Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
7 comments
- there has been no evidence of collusion between trump and the kremlin. And unless they find hard evidence then he can't be impeached
- the Facebook ads show divine America. Russian ads included black lives matter, Hillary Clinton, and many left leaning targets. This wasn't an attempt to elect one candidate or another it was an attempt to divide
- James comey leaked classified material to appoint a special prosecutor as he self admitted. He also perjured himself by lying to congress about deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton months before she was even interviewed. Congress now has two witnesses coming forward to prove this
This is one of many things falling apart. They won't pin trump on anything and worse case Manafort will fry and that's it
- the Facebook ads show divine America. Russian ads included black lives matter, Hillary Clinton, and many left leaning targets. This wasn't an attempt to elect one candidate or another it was an attempt to divide
- James comey leaked classified material to appoint a special prosecutor as he self admitted. He also perjured himself by lying to congress about deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton months before she was even interviewed. Congress now has two witnesses coming forward to prove this
This is one of many things falling apart. They won't pin trump on anything and worse case Manafort will fry and that's it
> there has been no evidence of collusion between trump and the kremlin. And unless they find hard evidence then he can't be impeached
Agreed, based on what's been made available to the public. But there does seem to be the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
I think the campaign staff colluded (or tried to), but I also think the people involved probably covered their tracks well enough that they'll avoid indictment.
> This wasn't an attempt to elect one candidate or another it was an attempt to divide
Given only the Facebook ads, this might be true -- I haven't researched the content of the ads. However, there are many other sources (including things not made public, but referenced by the CIA and FBI) that confirm that Putin wanted Trump to win and the Kremlin was proud of Trump's victory.
Dividing the US is much less of a victory (in both moral and practical terms) than actually impacting the outcome of the election, especially when the victor would be much more pro-Putin than Clinton ever was.
> James comey leaked classified material to appoint a special prosecutor as he self admitted. He also perjured himself by lying to congress about deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton months before she was even interviewed. Congress now has two witnesses coming forward to prove this
This is basically "whataboutism". It doesn't really matter what Comey did, whether it was illegal, etc. What matters is whether Trump fired Comey to kill the Russia investigation. Trump himself said that he did. Trump is his own worst enemy -- he probably could have escaped any obstruction charges just by keeping his mouth shut or allowing his staff to tell him what to say about firing Comey.
If Mueller can turn that into an obstruction charge, Trump will be impeached (especially if Congress becomes more Democratic before then).
Agreed, based on what's been made available to the public. But there does seem to be the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
I think the campaign staff colluded (or tried to), but I also think the people involved probably covered their tracks well enough that they'll avoid indictment.
> This wasn't an attempt to elect one candidate or another it was an attempt to divide
Given only the Facebook ads, this might be true -- I haven't researched the content of the ads. However, there are many other sources (including things not made public, but referenced by the CIA and FBI) that confirm that Putin wanted Trump to win and the Kremlin was proud of Trump's victory.
Dividing the US is much less of a victory (in both moral and practical terms) than actually impacting the outcome of the election, especially when the victor would be much more pro-Putin than Clinton ever was.
> James comey leaked classified material to appoint a special prosecutor as he self admitted. He also perjured himself by lying to congress about deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton months before she was even interviewed. Congress now has two witnesses coming forward to prove this
This is basically "whataboutism". It doesn't really matter what Comey did, whether it was illegal, etc. What matters is whether Trump fired Comey to kill the Russia investigation. Trump himself said that he did. Trump is his own worst enemy -- he probably could have escaped any obstruction charges just by keeping his mouth shut or allowing his staff to tell him what to say about firing Comey.
If Mueller can turn that into an obstruction charge, Trump will be impeached (especially if Congress becomes more Democratic before then).
> James comey leaked classified material
That never happened.
That never happened.
[deleted]
I think "falls apart" is overreaching. If the claim was that 21 states were targeted by russian hackers, and only two states repudiate that, that's less than a 10% error rate.
Keep in mind that state governments want to make sure they aren't deemed incompetent. But anyone who knows anything about "the cyber" knows that there are tons of legacy systems at both the state and federal level which are wide open to possible attacks.
The suggestion that an adversary could "scan" the networks is totally within the realm of plausability. This is the first step of a cyber attack, and while an individual state may be able to conclude that they weren't successfully attacked, it doesn't mean they weren't targeted to begin with.
Keep in mind that state governments want to make sure they aren't deemed incompetent. But anyone who knows anything about "the cyber" knows that there are tons of legacy systems at both the state and federal level which are wide open to possible attacks.
The suggestion that an adversary could "scan" the networks is totally within the realm of plausability. This is the first step of a cyber attack, and while an individual state may be able to conclude that they weren't successfully attacked, it doesn't mean they weren't targeted to begin with.
It's important to note that hacking of voting machines has no bearing on:
- possible attempted collusion between Kremlin and Trump campaign
- possible manipulation of US voters via fake news campaigns (likely legal, but possibly illegal in some instances)
- possible illegal firing of James Comey
So while this particular angle has started to fall apart, it doesn't really have much bearing on all the angles that people (including Congress, the FBI, and the DoJ) are still very interested in.