Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers

[Seriati]

Then honestly, what is the point?  Why bring it up as manipulation of the election if you are not trying to delegitimize the election itself.  If you believe we had an illegitimate election then explain the exact vector.  How did Russian hacking that revealed true statements create an illegitimate election?

You would just ignore this issue?  I find that more than a little out of character for you.

I didn't say ignore the issue.  Maybe we are talking past each.

What I said is bringing it up as an election issue is  suspect.

Also, I don't believe we had an illegitimate election.  I believe we had someone influencing naive voters (or non-voters) who didn't already know this stuff was going on.

Really?  Isn't the entire premise of modern election campaigning reliant on influencing naïve voters?  I'm not seeing this as a conflict between a baseline of informed voters versus uninformed voters.  It's uninformed voters versus slightly more informed voters.

That someone happened to be outside of our system.  Now, I've got A LOT of problems with our system.  But it is OURS.  We've set the rules and we get the results based on those rules.

Yes we do, yet there is blatant cheating in every election.  Every recent election has had illegal foreign contributions in it.  Every recent election has had deliberate propaganda produced and distributed by both parts and even the "neutral" media.  Why is this a bridge too far?  Would it be different if it had been US hackers?  Honestly, would your opinion completely change if it were US hackers?

I don't see Russia as doing us a favor by helping nudge our voters in the direction most advantageous to them.  Maybe that (us looking within and making changes) will be a side effect?  I'd doubt it though.

I don't see any basis to believe that in a binary choice between two candidates that because one is better for country x it is automatically worse for us.  There are 300 countries in the world, some prefer Hillary some Trump, under your logic that'd pretty much ensure that no matter what its "worse" for us if any of them get their way.

Again, make an argument that references on what issues its worse, and drop the innuendo.  That's all this is, argument by innuendo.

[D.W.]

Would it be different if it had been US hackers?  Honestly, would your opinion completely change if it were US hackers?

Would it change?  Yes.  Completely?  No.  I’d still be upset about the hacking. 
If my son reads my daughter’s diary and teases her about it, that’s a rotten thing to do and I punish him.  If my neighbor breaks into my house, steals my child’s diary and seeks to embarrass her by posting it on line that’s a whole different ball game.

I don't see any basis to believe that in a binary choice between two candidates that because one is better for country x it is automatically worse for us.

Agreed.  I do think it’s worth asking ourselves WHY do they feel it’s better for them.  That should be part of the weighing of factors when making a decision.

We are talking past each other.  You are searching for a partisan explanation for my statements and filling in the blanks with what a partisan Hillary defender blind to the flaws of their own side would say.  I’ve explained what I see as a problem.  You are assuming I am implying other things in addition to that.

[D.W.]

I guess I'm just the odd duck who is disgusted with our politics but MORE disgusted with blatant external and extralegal interference in our system.

If it somehow does lead to change Fenring, maybe I will send Putin a Thank You card.

[Wayward Son]

Then honestly, what is the point?  Why bring it up as manipulation of the election if you are not trying to delegitimize the election itself.

We have laws that make it illegal for foreigners to give money to campaigns.  Are you saying that if they skip that step and just make material contributions to a campaign that it makes it all better?

If foreigners, or worse, foreign governments, have a significant influence on an election, then the winning candidate will have a "debt" to that foreign government, especially if he wants to run for re-election.  After all, maybe he or his party won't win next time if that foreign government withholds its support...

Which means he won't want to upset that foreign government while in office.  Which means he might make decisions that are not in the best interest of this country.

That's why we don't allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns, isn't it?

So, yes, we should investigate and try to minimize the influence of foreign governments in our campaigns even if we are not trying to "delegitimize" the last election.  Because we want to make sure that the next election is legitimate.

Now, in this election, I don't think the Russian influence made that big of a difference, and I would be surprised that it would delegitimize it.  Even if they broadcast disinformation (and, BTW, if that is shown, would it change anyone's mind? ), as Fenring points out, we do plenty of that ourselves.  If we're stupid enough to buy what another country wants us to believe, we deserve the outcome of the election.

OTOH, if there is something that they did that would be so bad as to delegitimize it, I want to know about it.  Wouldn't you?

So it truly disturbs me that Trump is trying to quell the bipartisan Senators, the CIA and the FBI from looking further into this matter.  What is he afraid of?  That it will weaken his administration?  That's pretty selfish and petty.  Does he believe that loosing a little bit of status as the President "who won in a landslide" is worth making future elections and Presidencies weaker due to foreign influence?  That's not in the best interest of our country.  Only himself.

Or is he worried that they will uncover something that really does delegitimize his Presidency.  That he won only because the Russians did something that put him over the top?  Would he still want to be President knowing the Russians gave him that position?  Do you want him to be President if he knew he owed it all to the Russians, or Chinese, or the Saudis?  Do you want a President beholden to another country.

I see no major downside to investigating and analyzing how the Russians influenced this election, and to try to prevent it in the future, even if it delegitimizes Trump's presidency somewhat.  (After all, to me, the only thing legitimate about his Presidency is that he won it and he will be the next President. )  But not investigating leads up open to being manipulated in the future, and makes me believe that Trump is more concerned with keeping power than in ensuring a proper democracy in this country.

And that would make Trump a illegitimate President in my eyes.

[Fenring]

I guess I'm just the odd duck who is disgusted with our politics but MORE disgusted with blatant external and extralegal interference in our system.

If it somehow does lead to change Fenring, maybe I will send Putin a Thank You card.

FWIW both Assange and Snowden have insisted that the DNC leaks did not originate from Russia hackers but rather from a DNC insider. The option at present seems to be choosing between believing them, and therefore assuming that political "sources" are wrong or lying about Russia's involvement, or between asserting that both Snowden and Assange are deliberately covering for Russia and therefore in collusion with them in some sense. Neither option is impossible, and yet while it's not much of a stretch to infer that 'political sources' may lie about more or less anything, it seems at present unsubstantiated to infer that Assange was in collusion with Russia. I would put my bet down that it was an insider, but of course it's only a guess.

[rightleft22]

It’s become more difficult to discuss issues without someone bring in or assuming partisan explanations.
Hacking, espionage and foreign manipulation are real issues regardless of who benefits or is hurt.

[D.W.]

I'd bet on the CIA and FBI who seem to only be arguing about the motive rather than the "if".  If they are honestly making up the Russian perpetrator thing, then I guess our problems are even more serious than I thought. 

To have a president elect actively trying to undermine their credibility is blowing my mind to be honest.

[Fenring]

That's why we don't allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns, isn't it?

So, yes, we should investigate and try to minimize the influence of foreign governments in our campaigns even if we are not trying to "delegitimize" the last election.  Because we want to make sure that the next election is legitimate.

Are you aware of the fact that you jumped right from direct contributions being illegal to needing to investigate influence by other nations? Other nations should have influence in America. The U.S. isn't North Korea, closed to outside information. And then you jumped from influence to delegitimize. This is very much a linguistic slippery slope where the connection between each point is at best 'truthy.'

If you had wanted to speak about direct interference in the voting system, you should address that. Seriati mentioned that just before and no one replied on that topic. If you had wanted to talk about foreign media, that would be another issue. Both are these are worth talking about but should be kept separate from each other. The issue of foreign contributions is an interesting one and the place to investigate this issue would be in potential loopholes for foreign governments such as non-campaign institutions that can receive donations and launder them. Maybe this isn't an issue, but if it is this is potentially how it would be done.

[rightleft22]

I think we would have seen more effective and immediate action is the GOP was hacked.

[rightleft22]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN1352P9

"A Russian hacking group began attacking U.S.-based policy think tanks within hours of Donald Trump's presidential election victory, according to cyber experts who suspect Moscow is seeking information on the incoming administration.

[D.W.]

I think we would have seen more effective and immediate action is the GOP was hacked.

I believe they almost certainly were.  No gain in releasing that info now. 

[TheDeamon]

I don't see any basis to believe that in a binary choice between two candidates that because one is better for country x it is automatically worse for us.

Agreed.  I do think it’s worth asking ourselves WHY do they feel it’s better for them.  That should be part of the weighing of factors when making a decision.

I still stand by their motive being anti-Hillary vs being Pro-Trump. Also of note in all this in case you missed it: John McCain has also commented that the Russians hacked his e-mail servers back in 2008. So it isn't a new thing in that respect, and it seems our political organizations need better network security.

But going back to Russia's aims: I think they'd prefer another Obama or Bernie Sanders all things considered. Someone who is more likely to be largely hands-off and not intervene militarily unless actively forced to by allies and domestic politics alike. (As pretty much happened with Obama with ISIS/ISIL, or in Libya.)

Hillary Clinton is a Clinton. Bill Clinton was a big time interventionist, that's stirke one. Strike two is that Hillary was known to advocate for a far more militaristic/interventionist foreign policy than the Obama Admin pursued. Strike 3 was that she continued to campaign for that stronger foreign policy stance, while Trump was advocating a more hands off approach.

Which made the choice easy for Russia. While they're leary of Republicans, because they love to spend money on the military.  Trump is in something of Reagan-like position, so he's unlikely to much, just like Reagan. If he gets into a shooting war somewhere, that means less money to spend on expanding it. So he'll be more inclined to stay out and expand it rather than go fishing like Clinton and Bush 43 did.

They'll worry about Trump's successor when they get there, but hope they can get a Democrat in by then, and have them undo much of Trump's military rebuild.

[DonaldD]

It’s become more difficult to discuss issues without someone bring in or assuming partisan explanations.
Hacking, espionage and foreign manipulation are real issues regardless of who benefits or is hurt.

I was and am still honestly shocked that the fact that a foreign power broke your country's laws to acquire information, and then used that information in a transparent attempt to undermine your whole democratic process, is not being panned universally on this board.

This is not a partisan issue. It doesn't matter who benefitted domestically. This is a real sickness being displayed within your polity.

[Seriati]

Then honestly, what is the point?  Why bring it up as manipulation of the election if you are not trying to delegitimize the election itself.

We have laws that make it illegal for foreigners to give money to campaigns.  Are you saying that if they skip that step and just make material contributions to a campaign that it makes it all better?

Not sure how you could think that I was saying that.  I've already been on record stating that I think contributions of time ought to have to be accounted for in the same way as contributions of money, granted it's mostly because I don't think its particularly fair to discount the value of unions paying their own members to campaign and it not counting as a cash contribution. 

What I don't get is why we have campaign finance laws that can not be enforced.  What's the remedy for a foreign government making a contribution?  To my knowledge, we've never set aside any result in an election where such violations have been found.  Hardly any politician, if any, has gone to jail over it.

That's why we don't allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns, isn't it?

Pretty much, it's also why we have laws limiting the amount US people can donate to campaigns.  Now why are all those laws easily avoidable and toothless?  Talk about a mixed message.

OTOH, if there is something that they did that would be so bad as to delegitimize it, I want to know about it.  Wouldn't you?

Sure.  What would that look like?  Cause what I see is an attempt to create an implication that its delegitimized without actually proving the case.  Literally, this appears to be someone setting up a smoke machine to draw attention to what may or may not be a fire.  Tough to say if there's really a fire, or if you should be concerned, after you flood the area with excess smoke.

So it truly disturbs me that Trump is trying to quell the bipartisan Senators, the CIA and the FBI from looking further into this matter.

Why?  It won't and can't stop them from investigating.  Exactly how are his words more or less dangerous than those from the current administration (or your own) decrying congressional investigations into Benghazi?

Honestly, if there was anyway he could prevent an investigation, I'd have your back.

What is he afraid of?

This is at least the third attempt to delegitimize his election (attack based on popular vote/electoral college, demands for recounting because hacking "could" have occurred (without evidence it did), Russians "influenced" election (though the actual links to and explanation of are in fact missing or never laid out)).  He's afraid that this is effort to undermine his ability to govern.  Given you guys were convinced that the Republicans have been undermining Obama from before Day 1, not getting how you wouldn't understand this potential.  Whether you agree it should be done is a different issue. 

He doesn't have a mandate, but then neither did Obama, yet it didn't stop the Dems from being incredibly arrogant and forcing through major legislation in the first few years of his presidency. 

Or is he worried that they will uncover something that really does delegitimize his Presidency.  That he won only because the Russians did something that put him over the top?

Like what.  Specifically what would that be?  Absent some evidence that Comey was being blackmailed to act irrationally its hard to see what would even meet this potential in theory.  What exactly is this non-direct vote manipulating thing that they could have done?

Would he still want to be President knowing the Russians gave him that position?

He seems like one of the biggest narcissists in history, hard to see how he wouldn't.

Do you want him to be President if he knew he owed it all to the Russians, or Chinese, or the Saudis?  Do you want a President beholden to another country.

I'm pretty confident that his ego would never let him believe that he "owes it all" to any of them.  Not clear how it could be true either, based on facts in evidence.  But yes if you had some kind of proof that he was being controlled (or any other President was) I'd be concerned about it, and deem that to be an incapacity to hold office.  Just showing he holds a favorable opinion of a country, not so much.

Also pretty certain that I raised this exact set of issues about the donations to the Clinton foundation and you didn't friggin care about it then, even though there is an actual trail of money involved and decisions in real time on issues the same foreign powers cared about.  Also, it's not like we didn't already have a Chinagate scandal with Bill in the first place either.

I see no major downside to investigating and analyzing how the Russians influenced this election, and to try to prevent it in the future, even if it delegitimizes Trump's presidency somewhat.

I see no major downside to investigating and analyzing any criminal hacking of the DNC's servers, or anyone elses, and bringing appropriate actions against those who did it.  I do have an issue with trying to force this into a specific narrative primarily for the purpose of delegitimizing Trump's Presidency. 

I don't have an issue with the consequences of people looking at Trump's stolen tax return page either in making their decision on who to vote for.  Nothing out there where I say people shouldn't look at it.  Did say the media speculation on top of it made false claims, which is true, and consistently with what I said above, this also in favor of punishing the person who released it (assuming they violated a duty of privacy).  I specifically object to labeling exposes by the left as "journalism" and exposes by the right as criminal acts.  One law for all.

I'm also all for taking measures to ensure we can be confident that our elections are not directly manipulated.

However, I'm not going to get outraged that a political party didn't get to manipulate voters because they got smacked in the face with their own ugly truths.

[TheDeamon]

Then honestly, what is the point?  Why bring it up as manipulation of the election if you are not trying to delegitimize the election itself.

We have laws that make it illegal for foreigners to give money to campaigns.  Are you saying that if they skip that step and just make material contributions to a campaign that it makes it all better?

If foreigners, or worse, foreign governments, have a significant influence on an election, then the winning candidate will have a "debt" to that foreign government, especially if he wants to run for re-election.  After all, maybe he or his party won't win next time if that foreign government withholds its support...

So, your stance in regards to Russia being involved in the Election this past year seems clear.

Now tell us, what is your stance in regards to illegal immigrants volunteering as campaign workers for a particular candidate?

That's why we don't allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns, isn't it?

So, yes, we should investigate and try to minimize the influence of foreign governments in our campaigns even if we are not trying to "delegitimize" the last election.  Because we want to make sure that the next election is legitimate.

Same question as above regarding Illegal immigrants involving themselves in the electoral process. Although to make it even more ironic, the Democrats were deliberately and knowingly seeking their attention, support, and assistance.

Do you want him to be President if he knew he owed it all to the Russians, or Chinese, or the Saudis?  Do you want a President beholden to another country.

Would making it a country(or collection of countries) south of our border make it better?

[Fenring]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

...

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

[Seriati]

Interestingly, Judge Napolitano just put out an opinion piece based on his contacts inside the CIA and FBI where he passes on that there isn't evidence of a hack only evidence of a leak.  If that's the case, and I can't say it is, why do you think it's consistently described as a hack?  Anyone's opinion change if this is in fact a leak from insiders rather than a hack from outsiders?  Or if it is a hack, it's not an international hack but a local one shared internationally?

[D.W.]

Didn't you already ask this?
Yes.  My "concern" would downgrade to the illegality of the act rather than foreign interference.

I suppose your last bit does make a point.  If Russia came by it through a leak rather than a hack, then used it to influence the election...  Does my opinion change?  (is that your question?)

In that case, No.  But it may lower cyber-security panic levels a little...

[yossarian22c]

If it was senior political operatives leaking things to the Russians instead of the NYT (or even the Trump campaign) it would worry me just as much as a Russian hack.  Since it wasn't national security info it may not technically be espionage but it comes pretty darn close.

[rightleft22]

Russia/Putin has been becoming more aggressive over the last few years and don’t expect Trump to push back much.

It looks to me that the Trump administration will be focused on economic (short term) growth to care much, which seems to be what the people want.

I can envision the day when the US no longer has much influence in Europe and the Middle East if that day has not already come. Even Israel is looking more and more to Russia.

[TheDeamon]

Russia/Putin has been becoming more aggressive over the last few years and don’t expect Trump to push back much.

It looks to me that the Trump administration will be focused on economic (short term) growth to care much, which seems to be what the people want.

I can envision the day when the US no longer has much influence in Europe and the Middle East if that day has not already come. Even Israel is looking more and more to Russia.

Unless things go truly FUBAR, Russia is only a short to possibly middle-term concern. They're not likely to relevant to much of anyone in another couple of decades. For that matter, Western Europe probably won't be very relevant in another few decades. They've reached their apex, and are now in essentially a managed decline. Demographics and just about everything else is arrayed against them. The biggest thing propping up Russia is its oil and natural gas reserves and Western Europes dependence on Russia's supplies.

The easiest way to break Russia is to get Western Europe off their dependency on Russian fossil fuels. That can happen through technology, or by means of expanding oil/natural gas exploration in North America in particular, putting us on an export footing rather than importing it.

At this point, the long-term interests of the United States are best served by getting its own house back in order, while keeping an eye on China and other emerging nations. They're the ones to watch in the decades to come.

[rightleft22]

My feeling is that Putin won't want let happen what you predict and won't leave without trying something

[NobleHunter]

Europe, except maybe France, seems to have come to terms with the idea that they're no longer top dog. I don't think a lack of serious influence in the world is going to bother them over much.

Russia will probably take a while longer to get to that point. Any leader that wants to keep power is going to need to act like a major player, regardless of Russia's actual status. So more decline on Russia's part makes them more dangerous rather than less.

[Fenring]

If it was senior political operatives leaking things to the Russians instead of the NYT (or even the Trump campaign) it would worry me just as much as a Russian hack.  Since it wasn't national security info it may not technically be espionage but it comes pretty darn close.

I don't know why you assume senior political operatives would have leaked the emails (for instance) to Russia who then handed them to Wikileaks who then leaked them to the world. How is this the simplest or even likeliest explanation? It sounds like a pulp novel plot. It would seem to be far more straightforward to assume that said operatives just gave everything directly to Wikileaks, which is incidentally exactly what Wikileaks said happened.

[Fenring]

Russia/Putin has been becoming more aggressive over the last few years

How so?

[TheDrake]

Russia/Putin has been becoming more aggressive over the last few years

How so?

Um, invading Ukraine comes to mind.

[Fenring]

Um, invading Ukraine comes to mind.

Aside from the obligatory mention that this isn't a "fact" but rather an interpretation (and one that I think is dubious), the phrasing "becoming more aggressive" suggests a trend rather than a single data point. Are there any other data points? And I'll jump right ahead and request that "interfering with the election" not be counted as one because, again, not a fact.

[yossarian22c]

Russia moving troops into Crimea and then annexing it isn't a fact?

[Fenring]

Russia moving troops into Crimea and then annexing it isn't a fact?

Invasion =/= murky change of allegiance =/= Russia preventing a territory important to them strategically being suddenly cut off from them due to a Ukrainian coup =/= the people there preferring to join Russia. It may be a blend of these, and other factors, that was really the case. But "Russia invaded the Ukraine" is not a meaningful description of what happened. There is enough disinfo about that event, no less about the coup that preceded it, that I find it difficult to make a concrete determination about what I think of it. It was a bizarre event either way, and certainly concerning enough to wonder what it was really about.

That being said, it's only one data point even if we gladly accept it. I can offer a second data point, which is Russia's assistance to Syria against ISIS. But does it count as "becoming aggressive" when Russia is fighting against the bad guys? If so, doesn't that mean the U.S. is "aggressive" as well in exactly the same way?

[rightleft22]

FINLAND is growing wary of Russia as it flexes its political muscle over the country’s nuclear power, a new report has revealed.
It said: "Russia's foreign policy goals have remained the same for a long period of time, but in recent years its means to achieve those goals have become more aggressive.

Syria – “Kremlin’s military intervention in Syria was tailored to achieve a multiplier effect, yielding returns both in that war-ravaged, devastated land and in international diplomacy”. 
Middle East countries turning to Russia

“Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said Monday he is convinced that Russia “is not trying to provoke an incident” with its recent aggressive harassment of U.S. aircraft and warships operating in the Baltic Sea, including a much-discussed buzzing of a U.S. destroyer in the Baltic Sea by a pair of Russian fighter jets.”

That was just a quick google but just checkout Russia state run media rhetoric. 

To clarify this is not an attack on Trump so no need to defend the Russia based on that bias.

If so, doesn't that mean the U.S. is "aggressive" as well in exactly the same way?

I think it does and with Russia getting back into the game making the situation more volatile.


My feeling is that Trump is going to 'give' Putin the Middle East and Eastern Europe

[Wayward Son]

I came across this article (dated a few days before the election) that gives quite a bit more detail about how the Russians may be influencing our elections.

Russia’s social media campaigns seek five complementary objectives to strengthen Russia’s position over Western democracies:
•Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
•Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
•Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
•Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
•Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction

In sum, these influence efforts weaken Russia’s enemies without the use of force.  Russian social media propaganda pushes four general themes to advance Moscow’s influence objectives and connect with foreign populations they target.

Political messages are designed to tarnish democratic leaders or undermine institutions. Examples include allegations of voter fraud, election rigging, and political corruption. Leaders can be specifically targeted, for instance by promoting unsubstantiated claims about Hillary Clinton’s health, or more obviously by leaking hacked emails.

Financial propaganda weakens citizen and investor confidence in foreign markets and posits the failure of capitalist economies. Stoking fears over the national debt, attacking institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and attempts to discredit Western financial experts and business leaders are all part of this arsenal...

Social issues currently provide a useful window for Russian messaging. Police brutality, racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs, online privacy concerns, and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society.

Finally, wide-ranging conspiracy theories promote fear of global calamity while questioning the expertise of anyone who might calm those fears. Russian propaganda operations since 2014 have stoked fears of martial law in the United States, for instance, by promoting chemtrails and Jade Helm conspiracy theories. More recently, Moscow turned to stoking fears of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

You can see memes promoted by both the Left and the Right.  None of them directly affect Trump's election (other than Russia apparently siding with him).  But all are weaken our country.

With both Republican and Democratic Senators calling for investigation, this really isn't a partisan issue.  It will probably not even have a direct effect on the last vote.  But it is something that needs to be investigated and brought to light.

[Fenring]

rightleft22, I don't even know what those Google quotes are supposed to tell me about Russia being aggressive. Note that I'm not arguing that they're some kind of Mr. Nice Guy. I'm specifically asking you to back up the claim that they have been increasingly aggressive over the last several years, of which I personally see no evidence at all other than the single data point of Crimea.

As far as giving away Europe and the Mid-East, it already sounds problematic to me that you should imply it is the President's territory to give away in the first place.

[Pete at Home]

Putin's refusal to allow International observers during the Crimean election suggests a scheme for future aggression rather than a single datum. 

[Pete at Home]

I came across this article (dated a few days before the election) that gives quite a bit more detail about how the Russians may be influencing our elections.

Russia’s social media campaigns seek five complementary objectives to strengthen Russia’s position over Western democracies:
•Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
•Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
•Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
•Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
•Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction

In sum, these influence efforts weaken Russia’s enemies without the use of force.  Russian social media propaganda pushes four general themes to advance Moscow’s influence objectives and connect with foreign populations they target.

Political messages are designed to tarnish democratic leaders or undermine institutions. Examples include allegations of voter fraud, election rigging, and political corruption. Leaders can be specifically targeted, for instance by promoting unsubstantiated claims about Hillary Clinton’s health, or more obviously by leaking hacked emails.

Financial propaganda weakens citizen and investor confidence in foreign markets and posits the failure of capitalist economies. Stoking fears over the national debt, attacking institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and attempts to discredit Western financial experts and business leaders are all part of this arsenal...

Social issues currently provide a useful window for Russian messaging. Police brutality, racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs, online privacy concerns, and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society.

Finally, wide-ranging conspiracy theories promote fear of global calamity while questioning the expertise of anyone who might calm those fears. Russian propaganda operations since 2014 have stoked fears of martial law in the United States, for instance, by promoting chemtrails and Jade Helm conspiracy theories. More recently, Moscow turned to stoking fears of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

You can see memes promoted by both the Left and the Right.  None of them directly affect Trump's election (other than Russia apparently siding with him).  But all are weaken our country.

With both Republican and Democratic Senators calling for investigation, this really isn't a partisan issue.  It will probably not even have a direct effect on the last vote.  But it is something that needs to be investigated and brought to light.

It's just a different sort of partisan issue. The Democrats are once again being useful idiots for the tea party's coup d'etat. I predict that in 9 months you will be pretending that you didn't support this

[rightleft22]

As far as giving away Europe and the Mid-East, it already sounds problematic to me that you should imply it is the President's territory to give away in the first place.

I didn't know how to word what I wanted to say which is why given was typed as ‘given’. I assumed anyone reading the post would know I didn’t’ mean the US had a right to give away other nations territory.

My general feeling is that the US has taken a lead in Mid-East affairs since the end of the cold war to which Russia is now reasserting itself. It’s an observation, not a judgment of good or bad.

If I were to make a judgment I’m starting to lean towards the US pulling back and letting Russia or China deal with it. 

Actually my feeling (not thinking) is that for the next four or eight years nations should avoid dealing with the US whenever possible.

[Wayward Son]

RealClearPolitics seems to have a good article summarizing the issue, too.

It's just a different sort of partisan issue. The Democrats are once again being useful idiots for the tea party's coup d'etat. I predict that in 9 months you will be pretending that you didn't support this.

I am not clear on what you think I'm supporting, since the article I quoted was on what we already know about Russian hacking and their possible intentions.  There is nothing to "support" in that. 

What I do support is the bipartisan investigation into Russian influences on our elections, and finding out ways we can minimize that.  And I very much doubt I will change my support of that in 9 months.

I don't see how this could support "the tea party's coup d'état."  At best, I would think such Russian propaganda helps the tea party at this time.

[rightleft22]

It's just a different sort of partisan issue. The Democrats are once again being useful idiots for the tea party's coup d'etat.

I am gob smacked at how weak and foolish the left can be.

Psychologically I don’t think the left has access to ‘energy' that the right does.  What I mean is that for the left to really act on something they need to engage 70% plus of the people where the right only needs to engage the base.

I wonder if it’s because the left persona needs to see itself as compassionate and respecting all points of views before it can act while the right is more certain in its certainties.

[rightleft22]

I don't see how this could support "the tea party's coup d'état."  At best, I would think such Russian propaganda helps the tea party at this time.

I’m a reading that wrong. Aren’t you making Pete's point?

[D.W.]

I wonder if it’s because the left persona needs to see itself as compassionate and respecting all points of views before it can act while the right is more certain in its certainties.

There are very few (none?) single issue voters on "the left".  It is more like hearding cats. 

But not like on the right, where you've got a laser pointers labeled "pro-life" or "SSM opposition" or "they're coming to take your guns".  We wish it was that easy to instill "energy". 

[Wayward Son]

I don't see how this could support "the tea party's coup d'état."  At best, I would think such Russian propaganda helps the tea party at this time.

I’m a reading that wrong. Aren’t you making Pete's point?

OK, I'm totally confused.  What's Pete's point? 

[Pete at Home]

RealClearPolitics seems to have a good article summarizing the issue, too.

It's just a different sort of partisan issue. The Democrats are once again being useful idiots for the tea party's coup d'etat. I predict that in 9 months you will be pretending that you didn't support this.

I am not clear on what you think I'm supporting, since the article I quoted was on what we already know about Russian hacking and their possible intentions.  There is nothing to "support" in that. 

What I do support is the bipartisan investigation into Russian influences on our elections, and finding out ways we can minimize that.  And I very much doubt I will change my support of that in 9 months.

I don't see how this could support "the tea party's coup d'état."  At best, I would think such Russian propaganda helps the tea party at this time.

You don't get that you are being duped into laying groundwork for a Trump impeachment that leaves Pence in power?  Or you don't get that getting rid of Trump is the Tea Party's next step to consolidating power?

[Fenring]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the entire article and get right to the point: no new information has been made available, no new investigations have been done, and no new sources other than the same "sources within the CIA" are cited. And yet, probably due to the reports the other day of the Director of National Intelligence saying they had no proof for saying so, now the response is for them to up the ante and make even more detailed claims despite having no new information. That is how propaganda works: when a story isn't believed you make up more stories, and add to them. "Russia probably responsible" wasn't enough for the public to swallow? Ok, let's go with "Putin personally responsible!" then. Why not. After all, if they only have suspicions it was Russia at all, it makes sense to assume that only high-level Russians could have done it, which therefore must be controlled by Putin directly; ergo Putin hacked the American election...and must be removed from office! Wait, maybe I went too far on that one, perhaps that last point is due to be made in the future.

Networks like NBC aren't just bad sources of information - they aren't sources. They'll just repeat whatever they're told and they'll print it. It's kind of like the Ron Burgundy of print news. "They'll print a-ny-thing!"

[TheDeamon]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the entire article and get right to the point: no new information has been made available, no new investigations have been done, and no new sources other than the same "sources within the CIA" are cited. And yet, probably due to the reports the other day of the Director of National Intelligence saying they had no proof for saying so, now the response is for them to up the ante and make even more detailed claims despite having no new information. That is how propaganda works: when a story isn't believed you make up more stories, and add to them. "Russia probably responsible" wasn't enough for the public to swallow? Ok, let's go with "Putin personally responsible!" then. Why not. After all, if they only have suspicions it was Russia at all, it makes sense to assume that only high-level Russians could have done it, which therefore must be controlled by Putin directly; ergo Putin hacked the American election...and must be removed from office! Wait, maybe I went too far on that one, perhaps that last point is due to be made in the future.

Networks like NBC aren't just bad sources of information - they aren't sources. They'll just repeat whatever they're told and they'll print it. It's kind of like the Ron Burgundy of print news. "They'll print a-ny-thing!"

Oh, the CIA might have "Russian Sources" that are spoon feeding them such information at this point, intentionally. If your objective is to de-legitimize Trump's Presidency, and you know "the powers that be" within the Obama Administration will happily grasp at straws for anything to make Trump look bad, you then start feeding them information that will help them draw incorrect conclusions.

Getting the United States to make the Russian intelligence services seem even more effective than they may actually be would just be an added bonus. As it also signals to them that the US Intel Community isn't as clever as it thinks it is. 

We can run round and round and round in circles on this all day long in regards to which kind of spook-war game is being played out at this point.

[Fenring]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

...

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,'  Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'

Granted, this account should be taken with a grain of salt since there would be various reasons to lie about this, but here we have someone admitting to have been directly involved in receiving the leaked information, and yet "sources in the CIA" are making more headlines. Hmmm...

Maybe this guy is full of it, but you'd think there would be a big deal about this claim either way, if at least for no other reason than "Whoa! The guy who physically took the briefcase full of leaked emails! Like a spy movie!" But that doesn't feed into the Russia narrative, so I guess it's not a "useful" story.

[TheDrake]

I don't really trust the CIA to be able to accurately differentiate between servers in Russia and actions taken by the Russian State. They deal in shadowy maybes, by their own admission. They don't prove things, they conjure up confidence percentages. That is exceedingly vulnerable to personal or institutional bias.

The reason they protect their sources and methods is that they don't want anyone to know about their dartboard and magic 8-ball.

[Fenring]

I don't really trust the CIA to be able to accurately differentiate between servers in Russia and actions taken by the Russian State. They deal in shadowy maybes, by their own admission. They don't prove things, they conjure up confidence percentages. That is exceedingly vulnerable to personal or institutional bias.

The reason they protect their sources and methods is that they don't want anyone to know about their dartboard and magic 8-ball.

And this is actually quite a charitable read of their intentions, because it attributes to them a desire to do their best to tell the truth. I would personally not assume this premise at all.

[TheDrake]

And this is actually quite a charitable read of their intentions, because it attributes to them a desire to do their best to tell the truth. I would personally not assume this premise at all.

I don't consider the entire agency to have gone rogue. Now, what they release to the public sure. But I believe, in general, when they brief the President they wouldn't consider themselves to be lying.

[Seriati]

I wonder if it’s because the left persona needs to see itself as compassionate and respecting all points of views before it can act while the right is more certain in its certainties.

There are very few (none?) single issue voters on "the left".  It is more like hearding cats.

Wow, that's a whopper.  The left is filled with single issue voters.  I'll forgive you if you think that the typical 90-10 ratio of black voters in favor of Democrats is not relevant to this discussion if you can explain, why Hillary Clinton lost the black vote to Barack Obama 9:1, without a single issue voter explanation.

Not to mention, I know an endless stream of women who single issue vote on abortion rights, or birth control access, or in this election who voted to elect the first woman (without regard to individual quality of that woman).

Or the voters who single issue voted to try and prevent immigration enforcement.

Or because they are pro gun control.

The problem isn't really energy or lack of single issue focus, its that the parts of the Democratic party have nothing in common.  Blue collar union workers?  How do they fit with an ultra progressive platform? 

[Fenring]

I don't consider the entire agency to have gone rogue. Now, what they release to the public sure. But I believe, in general, when they brief the President they wouldn't consider themselves to be lying.

My current theory is that much of the CIA is set up roughly like independent cells, with little connection between them and no knowledge of each others' activities and agendas. Maximum deniability and also safety from security breaches that way. Politically this makes it so that since there is no "the CIA" that works as a whole, a particular branch can therefore make statements that are more or less unilateral without consulting with other branches. I imagine that operating as head of the CIA is like herding cats and that even finding out all the crap going on is a full-time job unto itself. In this context, I suspect that some cells within the CIA are almost completely autonomous and therefore rogue, while other ones are kept closer to the management structure and their activities would be more accountable to the executive. I think of it as less like an organization and more like a society, with all the niches, subcultures, and varying agendas that that entails.

[D.W.]

Ya, Seriati.  It is a whopper.  But A:  I was reaching for the herding cats / laser pointer joke.  And B:  Unless your single issue is "I hate the conservative platform" I really haven't met anyone who is motivated by just one of them.

I will say that "jobs" can be a single issue for many.  If you can't get a decent paying job to provide for yourself and your family, all the other issues don't mean much.