>The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump
>The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Why do you say "supposed Russian influence" when a Republican led senate confirmed this?
In some circles Republicans are only trustworthy if they support President Trump. I think the Republican party is in for a hard time the next few years.
First, I'm not taking a hard position on anything here- I'm linking the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings. If you don't believe it? Well, that's your problem I'm just stating what's in there
Search for the word "influence". You might notice you have about a billion matches. Here is one significant quote
>Arriving at a similar conclusion, an Oxford Internet Institute study-of 17 million tweets posted during the 2016 election found that bots "reached positions of measurable influence," and "did infiltrate the upper cores of influence and were thus jn a position to significantly influence digital communications during the 2016 U.S. election."
So, you are going to continue to state "there was no influence" even though hundreds of pages of reports from the Senate Intel say otherwise?
>The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump
>The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Why do you say "supposed Russian influence" when a Republican led senate confirmed this?