No, Trump’s lawyers handled that directly.
The Russian interference isn’t the reason Trump won, but it most certainly didn’t hurt, and the fact that Donald Trump Jr. held talks with Russian diplomats right before the hacks is a weird coincidence to consider.
What sort of rules, bylaws, “illegal games” and “voter suppression” did the DNC commit and violate when they chose the far more popular candidate?
Start here:
From The Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, Article 5, section 4:
“In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
Plus Greg Palast has done a lot of investigation into election corruption over the years…
“In Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary, they are instructed to say that, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race.”
Oh, and this, from Election Justice USA, based on “thousands of reports of voter registration tampering, purging, or obstruction recorded by Election Justice USA (EJUSA). Many cases in EJUSA’s database are supported by registration records, emails to and from officials, phone records, or affidavit testimony…”
Here are a couple of example cases:
“On April 19th, a judge in New York grudgingly agreed that someone may have tampered with Alba Guerrero’s voter registration. Judge Ira Margulis changed his decision from moments earlier that Guerrero would be denied the right to vote in New York’s Democratic primary, after evidence emerged that Guerrero’s signature had been forged, switching her to Republican without her knowledge or consent. Had she not been willing to take several hours to appear before a judge that day, Alba would not have been able to vote for Senator Bernie Sanders. Video evidence available online confirms the forgery.
…
A forged legal document cannot be attributed to an unfortunate mistake or a clerical error. Someone intentionally tampered with Alba Guerrero’s voter registration.”
“Another New York resident, Chloe Pecorino, attempted to register as a first-time voter by submitting the relevant paperwork to the Department of Motor Vehicles in Brooklyn more than a week before the March 25th, 2016 deadline. Attempts to verify her registration status online were unsuccessful. On the day of New York’s presidential primary, Chloe still had not been registered as a Democrat, despite persistent efforts, including more than a dozen calls and emails, the evidence of which spans fifteen pages in Exhibit A of Election Justice USA’s initial New York lawsuit. On the day of the primary, Chloe took several hours to appear before a judge in an attempt to vote normally. Despite ample evidence of attempts to register before the deadline in good faith, the judge denied her request. As a consequence, Chloe was forced to cast her vote for Senator Sanders using an affidavit ballot. As can be seen in Photo 2, Chloe’s affidavit ballot was declared invalid, like so many others.”
Read the full report here…
You say “far more popular candidate”… m’kay… 
Ahh, got it, you’re dredging up those old memes and debunked rally photos for false comparisons, eight months later.
I’m not interested in debating with you. Thank you.
The new evidence of the same entity being involved in military operations in the Russia-Ukraine war is effectively the slam dunk, though the prior evidence when each piece was considered carefully and looked at a whole was already sufficient to make the case. The case is not 100%, but it’s certainly far beyond any reasonable doubt.
The US and Russia have been involved in ongoing cyberwarfare actions against each other for a long time. Previously this was intelligence agencies of each nation spying on the other. The US was just targeted by Russia’s cyberwarfare division who not only directly leaked the DNC’s full oppo research file on Trump, but also leaked the DCCC’s oppo research files, and other internal House political campaign plans very valuable to the GOP’s House campaigns across the country, which were leaked just at the outset of the general election. Then there was the dump of mail data to Wikileaks (which again isn’t 100% certain, but given the fact that Guccifer 2.0 stated they gave the DNC the dump, it appeared days later on Wikileaks, and Wikileaks were regular boosters of Guccifer 2.0 sharing other dumps, it’s easy to make a strong case). The Podesta situation’s more complex, since SecureWorks hasn’t shared their evidence, so we only have their word to go by that it was also perpetrated by the GRU.
The mix of leaking Dem House race campaign plans/internals to the GOP, and Clinton campaign campaign plans/internals to the GOP might not have had an influence, but it’s hard to assume it was irrelevant in shaping those campaigns since we saw how leaked data was used by the GOP very effectively through the general. Then there’s the role that Wikileaks had on poisoning the Sanders supporting left on the DNC and in general supporting the narrative of Clinton as the “corrupt” candidate. Trump took every opportunity he had to push the public towards Wikileaks in debates and on his Twitter feed. Whether this had an influence is hard to really measure, but it amounted to both significant help to the GOP campaigns and a tremendously powerful anti-DNC/anti-Clinton propaganda campaign that the GOP milked in their campaign strategies for all it was worth.
Obama was threatening retaliation in Oct. He didn’t actually retaliate. At this point he’s got weeks left and there’s little reason to assume he’d do anything. If you’re worried about US-Russia relations, there’s a whole lot to worry about, but the most serious crises will begin after Dec. 20.
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the only reason you can bring this (very questionable claim) up is due to Russia’s involvement in the US election. That it has shaped your thinking should give you pause about your prior claims about Russian hacking having any effect. Russian intelligence’s release of Kompromat had an effect on you, why not others?
So if you want to focus on one single image (and it was a joke, or did you not notice the smiley face?) instead of the text of the Charter and Bylaws of the DNC, the 96 pages of the EJUSA report and the years of research and reporting of a world-renown journalist, then I quote,
“I’m not interested in debating with you. Thank you.”
Got it… 
You do realize the FBI is backing the CIA’s report on the hacking, right? Two agencies who don’t normally like to play together, and who have the capability of dissecting the actual cyber evidence in a way that you and your partisan “news” sources don’t.
This really isn’t about the DNC at all. If the most prominent party to come between Putin and his puppet was the Libertarian party, that would have been the one that was hacked. The point was to manipulate US politics to put Trump in office, period.
Although, the fact that Hillary was particularly well suited to, and had a proven track record of being tough in international relations certainly made the DNC the best candidate for hacking, regardless of other parties.
with the uber rich and international corporations pulling the strings for their own benefit.
Two weeks ago, not two months ago…
In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep that is airing Friday [December 16] on Morning Edition, Obama said, “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”
I’m sure Russia wouldn’t take it too seriously, either… no big.
Do you mean January 20? If so, absolutely. Don’t think for a moment that I’m happy with the election results.[quote=“nemomen, post:46, topic:91927”]
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the only reason you can bring this (very questionable claim) up is due to Russia’s involvement in the US election.
[/quote]
Again, circumstantial and allegations, but that’s a dead horse…
I could make a comment about how U.S. government/corporate propaganda and the liberal news echo chamber has shaped your thinking and had an effect on you; but as I don’t know you personally, don’t know how you seek out alternative sources, how you try to corroborate information and base your opinions on facts, how you are willing to modify your opinions and stances on issue when presented with new or better information, I won’t. 
Oh, you’re just joking about your rebuttal, now. I see. Please stop wasting my time.
I work in InfoSec. While I’m a Linux programmer working on netSec devices, there’s a team of penetration testers next door I work/chat with, and I have to keep up on the whole domain. The preponderance of data out there I base my opinion on is coming from private InfoSec researchers who’ve been watching this hack and reporting on various facets of it from the start, and who not only have no vested interests blaming Russia, but because of the reputation-based nature of the business tend towards caution and have a very strong interest in not screwing up. Those people are by and large not partisan Dems., are generally not very politically aware/engaged except in general anti-authoritarianism, distrust/dislike for intelligence agencies (not just those in the US, though), and are interested in researching the situation because it’s an application of forensic analysis of hacks that they do as their day job. Russia’s OpSec was terrible and they blew their cover. I’ve been following the cases closely because it’s relevant to my work and various high profile people in the field have been chiming in on various aspects. I don’t trust any intelligence agency’s claims or base my views on their claims. The mainstream media’s been generally worthless in their coverage.
But to return to the topic again, you cited the Wikileaks DNC dump. Does it mean anything to you that Guccifer 2.0 claimed they sent the dump to Wikileaks before the dump went live on Wikileaks? How do you understand Guccifer 2.0 exactly?
(On a related note, I’m back to the day job for a while, might disappear for a while since things are busy.)
Sacrifices must be made if modernism is to be defeated.
Lest you think I’m quoting some crackpot…
Say what?
Read the bylaws, I didn’t joke about that.
Read the EJUSA report, I didn’t joke about that.
Read about the California primary, I didn’t joke about that.
One friggin; joke with smiley face and everything else is ignored?
I’m not the one wasting your time…
Dear Vlad,
Really, I understand why you needed to annex the Crimea. I’ll talk a little trash to the media, but don’t worry, it’s all cool.
But…if you ever guess the password to Podesta’s Gmail account, we’re declaring cyberwar. No shit.
Cordially,
Barack
Well, the US did respond to the invasion of Ukraine/occupation of Crimea with sanctions that hit and have continued to hit the Russian economy incredibly hard, and worked on diplomatic responses. A full military response would have triggered WW III. With Ossetia, then Ukraine, Russia’s belligerence continued to increase with the cyberwarfare attacks on US elections triggering US threats (though no clear action) of a US cyberwarfare response. I think Obama probably could have done a better job with Ossetia/Crimea and the cyberwarfare attacks on the US elections but since this is a conflict between nuclear powers I am not totally sure what that would look like.
Yes, they changed their stance, but there’s still no more evidence available… not that I’ve heard about.
And as long as Clinton appeared to be a lock over Trump, no action appeared necessary.
I’m not sure what action would have been effective. The US was really vulnerable since there was an election (with one candidate’s campaign being run by Manafort who was on the Kremlin’s payroll) and the perfect set of opportunities for Putin to manipulate the media. Russia’s main media outlets are all state controlled (and reporters for minor media outlets have a habit of dying at the hands of the oligarch-connected Russian Mafia when they report anything inconvenient), and there’s no election. Also, while I am in no position to know what a meaningful and effective response would be, I also am in no position to say there isn’t a response happening. The CIA isn’t known for being really public about their operations.
This is boring I know, but if you wish to produce a faux-Russian-syntax parody, it’s well to remember that the present tense of the verb to be is hardly ever used in Russian.
Putin - by you best friend! By him America was being protected from unworthy babushka!
And look how well it worked.
The future of Syria is being decided by Russia and Turkey - Turkey now being somewhat less pro-US than hitherto.
The gas pipeline to Crimea is complete and the bridge (unless bombed by NATO, which is unlikely) should be done in two to three years.
China and Russia have agreed to start the bridge across the Amur river which will give China access to Siberia as climate change opens it up, and link the Eastern end of their economies.
Russia and Japan are slowly sinking their differences over the Kuriles.
And Russia has - how many - nuclear icebreakers, whereas the US has to borrow from other countries.
A comparatively minor skirmish (compared to Iraq, or even the Georgia war) has led to Russia moving East and South, away from the West. Although the Russian economy has taken a bad hit, in the long term they will probably benefit. Even the NYT has published an article stating that Ukraine did not benefit from its attempt to get closer to the EU - who basically stuffed them on exports.
The US conviction that it, and only it, should be the global policeman** has already had bad economic effects on the EU*, and by driving rivals to collaborate could have the opposite effect to what it wants - more disengagement from the US as China rises.
*The US was hardly affected by sanctions against Russia whereas the EU bore the brunt of them, and this is causing unhappiness in parts of Germany and the East.
**No, I don’t know a better candidate, but I do feel that having several large but geographically diverse powers is safer than having one with global reach.
