Author Topic: The Clinton campaign and the DNC  (Read 1034 times)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2017, 10:54:19 AM »
Quote
And you see the cogs turning in the man's head and the sound of the machinery screaching. And then the man evades and evades again - he won't answer the question. Why? Because he knows it's a trap - and a great one. Kudos to Blitzer for exposing the hypocrisy.

The trap being, of course, the fact that people think he would be using the word "rigged" the same way Trump was using it. ;)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2017, 11:41:10 AM »
The trap being, of course, the fact that people think he would be using the word "rigged" the same way Trump was using it. ;)

Can you clearly outline the different ways in which the term has been used, and how that may cause confusion?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2017, 11:51:44 AM »
Here are just a few instances of exactly what you seem to have forgotten, all pre-dating election night.  There are probably a dozen more where those came from.

Obama administration: October 19 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html
Obama administration: October 8, 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
US Defense Secretary: September 7, 2016: http://www.newsweek.com/ash-carter-russia-hacks-putin-elections-trump-clinton-warns-496459
Hillary Clinton: October 19 2016: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Obama administration: October 8, 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election


--Democrats complaining about being caught with their pants down. Oh, and it hasn't been established if that was a Russian Hack or DNC leak. Further, on the scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst. I'm still rating that one as .5 so far as "nefarious acts" are concerned. IF a foreign government want's to actively involve themselves in exposing our politicians in being dishonest with their own people. Have at it. I'd rather the crooks be outed.

Hillary Clinton: October 19 2016: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

--More complaining about Wikileaks and DNC data demonstrating Democrat malfeasance that many/most people outside the DNC are having a hard time getting outraged over.

US Defense Secretary: September 7, 2016: [url=http://www.newsweek.com/ash-carter-russia-hacks-putin-elections-trump-clinton-warns-496459]http://www.newsweek.com/ash-carter-russia-hacks-putin-elections-trump-clinton-warns-496459

--News report warning that the russians may try to hack the ballot box. For which there is only evidence that they might have been considering it, but no evidence that they actually did.

Obama administration: October 19 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html

And another article about how the Russians might attempt to hack the election results. Which again there is no evidence they actually did.

Complaining about their potentially tampering with the ballot box is a completely different thing than complaining about a large scale (dis)information campaign potentially shifting the electoral outcome.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2017, 11:56:52 AM »
The big incident that I think is being trumpeted falsely is the DNC leak, which has never been proven or demonstrated in any acceptable way to be Russian hacking, and yet this incident is, to whit, ground zero for the claim that Russia rigged the election. And that's exactly why the protests beginning one minute after Hillary lost are mealy mouthed, because it's plain as day that the DNC was upset at their dirty laundry being aired more so than by the fact of Russia doing what they always do. They finally got caught with their pants down and have been screaming about it ever since. Is it any surprise they'll blame everyone but themselves? This is really the worst part of it, that no responsibility has ever been taken and no move towards change made. They have no regrets except that they were caught

Pretty much. Which is a lot of makes me go /yawn because they're blaming the Russians for the DNC acting in a corrupt manner. Which is weird.

Quote
and that's why their protests against Russia ring as hollow, even thought as Donald points out that doesn't exactly exonerate Russia from anything.

Eh. I'll go out on a limb and say I'm reasonably okay with foreign governments, any of them, exposing real corruption within our own system.

I'm not a fan of disinformation or other forms of propaganda campaigns, but what kind of response is warranted to that is a much more complicated matter.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2017, 12:19:41 PM »
Regarding the DNC 'hack':

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/20/more-holes-in-russia-gate-narrative/

The two writers are NSA/CIA experts on cyber-intelligence.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2017, 12:40:30 PM »
The trap being, of course, the fact that people think he would be using the word "rigged" the same way Trump was using it. ;)

Can you clearly outline the different ways in which the term has been used, and how that may cause confusion?

The thing is that "rigged" is a general term, much like the word "sick."

"Sick" means that you are fighting a disease, but that could mean anything from a mild cold to stage 4 cancer.  "Rigged" meant the election was unfairly manipulated, but that could mean anything from miscounting votes to destroying votes.

So you have to look at what each person meant by "rigged."

Trump meant that people were illegally voting, by either voting more than once or by voting when they had no right to vote (such as the purported "illegals" voting).  I gather this is what the President meant from the investigation by his commission on illegal voting.

Brooks meant (I'm guessing here, since I didn't hear the interview) voter suppression, by counties losing voter registration, closing polls before voters had the ability to vote, and other such means.

The trap here is if he called it "rigging," people might mistake it to mean the same thing that Trump meant, and would crow, "See, even the NAACP admits Trump was right!"  But it wouldn't be true.  Just because they use the same term of "rigging," they don't mean the same thing.  In fact, they meant the opposite thing.

This reflects the confusion about Democrats crying "Rigged!" after the election.  They aren't crying "Illegal voting!" like Trump was before the election.  They are crying "Russian meddling!"  The results may be the same, but the causes are entirely different, which makes the meaning of "Rigged!" entirely different. 

The election may be been rigged, but not in the way Trump thinks it was, so he is still wrong.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2017, 02:24:06 PM »
The hypocrisy comes from the fact that Brooks and others like him were lambasting Trump for undermining the integrity of the system by making unsubstantiated claims. Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.

It was not about the content of the allegations and whether or not they were correct, but the impact of making those allegations on the integrity of the process. Trump's opponents, including Brooks, were essentially accusing Trump of scorched earth tactics designed to destroy the legitimacy of the next President, thereby undermining her ability to govern and perhaps even future Presidents. That is until the next President became Trump and not Clinton.

Brooks's discomfort, in my view, was not due to a fear that his allegations would literally be conflated with Trump's but rather that by using the same wording as Trump, it would be obvious that he was doing the very thing he and others had accused Trump of doing - poisoning the well for the next President and for future presidents. In this context the truth or falsehood of Brooks's allegations were utterly irrelevent.

The facts Brooks used to justify his claims, whether regarding Russian interference or voter suppression, were nothing new and were well understood prior to the election. It's not like Brooks had new evidence. The only thing that changed was who won the election - which is why the radical change in his rhetoric (literally overnight!) came across as so utterly disingenuous, partisan and hypocritical.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 02:26:45 PM by jasonr »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2017, 05:09:33 PM »
TheDaemon, you completely missed the point of that post - it was in response to the claim that the DNC/Obama/Clinton/the Democrats waited until after they lost, and only then did they bring up Russian malfeasance - which is clearly not true, as evidenced by the links provided.

You might think them whinging, you might think their complaints unworthy, but to state that the time to "decry Russian interference was before the election night" is to suggest that the Democrats did not do so prior to the election day.  Which is simply not true.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2017, 05:13:45 PM »
Quote
Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.
Making those false allegations does hurt US democracy. Making particular true claims would be painful, maybe, but would in the long term allow the country to address the identified issues...  in a perfect world, where partisanship hasn't caused the country to fall into insanity.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2017, 07:02:30 PM »
Quote
Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.
Making those false allegations does hurt US democracy. Making particular true claims would be painful, maybe, but would in the long term allow the country to address the identified issues...  in a perfect world, where partisanship hasn't caused the country to fall into insanity.

Yet the facts supporting these claims, true or not, were known prior to the election night, and no new evidence emerged that significantly changed the picture yet at no point did Brooks or any of the Democrats claim that if Clinton lost the election it would be because the process was rigged. Their rhetoric did a 180 degree turn immediately following Hillary's defeat.

The Brooks interview stood out in my mind because I specifically remember him being interviewed immediately before the election and making explicit claims that Trump's rhetoric was dangerous and irresponsible because it would undermine the electorate's faith in the process .

I nearly burst out laughing when I watched his interview immediately after the election and he was pretty well doing the very thing he accused Trump of doing.

It was like watching a baseball player who just got beat by a comeback grand slam in the bottom of the 9th inning, rage against a bad umpire call against his team back in the 4th inning, after claiming in the top of the 9th that the other team were a bunch of babies for making their own complaints about the umpiring. It was just so nakedly self-serving and disingenuous. It was rhetorical whiplash.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 07:07:30 PM by jasonr »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2017, 08:11:59 PM »
Quote
In fact, Russia's not the only country that pushes propaganda into our country and election process...

I haven't heard about this, Seriati.  What other countries have pushed propaganda into the U.S., and how?

Sure you have, you just don't always put 2 and 2 together.  The Chinese, for example, have been running an opinion and notorious propaganda effort at us for years, you can even find their official propaganda papers online.  Just saw an article on their use of Facebook on the down low as well. 

Most terrorist regimes are famous for their propaganda efforts in the regimes, where they seek to draw new recruits.

Everyone in the middle east including our allies Israel and Saudi Arabia has an active propaganda effort aimed at influencing our public in their direction.  The Saudi's in particular are famous for propaganda with a religious focus. 

Even our European allies aren't above their own form of influencing international "reports" to cover more political than scientific results, and to produce materials targetted at US consumers on their preferred global world view.

Heck, do a search for just about any country and propaganda in the united states and you get results.  There are some exceptions, but less than you'd think among countries that have any real international presence.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2017, 12:21:50 PM »
I did a quick Google search and found a few articles on Chinese propaganda, such as a NY Times article on Chinese propaganda on Facebook and this testimony from the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  From this very limited search I was struck by one thing.

Chinese propaganda, as reported, is not like what the Russians tried to do to influence our election.

The Chinese propaganda seems to be, as Jacqueline Deal said in her testimony, "trying to influence or shape American perceptions of, and policies toward, China."  This seems to be more of a lobbying effort than anything else.

The Russian influence is quite different.  In the example I linked to in another thread, the Russians made posts in Facebook claiming they were Texans and tried to get people to attend a rally against Islamic immigrants.  They also posted on the United Muslims of America page, trying to get people to attend a rally at the same place to "Save Islamic Knowledge" (as DonaldD quoted in that thread).  These posts were obviously not trying to influence American perceptions toward Russia, but rather simply cause strife among us.

The intent and methods used are so different, I wouldn't even call what Russia did as "propaganda."  I'm not sure what to call it.

If you have some different links that show China, Europe or some other countries engaging in this type of Russian behavior, I would love to see it.  But from what I can see so far, what Russia did goes beyond mere propaganda and into a new realm of international disruptive influence, which makes it more newsworthy than the propaganda we have previously seen.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #62 on: November 09, 2017, 12:58:11 PM »
I agree with you more than a bit.  What the Russian's got caught doing is far more active information warfare than what we've caught anyone else doing.  I suspect if we went back and looked for it we'd find more examples from other parties with an interest in disrupting us, but the scale of it here is something new.  More like true information warfare than anything else (which by the way, the Chinese are the global leaders in information warfare against the US, if you consider the intentional hacking and theft of intellectual property).

I mean every day a new layer of the onion.  Look at Fusion GPS, a blackmark on everyone right.  I saw a couple of days ago that they met with the Russian team that met with Trump Jr., both before and after the meeting.  In the context of Fusion being paid to insert Russian fueled propaganda against Trump into the system, that wrap on the meeting sure makes it look like the meeting was a deliberate honey trap.  Granted Trump Jr.  fell for it, not being a career politician, but it's looks like a direct set up in that context.  How do you deal with that kind of effort being thrown against a campaign?  How do you hold it against Trump Jr. for "meeting" with a Russian to potentially pay for dirt on the other campaign, when it may be that the other campaign was paying to involve that Russian in the meeting in the first place? 

And they were doing it to both campaigns, which guaranteed a scandal after the fact no matter who won.

I don't buy the Trump is working with the Russians angle.  It's clear as day that the Russians were trying to sow discord and taint the election (whether or not they could actually impact it).

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2017, 01:14:22 PM »
The only caveat I would add to Seriati's post is that I do think the level of attack on the two campaigns wasn't quite at parity. I think there's good evidence that both Putin and Assange in their own way seemed to have a vendetta against Hillary in particular, but the trouble there is to short circuit the logic process and conclude that therefore they were colluding with Trump or even supporting him. I don't think that was the case but I can see why some people think so. For my money it should come as no surprise that Hillary had serious enemies and that this would come back to haunt her once she became the Democratic nominee. The fact is that Trump, not having had any public office previously, simply didn't have the background to have made the kinds of enemies I think Hillary had. You can say what you want about what that says about his credentials, but it doesn't surprise me at all that people would come out of the woodwork to destroy her while not quite having as much of a beef with him.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2017, 01:17:17 PM »
Theft of industrial IP is industrial espionage, quite separate from information warfare or a disinformation campaign.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2017, 01:35:59 PM »
I don't buy the Trump is working with the Russians angle.  It's clear as day that the Russians were trying to sow discord and taint the election (whether or not they could actually impact it).

We have emails verifying the offers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-jr-tweets-his-emails-led-russia-meeting-n781736

We have emails and public statements verifying the meetings of his top staff with Russian operatives.

Quote
President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by the president’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

And another Trump campaign aide just admitted meeting with the Russians, after having previously lied about it.

Quote
During seven hours of closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 2, Page contradicted his previous public denials of any meetings with Russian government officials. He also urged the campaign to send Trump to Moscow instead of him to “raise the temperature a little bit,” according to an email obtained by the committee.

Page became at least the ninth member of President Trump’s campaign team or White House staff to confirm direct contact with senior officials in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government during the 2016 campaign or during the transition, a pattern that has created a growing headaches for the White House.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-russia-page-20171106-story.html



 We have Trump holding a press conference shortly after his son sets up the meeting with the Russian operative, that Trump plans to release dirt on Clinton.

Quote
Hours after Donald Trump Jr confirmed a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss information on Hillary Clinton, his father promised to make a speech with new information about his former rival for the US presidency. 

“I think you’re going to find it very informative and very very interesting,” the US leader said, adding that it would likely take place next week.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jr-hillary-clinton-russia-email-press-conference-dirt-democratic-us-president-election-a7836826.html

We have a large number of his staff failing to disclose their contact with Russian nationals on federal disclosure forms, and lying under oath that no such contact occurred, and lying under oath that they knew of no such contact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/3-times-jeff-sessions-made-false-statements-to-congress-under-oath/

I'm really curious what rational explanation you have for all of the above.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2017, 01:48:10 PM »
That's easy!

That they are not professional politicians.  Therefore, it's "OK", and you just gotta expect this kinda stuff.  Price you pay to drain the swamp.  Yer bound to get a little muddy!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2017, 02:25:03 PM »
Quote
I'm really curious what rational explanation you have for all of the above.

I don’t believe that, not for a second. Citing Mother Jones? Might as well cite Alex Jones. The NYT and LA Times have been running hyperpartisan  hit pieces on Trump for so long they might as well be Mother Jones. When you bury yourself in these types of propaganda outlets, you’re not looking for rational explanations, you’re not even looking at all.

You know that FusionGPS set up the Russian meeting, briefing the Russian agent before and after the meeting and that the meeting was largely a waste of time. You also know that the DNC and Clinton as well as Obama have direct ties to FusionGPS and Russia through very lucrative financial transactions. You don’t have any curiosity about that.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2017, 02:59:38 PM »
Theft of industrial IP is industrial espionage, quite separate from information warfare or a disinformation campaign.

It's really not for a communist society where the government owns the vast majority of the industries involved, and where they routinely target industries that develop proprietary tech for the other government and it's military and defense partners.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2017, 03:44:41 PM »
I don't buy the Trump is working with the Russians angle.  It's clear as day that the Russians were trying to sow discord and taint the election (whether or not they could actually impact it).

We have emails verifying the offers.

I have emails with all kinds of offers in my in-box, that doesn't represent me "working with" anyone.  In fact, it's complete nonsense to cite as evidence that Trump was working with the Russians, emails that clearly demonstrate the Russians were trying to solicit the campaign to start working with the Russians.  It's doubly so, when you can see from the facts now in the record that the approach was made to a political neophyte, was designed to play on a fairly complex legal issue (opposition dirt and research is perfectly legal, even if unsolicited, but, and its a big but, not if it's coming from a foreign national  in a way that violates campaign laws).  When you couple the fact  the meeting seems to have been coordinated by the other political  party or its agents who were in fact working with the Russians in setting up the meeting and paying foreign agents, and that it seems to have been deliberately set up to produce evidence of a technical violation of the campaign restriction (the fact that the conversation wasn't about dirt, but the email trail was, provides cover to the Russians involved to deny any illegal intent while still providing the evidence need to try to establish the campaign violation) and frankly, you have to believe a convoluted and disingenous set of facts to see it as the Trump campaign "working with the Russians."

What did I miss? 

Quote
We have emails and public statements verifying the meetings of his top staff with Russian operatives.

Yes you have the same emails that have always inexplicably been on false pretenses for the meeting itself.  If you twist one fact, ie that they were deliberately set up, then the reason falls right into line.  If you don't then all you really have is evidence that Trump Jr. didn't know about, understand or possibly care about a campaign finance law, really wanted to help his dad and was gullible and that sophisticated Russian operatives who wanted to "help" the Trump campaign decided the best way to do it was to create an email record of potentially illegal actions to cover up a meeting that only makes sense if the Trump campaign wins the election and even then not really.  Nothing about that remotely demonstrates the campaign was "working with the Russians," in fact it's pretty directly hostile to the campaign.

Virtually everything else you cite is little more than drawing innuendo from the fact that international businessmen talk to Russian nationals from time to time.  Again, big whoop.  I've said it before, find me any person who lives in NYC and doesn't talk to or know a Russian national and I'll show you a shut in or a coma patient.

Quote
We have a large number of his staff failing to disclose their contact with Russian nationals on federal disclosure forms, and lying under oath that no such contact occurred, and lying under oath that they knew of no such contact.

Mostly what you have is stretching beyond the scope of what the form requires.   Contact with Russian nationals is not required to be disclosed on any of the forms.  Are you aware of that, or are you only relating second hand rumor?

Quote
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

This has already been asked and answered.  The rumor that is reported there was further clarified, maybe you missed it.  I don't know why you guys are so worked up about Kushner's erroneous early filing, when he told the government the very next day it was erroneous and would be supplemented.  In any event, I wrote up a substantial response on it in the other thread and unless you have new information (or you care to address the analysis head on) I consider the point refuted.

Quote
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/3-times-jeff-sessions-made-false-statements-to-congress-under-oath/

Lol.  In my view this is just stupid. 

The first example, re: Franken's question is just blatant wishful thinking.  It comes no where close to the level required for perjury, which is exactly why no one has even tried to bring charges on it.  In my view, it discredits any article it appears.

Second one is just as dumb.  Literally relies on the Russian ambassador's statements about the meeting (which were either leaked by the Russians, or intercepted - which the Russian's know we do - and then leaked by the US), which given that you guys are upset about a deliberate Russian campaign to discredit the election and the US government is an odd reliance.  In any event, Session's response is directly responsive to the question and literally true.

And the third item is just a restatement of Franken again.  Where Sessions asserted what I said in item 1 that what he said was an honest response and confirmed he didn't talk to the Russians and he wasn't aware that anyone else did either.  And again, all that "contradicts" this is a claim that Sessions was at a meeting where the idea of contacting the Russians was shot down and that according to sources he knew Page would be traveling to Russia.  Which your "source" helpfully boils down to "ongoing contacts with Russia" as if touching Russian soil is a test, rather than what's actually the test.

Quote
I'm really curious what rational explanation you have for all of the above.

I honestly don't feel like you are.  All of the above barely even qualifies as circumstantial evidence, that fact that you think it needs even more explanation is what baffles me.  How about this, go back and read the Sessions stuff, but start with one premise different.  Read it as if Sessions is telling the truth and that he wasn't aware of any contacts with the Russian government, then consider how the answers would have been the same or different if he was aware of it and was intentionally covering it up.  Tell us what you honestly  come up with.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 03:47:28 PM by Seriati »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2017, 12:35:21 PM »
The only caveat I would add to Seriati's post is that I do think the level of attack on the two campaigns wasn't quite at parity.

I agree with you by the way, but I wonder if you're thinking through all the ramifications.  Think about this, what if you recast the meeting with Don Jr. as an attack on President Clinton.

Let's assume Hillary won, and it comes out that her campaign caused the DNC to make payments to Russian nationals for the specific purpose of entrapping Don Jr. into an apparent violation of campaign finance laws.  That's an accusation that is even stronger than what he's accused of.  If you think about the back office emails and structure (which came out in a certain order), and replaying them in a slightly different order (not to mention whether there are leakable elements about the DNC/Campaign's direct involvement - which, given the hack, are in the hands of the Russians) and you end up with yet another potential criminal charge, and almost certainly a grounds for impeachment.

What we might be seeing is just the "plan B" version of what was supposed to be an impeachable offense targeted at President Hillary.

I don't want to go too far off the deep end, but given Fusion's apparent involvement and the plausibility I have to wonder if something like this isn't what was going on.

I wish the Dems would get off seeing this as a one sided attack just cause it's in their political interest and start looking at what really might have been going on in the big picture.  I think we can also expect new leaks if Mueller looks stalled, and around the next election date no matter what.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2017, 12:57:06 PM »
I agree with you by the way, but I wonder if you're thinking through all the ramifications.  Think about this, what if you recast the meeting with Don Jr. as an attack on President Clinton.

It purely depends on who orchestrated the meeting in the first place. If it was Putin then maybe Hillary could have been targeted, if it was someone in Hillary's camp then...not.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2017, 01:55:35 PM »
I agree.  But it's entirely possible it was both.  The fact that campaigns are so desperate for dirt on each other, and so used to using cut-outs (well at least the pro politicians are) that they are effectively easy to honey trap.  Think about how many people are "connected" to a campaign, and how easily an entity with the resources of a government that has an active spy network would find it to compromise some of them.  Doesn't matter how relevant the person actually is because their "importance" after the dirt is found will suddenly be "central" to make it a better story.

Purely speculative, but Putin may have been happy to assist the DNC in its endeavors because its a win-win for him in achieving his goal of calling the US election process into question internationally.  You have to remember our foreign policy is incredibly sanctimonious about how we have free and legitimate elections when a country, like say Russia, doesn't.  It's almost like we're taunting them into trying to undermine our elections, like the guy who ran the identity protection service and posted his social to prove how great his service was (lest you forget his identity was promptly stolen multiple times).

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #73 on: November 10, 2017, 02:07:45 PM »
It's almost like we're taunting them into trying to undermine our elections, like the guy who ran the identity protection service and posted his social to prove how great his service was (lest you forget his identity was promptly stolen multiple times).

Sure, but I don't think you even need to posit that to suggest a reason why Putin might want to mess with America. The Russia vs Saudi oil wars are enough, and if that wasn't enough, the constant hijinx in Eastern Europe and around the Black Sea, as well as the Syria mess. I think both sides have done enough to antagonize each other that we don't need to look for alternative motives (although they may exist).

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #74 on: November 10, 2017, 03:48:40 PM »
I didn't mean it was the reason per se, more that it would be a super appealing vector.