Arm me with facts -- how do we know Russia's interference was pro-Trump?

[MaxTheVool]

I’m arguing on Facebook with a Trump-supporter about Russian interference in the 2016 election. He claims that there’s no evidence that they were trying to aid Trump, and were instead just sowing chaos.

I’m fairly certain that we know with a fair degree of certainty that he’s wrong. But I’m not sure what to quote, where to look, etc. Can someone point me in the right direction to authoritatively refute him?

thanks!

[Lance_Turbo]

From Barr’s summary of the Mueller investigation, “…despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Barr’s summary is pretty much the most favorable reading of the Mueller report, and it says Russians were offering to help the Trump campaign.

[Ravenman]

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that the judgments of the CIA, NSA, and FBI that the Russians worked to elect Trump were based on sound intelligence, and that subsequent developments since January 2017 have bolstered that assessment.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/committee-findings-2017-intelligence-community-assessment

[BobLibDem]

Putin said at the Helsinki summit (otherwise known as DJT’s performance review) that he wanted Donald to win.

[enipla]

@MaxTheVool

He claims that there’s no evidence that they were trying to aid Trump, and were instead just sowing chaos…

A distinction without a difference.

[Chronos]

What better way to sow chaos than to help Trump?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Yeah, sow chaos. Then you can grab 'em by the messy.

[MaxTheVool]

@Ravenman

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that the judgments of the CIA, NSA, and FBI that the Russians worked to elect Trump were based on sound intelligence, and that subsequent developments since January 2017 have bolstered that assessment.

Publications | Intelligence Committee

Just what I was looking for, thanks.

[Lumpy]

@Ravenman

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that the judgments of the CIA, NSA, and FBI that the Russians worked to elect Trump were based on sound intelligence, and that subsequent developments since January 2017 have bolstered that assessment.

Publications | Intelligence Committee

There were some fictional treatments during the Cold War about “what if the Reds snuck a mole into the White House?”. Do the three-letter agencies in Washington actually have a playbook for dealing with that?

[Sam_Stone]

There is also evidence that the Russians also encouraged anti-Trump protests. And according to Christopher Steele, his sources in the Kremlin dished enough dirt on Trump to kick off the special prosecutor. I hope we haven’t forgotten that the whole Trump investigation was kicked off by a spy who used Kremlin sources who were willing to invent all sorts of scandalous stuff about Trump. Do you think any of that happened without Putin’s approval?

This is right out of the Russian playbook. They try to get Kompromat on both sides, then leak it if they can’t use it for blackmail. The point is to destabilize the country and increase the tensions between political factions and lower trust in democracy. They’ve been doing this crap for decades.

[E-DUB]

Their goal wasn’t so much to elect trump, but to damage Clinton. The actual results of the election probably surprised them as much as it did pretty much everybody else.

[Velocity]

This isn’t exactly a source, but it’s well known that Hillary Clinton was 1) an expert in geopolitics and 2) as hawkish a Democrat as there were. Certainly not someone whom Russia would want in the Oval Office. Trump, on the other hand, was ignorant of a great many things, not keen on NATO or defending Ukraine, etc. and much more controllable by Russia.

But I think even the Russians themselves were as surprised as everyone on Election Night 2016. They probably didn’t think Trump would or could pull it off.

[Shodan]

@Sam_Stone

There is also evidence that the Russians also encouraged anti-Trump protests. And according to Christopher Steele, his sources in the Kremlin dished enough dirt on Trump to kick off the special prosecutor. I hope we haven’t forgotten that the whole Trump investigation was kicked off by a spy who used Kremlin sources who were willing to invent all sorts of scandalous stuff about Trump. Do you think any of that happened without Putin’s approval?

This.

@E-DUB

Their goal wasn’t so much to elect trump, but to damage Clinton. The actual results of the election probably surprised them as much as it did pretty much everybody else.

And this. The Russians tried to hack into the RNC servers and failed, but did hack into the DNC servers. They fed the fake Steele dossier to whoever they could find - opposition to Trump from Republicans, then opposition to Trump from Democrats (after Trump got the nomination).

Obvious geo-political troll is obvious.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ravenman]

@Sam_Stone

I hope we haven’t forgotten that the whole Trump investigation was kicked off by a spy who used Kremlin sources who were willing to invent all sorts of scandalous stuff about Trump. Do you think any of that happened without Putin’s approval?

I think there’s about as much evidence to suggest that the Steele Dossier was part of Putin’s plot as there is to suggest that Putin changed vote counts.

[Chronos]

I agree that the Russians were probably as surprised as anyone else by the election results. Their Plan A was a weakened President Clinton. But I’m also confident that they had contingency plans already in place to maximize their windfall from Trump’s victory.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

This.

Not that. As **Ravenman **pointed out, the right wing sources are dialing up the lies up to 11.

Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation

Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation
They want you to believe it began with the Steele dossier. It didn’t.

The FBI’s investigation originated with George Papadopoulos, not Christopher Steele

We’ve known since December 2017 that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began in July 2016 — months before the FBI was even alerted to the existence of the Steele dossier.

The inciting incident, according to Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo at the New York Times, had to do with WikiLeaks, which published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in July 2016. Those emails prompted Australia’s top diplomat in Britain to inform his American counterparts about a conversation he had two months earlier with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

[Shodan]

Yes, that.

In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. The Free Beacon stopped its backing when Trump became the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele’s firm to compile the dossier.

Cite. Using the fake dossier to get the FISA warrant came later.

Regards,
Shodan

[drad_dog]

@BobLibDem

Putin said at the Helsinki summit (otherwise known as DJT’s performance review) that he wanted Donald to win.

He’ll say anything pre-sex.

[drad_dog]

@Shodan

Yes, that. Cite. Using the fake dossier to get the FISA warrant came later.

Regards,
Shodan

You are really ruining the word “dossier” you know. It is starting to sound like “Strawberries!”

Does the phrase “You need to get over it and move on” ring any bells?

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

Yes, that. Cite. Using the fake dossier to get the FISA warrant came later.

From your cite:

Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,[26] others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, “none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven.”[27]

Your assertion here is that Putin manipulated an experienced British intelligence operative… to tell him the truth? That’s the story you’re going with?