FBI traced a 'fake news' disinfo attack on Election Day from Russia, CNN reports

#25

Mr.Trump was assuring if Mrs. Clinton won the election it was due to fraud and corruption… since he won that rhetoric was tossed out the window.

Guess that is just his majestic way of seeding doubt. Would be interesting what he would of further suggested if he had lost the election.

0 Likes

#26

A u vas negrov linchuyut

0 Likes

#27

Must be true because CNN has been a beacon of unbiased reportage during these dark times, and Russians!

0 Likes

#28

There are a lot of Russians surrounding this administration. I think that’s worth looking into.

Oh, but wait:

Interesting.

Huh.

Well now.

Most people can put Russia on the same side of the scale as environmental and human rights issues when it comes to making a given case against Trump and it’s not even multitasking. Is that an obsession? Maybe, but with so many lines of evidence emerging that it’s not and that it’s pretty serious—even it if it were—that wouldn’t affect the inclusion with the rest of Trump’s … awkwardnesses (evil, ineptitude, fascism &c.).

But whenever someone insists it’s a distraction, and that we should avoid scrutinizing it in favor of a political red herring (such as “real reasons the Democrats lost”/hey remember the NSA, way better at this than Russia?), and that sure maybe Russia’s guilty but it’s not like they influenced an election … I become wary. That’s as good as an invitation to increase scrutiny, not lessen it. I think I will continue talking about Russia’s involvement.

Bringing up additional reasons for doing so is helpful, though.

But even if any of the things you’ve said are true (for the sake of argument), Russia didn’t play in that sandbox because it was our friend. That alone is worth looking into. That Trump benefited … is worth looking into. And that Russia obviously stands to gain in terms of policy — that could stand looking into.

And even if this is not what the Russians intended to have happen, and they expected Clinton to win but wanted something that would inhibit her effectiveness domestically because, for perhaps excellent reasons, Putin really did not like Hillary Clinton or the extension of Obama’s policies towards Russia that she represented, well, that’s worth looking into as well.

2 Likes

#29

Obama was informed and he went to the congressional leadership, hoping to get a strong condemnation and show a “united front” (and avoid claims of trying to influence the election). The Republican leadership refused, instead putting out a very ambiguous “make sure you’re secure” statement to the states.

0 Likes

#30

From your first link:

Your second link is to a site that was identified by PropOrNot as part of the ZeroHedge referrer network, whose editorial line seemed to parallel that of RussiaToday (RT):

2 Likes

#31

Now that I’m “getting to know” Donald Trump – his latest Reality TV show is one that I cannot find the OFF switch for – I’m guessing he would never admit he was broke because that sheds a bad light on him. I think if you asked him 30 minutes later he’d say he’s worth only $1.5 billion.

And please, it behooves the police and prosecuting attorneys to cease their pointless investigation into my suspected involvement in that bank robbery the other day. It’s clear that not much money was taken, so at best you’re wasting your time in what is otherwise just a case of unprovable petty theft.

Sure, I guess if you’re an unsophisticated rube who is obsessed with criminal justice vis a vis its affect on the very framework of the democracy, and conflict of interests unfolding in the very highest seat of our federal government, then go right ahead and promote this whole “Russia thing”.

Seriously the thing I’m most concerned with is not the Russian fake news story, but the other various claims that are being investigated, including the elephant in the room: Trumpy’s massive conflicts of interest, and claims that the Russians were actively disrupting election results. If you can clear those up for my sanity, I’ll gladly just accept that it was Hillary’s failures plain and simple.

4 Likes

#32

I’m skeptical of your motivations for posting. No one that I’ve seen is interested in #1. Russia and the United States are definitely already waging a low-key proxy war in Syria. We’re not participating in it in any way here, and if you ran a poll, the vast majority of BB posters and contributors would probably tell both countries to “cut it out!” #2, the only person on the planet who seems obsessed with the 2016 US Presidential Election still is Donald Trump. Everyone else has moved on.

4 Likes

#33

I forgot about PropOrNot! Is it more than a list these days?

0 Likes

#34

Donald, is that you?

Dammit! I just went to the can for five minutes.

Signed,
John Kelley

11 Likes

#NeedsMoreLikes (formerly known as "All the Likes")
#35

The whole intervention in Ukraine, where we supported a fascist government because it would allow us to maneuver the Russians out, is a pretty good indication of (1). Regarding the “low-key proxy war in Syria”, that is the goal of SOME members of the State Department (Clinton, Kerry), but it was NOT the goal of Obama, who explicitly avoided escalating in Syria so that it would NOT become a proxy war. Now that he’s left the building, and Trump is unable to control anyone around him, we’re seeing that escalation happen, because that’s what Cold Warriors want.

Regarding (2), if you’ve “moved on” it’s only because the Democrats (i.e., the Clinton camp, the people who lost) have been pushing this “Russia is our enemy” line so heavily that nothing else is being noticed.

The complete collapse of the Democratic party, the major split (between Sanders/Clinton) that remains unresolved, is still an open wound that needs healing, if there’s going to be any plausible alternative to the chaotic nonsense we’re observing around us. If you’ve “moved on” from this, what the hell have you moved on to?

0 Likes

#36

Is that an obsession? Maybe

e.g., https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/

The Intercept conducted a quantitative study of all 28 TRMS episodes in
the six-week period between February 20 and March 31. Russia-focused
segments accounted for 53 percent of these broadcasts.

but with so many lines of evidence emerging that it’s not and that it’s pretty serious—even it if it were—that
wouldn’t affect the inclusion with the rest of Trump’s … awkwardnesses (evil, ineptitude, fascism &c.).

I defy you to present even one of those lines of evidence. We’ve had a ton of innuendo, but so far there have been no criminal acts detailed. Even Michael Flynn’s worst offense was related to his shilling for Turkey, not Russia.

There is much heat here, because the entirety of the political establishment is organized against Trump and this is their hammer. The Washington Post, for example, has nothing better to do than beat the Russia drum, since Trump has locked them out of the White House. But despite all of this around-the-clock coverage and the assurance that any minute now, this it, we’re about to nail them - what exactly have we produced? Dick.

That’s as good as an invitation to increase scrutiny

You are being played, here, and not by me.

0 Likes

#37

So the focus on Russia is an effort to distract me from the reasons the Democrats lost (the “real” ones no less). And, you say, if I’ve moved on it’s precisely because those dastardly Democrats have fed me a line about Russia.

That’s tidy in a self-fulfilling kind of way, isn’t it?

2 Likes

#38

You’ll have to pardon my French, but minimizing and normalizing the vast series of Conflicts of Interest in the White House and the potential outside interference in a domestic election is some massive fucking crazy-making.

Regardless of Hillary’s and the Dems’ faults, these are some incredibly serious claims, and by insisting that “yada yada yada we ought to just ignore that Russian stuff because it’s what all the cool pedant dude-bros are saying…” is just flipping insane beyond words.

I’ll be happy when all of this stuff is investigated, and I’ll even be happy if zero evidence is found linking the Trumps to the Russians and that the Russians had nothing to do with the '16 elections. And you know why I’ll be happy? Because I can use some of that mental energy on something else besides trying to process this cognitive dissonance shit sandwich which is Trump.

1 Like

#39

We have a few. Prima facie we have:

  1. Michael Flynn’s failure (so glad you mentioned him!) to register under FARA*. There’s no such thing as “retroactive” registration. He committed a crime.

  2. Trump fired Comey to relieve “great pressure” on him and his administration. This is obstruction of justice, a crime.

I could go on but I have a strong suspicion I’m feeding a troll at this point.

3 Likes

#40

I don’t disagree with you about Comey; but that’s just Trump shooting himself in the foot. I also don’t disagree with you about Flynn, since I brought it up. Neither of these things are criminal conspiracy with Russia.

I’ll stop at this point, because I’m starting to feel like I did before the Iraq War, when I kept insisting there was nothing there and everyone else was like, “But all this evidence?? U r an idiot” This is the exact same playbook - make a “big lie”, repeat ad nauseam, everyone assumes there’s something to it.

0 Likes

#41

Interesting reaction.

Why do you think that calling the curious obsessed is a credible way to deflect inquiry?

If you wanted me to reconsider my desire to know more (reasons already expressed above), then none of this was the play to make—it’s another reason to amplify (magnify?) that scrutiny I mentioned.

If I say we should get to the bottom of all of this, and this makes you say I’m being played, how exactly, does that work?

2 Likes

#42

Moving the goalposts much?

3 Likes

#43

I’m sorry. You’ve found boingboing.net. To reach the site you intended, please go to infowars.com. Thank you, and have a nice day.

3 Likes

closed #44

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

0 Likes