Mueller Squashes Seth Rich Conspiracy Pushed by Hannity

[_Dr Exiled]

We shouldn't meddle but our press and those in charge have this attitude of it's ok for us and not for anyone else. So, it's kind of hypocritical to complain about meddling when we meddle in Ukraine, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, France, Italy, etc. etc.

So then it's not OK for us regular citizens to complain? As citizens, shouldn't we make our feelings about foreign interference known to those in charge?

Go ahead and complain, but keep in mind that other countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia interfere as well. How about we complain about all countries that interfere?

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian interference. Repeat that 1000 times and you will be cured of the Russiagate religion.

[_Some Schmo]

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian interference. Repeat that 1000 times and you will be cured of the Russiagate religion.

You don't damned get it. The Russians attacked us, and you're dumb enough to think this is about domestic politics.

[_Dr Exiled]

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian interference. Repeat that 1000 times and you will be cured of the Russiagate religion.

You don't ____ get it. The Russians attacked us, and you're dumb enough to think this is about domestic politics.

THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED US!!!!!!! (I thought would capitalize it for you)

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

[_Doctor Steuss]

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

While I definitely don't think their Facebook escapades amount to an "attack," the IRA (et.al.) hacking of voter systems in almost every State (ranging from registration databases to campaign finance fun) could rightly be classified as a form of cyber espionage, if not an outright cyber-attack.

Also, I think focusing on the cost of the ads can potentially downplay/overlook what they were able to accomplish for free (sans salaries of vodka and potatoes). On Facebook alone, there were a little over 3 million followers on known pages they created/maintained.

While probably speculative at best on my part (partially because of our funky political donation system, and partially because I have a fertile imagination and an extensive history of mild-altering drug use...), I think there was likely a nice chunk of change funneled through non-profits, PACs and the like.

Individually, their little attempts are almost cute (like trying to hire someone to wear a Hillary mask, and ride in a cage in a parade), but when taken as a whole, it starts to be a little less cute, and kind of hard to wrap the noggin around.

[_canpakes]

Also, I think focusing on the cost of the ads can potentially downplay/overlook what they were able to accomplish for free (sans salaries of vodka and potatoes). On Facebook alone, there were a little over 3 million followers on known pages they created/maintained.

This.

The attempt to hand-wave away the impact of activities on Facebook on the basis of dollars spent strikes me as either disingenuous or obtuse. It takes virtually no investment to launch a meme that can be repeated a million more times by followers of compromised or suspect sites. Given that these memes can be created within moments - even by anyone with only a cellphone app - the ability to spread misleading or untruthful information is limited less by actual dollars than by the number of folks willing to spend a second to forward or repost a simple image.

The exercise of working to sway the general public’s opinion is currently very easily promoted by technology that enables the most minor of actors while requiring virtually no cash, if one has the correct entry point or timing.

Spending millions of dollars on those activities, then, has incredible potential to reach millions of people over an extremely broad time span, limited only by the stupidity or dishonesty of the audience.

[_MeDotOrg]

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian interference. Repeat that 1000 times and you will be cured of the Russiagate religion.

You don't ____ get it. The Russians attacked us, and you're dumb enough to think this is about domestic politics.

THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED US!!!!!!! (I thought would capitalize it for you)

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

Exiled, I'm curious: Do you think other countries did as much as Russia to interfere in 2016 Presidential elections? Does it bother you that the President's son-in-law wanted to set up back channel communications with Russia, away from the prying eyes of the United States Government? Do you wonder why so many Trump associates lied or had to amend their security statements about contacts with the Russians? Was there any other country that had so many unreported contacts? Do you wonder why Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told DHS head Kirstjen Nielsen NOT to bring up Russian meddling in the election as a security issue with the President?

Regardless of whether there was coordination between Trump campaign officials and operatives of the Russian Government, the conclusion of Mueller and the combined consensus of the Intelligence Services of the United States is that Russians put a considerable and unprecedented effort into hurting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and helping the candidacy of Donald Trump.

People can say that the Mueller investigation is just re-litigating the election, but put aside the past election for a moment: What about the 2020 election? What can be done to reduce foreign influence of our elections? When our President reportedly will not talk to the head of DHS about the problem, do you think that the President is fulfilling his oath of office to defend the Constitution?

I don't think Democrats are blind to the fact that Donald Trump won the electoral college. He is the President, and that cannot be re-ligitated. But Democrats won the House in 2018. They have a Constitutionally mandated function as oversight on the Executive Branch. You can argue that the 2018 election in some ways re-litigated 2016. But the power to litigate or not lititate is not based upon the winner or loser of any one election. Constitutional authority is dictated by law and by precedent. Any with respect to the President's current flurry of lawsuits...let me give just one example:

The President's lawyers sued Elijah Cummings, head of the House Oversight Committee, to block a subpoena given to Mazars USA, an accounting firm used by Trump. The lawsuit sited Kilbourn v. Thompson, a 1889 ruling which found “no express power” in the Constitution for Congress to investigate individuals without pending legislation.

The problem is that Kilbourn v. Thompson was overruled by a decision in 1927. Trump's lawyers' argument is like citing Plessy v. Ferguson instead of Brown V. Board of Education.

He will find constructing a wall between the testimony of his subordinates and Congress more difficult building one on the border.

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

While I definitely don't think their Facebook escapades amount to an "attack," the IRA (et.al.) hacking of voter systems in almost every State (ranging from registration databases to campaign finance fun) could rightly be classified as a form of cyber espionage, if not an outright cyber-attack.

Also, I think focusing on the cost of the ads can potentially downplay/overlook what they were able to accomplish for free (sans salaries of vodka and potatoes). On Facebook alone, there were a little over 3 million followers on known pages they created/maintained.

While probably speculative at best on my part (partially because of our funky political donation system, and partially because I have a fertile imagination and an extensive history of mild-altering drug use...), I think there was likely a nice chunk of change funneled through non-profits, PACs and the like.

Individually, their little attempts are almost cute (like trying to hire someone to wear a Hillary mask, and ride in a cage in a parade), but when taken as a whole, it starts to be a little less cute, and kind of hard to wrap the noggin around.

I understand, but that is a lot of speculation on your part, and I think that is one big problem with russiagate. The media, especially Rachel Maddow, has whipped up such speculative fury that it has been blown out of proportion. Sure, no foreign government should meddle in our elections and that includes Israel and Saudi Arabia as well as Russia. But, I have to go back to how horrible Clinton was as a candidate and that she was probably the only one who could have lost to Trump the circus clown. Russiagate looks like an excuse and the media might be overselling it because of how blatant it was on Clinton's side, citing erroneous poll after erroneous poll in the run up to election day. They were incredibly wrong and don't want to face this.

[_Dr Exiled]

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian interference. Repeat that 1000 times and you will be cured of the Russiagate religion.

You don't ____ get it. The Russians attacked us, and you're dumb enough to think this is about domestic politics.

THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED US!!!!!!! (I thought would capitalize it for you)

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

Exiled, I'm curious: Do you think other countries did as much as Russia to interfere in 2016 Presidential elections? Does it bother you that the President's son-in-law wanted to set up back channel communications with Russia, away from the prying eyes of the United States Government? Do you wonder why so many Trump associates lied or had to amend their security statements about contacts with the Russians? Was there any other country that had so many unreported contacts? Do you wonder why Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told DHS head Kirstjen Nielsen NOT to bring up Russian meddling in the election as a security issue with the President?

Regardless of whether there was coordination between Trump campaign officials and operatives of the Russian Government, the conclusion of Mueller and the combined consensus of the Intelligence Services of the United States is that Russians put a considerable and unprecedented effort into hurting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and helping the candidacy of Donald Trump.

People can say that the Mueller investigation is just re-litigating the election, but put aside the past election for a moment: What about the 2020 election? What can be done to reduce foreign influence of our elections? When our President reportedly will not talk to the head of DHS about the problem, do you think that the President is fulfilling his oath of office to defend the Constitution?

I don't think Democrats are blind to the fact that Donald Trump won the electoral college. He is the President, and that cannot be re-ligitated. But Democrats won the House in 2018. They have a Constitutionally mandated function as oversight on the Executive Branch. You can argue that the 2018 election in some ways re-litigated 2016. But the power to litigate or not lititate is not based upon the winner or loser of any one election. Constitutional authority is dictated by law and by precedent. Any with respect to the President's current flurry of lawsuits...let me give just one example:

The President's lawyers sued Elijah Cummings, head of the House Oversight Committee, to block a subpoena given to Mazars USA, an accounting firm used by Trump. The lawsuit sited Kilbourn v. Thompson, a 1889 ruling which found “no express power” in the Constitution for Congress to investigate individuals without pending legislation.

The problem is that Kilbourn v. Thompson was overruled by a decision in 1927. Trump's lawyers' argument is like citing Plessy v. Ferguson instead of Brown V. Board of Education.

He will find constructing a wall between the testimony of his subordinates and Congress more difficult building one on the border.

I think we probably should look real hard at Israel and Saudi Arabia regarding meddling. The first bill out of the gate this year was an anti-disparaging Israel bill because of the horrendous treatment of the Palestinians. Israel is also trying to push us into war with Iran. Further, Trump vetoes the Yemen war bill and I heard reports that Saudi Arabia entered into long term rentals at some Trump hotels prior to the vote. I haven't tracked down the story but that quid pro quo and the looking the other way on Khashogi are certainly more impeachable than anything he did with Russia. But our entire government is in bed with the Israelis and Saudis, so, nothing will probably come of it.

[_Dr Exiled]

Here is an article discussing Trump and Saudi Arabia and the hotel rooms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?utm_term=.c9682341813d

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think the few Facebook and Google ads really constitutes much of an attack. So, what is it about if not domestic politics?

If I posted Volume I the Mueller report here, you'd actually read it? It's clear you haven't yet. You're parroting Jared Kushner, for “F”'s sake.