Support NeoGAF

[TheMikado]

At least 99% of intelligence agency employees are bureacrats. The people in the clandestine services that are actually risking their lives doing covert work aren't the ones doing these assessments. And no, I'm not just going to take what they say as fact. They are some of the same people that said there was WMD in Iraq. Everything is political.

But that's not true... Most began their work as field officers of varying types.

Lieutenant General Robert P. Ashley, Jr., USA
Director

Lieutenant General Robert P. Ashley, Jr. became the 21st Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency on 3 October 2017. He formerly served as the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, where he was the senior advisor to the Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff for all aspects of intelligence, counterintelligence and security.

Lieutenant General Ashley is a career army military intelligence officer with assignments in Fort Bragg, NC, Washington, DC, Fort Gordon, GA, MacDill Air Force Base, FL, Izmir, Turkey, and deployments to Operation JOINT FORGE, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq, and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan.

He has commanded at the company, battalion, squadron, and brigade levels with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as a squadron, brigade commander, and J-2. His commands include the 206th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Gordon, GA, Intelligence Squadron, Office of Military Support, Washington, DC, and the 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (Airborne), XVIII Airborne Corps.

Other key assignments include the Director of Intelligence, United States Army Joint Special Operations Command; the Director of Intelligence, United States Central Command; the Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, International Security Assistance Force and Director of Intelligence, United States Forces, Afghanistan; and Commanding General, the United States Army Intelligence Center of Excellence and Fort Huachuca, AZ.

Michael S. Rogers
Michael S. Rogers 2nd Commander of United States Cyber Command In office
April 3, 2014 – May 4, 2018[1]President Barack Obama
Donald TrumpPreceded by Keith B. AlexanderSucceeded by Paul M. Nakasone17th Director of the National Security Agency In office
April 3, 2014 – May 4, 2018[1]President Barack Obama
Donald TrumpDeputy George C. BarnesPreceded by Keith B. AlexanderSucceeded by Paul M. NakasonePersonal details Born October 31, 1959 (age 58)
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.Education Auburn University (BA)
Naval War College (MS)Military service Allegiance United StatesService/branch United States NavyYears of service 1981–2018Rank AdmiralCommands U.S. Cyber Command,
National Security Agency,
Central Security Service
U.S. Fleet Cyber Command
U.S. Tenth FleetBattles/wars Invasion of Grenada
Multinational Force in Lebanon
Michael S. Rogers (born October 31, 1959) is a former United States Navy admiral who served as the second commander of the U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). He concurrently served as the 17th director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and as chief of the Central Security Service (CSS) from April 3, 2014. Prior to that, Rogers served as the Commander of the Tenth Fleet and Commander of the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command.[2]During his tenure, he helped transform and elevate U.S. Cyber Command into a unified combatant command. He was relieved from the NSA, CSS and USCYBERCOM positions on May 4, 2018, during USCYBERCOM's command elevation ceremony, as well as handing command over to his successor, Paul Nakasone.[3] He announced at that ceremony that he would officially retire from active duty in the United States Navy on June 1, 2018.

Andrew McCabe
Andrew McCabe 16th Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation In office
February 1, 2016 – January 29, 2018Director James Comey
Christopher A. WrayPreceded by Mark F. GiulianoSucceeded by David BowdichActing Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation In office
May 9, 2017 – August 2, 2017President Donald TrumpPreceded by James ComeySucceeded by Christopher A. WrayPersonal details Born Andrew George McCabe
March 18, 1968 (age 50)
Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.Political party Republican[1][2][3]Spouse(s) Jill McCabeEducation Duke University (BA)
Washington University in St. Louis (JD)
Andrew George McCabe (born March 18, 1968)[4] is an American attorney who served as the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from February 2016 to January 2018.
From May 9, 2017, to August 2, 2017, McCabe served as the Acting Director of the FBI following James Comey's dismissal by President Donald Trump. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that McCabe was one of several candidates under consideration for Director. President Trump ultimately chose Christopher A. Wray, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division, to succeed Comey.[5] Once Wray was sworn in, McCabe returned to the position of Deputy Director.[6]
FBI Career
McCabe began his FBI career in the New York Field Office[20] in 1996.[22] While there, he was on the SWAT team.[23] In 2003, he began work as a supervisory special agent at the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force.[24]Later, McCabe held management positions in the FBI Counterterrorism Division,[20] the FBI National Security Branch[25] and the FBI's Washington Field Office.[26] In 2009, he served as the first director of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, a program to research interrogation techniques that was created after the Department of Defense Directive 2310 ban of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.[18] McCabe was part of the investigation of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.[23] McCabe secured the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattala for suspected involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack.[23]

Mike Pompeo

Mike Pompeo 70th United States Secretary of State
Incumbent
Assumed office
April 26, 2018President Donald TrumpDeputy John SullivanPreceded by Rex Tillerson6th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency In office
January 23, 2017 – April 26, 2018President Donald TrumpDeputy Gina HaspelPreceded by John O. BrennanSucceeded by Gina HaspelMember of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Kansas's 4th district In office
January 3, 2011 – January 23, 2017Preceded by Todd TiahrtSucceeded by Ron EstesPersonal details Born Michael Richard Pompeo
December 30, 1963 (age 54)
Orange, California, U.S.Political party RepublicanSpouse(s) Susan PompeoChildren 1Education United States Military Academy (BS)
Harvard University (JD)Net worth $345,000[1]Military service Service/branch United States ArmyYears of service 1986–1991[2]Rank CaptainUnit

• 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment
• 4th Infantry Division

Michael Richard Pompeo (born December 30, 1963) is an American politician, attorney and former United States Army officer serving as the 70th and current United States Secretary of State since 2018. He previously was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2017 to 2018 and a member of the United States House of Representatives for Kansas's 4th congressional district from 2011 to 2017. He is a member of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party.[3] He was a Kansas representative on the Republican National Committee and member of the Italian American Congressional Delegation.
On March 13, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Pompeo as United States Secretary of State, succeeding Rex Tillerson.[4] On April 26, 2018, Pompeo was confirmed by the Senate in a 57–42 vote[5][6][7] and was sworn in the same day.[8]

Pompeo was born in Orange, California, the son of Dorothy (née Mercer) and Wayne Pompeo.[9][10] His father was of Italian ancestry; his paternal great-grandparents were born in Caramanico Terme, Abruzzo.[11] In 1982, Pompeo graduated from Los Amigos High School in Fountain Valley, California, where he played power forward on the basketball team.[12] In 1986, Pompeo graduated first in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point where he majored in engineering management.[13][14]

From 1986 to 1991, Pompeo served in the U.S. Army as an Armor Branch Officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the 4th Infantry Division, reaching the rank of Captain.[2][15][16][17]

In 1994, Pompeo received a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he served as one of 78 editors of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,[18][19] and on the 81-member Board of Editors[20] of the Harvard Law Review.[2] After graduating, he worked as a lawyer for the law firm Williams & Connolly in Washington.[21]

Why discredit and belittle the efforts of these brave men and women who have spent most of their careers and lives protecting America? What do we gain by discrediting and belittling them?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

^ Probably because the intelligence agencies have discredited themselves in the past by pushing lies. What did we gain by believing them then? The Iraq war.

 

[TheMikado]

Who are you referring to? I think everyone is concerned. It's a matter of where does that concern need to be directed and where do we go from here.

There's an ongoing narrative that Trump collaborated with the Russians to fix the elections. That has been the accusation pretty much from the start. If we're all getting over that joke and are going to focus on what actually happened, then by all means let's proceed. By your own statements, Hillary and Trump have nothing to do with this report. So why does the thread title include "preferred Trump over Clinton" and why is the emphasis on the conclusion that Trump was helped and Clinton was hurt? If it has nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump, why does the topic keep returning to them?

The original post explains this:

As numerous intelligence and national security officials in the Trump administration have since unanimously re-affirmed, the ICA findings were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive and sophisticated, and its goals were to undermine public faith in the democratic process, to hurt Secretary Clinton and to help Donald Trump,” said Warner, adding that the investigation is still ongoing."

The investigation wasn't about Hillary's emails. It doesn't even say if the Trump campaign colluded. It presented its findings which is what people have been asking for. There are some people who say that Trump colluded with Russia, but then we go down the hole of well Russia didn't interfere and even if they did, it wasn't a crime, etc etc.

Have you ever heard of the narcisis prayer?

That's what it feels like we are living in. When every topic gets explained away with an unrelated topic remove having to face the consequences and realities. There can be legitimate gripes with Hillarys emails, but that's got nothing to do with the Russia interference in the 2016 elections.

 

[TheMikado]

^ Probably because the intelligence agencies have discredited themselves in the past by pushing lies. What did we gain by believing them then? The Iraq war.

I don't think anyone is saying outright trust them wholesale, but when we have the president saying that he believes a notorious dictator, and geopolitical foes, who exactly are we supposed to be believing or vetting for credibility?

Is Putin telling the truth and our intelligence agencies lying? I'm not saying they wouldn't but lets not pretend we are applying to same vetting process to Putin either.

 

[Spheyr]

At least 99% of intelligence agency employees are bureacrats. The people in the clandestine services that are actually risking their lives doing covert work aren't the ones doing these assessments. And no, I'm not just going to take what they say as fact. They are some of the same people that said there was WMD in Iraq. Everything is political.

Speaking of people who lied and said there were WMDs to get us into Iraq under false pretenses....

His name is Robert Mueller, and now he's running a totally legitimate "MUH RUSSIA" investigation.


But I'm sure you can trust him now!

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The original post explains this:



The investigation wasn't about Hillary's emails. It doesn't even say if the Trump campaign colluded. It presented its findings which is what people have been asking for. There are some people who say that Trump colluded with Russia, but then we go down the hole of well Russia didn't interfere and even if they did, it wasn't a crime, etc etc.

Have you ever heard of the narcisis prayer?

That's what it feels like we are living in. When every topic gets explained away with an unrelated topic remove having to face the consequences and realities. There can be legitimate gripes with Hillarys emails, but that's got nothing to do with the Russia interference in the 2016 elections.

I genuinely don't believe that it "doesn't matter", but I can only speak for myself. I guess from my perspective, if the goal is the truth and proper justice, who cares if some nutjobs don't think it's important? You can always find an opposing opinion for any public issue, not matter how uninformed.

I've dealt with real-life narcissists in my family. It ain't pretty and it takes years to untangle. Trump? Hardly the worst I've seen, but again, I can only speak for myself.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I don't think anyone is saying outright trust them wholesale, but when we have the president saying that he believes a notorious dictator, and geopolitical foes, who exactly are we supposed to be believing or vetting for credibility?

Is Putin telling the truth and our intelligence agencies lying? I'm not saying they wouldn't but lets not pretend we are applying to same vetting process to Putin either.

Honestly i think this whole thing is so contentious because it started with the accusation that Trumps election was illegitimate and that he'd committed treason. So people arguing over it are still stuck in that mindset. If everyone could approach the issue without the partisan bias it'd be a lot easier to discuss.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Who are you referring to? I think everyone is concerned.

HarryKS, Corderlain, King of Foxes, infinitys_7th, dolabla, Death Dealer, nemiroff and Super Mario have all given responses in this thread ranging from "meh" to "witchhunt / waste of tax dollars / hoax"

There's an ongoing narrative that Trump collaborated with the Russians to fix the elections. That has been the accusation pretty much from the start.

Yep, and I acknowledge that there are people pushing that narrative. Those people are getting way ahead of themselves.

By your own statements, Hillary and Trump have nothing to do with this report. So why does the thread title include "preferred Trump over Clinton" and why is the emphasis on the conclusion that Trump was helped and Clinton was hurt? If it has nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump, why does the topic keep returning to them?

I said that to provide a framework to try to help the people downplaying this understand what occurred from a neutral context. Go ahead and replace "Hilary" and "Trump" with "Candidate A" and "Candidate B" in the thread title, if it helps.

Additionally, Trump and Clinton have nothing to do with the report in the sense that there's no evidence in the report that either was directly involved in the interference. That doesn't mean those actions didn't affect both of them in various ways.

Honestly i think this whole thing is so contentious because it started with the accusation that Trumps election was illegitimate and that he'd committed treason. So people arguing over it are still stuck in that mindset. If everyone could approach the issue without the partisan bias it'd be a lot easier to discuss.

Honest question: who from the Democratic establishment has made those direct sort of accusations? I don't remember seeing anything like that from Obama or Hilary. I've seen a lot of hysteria on social media, as well as some opinion pieces from various news outlets. But nothing like that from an actual elected official.

 

[TheMikado]

I genuinely don't believe that it "doesn't matter", but I can only speak for myself. I guess from my perspective, if the goal is the truth and proper justice, who cares if some nutjobs don't think it's important? You can always find an opposing opinion for any public issue, not matter how uninformed.

I've dealt with real-life narcissists in my family. It ain't pretty and it takes years to untangle. Trump? Hardly the worst I've seen, but again, I can only speak for myself.

Honestly i think this whole thing is so contentious because it started with the accusation that Trumps election was illegitimate and that he'd committed treason. So people arguing over it are still stuck in that mindset. If everyone could approach the issue without the partisan bias it'd be a lot easier to discuss.

And I agree an impartial assessment and investigation must take place, but we have an administration going out of its way to discredit individuals who have served this country for decades.
We can't even get to truth and then decide what to do with it, when you have people actively blocking that same search for truth.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

HarryKS, Corderlain, King of Foxes, infinitys_7th, dolabla, Death Dealer, nemiroff and Super Mario have all given responses in this thread ranging from "meh" to "witchhunt / waste of tax dollars / hoax"

Well boo on them. I have nothing further to say then that.

Yep, and I acknowledge that there are people pushing that narrative. Those people are getting way ahead of themselves.

It explains why there's such a rabid defensiveness surrounding this issue, yeah? That's all I'm pointing out. Ideally, we would approach this news with level heads and let our officials investigate and sort it out. However, it is naive to think that folks on both sides aren't ripping this to pieces to see what fits their side.

I said that to provide a framework to try to help the people downplaying this understand what occurred from a neutral context. Go ahead and replace "Hilary" and "Trump" with "Candidate A" and "Candidate B" in the thread title, if it helps.

Okay, but that still frames the conversation toward Trump and Hillary. As I said above, we would ideally approach this news with level heads but when you put in things like 'preferred Trump over Clinton' it can be seen as a... what do Democrats call it? Political dogwhistle? I think that's exactly how it could be viewed. Hence, you have people in the thread jumping up to defend Trump. What's unexpected about that?

Additionally, Trump and Clinton have nothing to do with the report in the sense that there's no evidence in the report that either was directly involved in the interference. That doesn't mean those actions didn't affect both of them in various ways.

Okay, but remember, there are several ongoing narratives that Trump and/or Hillary had a direct influence on the election. Whether it's Trump colluding with the Russians, Hillary colluding with the Socialists, or both colluding with the Zionists (depending on your source of info) there are a lot of theories floating around, and the media is doing everything it can to inflame the ones that it wants. This is absolutely true. You and I see it around us all the time. So, it makes sense that as this report comes out that some people would use it as another building-block in their narrative.

This shouldn't be downplayed. You might not have been making the accusations, but others in the thread have and -- in general -- we all know these sort of accusations are floating around.

Honest question: who from the Democratic establishment has made those direct sort of accusations? I don't remember seeing anything like that from Obama or Hilary. I've seen a lot of hysteria on social media, as well as some opinion pieces from various news outlets. But nothing like that from an actual elected official.

Maxine Waters just said a few days ago that she "doesn't think he deserves to be president" and Hillary Clinton herself said "I think there are a lot of questions about legitimacy". Took me just a few seconds on Google. I also posted a bunch of other articles earlier calling his election illegitimate. You could hardly write it off as "hysteria on social media" and "some opinion pieces on various news outlets" when it's coming from The Guardian, US News, Associated Press, etc.

 

[luigimario]

Speaking of people who lied and said there were WMDs to get us into Iraq under false pretenses....

His name is Robert Mueller, and now he's running a totally legitimate "MUH RUSSIA" investigation.


But I'm sure you can trust him now!

I'd trust him over Putin. I'd trust the US intelligence agencies over Putin. Hell, I'd even trust Clinton over Putin......

 

[luigimario]

At least 99% of intelligence agency employees are bureacrats. The people in the clandestine services that are actually risking their lives doing covert work aren't the ones doing these assessments. And no, I'm not just going to take what they say as fact. They are some of the same people that said there was WMD in Iraq. Everything is political.

So, it's ok for the president of the united states to PUBLICLY dismiss his own intelligence agents, again, people who are sacrificing their lives for the US, and instead whole-heartedly believe Putin, head of an, if not enemy, then antagonistic state?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Okay, but that still frames the conversation toward Trump and Hillary. As I said above, we would ideally approach this news with level heads but when you put in things like 'preferred Trump over Clinton' it can be seen as a... what do Democrats call it? Political dogwhistle? I think that's exactly how it could be viewed. Hence, you have people in the thread jumping up to defend Trump. What's unexpected about that?

Totally agree with your prior paragraph and understand some might be oversensitive, but on this, I'm not really clear on what requires "defending"? If Trump hasn't done anything wrong (and currently there's no evidence that he has), then it's not exactly his fault that the Russians preferred him to Hilary. That's just the way it was/is. There's no need to defend him, because he hasn't taken any action requiring it. I don't really understand why the conclusion that the Russians went after Hilary and wanted Trump to win is triggering people.

(To be clear, that's all in the context of this thread and how some are responding to what I'd consider pretty level-headed posts from those of us concerned about the contents of this report. I get why there are angry mobs on social media and such)

Maxine Waters just said a few days ago that she "doesn't think he deserves to be president" and Hillary Clinton herself said "I think there are a lot of questions about legitimacy". Took me just a few seconds on Google. I also posted a bunch of other articles earlier calling his election illegitimate. You could hardly write it off as "hysteria on social media" and "some opinion pieces on various news outlets" when it's coming from The Guardian, US News, Associated Press, etc.

There are a multitude of reasons why Maxine Waters might not think Trump "deserves" to be president. If you read the rest of the context, it's all about his character, behavior, actions, etc and nothing to do with Russia or the election itself.

Hilary's quote is specifically in response to a question prompt of roughly "if more information were to come to light that indicated Russia interfered in the election more deeply than what we currently know". I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if we suddenly discovered Russia hacked voting machines or actually colluded with Trump, the election should be considered illegitimate.

As for your articles:

- The one from The Guardian is an opinion piece, and it focuses on things like voter disenfranchisement much more than Russia.
- The AP is simply reporting on a poll of young Americans, and like I said about the Maxine Waters quote, covers his behavior and credentials and their general feelings about him far more than it concerns Russia (there's only 1 person interviewed who mentions Russia)
- The Atlantic article is discussing the hypothetical scenario that we discover the election was truly illegitimate
- US News says

"Before I go on, let me be clear: I disagree with those who say Trump is not our "real president." Yes, he lost the popular vote, but despite my preference for the contrary, we don't live a world in which American presidents are picked by popular vote. For the same reason, I disagree with those who say he is not a "legitimate president." He is legitimate, thanks to the Electoral College. "

So, I stand by my statement.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Totally agree with your prior paragraph and understand some might be oversensitive, but on this, I'm not really clear on what requires "defending"? If Trump hasn't done anything wrong (and currently there's no evidence that he has), then it's not exactly his fault that the Russians preferred him to Hilary. That's just the way it was/is. There's no need to defend him, because he hasn't taken any action requiring it. I don't really understand why the conclusion that the Russians went after Hilary and wanted Trump to win is triggering people.

(To be clear, that's all in the context of this thread and how some are responding to what I'd consider pretty level-headed posts from those of us concerned about the contents of this report. I get why there are angry mobs on social media and such)

Some people take it as an attack on Trump, but since neither you nor I appear to hold that stance I think we can put it to rest, at least in the conversation you and I are holding.

There are a multitude of reasons why Maxine Waters might not think Trump "deserves" to be president. If you read the rest of the context, it's all about his character, behavior, actions, etc and nothing to do with Russia or the election itself.

Hilary's quote is specifically in response to a question prompt of roughly "if more information were to come to light that indicated Russia interfered in the election more deeply than what we currently know". I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if we suddenly discovered Russia hacked voting machines or actually colluded with Trump, the election should be considered illegitimate.

As for your articles:

- The one from The Guardian is an opinion piece, and it focuses on things like voter disenfranchisement much more than Russia.
- The AP is simply reporting on a poll of young Americans, and like I said about the Maxine Waters quote, covers his behavior and credentials and their general feelings about him far more than it concerns Russia (there's only 1 person interviewed who mentions Russia)
- The Atlantic article is discussing the hypothetical scenario that we discover the election was truly illegitimate
- US News says

So, I stand by my statement.

You asked "who from the Democratic establishment..." and I provided some quotes. I think it's naive to take those headlines and statments together and still say "well, but who is making those accusations?"

I am neither interested in keeping tally or taking down Democrats who said it. Merely, it is clear to me that the Democrats are attempting to push a message that Trump is illegitimate, there are dozens of headlines to the effect, numerous quotes from politicians to the effect, and ongoing investigations that could be used to prove that is the case. Do Democrats believe -- and do they want their listeners to believe -- that Trump is illegitimate? Yes, pretty clearly that is the case.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Some people take it as an attack on Trump, but since neither you nor I appear to hold that stance I think we can put it to rest, at least in the conversation you and I are holding.

I am neither interested in keeping tally or taking down Democrats who said it. Merely, it is clear to me that the Democrats are attempting to push a message that Trump is illegitimate, there are dozens of headlines to the effect, numerous quotes from politicians to the effect, and ongoing investigations that could be used to prove that is the case. Do Democrats believe -- and do they want their listeners to believe -- that Trump is illegitimate? Yes, pretty clearly that is the case.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. At least, in regards to the specific narrative of illegitimacy due to Russian collusion, rigged election, etc. I acknowledge that if you just read the (click-bait) headlines, it can appear that way (and to be fair, many people do just skim the headlines, or skim the articles with existing/preconceived notions and/or poor reading comprehension). But as I pointed out above, when digging deeper, the actual content and quotes taken in context are totally different in tone and meaning.

There's no doubt Democrats don't like the guy. And I bet quite a few likely believe his boorish behavior and many of his policies are beneath the office of the presidency, that he has conflicts of interest that break all sorts of regulations, that he's bordering on obstruction of justice with his continued attacks on those investigating him, etc. But I think it's pretty far-fetched to claim there's strong support within the party for the idea that he's honestly a puppet of some sort, and was rigged in a sham election, and thus should be impeached for those particular reasons based on the current knowledge that we have.

I appreciate the conversation. It's refreshing to have a reasonable back-and-forth.

 

[strange headache]

If people think that a few Russian trolls, with wonky English skills trying to make a quick buck by selling lame ass political memes on social media ad space, can have a serious impact on American voting behavior compared to the trillion dollar juggernaut that is the U.S. media industry, they seriously need to readjust their sense of perspective. Like seriously, the mere global export of Hollywood movies probably influences more foreign elections than Russia ever could over social media.

In other words, there's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything:

All of that, though, requires setting aside what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.

If you really want me to take the whole Russiagate drama at face value, then please provide conclusive evidence of the things that are missing:

• a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign;
• b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes;
• c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails;
• d) no discussion of motive;
• e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.

Meanwhile we had the following happening during the elections:

> the DNC rigs their primaries in order to sabotage Sander's campaign
> the DNC presents a shitty candidate to an equally shitty opponent
> DNC and Clinton e-mails are leaked, revealing that their candidate is even shittier than assumed
> millions of Americans live in abject poverty, no jobs, no homes, no decent healthcare, no functioning social system, crippling social and economic divides
> Trump says stupid things while making stupid promises
> Hillary calls half of the country deplorable
> Brazile is fired for colluding with the Clinton campaign
> both campaigns devolve into a mud slinging contest of the lowest order
> ???
> one of the shitty candidates wins
> Americans flip their shit, protests, violence, lots of shrieking, growing divide, hysteria, gay frogs, Pepe, stupid memes
> meanwhile the rest of the world watches in disbelief

But yeah, it was probably the Russians... What's more like is that Clinton/the DNC ran one of the most expensive electoral campaigns and are trying to shift the blame for their colossal failure. Compared to Sanders Clinton was mostly backed by big corporate donors. You don't raise over a billion dollars without making the right concessions and promises, all of which have gone up in smoke when Trump won the election. This is seriously hurting the financial bottom line of the DNC and instead of admitting to their own incompetence, they are conveniently creating another red scare by pointing fingers at the Russians.

By doing so, the DNC doesn't care if it conjures another cold war style conflict with Russia, thereby seriously destabilizing the peace balance between two superpowers. Like seriously, have you even seen the frikkin' ads?

Those lame ass "ads" are so far removed from the cultural and digital zeitgeist of the U.S., nobody in their right mind would consider that sh*t to even make a dent into the insanely huge american media landscape:

What about those Twitter bots that have been the subject of so much consternation? Twitter has identified some 2,700-plus accounts it believes were associated with Russian actors. According to NBC News’ analysis, those Twitter accounts tweeted about 202,000 times from 2011 to August 2017 (when Twitter shut them down).

How many is that? Just before Election Day in 2016, Twitter announced 1 billion tweets had been sent from August 2015 through that point. Even assuming all 202,000 of those tweets from the Russian accounts were in that period, it means they constituted 0.02 percent of the election-related tweets.

I'm not American and quite frankly, after decades of the U.S. intervening in foreign elections and considering the sorry state of affairs of the U.S. election process in general, I'm sorry for not immediately jumping on the hate train. I neither like Hillary/Trump, nor Putin. Most people outside the U.S., myself included, worry mostly about the decaying diplomatic relations between two superpowers with enough WMD to nuke us all to hell. So yeah, I'd rather remain skeptical instead of hyping myself into some political hate spree only because your intelligence services found some crazy Russian hackers peddling shit on social-media that nobody really cared about in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Super Mario]

HarryKS, Corderlain, King of Foxes, infinitys_7th, dolabla, Death Dealer, nemiroff and Super Mario have all given responses in this thread ranging from "meh" to "witchhunt / waste of tax dollars / hoax"

My position was much broader than that. The Mikado made a plethora of claims like laws are being ignored, democracy was at stake, national security issue, etc. I simply pointed out that all of those same issues could be seen in the Democratic party, and it was all swept under the rug. Party seemed to have presided over principle.

I'm also not convinced some Facebook ads from Russia changed our outcome. I especially don't believe it was the only illegal or immoral activity going on from either side. So in the end, you're right, I'll call it "meh, witchhunt, and waste of tax dollars". The only results we have are the votes were fair and square. Everything else that happened in the middle is a can of worms much deeper than Facebook ads. If you're prepared to attack one piece of it, attack it all.

 

[PkunkFury]

we have no idea what the IC or senate know

Republican portion of the senate committee wouldn't have allowed this statement to be made if it were nothing, though.

This is part of the statement: "these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”
They wouldn't do this for 202,000 tweets. Something will come of this, though it's entirely possible Trump wasn't involved

All we can do is wait

 

[Scopa]

I'm not American and quite frankly, after decades of the U.S. intervening in foreign elections and considering the sorry state of affairs of the U.S. election process in general, I'm sorry for not immediately jumping on the hate train.

Good post, I agree wholeheartedly.

As an impartial, non-American observer, I find it interesting that whenever the U.S.A.’s well-documented history of aggressively meddling in the affairs of other nations is mentioned, the tin-foil hat wearing, sore loser, point the finger at RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA types conveniently avoid that topic. Apparently it’s ok for their government to do it, but not others. Can’t have it both ways sorry.

 

[PkunkFury]

Good post, I agree wholeheartedly.

As an impartial, non-American observer, I find it interesting that whenever the U.S.A.’s well-documented history of aggressively meddling in the affairs of other nations is mentioned, the tin-foil hat wearing, sore loser, point the finger at RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA types conveniently avoid that topic. Apparently it’s ok for their government to do it, but not others. Can’t have it both ways sorry.

whataboutism and a strawman, going for a full house?

I for one would gladly see America taken to task for any meddling it's done with overseas elections. I'm sure many Americans would agree

I don't see how it makes sense to dismiss any of this as being a "sore loser", particularly since the intelligence committee and the senate are taking it seriously. If our government is vulnerable to outside manipulation, we should want to understand it and prevent it. Much like we should want to protect our government from an influx of immigrants

It sounds like you are prescribing a world where everyone interferes with everyone else's politics willy-nilly with no transparency and without being held accountable. Why would this be a good thing?

 

[Death Dealer]

But that's not true... Most began their work as field officers of varying types.

Dude. 99% of their employees are beauracrats. You posted bios of the top people. That's not representative of 99% of their work force. Most people that work for CIA/NSA et al are not James Bond types.

I've risked my life for this country. I had a TS-SCI intelligence clearance. I'm not going to lay down and believe anything they say... they have a poor track record to say the least. It's like you guys don't realize the intelligence agencies are politicized. And McCabe is a scumbag. He should be indicted. And don't get me started on Comey. It's ridiculous he said no reasonable prosecutor would have charged Clinton. I'm a subject matter expert on handling classified information.. Any non-politically connected person that handled highly classified material in such a wreckless manner, I guarantee would be facing years in prison. The same people that gave Clinton a pass are now looking into alleged Trump-Russia collusion. I'm highly suspicious of any BS they're selling me.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Those lame ass "ads" are so far removed from the cultural and digital zeitgeist of the U.S., nobody in their right mind would consider that sh*t to even make a dent into the insanely huge american media landscape:

I wish that were true, but it doesn't appear that way when examining the data. You and I and presumably most of NeoGAF can point and laugh at them, but those "lame ass 'ads'" and fake news generated more engagement than stories from mainstream outlets (the "insanely huge american media landscape"), and generally people are terrible at distinguishing between the 2:

- https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook
- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...smaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real

Pretty depressing

It seems like you really aren't considering engagement much, though, considering you're trying to highlight that trolls only made up a tiny percentage of the overall # of election-related tweets as some sort of "aha!". Donald Trump and I probably tweeted at about the same frequency during the election cycle, so I guess that means our words had identical impact and reach, right?

[the Democrats] are conveniently creating another red scare by pointing fingers at the Russians.

I didn't realize the Democrats ran the Senate IC, our intelligence agencies, our allies' intelligence agencies, the Mueller investigation...etc. Weird.

 

[Scopa]

whataboutism and a strawman, going for a full house?

I for one would gladly see America taken to task for any meddling it's done with oversees elections. I'm sure many Americans would agree

I don't see how it makes sense to dismiss any of this as being a "sore loser", particularly since the intelligence committee and the senate are taking it seriously. If our government is vulnerable to outside manipulation, we should want to understand it and prevent it. Much like we should want to protect our government from an influx of immigrants

It sounds like you are prescribing a world where everyone interferes with everyone else's politics willy-nilly. Why would this be a good thing?

As soon as someone uses the terms “whataboutism” and “strawman”, especially in the same sentence, I struggle to take them seriously. What is the point? It is a flashing neon banner warning that you will be entering a circular argument.

When you regurgitate overused internet sheep speak like that in place of actually articulating, why should I take you seriously? To me, it is an indicator that you can’t think for yourself.

You can’t dismiss facts with a made up internet term, sorry.

 

[PkunkFury]

As soon as someone uses the terms “whataboutism” and “strawman”, especially in the same sentence, I struggle to take them seriously. What is the point? It is a flashing neon banner warning that you will be entering a circular argument.

When you regurgitate overused internet sheep speak like that in place of actually articulating, why should I take you seriously? To me, it is an indicator that you can’t think for yourself.

You can’t dismiss facts with a made up internet term, sorry.

The only fact in your post was that you are a non-american obresver. Everything else is personal observation, opinion, and broad generalization. What fact was I supposed to dismiss? I'd be happy to dismiss any

Whataboutism is not a made up internet term. It is a Soviet propaganda strategy that is quite in vogue right now. Yes, your post contains whataboutism. You are dismissing concerns over Russian interference in the American election based on the fact that America has interfered in other elections, without refuting the claim that Russia has interfered with said elections. This is textbook whataboutism.

Staw man is not a made up internet term. It is a fallacy in which an argument refutes a made up position rather than the position being discussed. Your claim " I find it interesting that whenever the U.S.A.’s well-documented history of aggressively meddling in the affairs of other nations is mentioned, the tin-foil hat wearing, sore loser, point the finger at RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA types conveniently avoid that topic" builds a straw man by asserting that the people who care about election meddling in Russia do not care about it elsewhere. We have no data on this, and even if you were to present data, it would still be Whataboutism

When you regurgitate overused logical fallacies in place of actually articulating, why should I take you seriously? To me, it is an indicator that you can’t think for yourself.

If you're confused as to why your discussions enter circular arguments, consider how you are constructing your arguments. How do you expect any real discussion when you aren't including any facts beyond your nationality, and you immediately deflect to something unrelated to muddle the point. I even tried to help you see that as follows:
"It sounds like you are prescribing a world where everyone interferes with everyone else's politics willy-nilly with no transparency and without being held accountable. Why would this be a good thing?"

If you want to have a real discussion, explain to us why we should ignore election meddling in one country because it was done by another. Explain how apathy on this subject helps the world function, as that is the position you are taking

 

[Nobody_Important]

It makes sense that Russia would favor Trump over Clinton. They would want the person that could do the most amount of damage to the country and its reputation. Trumps policies that he campaigned on were highly polarizing and some were downright ridiculous (the wall for example). His views on foreign policy would also be frowned upon by our allies.


It makes all the sense in the world to me that they would rather have the US in disarray.