[News] Trump, Russia, and the 2016 Election

All news related to Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia and to the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. New details should be cited to reputable sources.

Yonder wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Any possible problems at the polls weren't caused by Russian hackers, they were caused by Republicans.

Pretty much. I mean, hackers may or may not have helped with some bits, but the GOP was quite eager to do it on their own. The NC GOP was bragging about how successful their surpression efforts were.

Good thing liberals donated to their cause. Ugh.

What is this is reference to?

When a GOP office was firebombed and some equipment damaged some NC Dem genius decided to start a GoFundMe to raise money for them.

I do believe the GoFundMe was cancelled so NC Dems didn't actually fund the violent and systemic repression of Trans North Carolinians, but it was pretty telling of the Centrist desire to look nice rather than stand for marginalised people.

Russian cyberattacks on US electoral system far wider than previously known; 39 states hit

Bloomberg wrote:

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.

The new details, buttressed by a classified National Security Agency document recently disclosed by the Intercept, show the scope of alleged hacking that federal investigators are scrutinizing as they look into whether Trump campaign officials may have colluded in the efforts. But they also paint a worrisome picture for future elections: The newest portrayal of potentially deep vulnerabilities in the U.S.’s patchwork of voting technologies comes less than a week after former FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that Moscow isn’t done meddling.

“They’re coming after America,” Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the election. “They will be back.”

But because it doesn't involve bombs going off in our streets the public doesn't seem to care.

Kehama wrote:

But because it doesn't involve bombs going off in our streets the public doesn't seem to care.

We get the democracy (or no democracy) we deserve.

When does this lead to a shooting war with Russia? Because this sh*t needs to be punished in a manner that makes the stakes of doing it again untenable.

On this week's Trumpalogues, the president discusses with Attorney General Sessions his interactions with the Russians.

Budo, the Trumpalogues are funny but posting updates in multiple threads to signal boost is pushing a bit hard.

Jayhawker wrote:

When does this lead to a shooting war with Russia? Because this sh*t needs to be punished in a manner that makes the stakes of doing it again untenable.

I'd like the Western Democracies to cut all of Russia's internet ties to the globe.

SallyNasty wrote:

Budo, the Trumpalogues are funny but posting updates in multiple threads to signal boost is pushing a bit hard.

Yeah, you're right. Normally I only do it only in the main thread, but I figured "Russia". Won't be a habit.

MOD

Budo wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Budo, the Trumpalogues are funny but posting updates in multiple threads to signal boost is pushing a bit hard.

Yeah, you're right. Normally I only do it only in the main thread, but I figured "Russia". Won't be a habit.

Unless I've become a major victim of Poe's Law, this thread is the most appropriate for sharing Trumpalogues.

I posted about this before, when it was a different source, but here it is straight from the president himself:

AP: The Latest: Trump says he’s told ‘a straight story’ on Comey

President Donald Trump says he always told a “straight story” about whether he recorded his private conversations with his fired FBI director James Comey.

In an interview broadcast on Fox News Channel’s “Fox &Friends” Friday, Trump repeated that he never made tapes, but added that when Comey “found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed.”

The president said Comey “did admit that what I said was right.”

Trump has disputed Comey’s assertion that Trump asked the FBI director for a pledge of loyalty during a meeting. When news of Comey’s account broke, Trump tweeted that Comey “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

So, to summarize, his "straight story" is that he lied about the tapes in order to intimidate the witness.

Gremlin wrote:

So, to summarize, his "straight story" is that he lied about the tapes in order to intimidate the witness.

I mean, he never actually said that he had tapes that I know of. It's back to implication and innuendo from someone who has power, much like, "I hope you can let this go."

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

So, to summarize, his "straight story" is that he lied about the tapes in order to intimidate the witness.

I mean, he never actually said that he had tapes that I know of. It's back to implication and innuendo from someone who has power, much like, "I hope you can let this go."

Which, of course, makes it worse: by his own admission, the reason he said it was to try to influence Comey. (He also inadvertently admits that Comey's version of the events is true.)

Well, why can't you lie to get someone to do something you want? He's a master negotiator!

Segue to "He's just new at this, he doesn't know any better" defense.

Trump talked with Fox and Friends for some fellating and softballs. One very interesting snippet from Trump:

President Trump wrote:

Well, I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? He should have done something about it.

I know we all know this already, but it's another nice example of Trump either not being briefed on vital things or (more likely) just completely and totally ignoring such briefings or forgetting them shortly after the briefings. In addition to Trump's claim about the inaction being wrong (the WaPo expose talked about his responses, though they were more limited than they could/should be) the fact that he doesn't know the timeline of when the US had what information available shows that he doesn't care about this at all. Unless he's stocked everything with so many yes-men that he legitimately hasn't been briefed on the evidence of Russia's meddling (which is possible, even if I think that's less likely than him just letting it flow in one ear and out the other) he should have had a basic timeline of when we knew what before cable news told him.

I hold out a tiny amount of hope that latter on little pieces of evidence like this will be useful either in an impeachment hearing, or just for public opinion.

Yonder wrote:

I hold out a tiny amount of hope that latter on little pieces of evidence like this will be useful either in an impeachment hearing, or just for public opinion.

Trump's public now believes Obama did nothing, and all evidence to the contrary is "Fake news!"

In the meantime, Trump is trying to returns the Russian compounds that Obama took away in response to the election interference.

It's a f*cked up world.

Or Trump was working with the Russians, the net is tightening in the investigation, and he's trying to redirect blame and responsibility before more information becomes public.

I heard a Trumpista trying to make the case that since the intelligence community was aware of the hacking in real time, then they would have observed evidence of collusion had it happened.

They are ignoring that one of the things the intelligence community observed at that time was a disturbing amount of communication between Trump's camp and the Russians, which is what led to investigations into what they were talking about.

It's no different than the whining about the unmasking. They are acting like they are being persucuted for no reason, when the reasons are f*cking clear.

I'm about 90% sure that Trump's dealings with Russians are all business and if any malfeasance is involved, it's financial (since that's how he rolls). Most likely, some of his advisors, both business and political, a) saw opportunities to coordinate with hackers who were offering them information on Dems, and did it; and b) did not understand that *any* contacts with the Russians could be spun by them to hurt them all later, if not actually used as real blackmail in the future. There's actually a case to be made the Putin not only went after Clinton and the idea of American democracy being stable and strong, but also deliberately hooked Trump's team and then deliberately let them be hung out to dry with never-ending investigations and crazed rants from the The Leader. It's a breathtakingly elegant manipulation, and the fact that Trump managed to sell *Republicans* a Russian propaganda line is just dumbfounding. To top it all off, Putin's team has Trump giving them special favors.

Neville "Peace in our time!" Chamberlain is starting to look pretty good, yeah? The only problem is that we don't have a Churchill in the wings. It's looking more and more like we've got Ceaucescu instead.

The WSJ article is mostly behind the paywall, but:

GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn
Peter W. Smith portrayed the former general as an ally in an effort, independent of the Trump campaign, to find personal emails deleted by Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON—Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers.

GOP Activist Who Sought Clinton Emails Cited Trump Campaign Officials
Peter W. Smith listed Bannon, Conway and Clovis, besides Flynn, in a recruiting document; his purpose isn’t clear and there’s no indication he asked for or received any coordination with them

WASHINGTON—A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort.

Lawfare: Matt Tait: The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians

I read the Wall Street Journal’s article yesterday on attempts by a GOP operative to recover missing Hillary Clinton emails with more than usual interest. I was involved in the events that reporter Shane Harris described, and I was an unnamed source for the initial story.

You know, with everything going on with Trump, I started following him and other people like Caroline Orr and Sarah Kendizor on Twitter and I couldn't help but wonder to myself what are all these people I follow just because of their coverage of President Trump going to talk about when eventually there's no more President Trump to talk about.

Rat Boy wrote:

You know, with everything going on with Trump, I started following him and other people like Caroline Orr and Sarah Kendizor on Twitter and I couldn't help but wonder to myself what are all these people I follow just because of their coverage of President Trump going to talk about when eventually there's no more President Trump to talk about.

Don't worry. You have 7 1/2 years before that's a problem.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Don't worry. You have 7 1/2 years before that's a problem.

You shut up!!!

Seriously though, I don't see 0.45 running for a second term... he's already "won" once. I don't feel like he'd bother running again. I could be wrong (I know, it sounds crazy... it's happened once, or twice before )

Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Don't worry. You have 7 1/2 years before that's a problem.

You shut up!!!

Seriously though, I don't see 0.45 running for a second term... he's already "won" once. I don't feel like he'd bother running again. I could be wrong (I know, it sounds crazy... it's happened once, or twice before )

His re-election campaign has already started / never ended.

Yes, especially since the election commission never enforces any rules, he blatantly funneled campaign funds into his businesses.

Even if he's challenged in the primary and loses he will make a crap ton of money off Trump 2020.

Heck what are the rules if he's impeached? Can he run again? He'd still probably try it to steal a bunch of deplorables morons money through donations.

Edit: wrong thread.

Stele wrote:

Heck what are the rules if he's impeached? Can he run again? He'd still probably try it to steal a bunch of deplorables morons money through donations.

No reason he can't. I expect he'd be pardoned or indicted after an impeachment, neither of which legally prevents him from running again. I doubt he'd win, but if he just wants to grift he can. I asked my lawyer (Mrs. qaraq) and she said double jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment so he could well end up defending himself and his business from charges. I'd love to see the RICO wolves tear the Trump Organization apart but that's not gonna happen (Popehat: Lawsplainer: IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT).

There may well be GOP rules forbidding him from running for their nomination again but that wouldn't stop him running as an independent. Heck, I bet he could just start MAGA-PAC and rake in cash without running for anything at all.