[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.

Chaz wrote:

Cool, can we all go back to ignoring this now? It's a nothingburger. They just did it that once (allegedly) to see if they could. I'm sure they won't do it again, and it's not like we have any consequential elections coming up.

oilypenguin wrote:

Someone came into my office at work and I showed her. Her response was immediately, "fake news."

A KNOWN ENEMY IS MEDDLING WITH THE FABRIC OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND HOMELAND SECURITY IS CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO TELL US. SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN POLITICAL SIDES.

Holy sh*t am I scared for us as a nation.

The response I usually hear is "we do the same thing".

oilypenguin wrote:

Someone came into my office at work and I showed her. Her response was immediately, "fake news."

Homeland Security is telling the truth when they say that Mexicans and terrorists are going swamp our country and destroy it, but they're Deep State liars when they say our bitter enemy for nearly three generations is still trying to undermine and attack us. Got it.

Yonder wrote:
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

Was that exceptionally small number f*cking zero?

was it 7? in particular those 7 that unexpected swung for trump?

garion333 wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Cool, can we all go back to ignoring this now? It's a nothingburger. They just did it that once (allegedly) to see if they could. I'm sure they won't do it again, and it's not like we have any consequential elections coming up.

oilypenguin wrote:

Someone came into my office at work and I showed her. Her response was immediately, "fake news."

A KNOWN ENEMY IS MEDDLING WITH THE FABRIC OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND HOMELAND SECURITY IS CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO TELL US. SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN POLITICAL SIDES.

Holy sh*t am I scared for us as a nation.

The response I usually hear is "we do the same thing".

NO WE F***KING DON'T. ARG!

we have done some shadey stuff, no doubt, but rigging elections hasn't been one of them.

thrawn82 wrote:
Yonder wrote:
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

Was that exceptionally small number f*cking zero?

was it 7? in particular those 7 that unexpected swung for trump?

I feel like Homeland Security has an obligation to the people to reveal which states were compromised, precisely so that they can address questions like this one.

thrawn82 wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Cool, can we all go back to ignoring this now? It's a nothingburger. They just did it that once (allegedly) to see if they could. I'm sure they won't do it again, and it's not like we have any consequential elections coming up.

oilypenguin wrote:

Someone came into my office at work and I showed her. Her response was immediately, "fake news."

A KNOWN ENEMY IS MEDDLING WITH THE FABRIC OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND HOMELAND SECURITY IS CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO TELL US. SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN POLITICAL SIDES.

Holy sh*t am I scared for us as a nation.

The response I usually hear is "we do the same thing".

NO WE F***KING DON'T. ARG!

we have done some shadey stuff, no doubt, but rigging elections hasn't been one of them.

Eh, I'd be less than shocked if we (the CIA or similar) had. However, the point should be this is why we (the US as a whole) should be hardening our electoral processes to prevent it.

thrawn82 wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Cool, can we all go back to ignoring this now? It's a nothingburger. They just did it that once (allegedly) to see if they could. I'm sure they won't do it again, and it's not like we have any consequential elections coming up.

oilypenguin wrote:

Someone came into my office at work and I showed her. Her response was immediately, "fake news."

A KNOWN ENEMY IS MEDDLING WITH THE FABRIC OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND HOMELAND SECURITY IS CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO TELL US. SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN POLITICAL SIDES.

Holy sh*t am I scared for us as a nation.

The response I usually hear is "we do the same thing".

NO WE F***KING DON'T. ARG!

we have done some shadey stuff, no doubt, but rigging elections hasn't been one of them.

Yeah but Hildawg tho.... Ya know....emails or something clintony

I believe 'Benghazi' is the correct rebuttal here.

oilypenguin wrote:

I believe 'Benghazi' is the correct rebuttal here.

I've always been a fan of "buttery males"

I think a big question being asked within the (ethical) intelligence community is: if evidence reaches or has reached undisputed proof of tampering that would overturn the election... What do we do about it now?

There may be a lot riding on Mueller's investigation not because of what he's found, specifically, but whether what he finds counts as "good enough" for consequences of tampering the election so we can move on without a constitutional crisis.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I think a big question being asked within the (ethical) intelligence community is: if evidence reaches or has reached undisputed proof of tampering that would overturn the election... What do we do about it now?

There may be a lot riding on Mueller's investigation not because of what he's found, specifically, but whether what he finds counts as "good enough" for consequences of tampering the election so we can move on without a constitutional crisis.

I would imagine of those ethical career intelligence officials, law enforcement, and/or military members simply refused to believe that it was possible that such deep-seated corruption and systemic infiltration to occur in the US.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I think a big question being asked within the (ethical) intelligence community is: if evidence reaches or has reached undisputed proof of tampering that would overturn the election... What do we do about it now?

Impeach or don't. Those are your options.

If undisputed proof was revealed, then sure, notionally, that could be grounds for impeachment. But that simply won't happen. "Undisputed" is not a thing that happens anymore. Fake news. Sad.

Oh, I'M with you, but I think there's a ton of people who are seeing more and more of the evidence and see their careers on the line if they step forward in contravention of Dept. policy and without the ability to anything to impeach the President themselves... And in doing so may even HURT the chances of anything real happening because of de-legitimizing the natural process (despite the fact that the process is losing legitimacy by the day anyway).

So what do they do? If you're NOT Mueller? I'm guessing they turn it over to Mueller and cross their fingers at this point.

In this environment how does someone come forward in a way that would productively move things forward towards fixing it? Closest I can think of is that you shop it around media outlets as a whistleblower... which sounds less effective than working through Mueller if you can. Although it's certainly more pure, ethically, but I could see why they'd imagine it would just blow over in a week with no repercussions (other than losing your career and probably going to jail) whereas if Mueller can add it to his pile then maybe something comes of it, even if what comes of it is piled onto an impeachment and still somewhat lost.

Even best case scenario you're pushing America towards constitutional crisis and potential civil war. As much as I want clear, quick, decisive action taken to fix our democracy but since we all know that ISN'T happening and I wonder what someone in that position would do. I'm guessing they get the info to Mueller, but I have no idea.

Jolly Bill wrote:

In this environment how does someone come forward in a way that would productively move things forward towards fixing it? Closest I can think of is that you shop it around media outlets as a whistleblower... which sounds less effective than working through Mueller if you can. Although it's certainly more pure, ethically, but I could see why they'd imagine it would just blow over in a week with no repercussions (other than losing your career and probably going to jail) whereas if Mueller can add it to his pile then maybe something comes of it, even if what comes of it is piled onto an impeachment and still somewhat lost.

Christopher Steele did exactly this. The dude--a twenty plus year veteran of the intelligence community--was scared sh*tless about what his investigations uncovered about Trump and what they implied. It's why he went to the FBI days after he reported it to Fusion GPS. And why he briefed media when he got the sense that the FBI was just sitting on the information he gave them.

And yet the Republican reaction to that has been to paint Steele--a Brit--as someone who was against Trump for purely political reasons when the reality was he was against Trump being elected because he saw Trump was the thrall of a (hostile) foreign government.

Yup. Which is why I think those who are still involved and want an ethical solution are holding things tight and depending on Mueller. It's scary as hell but so much rides on that, so much more than just whether Trump is guilty of crimes.

Not that I think this goes anywhere, but attempts are at least being made: House Democrats Demand Election Security Hearings

Specifically, Thursday's letter harps on a vow Attorney General Jeff Session made at a November hearing to brief the committee on DOJ’s election security work. The Democrats wrote that DOJ still has not provided a briefing or responded to questions sent to Sessions in early December.
Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

I believe 'Benghazi' is the correct rebuttal here.

I've always been a fan of "buttery males"

As a reminder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatab...

I don't remember what I wrote here, but Seth Abramson is connecting a lot of imaginary dots here. He's stupid excited.

Outside of that, the video is fascinating to see the inner workings of Russia, all thanks to an escort who told all in a book.

Meh. Seth Abramson tends to go off half-cocked, so I'll wait for other information.

Meanwhile:

The Intercept: U.S. SECRETLY NEGOTIATED WITH RUSSIANS TO BUY STOLEN NSA DOCUMENTS — AND THE RUSSIANS OFFERED TRUMP-RELATED MATERIAL, TOO

THE UNITED STATES intelligence community has been conducting a top-secret operation to recover stolen classified U.S. government documents from Russian operatives, according to sources familiar with the matter. The operation has also inadvertently yielded a cache of documents purporting to relate to Donald Trump and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Over the past year, American intelligence officials have opened a secret communications channel with the Russian operatives, who have been seeking to sell both Trump-related materials and documents stolen from the National Security Agency and obtained by Russian intelligence, according to people involved with the matter and other documentary evidence. The channel started developing in early 2017, when American and Russian intermediaries began meeting in Germany. Eventually, a Russian intermediary, apparently representing some elements of the Russian intelligence community, agreed to a deal to sell stolen NSA documents back to the U.S. while also seeking to include Trump-related materials in the package.

Further, it is not known whether the Russians involved in the channel are acting on their own or have been authorized by the Russian government to try to sell the materials to the United States. As a result, the Americans are uncertain whether the Russians involved are part of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Moscow, either to discredit Trump or to discredit efforts by American officials investigating Trump’s possible ties to Russia, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The CIA, which is now headed by a Trump loyalist, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, has at times been reluctant to stay involved in the operation, apparently for fear of obtaining the Trump-related material offered by the Russians, according to sources close to the negotiations. In the period in which the communications channel has been open, CIA officials are said to have repeatedly changed their views about it. They have sometimes expressed interest, only to later back away from any involvement with the channel and the intermediaries. At some points, the CIA has been serious enough about buying materials through the channel that agency officials said they had transported cash to the CIA’s station in Berlin to complete the transaction. But at other points, agency officials backed off and shut down their communications. Some people involved with the channel believe that the CIA has grown so heavily politicized under Pompeo that officials there have become fearful of taking possession of any materials that might be considered damaging to Trump.

Um, what.

Politico: Devin Nunes creates his own alternative news site: Embattled California congressman finds a way to bypass the mainstream media.

LOS ANGELES — House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a relentless critic of the media, has found a way around the often unflattering coverage of his role in the Trump-Russia investigation — by operating his own partisan news outlet.

Resembling a local, conservative news site, “The California Republican” is classified on Facebook as a “media/news company” and claims to deliver “the best of US, California, and Central Valley news, sports, and analysis.”

But the website is paid for by Nunes’ campaign committee, according to small print at the bottom of the site. Leading the home page most recently: a photograph of Nunes over the headline, “Understanding the process behind #ReleaseTheMemo.”

That's kind of brilliant, really. Just lean into that fake news problem on social media by creating your own fake news propaganda outlet. That's pretty savvy for someone who otherwise seems like a clueless fool.

Something I was previously unaware of: Nunes has close ties to Flynn.

Newsweek: Nunes Memo Reveals Congressman's Penchant for Conspiracy Theories

[...]

Janz thinks he knows why: Nunes’s mentorship by Michael Flynn, the now disgraced former Trump national security adviser. “I know that they had a pretty close relationship,” he said. Nunes served on the executive committee of the Trump transition team with Flynn, he noted, which was headed by Vice President Mike Pence, “and it seems to me like he never left. He's still on that team.“

A descendent of Portuguese Azorean immigrants, Nunes grew up on a Central Valley, California farm and concentrated on water issues when he came to Congress in 2003. But his fundraising prowess for fellow Republicans endeared him to Representative Paul Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner, who in 2013 anointed him chairman of the intelligence panel.

Like many hawks back then, Nunes was in awe of Flynn, who had won praise for revolutionizing the hunt for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. “This guy was one of the best intelligence officers in several generations,” Nunes told me in a December 23, 2016 interview. “I don't know if you've ever met him, but Flynn is extremely smart. He really is top notch.”

Nunes was speaking fives months after Flynn had startled many former military officers by leading “Lock her up” chants against Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention. It was also two years after the Obama White House has forced Flynn’s resignation as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. “What happened,” Nunes told me, “is...he went out and said a lot of things that Obama didn't like…”

But that’s not close to the full story on Flynn, whose battlefield talents didn’t transfer well to running the DIA from 2012 to 2014. Not only were his executive skills lacking, according to many observers, including former Army general and Secretary of State Colin Powell, he quickly developed a reputation for indulging in conspiracy theories—or “Flynn facts,” his aides derisively called them.

[...]

Nunes and Flynn evidently maintained close ties through the election and beyond, even as Flynn’s world was beginning to unravel with questions about his payments from Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today, secret talks with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and a confidential lobbying contract with a law firm tied to Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “I talk to Flynn virtually everyday, if not multiple times a day,” Nunes told me in the late December 2016 interview. “Seldom there's a day that goes by that I don't talk to Flynn, and especially right after the campaign, directly.”
ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's kind of brilliant, really. Just lean into that fake news problem on social media by creating your own fake news propaganda outlet. That's pretty savvy for someone who otherwise seems like a clueless fool.

Probably a gift from his real employer.

DSGamer wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's kind of brilliant, really. Just lean into that fake news problem on social media by creating your own fake news propaganda outlet. That's pretty savvy for someone who otherwise seems like a clueless fool.

Probably a gift from his real employer.

Well, at least someone is willing to putin the effort.

Not you, Clocky. Not you.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Well, at least someone is willing to putin the effort.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Lq4P6X5.jpg)

SallyNasty wrote:

Not you, Clocky. Not you.

Clocky’s one of us! One of us!

SallyNasty wrote:

Not you, Clocky. Not you.

?

ClockworkHouse wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Not you, Clocky. Not you.

?

He shouldn’t be Russian to conclusions like that.

obirano wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Not you, Clocky. Not you.

?

He shouldn’t be Russian to conclusions like that.

Ural going to wish you hadn’t started this.