How Did Russia Supposedly Effect The Us Election?

[ToraToraTora]

I'm confused with all the whining over the last few weeks, perhaps ABers can enlighten me....
the voters gave their verdict. Both sides seek to effect voters decisions that's the hustings. What specifically did Russia actually do? If they hacked something what was it and how did it effect the result? If it was fraud then why are there no reruns/court cases etc?

[Buenchico]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/russian-hack-donald-trump-2016-election/

[Zacs-Master]

The actual (dumbed-down for the public) report:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[ToraToraTora]

so standard husting behaviour, fake news to discredit the enemy, release of embarrassing stuff etc etc. It's not unusual for one country to want to effect another's election happens all the time. Eg in our referendum we had Obama threatening us etc, so I don't see how this is any different.

[Buenchico]

>>> . . . so I don't see how this is any different

American didn't take too kindly to one party using covert activity to spy on another at Watergate. So it's probably not surprising that some Americans get upset when a foreign power hacks into a US political party's email servers with the intention of 'digging up dirt' to influence their election!

[ToraToraTora]

I can understand that chris but that's what happens in elections each side digs up dirt to embarrass the other. If there is no dirt then there is nothing to worry about.

[Zacs-Master]

It's a little bit different to a President making overt statements in a fererendum. Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blended covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” No one is saying it's a 'new' thing as Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

[-Talbot-]

It's a joke to think that the Russian propaganda machine had any influence on American voters.

Hillary Clinton failed to beat the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of American politics.

Hillary needs to look in the mirror and accept that she may have actually have been the problem and not the Russian (alleged) hackers.

[mikey4444]

TTT....it isn't the fact that the result of the Election was way or the other, its the fact it was done at all.

Trump has decided to not believe his security agencies and believe Putin instead.

No whining, just a misjudgement by the incoming President. It looks as if America will have its first pro-Russia President.

Doesn't that worry you....even a little bit ?

[Prudie]

If there had been nothing there to find it wouldn't have mattered would it. The US have always done this to each other in political campaigns, I assume the reason they are so *** is someone else did it for them.
I think I'd prefer a pro- Russian US in the current climate.

[mikey4444]

Prudie....the evidence appears to be very strong, and yet Trump still won't believe it.

I ask you the same question Prudie....aren't you even a little bit worried when the incoming President refuses to accept what his own security forces are telling him, but believes a Russian War Criminal instead

[Zacs-Master]

He does believe it now Mikey, but he says (as he would) that it had no influence.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/06/donald-trump-intelligence-briefing-shows-absolutely-no-effect-election-results/

[sp1814]

TTT

Did you read the report from the ODNI report linked to in this thread and vetuste_ennemi's?

What should happen in a U.S. election is that both sides should state their positions and then rubbish their opponents.

What should not happen, is for a foreign government to influence the democratic process via covert actions.

Think about that for a moment...if Russia is behind this, then it's an attack not on the Democrats, but U.S. democracy.

That's huge.

[mikey4444]

Zacs...if that is the case, then its yet another Trump U-turn.

But even if he reluctantly believes the evidence, he is still falling well short of condemning the Russians and Putin is still his pal.

[ToraToraTora]

mikey: "Doesn't that worry you....even a little bit ? " - not as worried as i would be with the WWW in the white house. Trump is primarily pro US, it's good if he has a more constructive relationship with Putin.

[mikey4444]

TTT....Putin is a recognised War Criminal. You may think its OK to cuddle up to him, but I don't.

But you still have answered the question....he chose to believe Putin, rather than his own Security Chiefs...do you trust Trump because of his bad judgement ?

[Gromit]

Comrade Corbyn is unelectable.

If Vlad were to help that hopeless cause, then I am sure that would be OK.

[mikey4444]

By the way, WWW lost the Election and I keep being told on here to get over it, and I have.

But Trump won, and that is the reality that we will have to live with for the next 4 years. A person who has such bad judgement is now going to be ensconced in the White House.

[mikey4444]

Gromit....interesting but off topic.

[jno]

in our referendum we had Obama threatening us etc, so I don't see how this is any different.

the difference between overt and covert perhaps?

[Zacs-Master]

As I pointed out.