The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[SaintForLife]

When you say "without evidence," you're either lying about what pages 158-169 say, being coy about what "evidence" means, or not understanding what "evidence" means.

Just to use one random example from that excerpt -- the fact that Kilimnik was "trained in languages at the Russian Military Institute of the Ministry of Defense (VKIMO), an institute that Kilimnik himself admitted to colleagues was used by both the GRU and KGB" -- is one piece of evidence used by the Senate to reach that conclusion. That's one line extracted from 11 pages describing similar evidence, the whole of which led the Senate to reach that conclusion. Much of the evidence they describe is redacted, but much of it isn't.

If that is considered evidence, does the fact that Joseph Misfud was a featured speaker at the Meeting of Global Ties which is sponsored by the State Department mean that he was a US asset? Does it also mean that Misfud was CIA or FBI because he was a professor at the Link Campus University in Rome where the CIA and FBI regularly send their agents?

To be sure, the most important evidence appears to be hidden behind the redactions. There's nothing I can do about that. But again, this all stemmed from you calling me out about saying Kilimnik was tied to Russian intelligence, and now you're pretty much one of the only people in the universe besides Kilimnik who thinks there's "no evidence" in support of that proposition.

How convenient that the most important evidence is supposedly behind the redactions. That sounds very similar to the Russia investigation. If I disagree with something you said that doesn't mean I'm calling you out. This is a message board. You don't need to get so angry when I don't agree with your views on the Russia investigation.

And again, it seems pretty obvious Manafort wanted the polling data to get to Deripaska, and therefore Putin. That's what the "evidence" suggests, anyway. If not, who did Manafort think he was helping? That question is rhetorical. I know I'm not convincing you of anything, but I do think it's important to point out the ways your arguments conflict with objective reality.

You are vastly overstating the significance of anyone getting polling data whether it was a regular citizen of Russian intelligence. That's a common theme for the people who believe Trump colluded with Russia. Let's say he was Russian intelligence. What do you think Putin could have done with that polling? Would it have had the same effect as these Russian Facebook ads that the media and left went crazy over?

 

[TaylorB]

If that is considered evidence,

It *is* considered evidence. 11 pages of it.

 

[MT15]

SFL, that’s a lot of cherries you just picked. Making a pie?

 

[FullMonte]

You are vastly overstating the significance of anyone getting polling data whether it was a regular citizen of Russian intelligence. That's a common theme for the people who believe Trump colluded with Russia. Let's say he was Russian intelligence. What do you think Putin could have done with that polling? Would it have had the same effect as these Russian Facebook ads that the media and left went crazy over?

What could he have done with that polling? Would it have had the same effect?

Well, what was that effect? Do you think that a country with the resources of Russia could affect US voters through social media manipulation? I mean....could they have affected ANY US voters through social media disinformation? After all, we are to believe that they were able to affect a UK intelligence officer through a disinformation campaign (the Steele dossier), so how much could they affect US voters?

I mean...could they have changed the mind of, let's say 8 voters out of a pool of 1,000? Because that's the margin Trump won Wisconsin by. If Russia knew that the polls in Wisconsin were that close, they could have easily targeted certain areas and had that small effect, right?

Maybe they could only sway 7 out of 1000 voters. But, that's the margin that Trump won Pennsylvania by.

Ok...only 2 out of every 1,000 voters...that's barely a blip, right? But, that's what it took for Trump to win Michigan.

Three states that Trump won by a margin of less than 1%. Without those three states, Trump loses the election.

With polling data showing the areas that were very close, Russia could target those areas, and sway just a handful of voters, and boom..Trump becomes president.

 

[SaintForLife]

What could he have done with that polling? Would it have had the same effect?

Well, what was that effect? Do you think that a country with the resources of Russia could affect US voters through social media manipulation? I mean....could they have affected ANY US voters through social media disinformation? After all, we are to believe that they were able to affect a UK intelligence officer through a disinformation campaign (the Steele dossier), so how much could they affect US voters?

I mean...could they have changed the mind of, let's say 8 voters out of a pool of 1,000? Because that's the margin Trump won Wisconsin by. If Russia knew that the polls in Wisconsin were that close, they could have easily targeted certain areas and had that small effect, right?

Maybe they could only sway 7 out of 1000 voters. But, that's the margin that Trump won Pennsylvania by.

Ok...only 2 out of every 1,000 voters...that's barely a blip, right? But, that's what it took for Trump to win Michigan.

Three states that Trump won by a margin of less than 1%. Without those three states, Trump loses the election.

With polling data showing the areas that were very close, Russia could target those areas, and sway just a handful of voters, and boom..Trump becomes president.

The Russian IRA spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook ads. 6.3 billion was spent on all local, state, and presidential elections. 2.4 billion was spent on the presidential election. Trump spent 398 million and Clinton spent 768 million. If you think $100,000 of Facebook ads could have swung the election to Trump then every political consultant in the US will be out of a job in 2020.

How many votes could this Russian Facebook ad have changed to Clinton?

 

[TaylorB]

You are vastly overstating the significance of anyone getting polling data whether it was a regular citizen of Russian intelligence. That's a common theme for the people who believe Trump colluded with Russia. Let's say he was Russian intelligence. What do you think Putin could have done with that polling? Would it have had the same effect as these Russian Facebook ads that the media and left went crazy over?

We’re in a dispute about the Trump campaign’s links or coordination with Russians in their interference 2016 election, and you’re now arguing “even if we assume Trump’s campaign manager — who owed millions of dollars to Putin-connected oligarchs with no legitimate meand to repay it — shared proprietary polling data on key battleground states with a Russian intelligence officer, what’s the big deal?”

You seem to not understand how covert election interference works in the digital age. I am happy to recommend some reading for you. I don’t know what else to say about why this is a big deal.

 

[SaintForLife]

We’re in a dispute about the Trump campaign’s links or coordination with Russians in their interference 2016 election, and you’re now arguing “even if we assume Trump’s campaign manager — who owed millions of dollars to Putin-connected oligarchs with no legitimate meand to repay it — shared proprietary polling data on key battleground states with a Russian intelligence officer, what’s the big deal?”

You seem to not understand how covert election interference works in the digital age. I am happy to recommend some reading for you. I don’t know what else to say about why this is a big deal.

It doesn't appear that you know much about covert election influence. Do you know that the US is the king of election interference? We don't just interfere in elections. We invade countries and remove leaders by force that we don't like. We use the CIA to support rebellions and coups to install foreign leaders who are friendly to the US.

I am not a defending Russian interference in our election. We should do everything we can to prevent foreign election interference. I did point out that about the US because people are acting like the Russians interfering in our election is like a current day Pearl Harbor. We interfere in everyone's elections so should we be surprised when another country does it to us? I seriously doubt that 2016 was the first time Russia interfered in our election.

 

[TaylorB]

The Russian IRA spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook ads. 6.3 billion was spent on all local, state, and presidential elections. 2.4 billion was spent on the presidential election. Trump spent 398 million and Clinton spent 768 million. If you think $100,000 of Facebook ads could have swung the election to Trump then every political consultant in the US will be out of a job in 2020.

How many votes could this Russian Facebook ad have changed to Clinton?

The IRA’s budget was over $1M per month. And it wasn’t just a couple of Facebook ads — it was a multi-front effort. It’s nearly impossible to keep up with the number of misleading things you’re saying.

And it’s not even pertinent to the discussion we’re having. You made a big deal about Kilimnik’s ties to Russian intel because you instinctively deny everything harmful to your argument. Now you’re basically the only person still disputing his Russian ties, so you’re changing the subject to “so what if he was?“ Or “what about Mifsud?” The routine is familiar. We all remember, though, that this whole Kilimnik dispute was your thing.

 

[Nebaghead]

The Russian IRA spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook ads. 6.3 billion was spent on all local, state, and presidential elections. 2.4 billion was spent on the presidential election. Trump spent 398 million and Clinton spent 768 million. If you think $100,000 of Facebook ads could have swung the election to Trump then every political consultant in the US will be out of a job in 2020.

How many votes could this Russian Facebook ad have changed to Clinton?

It isn’t the ads, it is fake accounts promoting stories. Soon they are on top of everyone’s feed. FB algorithms are being manipulated to promote the articles that they want people to see. They didn’t go buy ads. I had to write a small paper about this in grad school. Google the Boston Marathon Bomber. Same thing was done there. A total false premise was promoted so well using bots, national news started to report it as fact. For a 1000 dollars a month and 5k bot farm can be created, imagine how easy it is to get an article promoted when it gets 5k likes in an hour.

 

[SaintForLife]

The IRA’s budget was over $1M per month. And it wasn’t just a couple of Facebook ads — it was a multi-front effort. It’s nearly impossible to keep up with the number of misleading things you’re saying.

And it’s not even pertinent to the discussion we’re having. You made a big deal about Kilimnik’s ties to Russian intel because you instinctively deny everything harmful to your argument. Now you’re basically the only person still disputing his Russian ties, so you’re changing the subject to “so what if he was?“ Or “what about Mifsud?” The routine is familiar. We all remember, though, that this whole Kilimnik dispute was your thing.

Explain how what I said I about the Facebook ads was misleading.

Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads (Published 2017)

Facebook said that fake accounts and pages had bought 3,000 ads focused on divisive social issues, including race and immigration.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TaylorB]

It doesn't appear that you know much about covert election influence. Do you know that the US is the king of election interference? We don't just interfere in elections. We invade countries and remove leaders by force that we don't like. We use the CIA to support rebellions and coups to install foreign leaders who are friendly to the US.

I am not a defending Russian interference in our election. We should do everything we can to prevent foreign election interference. I did point out that about the US because people are acting like the Russians interfering in our election is like a current day Pearl Harbor. We interfere in everyone's elections so should we be surprised when another country does it to us? I seriously doubt that 2016 was the first time Russia interfered in our election.

SFL. I know plenty about election interference. I know the US has been interfering in elections since at least the beginning of the Cold War. So has Russia. Mostly, it’s been our interests versus Russia’s, wherever the KGB or CIA has interfered, be it Chile, Italy, Japan, etc.

I am not surprised about foreign interference. I am surprised you are so hell bent on absolving Russia for it, or minimizing the harm it’s done. It *is* similar to an act of war. It is an attack on our democracy. We retaliated with measures the Trump administration immediately tried to undermine.

You’re right that it isn’t the first time Russia tried to interfere in our elections. I’ve read a ton about this since 2016. Russians offered help to Nixon’s opponent in 1968. He refused:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/13/donald-trump-is-wrong-when-democrats-were-offered-secret-help-by-the-soviets-they-refused/

It’s normal and patriotic to refuse Russia’s help. It isn’t normal or patriotic for your campaign manager to give Russia internal polling data on battleground states to help narrow down who to target. Or to undermine any countermeasures we‘ve taken against them. That’s not what patriots do. Manafort is not a patriot. He’s a foreign agent who has spent nearly this entire century representing pro-Kremlin interests.

 

[TaylorB]

Explain how what I said I about the Facebook ads was misleading.

Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads (Published 2017)

Facebook said that fake accounts and pages had bought 3,000 ads focused on divisive social issues, including race and immigration.

www.nytimes.com

It is misleading because the IRA’s budget for election interference was $1.25 million per month, and you quoted a figure of $100k for Facebook ads which was only a fraction of what they were actually doing, leading an unwitting reader to believe that there was only 100k worth of influence. It leaves out the extensive reach the IRA had on Facebook with posts that were not ads, and it fails to mention that the IRA infiltrated twitter, Instagram, and a host of other social media platforms. It fails to mention grassroots on-the-ground work by IRA spies. It fails to mention the coordination of IRA messaging with local pacs, including TUC and others designed to suppress the black vote. It fails to mention that Flynn, Flynn Jr., Don Jr., Stone and other conservatives were amplifying IRA messaging. It’s similar to the Don Jr. [or maybe Kushner] “couple of Facebook ads” line because it vastly understates the operation. The campaign by IRA used weapons grade psy-ops techniques to target persuadable voters in key states in which under 100k votes would swing the state.

You claimed to know a lot about covert election interference, so presumably you knew all that. If you did know all that, then you knew it was misleading to say “$100k” as if the russians bought a couple of ads like they were trying to sell some Nikes. It was a huge deal what they did. I called your statement misleading because it was misleading. It wasn’t “false.” If it were false, I’d have called it that. But it was misleading because of what it omitted.

 

[JLL]

Those who voted for DJT in 2016 weren’t swayed by Russian interference, Hillary Clinton sucked! She was smug, elitist, and just believed that bc she was a Clinton, and a woman she was entitled to the presidency. And the fact is that the Clinton machine took the American voters for granted. The elitist democrats in DC and their minions Have lied and accussed Trump of......well you name it. The Mueller report, impeachment, results have proven just how out of touch, dangerous and Batshit crazy they are. When in reality all Trump did was win an election they didn’t think he would or should have won. It’s that simple. The Russian interference is baby shirt compared to the what the DC Democrats and they’re ilk have achieved!

 

[SaintForLife]

It is misleading because the IRA’s budget for election interference was $1.25 million per month, and you quoted a figure of $100k for Facebook ads which was only a fraction of what they were actually doing, leading an unwitting reader to believe that there was only 100k worth of influence. It leaves out the extensive reach the IRA had on Facebook with posts that were not ads, and it fails to mention that the IRA infiltrated twitter, Instagram, and a host of other social media platforms. It fails to mention grassroots on-the-ground work by IRA spies. It fails to mention the coordination of IRA messaging with local pacs, including TUC and others designed to suppress the black vote. It fails to mention that Flynn, Flynn Jr., Don Jr., Stone and other conservatives were amplifying IRA messaging. It’s similar to the Don Jr. [or maybe Kushner] “couple of Facebook ads” line because it vastly understates the operation. The campaign by IRA used weapons grade psy-ops techniques to target persuadable voters in key states in which under 100k votes would swing the state.

You claimed to know a lot about covert election interference, so presumably you knew all that. If you did know all that, then you knew it was misleading to say “$100k” as if the russians bought a couple of ads like they were trying to sell some Nikes. It was a huge deal what they did. I called your statement misleading because it was misleading. It wasn’t “false.” If it were false, I’d have called it that. But it was misleading because of what it omitted.

What did that 1.25 million people month include? I'm not familiar with that. For 1 year that's 15 million and 2 years 30 million. That still pales in comparison to the 2.4 billion spent on the 2016 presidential election. What makes you think that 15 to 30 million in spending would be more influential than the 2.4 billion in spending?

 

[TaylorB]

What did that 1.25 million people month include? I'm not familiar with that. For 1 year that's 15 million and 2 years 30 million. That still pales in comparison to the 2.4 billion spent on the 2016 presidential election. What makes you think that 15 to 30 million in spending would be more influential than the 2.4 billion in spending?

I didn’t say a Russian influence operation was “more influential” than the legitimate money spent on the campaign. That’s absurd. It wouldn’t have to be “more influential” to be effective; it would only have to persuade a relatively small number of voters (hence providing Russians with polling data on key battleground swing states). All I said was that your comment minimizing the IRA’s budget was misleading. It was.

 

[dtc]

It doesn't appear that you know much about covert election influence. Do you know that the US is the king of election interference? We don't just interfere in elections. We invade countries and remove leaders by force that we don't like. We use the CIA to support rebellions and coups to install foreign leaders who are friendly to the US.

I am not a defending Russian interference in our election. We should do everything we can to prevent foreign election interference. I did point out that about the US because people are acting like the Russians interfering in our election is like a current day Pearl Harbor. We interfere in everyone's elections so should we be surprised when another country does it to us? I seriously doubt that 2016 was the first time Russia interfered in our election.

We are acting like contributing to Russian interference is a crime and when it's carried out by agents of a political candidcate presumably with that candidate's tacit approval, it's a corruption of our election.

The results suit your preference it seems so you're defending it based on whether it's a big deal rather than it being a crime and immoral.

I don't really understand the point you're making in this defense now.

 

[MT15]

Explain how what I said I about the Facebook ads was misleading.

Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads (Published 2017)

Facebook said that fake accounts and pages had bought 3,000 ads focused on divisive social issues, including race and immigration.

www.nytimes.com

See the post directly above your post. Try to imagine the entire picture. Dont try to excuse foreign interference in our elections. You say you aren’t, but that is all I see you doing.

 

[MT15]

What did that 1.25 million people month include? I'm not familiar with that. For 1 year that's 15 million and 2 years 30 million. That still pales in comparison to the 2.4 billion spent on the 2016 presidential election. What makes you think that 15 to 30 million in spending would be more influential than the 2.4 billion in spending?

Abrams is acting like the entire election didn’t swing on less than 80,000 votes in 3 states. it’s nonsensical.

And to just categorically deny that Russian interference (especially when aided by being provided with Trump campaign private polling and aided by Cambridge Analytica, who bragged that they could target voters on an individual level) had anything to do with that razor thin margin, is just whistling past the graveyard.

The correct position for any American is that we need to figure out how to keep any foreign nation from attempting to influence our elections. And then do it. The correct position is not to deny said influence and make excuses for it. This should be a simple call.