I have already dealt with this in the "Hillary Clinton" thread. The Cash did "flow" to the Clinton Foundation, that part is true...But, it was years before the Russian-Uranium One Deal. Yes, the deal did give a Russian company control over 20% of US uranium production capacity... The problem is that we have not operated at capacity for years. Another problem is that the US produces a pitifully small amount of uranium that we consume - 94% of the uranium we consume comes from foreign sources, with only 6% being domestically produced. So, really Russia acquired 20% of 6%, which is 1.2%. However, the headline Russia acquires 1.2% of US uranium does not make for good copy. Please read http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ For more information on this matter.
And the Clintons received a few dollars, for nothing. The question is where is the proof that Russia changed the outcome of the latest American elections? Because the report doesn't say it happened - at all. The rapport merely says that "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign" and nothing more. So the next question is, did you, the Americans see any influence campaign? Were you influenced by it? Because the only event anybody remembers I suppose is when, FBI director Comey sent congressional leaders a letter informing them that his agents had discovered a half a million of Clinton’s emails on a laptop of some pervert. It was only 11 days before the presidential election.
Speaking of Russian influence....anyone following Russia and the Phillipines? Since the Phillipines flipped Obama the bird, Putin is all like 'what do You Need? Fighters? Submarines? Yeah we'll give you anything you need...just be our friend...' There's a significant US diplomacy fail...
Got it in one. Wish I had that kind of hot air. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/hillary-clinton-isnt-alone-former-politicians-rake-it-in-on-speaker-circuit/ http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/politician-speaking-fees-speeches/ Except no one is asking that question...The question being asked is - Was Russia behind the DNC hack? Putin's denied it. Assange has denied it. Trump has denied it. Now Trump is backtracking...Agreeing that Russia was behind it, but the hack did not have an effect on the election. Trump has gone so far as to say that the Russians did not hack voting machines????? I can only wonder why?, because no one has made such an outrageous claim as that. OK! Green Slime, you got me...I just facepalmed. wm., that is not what the report was for, nor about. Why is it you continually fail to grasp this. It is not that hard a concept, really, it isn't. You will notice that the report also does not say anything about Putin's favorite mixed drink, Putin's favorite sexual position, or Putin's favorite Gay Bar... Why? Because it is not about any of that. How can I make it any more clear to you? Perhaps with crayons and construction paper. I'd love to try, but it is quite hard to do online. Yes, a smear campaign against Hillary was fairly obvious. Seemed that WikiLeaks was going way way out of it's way to get the dirt on her. Influenced by it? No, there was nothing there that surprised me. Way back during the primaries I had already decided that neither Trump nor Clinton were going to get my vote. The only event that anybody remembers is Comey? You suppose wrong, or else, not a resident of the United States. Forum member "Poppy" only seems to remember the Podesta E-Mails...And near about everything else nasty-true or untrue-about Clinton.
Well, Duterte has made himself rather unlovable lately. He seems to be remaking the Philippines into some twisted version of 1880's Wild West. Law of the gun, vigilante killings, and all that entails. Still, I am puzzled by Putin's actions here, as he had apparently been getting cozy with China lately. This might be a cold shower for those improved Sino-Russian relations. In which case, I would say it is far more of a Russian fail than a US one.
"Over the last 48-72 hours, reports have come in from experts, cyber experts, who are reporting to us some very troubling news about the possibility of security breaches in voting results across this country," Stein campaign manager David Cobb said in a video posted to Stein's Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. Citing the dangers of hacked voting machines, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said on Wednesday that she intends to raise more than $2 million by Friday to initiate vote recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And did WikiLeaks influence the results? No. From one of the most rabid pro-Clinton news-outlets: Thank God for WikiLeaks. So thank you, Vladimir Putin, for revealing how Hillary really hopes to govern. I just wish more of that Hillary were campaigning right now and building a mandate for what she really believes.[...] thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times. WikiLeaks’ Gift to American Democracy They have not brought a major scandal to the surface, at least not yet, and even won praise from some supporters like The Post’s editorial page, which said they showed Mrs. Clinton’s “sound policy instincts.” They’ve certainly not blown up the system, as might happen in a more closed, undemocratic form of government.
And her bids for recounts in those states were all shut down cold, with no mention of Russia. Even more oddly, Trumpy was opposing the recounts. Guess he did not care one whit if the voting machines in states he won were hacked. Ahh! The same Thomas L. Friedman that heaps praise on Communist China. http://www.mrc.org/articles/friedman-again-hails-communist-chinas-one-party-autocracy-superior-american-democracy Which closes... Which oddly enough have not appeared on WikiLeaks...And neither have Trump's...Wonder why?
There in, regrettably, lies the problem. Since before I was born we, the public, have been told to take as gospel X,Y, and Z about this or that by the "reliable sources" in the government, all with the we have the proof but can't show you assurance. Far too often we eventually learn that "x" was exaggerated, "Y" was misinterpreted and "Z" was flat out wrong. The Missile Gap, Ground Forces in Cambodia and Laos, Iran Contra, WMD's in Iraq are just the highlights. For every one of those there were half dozen smaller contretemps where the truth and what reliable sources said did not exactly jibe. I'm sure it will warm the hearts of any number countries that we take sanctity of their governmental processes very seriously and condemn outside interference by other countries, exempting the US of course because we are the home of mom, apple pie and baseball. Do we even have a reliable count of the number of times our intelligence services (you know, the guys with the proof they can't show us) have toppled governments, meddled in elections or kept despots or tyrants in power because we liked them better. I'm curious, why no investigation of the DNC and RNC over their actions to stymie the outsider candidates in each Party? Isn't that a act to interfere with our electoral process? Where were the indignation when everything from our credit unions to medical records were hacked? Hell, even hacked official government records hasn't generated this much demand for investigations and Congressional committee meetings. We haven't seen this much uproar since Sony Pictures got hacked! You want our nuclear codes, social security numbers, our bank accounts and medical records, fine and dandy, but by god you hack into the DNC or Hollywood we're gonna have to bomb the $hit out of something! Sarcasm aside, we live in the information age and information is a weapon pure and simple. What doesn't get covered much in this is the belief by Putin and Russian sources that we, by that I mean HRC herself, interfered in the last Russian election. Do not know if true or not, but I'm sure they got the proof, of course they can't show it to us now can they? Do I think Trump is being soft on Putin and Russia, yes I do, but that is his style. As long as Putin says nice things and doesn't cause him embarrassment politically he too will say nice things, just as he did with Ted Cruz. But as with Cruz, as soon as Putin gets 'out of line', Trump will start throwing elbows like a fat lady at a buffet.
You actually believe that graph? That the USSR only meddled in 10 electoral events throughout the 70's, and that was the decadal peak?
So, what is known so far, among all the noise: - the report proves nothing, and people are starting to notice: The immensely confident report, based on the combined findings of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, includes virtually no new details about why the nation’s intelligence agencies attributed the attacks to the Russian government, There is zero evidence in the report tying the Russian government (or anyone else) to the crude spearfishing effort or to the generic, out-of-date malware that invaded the DNC’s and Podesta’s email systems. Report on Russian Involvement in U.S. Election Primarily about RT Network WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived - the conclusion of the report is "President Vladimir Putin, attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election" - the classified version of the report says exactly the same, (if would be strange if it said something different anyway), Donald Trump, who saw both: There was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. Gross negligence by the Democratic National Committee allowed hacking to take place. - the available evidence (released earlier) was analyzed and the conclusions are: The malware sample is old [which owned Podesta], widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website. The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
I have some trust in words of Dov H. Levin, a Post Doctoral Fellow in the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, who received his Ph.D from the University of California for creating that graph.
Well, i can tell you it is blatantly wrong, as the USSR directly and / or indirectly influenced all "elections" in every Eastern European Warsaw bloc state, from 1945 up until its collapse in 1989. Bulgaria Romania East Germany Poland Czechoslavakia As well as all the Soviet Republics as well (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Belorus, Russia,...) That is ignoring the coups in Africa, and attempted subversion in Latin America. Never mind the elicit support to Communist groups in Western Europe, affecting the political discourse in countries such as West Germany, Sweden, Italy, and France. That doesn't mean that they were always effective in the established democratic states, but their intention was very clear.
So please provide an example of this influencing throughout the 70's, in Poland, Czechoslovakia, GDR or Romania. And no hands waving, a concrete evidence. BTW, all the Soviet Republics were a part of the USSR, the graph concerns itself with electoral interventions abroad.
Hard to prove anything when the evidence is classified and not open for public view. Yet Putin, Assange, and Trump, all denied this... Albeit, with the evidence that you keep crying for... Donald Trump has a vested interest in maintain in that line...He is the President-Elect. He is also the same person that who claimed that if he lost the election, it would have been because it was stolen from him, and he would sue. Again, that is blaming the victim for being the victim...It doesn't fly for a rape case, nor does it here. Really? What took them so long? This has only been public knowledge since October, 2016 - in far more detail... http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-part1.pdf http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-part-2.pdf http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-part3.pdf
Educate yourself. Because frankly, I have no desire to do so. You apparently know all the citizens of the Soviet republics enjoyed being dominated by Moscow. That's why so many of them remain ruled directly from Moscow. Or not. The evidence is apparent for anyone. No country free from "influence" has such large voter turn outs producing near-unanimous results, as consistently witnessed throughout the Soviet dominated Warsaw pact. Next, you'll be selling the story the Austrian vote on the Anschluss was free from foreign intervention as well...
As I said what happened in the USSR doesn't count, because the graph concerns itself with electoral interventions abroad - like in outside the USSR. And more, in all the countries mentioned the same people ruled throughout the 70's, like for example the Honecker clique in East Germany. Those people weren't elected, they were nominated by their communist parties, their nominations weren't influenced by the Soviets - at least not much, it was internal matters of those communist parties. After they had been nominated they were no elections, so no opportunity to influence. Even an Austrian vote wasn't possible in the communist block. The communist rulers were never elected by the people - and the graph concerns itself with electoral interventions.
He has no interest in outright lying, that rapport is known to many people. So far no credible scenario of influencing the elections has been shown. Please attack the facts, no the messenger. The facts are: the thing that stole the mails wasn't created or used by Russians, but by Ukrainians. It was an old, outdated POS, used mainly by script kiddies like in a 14-year-old kid could have done it.
Excuses, excuses, and hand waving, that's all I see. "Nominations weren't influenced by the Soviets - at least not much"... All Communist leaders in Eastern Europe tread a very fine line. They were all aware that it was Soviet power they owed their position to, that was the guarantor for their continued existence. That the nominations were farcical. You didn't get nominated without at least begrudging approval. Elections in the Soviet Union; In theory, citizens selected the candidates for election to local soviets. In practice, at least before the June 1989 elections, these candidates had been selected by the local Communist parties, and trade union officials under the direction of the district party organization. Voting took place after six weeks of campaigning. Though voters formally had the right to vote for or against the unopposed candidate, until 1987 all candidates usually received about 99 percent of the vote. Why did the candidates receive 99 percent of the vote? Because it was made repeatedly apparent, that any policies that undermined Communist rule (and therefore Soviet dominance) would not be tolerated. People might be stupid, but after years of oppression, that much was understood. But, no, according to you, the Soviet Union did not influence East European elections. In Poland, as in most other communist countries, the constitution was based on the 1936 Soviet Constitution and thus failed to regulate the main source of power - the communist party, which was the Polish United Workers' Party in the case of Poland. Or are you suggesting that if the Soviet forces somehow miraculously withdrew from Eastern Europe in 1970, that the voting results in the elections for the Polish Sejm in 1972 would've remained the same?
