[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.

DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

What were the "antics"?

Forcing Meuller to testify after he repeatedly assured them he was standing by his report, would refuse to answer anything under investigation, and had nothing further to add, accomplishing nothing worthwhile, and giving Republicans yet another opportunity to characterize the investigation as a witch hunt would qualify in my opinion.

I see. Fair enough. Calling him to testify when they could be holding actual investigations jumping off the report itself was pretty stupid. The actual questions themselves were above board, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I think this is how Trump wins so much.

He gets away with literal anything and then meanwhile a small tactical mistake on the Democrats' part is called "antics".

Keldar wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

So is it a vote for the democratic candidate because they aren't trump? What can even the most milquetoast democratic candidate offer that your brother would agree with to keep his vote?

Dignity.

And Normalcy, which is probably the most double edged sword. It might get us through 2020, but to really start fixing things we need 2022 as well.

To my endless dismay though most of the research I've read points to Negative Enthusiasm being one of, if not the, most important factors in elections. As much as people protest otherwise most of the population votes Against things, not for them. It's a large reason why, with few exceptions, the party that holds the Presidency generally loses seats in the House, Senate, and Governors mansions. The party out of power is more motivated to vote against the party in power, then members of the party in power are motivated to vote to keep it.

DSGamer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

What were the "antics"?

Forcing Meuller to testify after he repeatedly assured them he was standing by his report, would refuse to answer anything under investigation, and had nothing further to add, accomplishing nothing worthwhile, and giving Republicans yet another opportunity to characterize the investigation as a witch hunt would qualify in my opinion.

I see. Fair enough. Calling him to testify when they could be holding actual investigations jumping off the report itself was pretty stupid. The actual questions themselves were above board, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I think this is how Trump wins so much.

He gets away with literal anything and then meanwhile a small tactical mistake on the Democrats' part is called "antics".

Except he doesn't win all the time. Unless his complete capitulation when it comes to the census exists only in my head. Or the government shutdown. Or the Wall. Or...

This aura of invincibility people project onto him is harmful!

thrawn82 wrote:

I'm confused about what you expect from independents at this point. DO you really think there is a group of people who are ok with concentration camps, immigration purges, tariffs, gerrymandering, stripping out election protection, and warhawking on iran... but are somehow also poised to vote for a Democrat in 2020 unless we do something to discourage them?

IMO there is no such thing as an undecided voter any longer. There are left leaning independents, and right leaning independents... but there is no turning one into the other. the only difference is whether they stay home or vote.

Between 6.7 and 9.2 million people who voted for Obama turned around and voted for Trump in 2016.

Something made between 4.8% and 6.7% of the people who voted in 2016 change from Hope and Forward to MAGA.

Yonder wrote:

The question is whether it is at all worth courting such a voter. For example "hey, brown people are taking our jobs, and we should stop them. Also we should have free access to healthcare" is probably a statement that you could get a lot of people behind! I fervently, fervently, fervently hope that that is not the road that any Democrats take in 2020 because it's soulless and evil, but the Democrats are excellent at disappointing people. I'm sure there will be concentration camp-ambivalent purple state Democrats running in the House and State come 2020.

The unfortunate answer to that question is "Yes, it's absolutely worth courting those deplorables if it gets Trump out of the White House." It's pure realpolitik. Trump and the GOP are a threat to this country and we have to do whatever it takes to keep them out of power until demographics kick in and it's impossible for conservatives to win elections based entirely on appealing to racists hicks.

Democrats are in a very awkward phase where, on paper, they have enough voters to win just about any election. Young people are overwhelmingly progressive (and racially diverse) and there's more of them than older, more conservative voters. The only problem is that young voters don't f*cking show up on election day and older voters do.

So Democrats have to walk a tightrope where they have to still appeal to fickle white voters, especially non-college educated white voters, and yet also do everything they can to maximize turnout among the younger and more diverse voters of their base. Unfortunately, that's a bit of a zero-sum game.

If they fully embrace young progressives and black and Hispanic voters they'll piss off those white voters--witness the endless f*cking hand wringing over the plight of white blue collar workers in 2016--and will lose the election because those more conservative white voters will show up on election day whereas those progressive younger voters won't.

And if they cater to white voters, the black and Hispanic voters who make up the base of the party will get demoralized and not vote. 2016 saw the black voter turnout crater by 7%, the first time it had decreased in 20 years, and Hispanic turnout was flat compared to 2012 even though there were 3 million more Hispanic voters in 2016.

Zona wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I see. Fair enough. Calling him to testify when they could be holding actual investigations jumping off the report itself was pretty stupid. The actual questions themselves were above board, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I think this is how Trump wins so much.

He gets away with literal anything and then meanwhile a small tactical mistake on the Democrats' part is called "antics".

Except he doesn't win all the time. Unless his complete capitulation when it comes to the census exists only in my head. Or the government shutdown. Or the Wall. Or...

This aura of invincibility people project onto him is harmful!

I guess it depends on your definition of winning. He's taken over his party and either defeated or absorbed almost the entirety of operational American conservatism. He may be handed defeats periodically in the courts or because members of the bureaucracy aren't giving in, but he's completely redefined the GOP.

He just took off the mask.

In terms of legal consequences for him personally that was always going to have to wait until he was out of office.

On the bright side even if we end up with Biden and he decides to lose his mind and pull a Ford, anyone who doesn’t think NYS is going to drop every hammer they can think of the moment he’s no longer president... Well I have some nice riverside property straddling both the Brooklyn and Manhattan shoreline to sell. For every bad thing you can rightfully say about Cuomo his ambitious, power hungry, vainglorious, attention seeking heart won’t allow anything else. The governor who took down a president? Who took down Trump? In New York? If we don’t go for the Roman triumphal processions it will be because we’re too busy petitioning the pope to canonize him.

Jayhawker wrote:
trichy wrote:

If you think that anything that occurred yesterday helped convince independents to support Democrats, you weren't watching the same thing I was. This:

garion333 wrote:

What happened yesterday was a huge loss for the Dems. They couldn't get a single interesting thing out of Mueller, which is what he warned them about. And to top it off he came off more like someone addled with dementia than a paragon of justice.

is how someone who AGREES with us saw yesterday (I'm on the same page). How the hell do you think someone who isn't 100% in our camp saw it? And you want another year and a half of that? I have more confidence in Democratic leadership than most, and I have exactly zero faith that they can manage an impeachment hearing in a way that doesn't blow up in our face.

You might want to read more of Garion's posts. He's on the Matt Taibbi and Aaron Maté train, which is fine if you agree with those guys. But I am definitely not on their train.

Fwiw, I don't agree with everything Aaron says, certainly, but he's certainly spot on about the Mueller Report and/or Mueller being some sort of savior. When charges were brought against his campaign folks it seemed like someone higher up was going to be caught but then it stopped.

It is weird to see my thoughts echoed in the National Review. Granted, French is the only writer at the National Review I'll ever bother reading, but still.

I also think Nancy Pelosi is going to dangle impeachment in front of folks as long as possible to keep the base motivated, much like Trump does in re immigrants.

DSGamer wrote:
Zona wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I see. Fair enough. Calling him to testify when they could be holding actual investigations jumping off the report itself was pretty stupid. The actual questions themselves were above board, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I think this is how Trump wins so much.

He gets away with literal anything and then meanwhile a small tactical mistake on the Democrats' part is called "antics".

Except he doesn't win all the time. Unless his complete capitulation when it comes to the census exists only in my head. Or the government shutdown. Or the Wall. Or...

This aura of invincibility people project onto him is harmful!

I guess it depends on your definition of winning. He's taken over his party and either defeated or absorbed almost the entirety of operational American conservatism. He may be handed defeats periodically in the courts or because members of the bureaucracy aren't giving in, but he's completely redefined the GOP.

That more or less defines anyone who becomes President.

I feel like you're assigning more winning to him than is warranted and also reads like right wing propoganda. That's the aura of invincibility Zona is referring to. It's a real thing. Don't fall for it!

garion333 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
trichy wrote:

If you think that anything that occurred yesterday helped convince independents to support Democrats, you weren't watching the same thing I was. This:

garion333 wrote:

What happened yesterday was a huge loss for the Dems. They couldn't get a single interesting thing out of Mueller, which is what he warned them about. And to top it off he came off more like someone addled with dementia than a paragon of justice.

is how someone who AGREES with us saw yesterday (I'm on the same page). How the hell do you think someone who isn't 100% in our camp saw it? And you want another year and a half of that? I have more confidence in Democratic leadership than most, and I have exactly zero faith that they can manage an impeachment hearing in a way that doesn't blow up in our face.

You might want to read more of Garion's posts. He's on the Matt Taibbi and Aaron Maté train, which is fine if you agree with those guys. But I am definitely not on their train.

Fwiw, I don't agree with everything Aaron says, certainly, but he's certainly spot on about the Mueller Report and/or Mueller being some sort of savior. When charges were brought against his campaign folks it seemed like someone higher up was going to be caught but then it stopped.

It is weird to see my thoughts echoed in the National Review. Granted, French is the only writer at the National Review I'll ever bother reading, but still.

I also think Nancy Pelosi is going to dangle impeachment in front of folks as long as possible to keep the base motivated, much like Trump does in re immigrants.

Yeah, I don't think it is weird.

Pelosi Concerned Outspoken Progressive Flank Of Party Could Harm Democrats’ Reputation As Ineffectual Cowards

IMAGE(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KM7_4NIl--/c_fit,dpr_3.0,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/cnm5cyxf7b6zdlypgciw.jpg)

WASHINGTON—Admitting she had worries about the rise of left-leaning activist groups within her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed concerns Thursday that outspoken progressives could do permanent damage to Democrats’ reputation as ineffectual cowards. “They mean well, but if they continue to aggressively push their agenda like this, they run the risk of fundamentally altering the public’s perception of Democrats as bumbling, feckless chumps,” said Pelosi, adding that this brash brand of politics could be easily manipulated by Republicans to paint the party as something other than a bunch of sniveling wimps who are too weak-willed and complacent to stand up for anything with even remote political risk. “I understand where these groups are coming from, but while it might feel good to vent their frustrations about the state of the country, they could undermine what I believe should be our core 2020 argument: We are dithering, incompetent doormats who are infinitesimally less objectionable than our opposition.” Pelosi also noted that her concerns shouldn’t be overstated, as she knew it would take more than a few activists for voters to associate the Democratic party with the vaguest inkling of courage.
I also think Nancy Pelosi is going to dangle impeachment in front of folks as long as possible to protect the other ongoing investigations

FIXED
And I am okay with that. It is also a decent enough bulwark to prevent or slow further erosion of our democracy by this president...

garion333 wrote:

Pelosi Concerned Outspoken Progressive Flank Of Party Could Harm Democrats’ Reputation As Ineffectual Cowards

IMAGE(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KM7_4NIl--/c_fit,dpr_3.0,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/cnm5cyxf7b6zdlypgciw.jpg)

WASHINGTON—Admitting she had worries about the rise of left-leaning activist groups within her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed concerns Thursday that outspoken progressives could do permanent damage to Democrats’ reputation as ineffectual cowards. “They mean well, but if they continue to aggressively push their agenda like this, they run the risk of fundamentally altering the public’s perception of Democrats as bumbling, feckless chumps,” said Pelosi, adding that this brash brand of politics could be easily manipulated by Republicans to paint the party as something other than a bunch of sniveling wimps who are too weak-willed and complacent to stand up for anything with even remote political risk. “I understand where these groups are coming from, but while it might feel good to vent their frustrations about the state of the country, they could undermine what I believe should be our core 2020 argument: We are dithering, incompetent doormats who are infinitesimally less objectionable than our opposition.” Pelosi also noted that her concerns shouldn’t be overstated, as she knew it would take more than a few activists for voters to associate the Democratic party with the vaguest inkling of courage.

Because having two parties that cheat and obstruct would be better? I guess I just don't see what we expect Democrats to do that shows "courage" but isn't the same garbage as the GOP. Help me out.

Mixolyde wrote:

Because having two parties that cheat and obstruct would be better? I guess I just don't see what we expect Democrats to do that shows "courage" but isn't the same garbage as the GOP. Help me out.

Who says they need to stoop to GOP tactics? They just need to actually try to get anything accomplished. Even if it gets shot down by McConnell in the Senate (which it will), it will show the electorate that they are trying to make things better while the GOP are just being obstructionist sh*tlords.
The Dems in Congress also currently have several of the most popular politicians in the country, they could be leveraging that to their benefit instead of trying to downplay and suppress them, which is what the article is satirizing.

ruhk wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Because having two parties that cheat and obstruct would be better? I guess I just don't see what we expect Democrats to do that shows "courage" but isn't the same garbage as the GOP. Help me out.

Who says they need to stoop to GOP tactics? They just need to actually try to get anything accomplished. Even if it gets shot down by McConnell in the Senate (which it will), it will show the electorate that they are trying to make things better while the GOP are just being obstructionist sh*tlords.
The Dems in Congress also currently have several of the most popular politicians in the country, they could be leveraging that to their benefit instead of trying to downplay and suppress them, which is what the article is satirizing.

They have been trying to accomplish things. McConnell is simply refusing to allow anything to be brought to the floor (which is total bullsh*t and a rule that should be changed). Hell, they're even blocking election security bills...

I meant more in the “do something about Trump” vein, but I guess I didn’t explicitly say that, so fair enough. I’m just so effing tired of typing that idiot’s name.

Every time you type it, just add a few bars. It will make you feel so much better ;P

Mitch and his ilk are still the issue with the Trump problem even if the Dems go full Shock and Awe tomorrow.

Mixolyde wrote:

Because having two parties that cheat and obstruct would be better? I guess I just don't see what we expect Democrats to do that shows "courage" but isn't the same garbage as the GOP. Help me out.

Dude, that was Onion article. Not sure why it is here and not the satire thread. It also undercuts Garion’s running commentary that the Dems shouldn’t pursue impeachment. Maybe he thought it was a real article?

Most of the Pelosi bashing ignores what she is doing, which, supposedly Garion agrees with, which has been waiting for a larger outcry for impeachment, so that when she goes there it is not viewed as a Democratic political stunt. After Mueller, she told Dems to feel free to push for impeachment publicly.

This is the time to push for it.

To the GOP, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Can you imagine rounding up GOP senators in the wake of their meddling and going to Russia to make nice? Arguing from a position of weakness, saying they want to be friends? On the 4th of July?

We’ll just pretend it wasn’t a big thank you to the Kremlin. We are so f*cked.

Paper. Just go paper

Even the voting machine companies are lobbying for it

New York (CNN)The US's largest election equipment manufacturer has begun quietly lobbying Congress to force all voting equipment to create a paper trail, a sharp departure after years of selling paperless digital machines that can't be fully audited. The change of stance comes amid concerns over the security of elections following Russia's interference effort in the 2016 presidential election.

Yeah even a hanging chad is better than nothing at all.

In Oregon we have vote-by-mail paper ballots. Everyone receives their ballot a month in advance and there are emergency drop off sites at public buildings for those of us too irresponsible to mail the ballot back in time. It seriously should be adopted in more states.

JC wrote:

Paper. Just go paper

Even the voting machine companies are lobbying for it

New York (CNN)The US's largest election equipment manufacturer has begun quietly lobbying Congress to force all voting equipment to create a paper trail, a sharp departure after years of selling paperless digital machines that can't be fully audited. The change of stance comes amid concerns over the security of elections following Russia's interference effort in the 2016 presidential election.

What's ridiculous is that this was an obvious requirement when electronic machines went in. I understand not giving voters a receipt with their vote, because it would lead to vote buying. But even cash registers have an internal tape that records, in ink, every transaction. If the digital record is corrupted, it allows you to move forward.

Not having a paper trail is not a "mistake." It was a feature certain political actors wanted. At this point, I think we need remove electronic machines and go back to paper ballots. The machines I have voted on in Missouri do have an internal paper record. And there is a door that allows you to open and see the that your votes were recorded properly. But even that requires someone to actually verify it later.

I would absolutely support an investigation into how all of the voting machine decisions went down, going back to Diebold's actions in Ohio 20 years ago.

Mother Jones, from 2004: Diebold’s Political Machine: Political insiders suggest Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago. Which is why the state’s plan to use paperless touch-screen voting machines has so many up in arms.

At a trade fair held recently here in Columbus, a wide range of companies seeking to fill that void demonstrated technologies that could easily and cheaply provide paper receipts for ballots. One such product, called TruVote, provides two separate voting receipts. The first is shown under plexiglass, and displays the choices made by a vote on the touch screen. This copy falls into a lockbox after the voter approves it. The second is provided to the voter. TruVote is already attracting fans, among them Brooks Thomas, Tennessee’s Coordinator of Elections. “I’ve not seen anything that compares to [the] TruVote validation system.” Georgia’s Assistant Secretary of State, Terrell L. Slayton, Jr., calls the device is the “perfect solution.” But Blackwell argues the campaign for a paper ballot trail for Ohio is an attempt to “derail” reform. He says he’ll comply with the demand only if Congress mandates it.

John Sipher, the author of this article, retweeted this article today, saying, "The one piece of 'news' from the Mueller hearing was his cooperation with an ongoing counterintelligence investigation. Re-upping an earlier article on what this might look like."

The Atlantic: The Russia Investigation Will Continue

The inability to establish that the Trump campaign conspired in a “tacit or express” agreement with the Russian government is not surprising. Most espionage investigations come up empty unless and until they get a lucky break. That does not mean there was no espionage activity in relation to the 2016 election. Every previous Russian political-warfare campaign was built on human spies. Russian “active measures”—propaganda, information warfare, cyberattacks, disinformation, use of forgeries, spreading conspiracies and rumors, funding extremist groups and deception operations—rely on human actors to support and inform their success. Counterintelligence professionals must doubt that Russia could have pulled off its election-interference effort without the support of spies burrowed into U.S. society or institutions.
Consequently, there is still much to uncover—and America’s intelligence services will work to uncover it. For example, how did the Kremlin know where to aim its disinformation effort? How did it know which communities to target, in which counties and states? One can argue that the Russians had a better sense of where to deploy their resources than did the Clinton campaign. Why did Trump and those around him consistently parrot Russian talking points? Why was the campaign so intent on disregarding expert advice on Russian issues? The Mueller report notes that while investigators couldn’t prove a conspiracy, some people nonetheless displayed conspiratorial behavior (destroying communications, engaging in a cover-up, and obstructing the work of investigators). The FBI, which has the benefit of secret intelligence, is certainly aware that it has only scratched the surface of Russian activities in 2016. Cyberhacks, troll farms, and the use of WikiLeaks are hardly cutting-edge espionage tradecraft. The Russian efforts that have been revealed to date were poorly hidden and displayed little professional elegance. Counterintelligence agencies must find it hard to believe the cupboard is already bare.
-
As Mueller pointed out, the Russians had a dedicated and extensive program to damage the U.S. polity. They sent numerous representatives to contact willing Trump representatives, looking for potential sources, access points to influence policy, and means to disseminate Russian talking points. Russian intelligence officers, like their American counterparts, would seek to establish as many contacts as possible and push as far as the market would bear in order to develop new sources. In the CIA, where I worked for 28 years, we used the analogy of a traffic light. A field officer pursuing a potential source would press forward slowly, assessing the target’s reaction to increasingly provocative and conspiratorial requests. As long as we received a “green light” in response, we would push the relationship further in the direction of our goal. If we hit a “yellow light,” we would reassess and try a different tack. We would stop only when we hit a firm “red light.” From the Mueller report, we now know that those around Trump were consistently flashing green.
Likewise, counterintelligence professionals know that criminal prosecution is rarely the best tool for neutralizing the enemy. Even when investigators and intelligence officers are confident they’ve uncovered a spy, it is not a given that the person will be prosecuted. Hundreds of Americans spied for the Soviet Union during World War II and the Cold War, and only a small handful were ever brought to trial. The government’s methods of uncovering spies and its need to protect its sources limit its ability to produce convictions.
-
To some, it may seem unfair that investigators would not drop their efforts even after Mueller concluded that he could not “establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.” Trump clearly thinks he’s been vindicated; he spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday and said on Twitter that they discussed the “Russia Hoax” in their “long and very good conversation.”
ruhk wrote:

In Oregon we have vote-by-mail paper ballots. Everyone receives their ballot a month in advance and there are emergency drop off sites at public buildings for those of us too irresponsible to mail the ballot back in time. It seriously should be adopted in more states.

Same in Washington... the state, not the swamp.

polypusher wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In Oregon we have vote-by-mail paper ballots. Everyone receives their ballot a month in advance and there are emergency drop off sites at public buildings for those of us too irresponsible to mail the ballot back in time. It seriously should be adopted in more states.

Same in Washington... the state, not the swamp.

That's a good system.

Minnesota uses scan-able paper ballots. Scanned votes are recorded digitally, but have easily-readable paper backup for validation, recounts, etc.

NC has scanned paper ballots.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
polypusher wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In Oregon we have vote-by-mail paper ballots. Everyone receives their ballot a month in advance and there are emergency drop off sites at public buildings for those of us too irresponsible to mail the ballot back in time. It seriously should be adopted in more states.

Same in Washington... the state, not the swamp.

That's a good system.

Minnesota uses scan-able paper ballots. Scanned votes are recorded digitally, but have easily-readable paper backup for validation, recounts, etc.

Seriously, this should be the system everywhere in the US.

In Missouri, we have both. You can choose what kind of ballot you want, scannable or to use the digital booth.

Whatever you do it won't stop the states from simply destroying everything immediately for "reasons"