Trump and (Russian) friends at work

Reuters wrote:U.S. grand jury indicts 13 Russian nationals, three entities in alleged election meddling
Reuters•February 16, 2018

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of interfering with U.S. elections and political processes, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office said on Friday.

In a court document, the U.S. government said Russian entities began interfering in U.S. political processes, including the 2016 presidential election, as early as 2014.

Some of the defendants, posing as U.S. persons, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the indictment said.

Target Brands wrote:#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER  “[Collusion] is invaluable in collating the overwhelming evidence of a web of relationships between the Kremlin, Trump and members of Trump’s circle.” —Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times  An explosive exposé that lays out the Trump administration’s ties to Moscow, and Russia’s decades-in-the-making political game to upend American democracy.

December 2016. Luke Harding, the Guardian reporter and former Moscow bureau chief, quietly meets former MI6 officer Christopher Steele in a London pub to discuss President-elect Donald Trump’s Russia connections. A month later, Steele’s now-famous dossier sparks what may be the biggest scandal of the modern era. The names of the Americans involved are well-known—Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page—but here Harding also shines a light on powerful Russian figures like Aras Agalarov, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Sergey Kislyak, whose motivations and instructions may have been coming from the highest echelons of the Kremlin.

Drawing on new material and his expert understanding of Moscow and its players, Harding takes the reader through every bizarre and disquieting detail of the “Trump-Russia” story—an event so huge it involves international espionage, off-shore banks, sketchy real estate deals, the Miss Universe pageant, mobsters, money laundering, poisoned dissidents, computer hacking, and the most shocking election in American history.

Maddog wrote:The Russians were interfering in the Dem primaries too.  I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the Russians and us Americans do this all over the globe.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The Russians were interfering in the Dem primaries too.  I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the Russians and us Americans do this all over the globe.  

Indeed, it does not matter whether you help my man, or hinder my enemy.  It all helps me.

Read the indictment.  It appears that the Russo efforts were strongly on behalf of those who were running against Hillary...notably, Bernie Sanders.  They were also acting on behalf of the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

Anything to take votes away from the real (strongest) Democratic candidate.  And the attack was successful.  Trump would never have won without the Russo intervention.  He's a faux president.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Indeed, it does not matter whether you help my man, or hinder my enemy.  It all helps me.

Read the indictment.  It appears that the Russo efforts were strongly on behalf of those who were running against Hillary...notably, Bernie Sanders.  They were also acting on behalf of the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

Anything to take votes away from the real (strongest) Democratic candidate.  And the attack was successful.  Trump would never have won without the Russo intervention.  He's a faux president.

The Russians want to stir the pot and create unrest in the US.

It appears they were effective.

Obama tried the same in Israel, with less success.

Maddog wrote:But the US is still the reigning champion in interfering in other countries elections.  

Maddog wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/?ex_cid=story-facebook

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/?ex_cid=story-facebook

1. Russian interference is hard to measure because it wasn’t a discrete event.

Why do candidates spend so much money on campaigns if they don’t work on a general level?  Discrete or not, one tries to convince voters to pick your man or woman.  If a candidate can be successful, the Russians can be successful…they use the same methods.  

2. The magnitude of the interference revealed so far is not trivial but is still fairly modest as compared with the operations of the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

This refutes your previous point.  This is in fact an admission that the Russian tactics do work, because they are the same tactics as the candidates use to achieve results.

BTW…how do you grade campaign efforts anyway; do you have a gauge for “modest” and “extreme”?

3. Thematically, the Russian interference tactics were consistent with the reasons Clinton lost.

But, Clinton won...by 3-million votes.  Trump was selected, strategically, in the electoral college.

This means the Russian interference was inconsistent with the results.    I think there is something they are not telling us about the Russians, and the voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  You lose on the facts, here.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

1. Russian interference is hard to measure because it wasn’t a discrete event.

Why do candidates spend so much money on campaigns if they don’t work on a general level?  Discrete or not, one tries to convince voters to pick your man or woman.  If a candidate can be successful, the Russians can be successful…they use the same methods.  

2. The magnitude of the interference revealed so far is not trivial but is still fairly modest as compared with the operations of the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

This refutes your previous point.  This is in fact an admission that the Russian tactics do work, because they are the same tactics as the candidates use to achieve results.

BTW…how do you grade campaign efforts anyway; do you have a gauge for “modest” and “extreme”?

3. Thematically, the Russian interference tactics were consistent with the reasons Clinton lost.

But, Clinton won...by 3-million votes.  Trump was selected, strategically, in the electoral college.

This means the Russian interference was inconsistent with the results.    I think there is something they are not telling us about the Russians, and the voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  You lose on the facts, here.

I just posted a link. I didn't lose anything ya fucking weirdo.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I just posted a link. I didn't lose anything ya fucking weirdo.  

You posted the link, you endorsed it.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.