If we found out the FBI was systematically spending lots of money to influence our elections people would be pissed.
This is not to mention the more controversial reality of the close collaboration between US intelligence agencies and the entertainment and education industries.
One involves multiple crimes being committed at state-scale (DNC hack , RNC hack , identity fraud ) the other was a consulting contract.
Think of the typical American's mental model of America (and the rest of the world) - where does the actual content of the model we hold in our brain come from? A mixture of personal experiences, conversations, TV, internet, books, as well as the brain itself - automatically (and without our knowledge) filling gaps, adding color and detail, based on a complex set of heuristic processes that we barely understand.
Take the Russia hacking the election meme for example - next time you read someone making an assertion one way or another, ask them what the source of their information is, the conclusive and specific physical evidence that proves their belief. In my experience, at best, you will get a link to an x00 page report filled with allegations, you won't even be able to get a vague description of any specific details that was conclusively proven, because that isn't stored in their mental model. (edit: or, as seen in this very thread when others have asked such a question, "evidence" that is not even remotely conclusive, but believed without question, as well as examples of historic non-conclusive evidence planting. In my experience, no amount of demonstration of this happening will ever change people's thinking on the matter - most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation - it just feels too real to not believe it, and this is why propaganda is so easy and effective.)
In the linked story, it appears the FBI agent is trying to plant this meme into the minds of 8chan users, hoping it will take root and spread organically there as easily as it has in the broad public.
Isn't it possible that you are the one falling victim to the exact type of thinking you describe? You admit yourself that propaganda is easy and effective. Have you explored that possibility?
==most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation==
The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?
I assure you I have and continue to explore the possibility, which is why I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen. Alas, despite no shortage of such people, I have yet to encounter one who is willing and able to provide anything beyond a link to an x00 page report full of allegations.
> The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?
Apologies if I have given that impression, it was definitely not my intent. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people who make strong and specific assertions, but are unable to provide any strong, specific evidence. I have not formed any final conclusions, but the longer this drags on, and the more specific claims I read in the news that are not backed by supporting evidence, it seems fairly reasonable to suspect that the story is not true, if not actually faked (as we now know the Iraq WMD story was faked). I have no particular theory on what the underlying motive might be if this is the case.
If you know of anything I've overlooked, please post here so we can all become more informed.
Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.
==I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen.==
Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.
Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?
>Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch?
Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.
It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.
And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs.
==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?==
Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign.
==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.==
And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning?
You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable.
==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. ==
Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.
Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?
The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers . It is also, this guy  saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC . It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room.
That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council  . This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump.
If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia).
Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring.
I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).
- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War (see any familiar names in there??)
- This: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mu...
The United States Government has a long history of lying.
Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.
Look at some of these pictures:
You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?
Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.
Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.
EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.
==I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).==
Again, this justification could be used to back up any belief when it comes to government. It is a convenient way to brush off all the lying, obstruction, indictments and convictions as some mere conspiracy. Blanket cynicism (and whataboutism) isn't a valid replacement for actual analysis. That we have hacked other countries doesn't change the facts of what Trump and his campaign did. They are entirely different cases that can be discussed on their own.
==Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.==
Odd that you say this as we are sending more soldiers to the Middle East . What about the 1,000 soldiers and military activities happening in Niger under his leadership ? The bombings (often of civilians) in Yemen ? Attacking a Syrian airfield ? Did you see hard evidence that Iran bombed the oil tanker ?
In making these decisions, Trump is using the same intelligence community that you and he both say is corrupt and untrustworthy . It makes it appear that he only wants to discredit them when it affects him (Russia investigation) personally.
None of this even gets into the obstruction of justice, felonies related to campaign finance, numerous campaign officials in prison or under indictment, or taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies in Helsinki. This gives us a view into the type of person Trump is and the company he keeps. You have decided to support that, which is your choice. I don't agree with your attempts to blame it on Democrats, the media or the intelligence committee. Just own it.
By thought process I assume you're referring to listening to the various claims and rumors, and attempting to compare them versus factually confirmable evidence, keeping one's eyes open for misleading weasel language that may be intended to cause readers to form incorrect conclusions? If so, then yes, but I'm curious why you've chosen to associate it with 3 well known "conspiracy theories" that didn't do a very good job of this, rather than the far more plentiful and boring examples where it is used successfully in every day life across a wide variety of activities. Any additional clarity you can provide is appreciated as it may help me to better understand the truth.
> Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself.
I agree, you do indeed have to work with what life provides. What you don't have to do though, is believe everything you're told without question (especially when we have examples where we have been lied to, in some cases resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people), or form conclusions without concrete supporting evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, I feel perfectly comfortable with a stance of "I don't know".
> One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying?
This is an excellent question, and I have no answer to it. That behavior, if proven and described in a completely factual matter (as opposed to a casual, "story-telling" manner that might result in those who are less vigilant about the truth forming a factually incorrect conclusion - again, see the Iraq WMD story), should be in some way attached to the overall stance of "inconclusive", as it provides additional information that could be used to kind of swing the "what seems more likely based on what we know" needle to one side or the other.
> Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.
I have absolutely no idea. Do you believe this proves guilt of the overall story?
> Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury?
I have not.
> They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence.
Is this what we are being asked to do here, except not in a court room but more so something of a "trial by social media" type of situation (something that's quite common recently)? If so, I believe that should be stated explicitly. I kind of get the feeling a narrative is being spun, and I personally don't care for that sort of behavior from public officials and the media, but this is just a personal preference, it seems to be very popular with a lot of people.
> One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.
Oh ok, well this makes more sense then. I have repeatedly read in the media (and told, explicitly or implicitly, in forum discussions) that specific evidence has been provided that demonstrates specific guilt.
Maybe, for the sake of efficiency and clarity of communication (because there seems to be an awful lot of disagreement on what's true), could you restate, in explicit words, whether or not specific, concrete and conclusive evidence has been released on this matter? And whether this is only an opinion, or if it is based on the reading of an official and explicit statement (again, in a "non-story-telling" manner) that this is the current, official state of the publicly released evidence, so that I could read the actual text and judge for myself?
And just so my sentiments are clear, I'd like to explicitly state that I appreciate your taking serious interest in this story. Too many people take democracy for granted these days.
It seems like people just choose the one that helps their strawman and labels that as “AMERICA”.
Very few of them are openly against using the military, cultural, economic power the US has to force others to bend to their will. They may disagree on what direction to push others in, but they agree that they have the right (or even duty) to push them. Which is totally understandable.
Very few people see themselves as villains, pretty much everybody wants to make the world a better place. What "better" means and how to get there, that's where they part ways.
I don't believe that it's very different in other countries, it's just a lot less visible, because most countries don't have the same amount of power.
I think earlier (30+ years ago), most of the rank and file citizens were isolated from such influence and few who were exposed to it, e.g. those doing business abroad, were immunized (by privilege, counter-propaganda or a feeling of a gun at their backs).
I think current manipulation efforts makes elites panic only because those efforts can reach most of the country which makes old countermeasures ineffective. My 2c (I grew up in what is seen today as a totalitarian state).
So yes, you’re right but I don’t see it as a bad thing at all.
It is one thing to (through analysis) arrive at the conclusion that people and states don't live up to the ideals of the Golden Rule . It is quite another thing to openly support the idea that the rich and powerful should use their power to further their own interests at the expense of others. Suffice to say that the latter puts you on a different trajectory than the collective body of religious and political thinking since time immemorial, western and eastern alike. Just sayin'.
Of course not, that's my point. You'll rarely hear those in power complain about the possibility to abuse power to oppress others ;)
As you [hopefully] know now - it was all fake. There was no WMD, there were no mobile biological weapon labs, there was nothing. The evidence was all fake. The footage we claimed was bio weapons labs was of trailers that produced hydrogen for usage in conventional artillery (as Iraq said all along). Even after we invaded and knew the labs were benign we constantly lied. Rather than repeat our neverending stream of lies, Wiki has them nicely cataloged here . Our ultra secret inside source who revealed his remarkable tale after achieving refugee status in Germany, was actually a Taxi driver in Iraq who knew nothing and had no connection to the government whatsoever, but was apparently a great con man - or, more likely, was an idiot we knew was lying but gave us more "evidence" we could use to achieve the goal of starting a war we wanted.
And this was not just American intelligence. This was American, British, German, and more. Intelligence agencies pursue their own goals and will happily lie, fake, and manipulate people and society to achieve them. We're now aiming for war with Iran. At the same time that Japan's prime minister decides to visit Iran, Iran in an unprecedented act decides to attack a Japanese tanker? Look, our five-eyes intelligence agencies are here to give you all the hot evidence for something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet conveniently gives the US absolutely every thing it could possibly want. Amazing isn't it?
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Disc...?
Today, many Americans have never even heard of the Iran-Iraq War. Those that have often never heard anything other than unsubstantiated American propaganda, particularly the American accusation that Iran was using poison gas against Iraq. An accusation for which there has never been any evidence.
When it comes to the American government and international affairs, any position less than reserved skepticism is totally irresponsible.
And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.
All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.
Can you be more specific with your criticism?
2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening
This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence.
3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking
What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence?
4. Anonymous sources
The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are.
5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA
So fucking what?
6. The public won't get to see the evidence
Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians.
7. The article mentions MH-17
8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs
9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated
10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other
2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian)
3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax.
4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists'
5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw...
6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work.
7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article.
8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking.
9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it.
10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
Nobody ever said the russians are genius master hackers, only that their operation is large and well funded and they're not particularly concerned about hiding it.
The fact that Mitch McConnel wants to keep his Russian connections secret does not disprove those russian connections.
You clearly haven't actually read the mueller report if you think it's "discovering nothing" and "pointless". It's free, you can read it today.
1) the DNC
2) the state department
3) the white house
sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
Is this sanctioned forum sliding, or just a bored government employee shitposting when they're supposed to be working?
It has been posted before, but a day can't seem to go by without new people being taken by surprise that this type of thing happens.
Information is power, and there are many people in high places that realize it. A modest investment in keeping an eye on your opponent, and ruffling feathers on line is the new border skirmish or airspace invasion.
If you have an odd feeling in the back of your head that someone or something is actively making it more difficult to discuss something without disruption, distraction or usurpation of the public forum; odds are that is exactly what is happening. If it isn't your platform, and it's big enough to attract a large audience, then it becomes increasingly likely somebody else has been bothered to implement some sort of filter.
Is it good, bad, or indifferent? That I leave to the reader's sensibilities. However, in my opinion, there is a growing trend brought about by a tendency for increased centralization where this type of "forum engineering" is increasingly valuable to nation-state actors. Be careful out there folks, and double check your information consumption. The Signal can't be stopped, but it can be made hard to find through all the equivocation.
This is extremely important as this topic was cheered on very recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186775). As it turns out the "evidence" was bullshit.
A strain of leftist totalitarianism which - as it turns out - originally came about as a result of Russian (well, Soviet, but still) political interference. Isn't that deliciously ironic? Of course the memetic infection has been self-propagating for a very long time, also merging with other strains originating from e.g. Maoist China at the peak of the Cultural Revolution. It's a bit like a zombie invasion which has no real underlying goals of its own besides memetic success - but the Russian propaganda component was definitely there originally!
Could you share what this refers to, and do you have specific conclusive evidence that you could also share?
In my mind, the important question is: to what degree, in what forms, and backed by what evidence, does this interference actually in fact continue today, and (as you say) how closely does this align to the narrative of interference that is presented (through various channels, by various actors, coordinated or independent) to people today?
It's quite fun to think about impartially.
If anyone happens to know of anyone who is studying this phenomenon specifically in today's context, or if there is even a general name for the phenomenon, please post a comment.
If an FBI agent introduces a bag of coke as evidence, that doesn't mean it's her cocaine.
These screenshots are part of a court filing to get that search warrant. Imagine if I sent in an anonymous tip that my neighbor was running an illegal dogfighting ring, and I included photos of dogs I'd seen in his yard. My possibly-faked photos probably wouldn't stand up in a trial, but they certainly might help convince a judge to sign a search warrant for further investigation.
It seems like the agent has to claim he took the screenshots himself; otherwise, they are worthless as "evidence."
> It seems like the agent has to claim he took the screenshots himself; otherwise, they are worthless as "evidence."
Exactly. Evidence requires a chain of custody otherwise it is worthless.
Palmer: I don't know sir.
CIA Supervisor: I don't fucking know either. I guess we learned not to do it again. I'm fucked if I know what we did.
Palmer: Yes sir, it's hard to say.”
-Cohen Brothers, Burn After Reading
The fact that the Tree of Life shooter posted to Gab before his attack is no accident. He wanted to radicalize others.
Gab is significant because its niche was essentially "Twitter for bigots who are too stupid to dog-whistle." It is the community that is the problem.
Not only do these forums radicalize participants to violent extremism, their ideology proliferates into, and influences mainstream media, which in turn begins to draw mainstream audiences towards radical violence. This shift in public discourse could have devastating consequences for peace and the stability of our society. There are no more serious threats to civilization, in my estimation.
It's important, also, to remember that these are deliberately amplified propaganda campaigns, not "organic" or popular reactionism.
This radicalization is bought and paid for.
> influencers have effectively propagandized to viewers and helped radicalize young people (and normalize bigoted ideas) in the process. In this ecosystem, a range of mainstream conservative and libertarian influencers, self-help gurus, and gaming streamers can ultimately act as gateways to more extremist content.
I wrote it. Is it true?
These days we seem to be getting the X-Files version of the bureau.
Is there an easy way to verify?
Kinda feel someone already did...
But you do need to be a leftist, to think and argue that that type of interference, by same nations, was not done in 2012 or 2008.
You also need to be a leftist, to still continue to claim that Russia helped a Republican to be elected US president in 2016.
"maybe a us president be so gleeful about a foreign country interfering in our elections" isn't a leftist stance. Branding any opposition to the GOP narrative that Russia is "fake news" as leftism is just pure partisan hackery.
I am reading the report
I actually, cannot find anything in that report that establishes unquestionable links and outcomes that left was looking for.
Selective-outrage, cherry picked partisan garbage.
In general, selective-outrage leads to selective justice, selective justice leads to tyranny, please think about it next time you read cherry picked conclusions.
Even with that, the investigation -- were not able to establish that
a) Trump directed Russia to do anything
b) the outcome of election was driven by foreign interference
In the mean time, Obama admin did not stop any interference while they knew of attempts. So it was either not significant or it did not help Trump.
Let's not forget, however what has been established:
The whole investigation was partisan, and premised on fake evidence, illegally planted.
Clinton campaign directing and buying fake evidence from foreign powers, to initiate spying on a political opponent -- is exactly the type of foreign and domestic inference, that should have been investigated by a special council.
So that much for 'equal justice' for all.
Mueller's claim that Russia hacked into DNC emails and release damaging truth to US voters, through Wiki leaks -- has not been proven either beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can choose to believe it -- but there is no evidence that was presented to public that clearly established the link.
Finally, nobody is branding oposition to GOP as fake news -- what is branded as fake news is:
b) fake claims
c) active suppression of positive news from Trump
d) active purging of conservative voices on social media platforms
e) presenting the left's abuse of judiciary system with never-ending perjury traps -- as 'Justice'. While the outrage against this hijacking of US's judiciary system is labeled as 'obstructing'.
"FBI? But - but - Russia!"
It's all just noise. There's no substance to any of it - just vague circumstantial nonsense and wild, unsupported allegations.
The issue is that this propaganda has become a mainstream news story which is:
1) Endlessly repeated on-air by trusted individuals
2) Almost universally accepted as a truth by politicians and pundits despite there being zero concrete evidence of any Russian conspiracy
3) Rarely, if ever, challenged by politicians, pundits or guests on any mainstream news channel.
You're right, it is blown way out of proportion. Russia is most likely doing it, but yeah, I've never understood the focus on Russia when literally anyone can, and basically everyone tries to influence US politics, many (like Israel, or certain media outlets) do it openly.
I don't really see how anything I said could be construed that way, but ok :P
Sure you're a not a fed yourself? :P /s
What? There's quite a bit of evidence, and an entire special counsel was appointed to investigate and litigate the evidence!
Sections 2 and 3 are particularly relevant in this case.
The special counsel is an obvious stitch up which has achieved almost nothing aside from some irrelevant indictments, and which has produced no credible evidence of any conspiracy with Russia.
If your terms of investigation are just 'Russian interference', then you can classify literally anything which comes from a Russian as being 'interference'.
Is my post 'UK interference' in US politics? It's a joke. The entire world is laughing at the US over this.
No, no evidence was produced that Trump or his campaign conspired with them. But massive amounts of evidence was produced that Russia tried to influence the election.
The Skripal narrative is nonsense too. The whole story is a farce.
> No, no evidence was produced that Trump or his campaign conspired with them. But massive amounts of evidence was produced that Russia tried to influence the election.
Having preferred outcomes and posting memes on Facebook isn't a crime under any law - national or international.
Also, propaganda aside, Russia did certainly commit crimes when it comes to the US politics-targeted hacking performed by their GRU and SVR intelligence departments during 2016.
Are you able to excerpt a few sentences from sections 2 and 3 that you believe are the most compelling?