speak is stunning though ... the thread is arguing that Russia worked to undermine our election so reporting on the Senate's investigation into that is actually undermining our election and government?

Seeing what you want to see again, Gryph?

Go on tilting at windmills.

Still trying to excuse the weakness of your argument with ad hom Wardaddy?

I'm not the topic; move on.

a reply to: knoxie

Yeah we didn't see #walkaway being made out as a Russian op coming a mile away..

That website is complete bunk

Mike Chertoff (top name on their advisory board) endorsed Clinton in 2016.

Scroll down farther, You find the one and only John Podesta, Clinton's campaign strategist and chair of Hillary for America.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then I guess you shouldn't accuse people or "Orwellian double speak" when they aren't the topic either.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Can you dispute the data the website monitors and presents?

Data is data.

a reply to: Phage

What is your point? What Russia wants/did is immaterial. Unless you can prove (which you can't) Trump was directly and knowingly involved in a criminal action, then you're still wasting your time.

Come on Phage, you're better than this. Get your TDS checked out.

Who cares what Russia wanted? Trolling on the Internet isn't a crime, and has no effect on intelligent adults casting votes. Both sides had made up their minds who they were voting for well before the actual election. That is why Hillary's gross criminal negligence with her emails didn't hurt her, and why the false accusations against Trump all those women made up didn't hurt him.

If you want to win in 2018/2020, I'd suggest dropping the tin-foil Russia theories. They aren't becoming, at all. At least provide some evidence. And not "FBI/CIA = high confidence, NSA = medium confidence" That is bull#, and means nothing. Those same agencies were headed by partisan hacks like Peter Strozok, James Clapper, etc.

Going to need to see some actual hard evidence before I'd even consider giving a damn about this. And regardless, none of that even matters unless you can ALSO prove Trump was directly and knowingly involved in an illegal conspiracy.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then I guess you shouldn't accuse people or "Orwellian double speak" when they aren't the topic either.

Then posts shouldn't center around blatant and self-contradictory lies.

I addressed the post; you addressed your conception of me.

/shrug

I've joked about this before, but it's kind of not a joke. In fact, it's the reason why there is anyone who doesn't believe the "Russia hacked our election" story.

I know a few here show a position of being really smart, I know the OP is one who has taken the position of being correct in almost every instance. And rightfully so usually.

But in all sincerity, as I stated, if you or anyone here honestly knew what this was all about and understood it, you/they could explain it simply like you were doing it to a 5 year old. If you think about topics you are passionate about, you will understand what that really means.

So you can do your drive by posts to gain slaps on the ass from your butties, or you can put me in my place by explaining this simply, so all can understand what "Russia" really did to us. At this point, it's all ambiguity and confusion.

If you have no clue, be a man and just say so. I don't, I really don't get it. Really. And based on the responses, I'm not alone.

a reply to: JBurns

The point is that the Senate Intelligence Committee just confirmed IC findings of Russian interference in our election in 2016 after more than a year's review ... which directly contradicts the Nunes report in the House which the President has been crowing proves "no collusion."

a reply to: Gryphon66

And you talk to me about weak arguments.

Tell me, how do they come by this information? And does the average Joe have access to it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you believe the Senate vs. the House, why is that?

Who CARES about election "interference?" (whatever that means)

You don't think WE interfer in elections? Or that Russia/EU/China/every other country HAS NOT interfered in every other US election? News: they have!

This is a non-issue that bitter clingers are using to harm a legitimate US President. If the left wasn't currently using this nonsense to attack Trump (which there is still ZERO evidence Trump committed any crimes, which is the only thing that has ever mattered), it may be easier to swallow.

But I simply don't trust demonstrated hacks like Diane Feinstein or her counter-parts at FBI/CIA/NSA (like Peter Strozok, Comey, Page, Ohr, Clapper, etc)