Russian Interference 2020. It's back. (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

Washington (CNN)It's happening again.
America is blundering into a new Russia election-meddling hall of mirrors that's already doing Moscow's work: tearing fresh political divides and threatening to again tarnish democracy's most sacred moment, a national election.

Revelations Thursday about intelligence assessments that Russia has launched a new interference effort to help reelect Donald Trump -- and the President's furious reaction -- mark the return of a recurring nightmare for the country just nine months before the presidential election.

America's Russia nightmare is back | CNN Politics

It’s happening again. America is blundering into a new Russia election-meddling hall of mirrors that’s already doing Moscow’s work: tearing fresh political divides and threatening to again tarnish democracy’s most sacred moment, a national election.

www.cnn.com

As was expected and predicted, Russian Interference to re-elect Trump is back. I figured it would be good to have a thread to post suspected Russian Interference campaigns and social media accounts/post. Also to discuss what they might be targeting and their strategies.

I would expect that right now they're currently targeting divisions within the democratic party and amplifying those fault lines. So I suspect a lot of amplifying racial and minority fault lines within the party. Also, Bernie was probably right during the debate that they're likely contributing to and amplifying the Bernie Bro's aggression in order to further divide the party. This would make perfect sense as their MO isn't usually to create new controversies and division but to exaggerate and exploit the ones that are already there. Their goal being to push those divisions and suppress voter enthusiasm and turn out.

 

[SaintForLife]

I’m at work on lunch so I cannot “respond specifically” and that ship has sailed anyway. I have responded specifically in the past, only to be ignored, and then a day later you trot out the same points that were refuted. It’s old and tiresome and not worth my time.

Please link to the post where you responded specifically on Russiagate. What a surprise. More generalities

Herridge does report facts, I presume, but she’s certainly not agenda free. She is a staunch conservative and her POV comes out from what she chooses to report and what she chooses to ignore.

IMO, she is a bit like the rights version of Rachel Maddow, without being on tv. If the dems do something stupid, she’s all over it. But when “her side” does something stupid, she will never mention it. Same as Rachel only reversed. A “straight” reporter would be balanced in her criticism of both sides when warranted.

Omg LOL! You are comparing her to the biggest Russia conspiracy person on TV who has been totally discredited. Are you serious?

Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/

Same with everyone else you quote, they have a POV, and it shows. You’re very quick to recognize slant in others, but seem to be under the illusion that you are consuming unbiased facts, while quoting opinions and one sided reports.

So everyone that you read, listen to or cite here doesn't have a POV?

Trump is extremely likely, IMO, to be guilty of some criminal acts concerning Russia that just haven’t been uncovered as yet. It takes a really special sort of person to believe that all the lies and obstruction were for no good reason. That they’re not hiding something.

That seems to be your position, though. I just don’t see it.

You can feel free to believe that even without any evidence. I'll wait for evidence before I proclaim that to be true.

 

[MT15]

So you’re quoting an opinion piece about Maddow. It is only that. This is my point. You think all your sources are totally unbiased and “straight“ reporters, and everyone else is slanted. It’s not reality, yet you push that idea all the time. And seem to conflate opinion with fact.

Herridge and Maddow are very similar. I can’t help it if you cannot see it.

And no, I’m not going to go back and search my posts. They exist, I remember vividly the time it took to write them and source them. You ignored the points made and kept posting the same stuff over and over. You do it still. It frustrated me so much that I vowed to not do it again. You could search my posts yourself, if you’re really interested. I doubt that you are, you just want to assign homework to me.

But here’s a question that I have asked you before. Why did all the Trump campaign people lie? Why did they obstruct the investigation, why did Trump lie and instruct people to lie, why did he solicit a lie in the form of dishonest documents? Does it make sense to you that all this activity took place when there was no underlying wrongdoing they were desperate to cover up? That they put themselves in legal jeopardy to cover up “nothing”? You piously say you’ll wait for evidence of guilt, but this behavior is considered evidence of guilt. By every sort of investigation, this behavior is considered evidence of guilt. So yes, I’ll continue to think there is something there. That this is no witch hunt. Of course you’re free to believe Trump and all his apologists.

Despite your constant thesis, I have accepted the outcome of Mueller’s investigation. I recognize that it was a Republican investigation of a Republican administration, and there were some restrictions that were imposed both through DOJ convention and Rod Rosenstein. Unlike you, I can recognize that there were still problems exposed with the Trump campaign and administration. It wasn’t “total exoneration” no matter how many times Trump and Barr bleat that tired lie. But you are free to believe there was nothing there. You will have to ignore the facts uncovered, but you don’t seem to mind that.

 

[SaintForLife]

So you’re quoting an opinion piece about Maddow. It is only that. This is my point. You think all your sources are totally unbiased and “straight“ reporters, and everyone else is slanted. It’s not reality, yet you push that idea all the time. And seem to conflate opinion with fact.

He's the Washington Post's Media Critic. Do you have a specific criticism of his article or are you just sticking with your generalizations that are difficult to respond to?

Herridge and Maddow are very similar. I can’t help it if you cannot see it.

I doubt anyone would claim that besides you.

And no, I’m not going to go back and search my posts. They exist, I remember vividly the time it took to write them and source them. You ignored the points made and kept posting the same stuff over and over. You do it still. It frustrated me so much that I vowed to not do it again. You could search my posts yourself, if you’re really interested. I doubt that you are, you just want to assign homework to me.

I tried searching your posts, but since I have no idea what thread and what your post entailed it's tough to do. If you vividly remember it, wouldn't it be easy for you to find with the search option? Otherwise it just seems like the post doesn't contain what you say it does or you didn't do what you claim.

But here’s a question that I have asked you before. Why did all the Trump campaign people lie? Why did they obstruct the investigation, why did Trump lie and instruct people to lie, why did he solicit a lie in the form of dishonest documents? Does it make sense to you that all this activity took place when there was no underlying wrongdoing they were desperate to cover up? That they put themselves in legal jeopardy to cover up “nothing”? You piously say you’ll wait for evidence of guilt, but this behavior is considered evidence of guilt. By every sort of investigation, this behavior is considered evidence of guilt. So yes, I’ll continue to think there is something there. That this is no witch hunt. Of course you’re free to believe Trump and all his apologists.

Since it's impossible to get inside someone's head and know their true motivations, it's hard to say for sure. I've said plenty of time that Trump had plenty of sketchy or corrupt people on their staff. They could have been trying to cover up something else, but since there is no evidence of Trump Russian conspiracy I don't see how we can say that's what it was.

What about all the people at the FBI involved in the FISA mess and Crossfire Hurricane that lied to investigators? Were they lying to cover up their attempted removal or sabotaging Trump or could there have been some other motivation?

Despite your constant thesis, I have accepted the outcome of Mueller’s investigation. I recognize that it was a Republican investigation of a Republican administration, and there were some restrictions that were imposed both through DOJ convention and Rod Rosenstein. Unlike you, I can recognize that there were still problems exposed with the Trump campaign and administration. It wasn’t “total exoneration” no matter how many times Trump and Barr bleat that tired lie. But you are free to believe there was nothing there. You will have to ignore the facts uncovered, but you don’t seem to mind that.

Can you point out when Barr said that Trump was totally exonerated? Any problems or issues that came up during the Russia or Ukraine investigations had nothing to do with the original charge or claim. Once again I've said there have been questionable activities within the Russia and Ukraine situations, but nothing that rises to the exaggerated levels the media and the Democrats have claimed.