The article documents (notice the word? that’s something completely missing from Trump/Russian collusion allegations)
Ukrainian governing party’s parliamentarians’ self-admitted anti-Trump meddling in US elections
Names the DNC staffer that was colluding with Ukrainian government representatives to collect and disseminate information that would damage Trump’s campaign.
You’re missing several key elements:
If you want to raise this subject in the name of partisan politics, in the hopes of distracting from the obvious, that is of course your right. But you really should consider whether you’d rather be a Republican or an American, and what’s the important question at the moment.
Russia’s alleged meddling in the election involved the theft of private material. The activities attributed to Ukraine in the article did not. (Nor did Netanyahu’s rather conspicuous meddling in the 2012 election, which Democrats grumbled about but largely shrugged off.)
I’d rather keep our elections free of any foreign influence, but this Ukraine story doesn’t raise the same national security considerations that the Russia hacking does.
Let the furious excuses for DNC operatives’ documented collusion with a foreign government in order to influence US elections begin.
n/m
BTW, for the record, I don’t see what is described in the article as a big problem. Ukraine has its interests and it is promoting them as they see fit (fairly stupidly, IMO, but then it’s their problem). There is nothing illegal in those contacts with DNC operatives, as far as I can see.
But it’s kind of interesting that Democrats are caught colluding with a foreign government to influence US elections in their favor exactly at the time they are screaming (without any proof, of course) about the other side doing that.
If Russia had simply bought ad space in U.S. media, no one here would be giving a damn. That’s First Amendment free speech (on the part of the media, not on the part of Russia.)
It was the hacking and leaking that stinks.
I don’t see anything wrong with what the Russians did either. Phishing for passwords and releasing true info??
That’s NOTHING compared to what the US has historically done to influence elections and topple govts. i expect that kind of meddling.
I’m a big boy and can make my own decisions, I don’t blame others for my own countries mistakes. The only reason this is news is because Trump won. had he not, the outrage would have been a “2” instead of “100”.
Getting into someone else’s private email account is (AFAIU, maybe someone can enlighten me of that) a crime in the US.
True. But two wrongs etc…
I agree.
I agree. It is a crime. But i expect that sort of cyber crime from Russia and save my outrage for the released content.
is Cyber espionage against a non-ally country wrong? I kind of expect the US to be engaged in such activities. And as you said about the Ukraine, I have no problem with a country advancing their own interests. Why shouldn’t the US favor one candidate over another?
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa
Now, that’s one hot tamale!
So I want to be clear.
One candidate publicly requested that another country commit crimes in the US in order to help him win an election. That other country committed very similar crimes and is documented as trying to help him win the election. That candidate has strong financial ties to that other country, going so far as to hire a campaign manager who has longstanding direct ties to the other country.
Another candidate, trying to figure out what the first candidate’s ties to the other country were, hired someone from a nearby country who was an expert in these issues.
You find it risible that people see differences between these two situations.
Does that sum it up?
I don’t get it. We know that the Russian hacking was clearly illegal, and I agree with you, from that article I don’t see where the Ukrainian Embassy or its officials did anything that I would consider illegal.
So your debate here is that other than the fact that one set of actions were clearly illegal and the other seem to be legal, the two instances are the same?
I think you’re glossing over a major difference.
There is a difference. For the record, then, you don’t mind if a foreign country, collaborating with one of the campaigns, meddles in the elections - as long as it doesn’t break any laws?
It’s like asking if I mind if a dog eats meat. If the meat is from a can of Alpo, I don’t really mind. If the meat is the fingers on my hand, I mind. The devil’s in the details.
Do I mind if a country commits crimes in our country in order to influence an election? Yes. Do I mind if one of the only candidates for superpower influences our election? Yes. Do I mind if a country tries to install a puppet in our presidency? Yes.
Do I mind if a country provides information to a political party that might be damaging to the opposition? Not by itself. Do I mind if a country, facing a very real military threat from an adjacent country, tries to prevent a puppet from being installed as our president? Not by itself.
I’m not crazy about Ukraine’s actions, but they’re of a whole different nature from Russia’s. This sort of false equivalence is a great way to muddy the waters and try to get people not to pay attention to the very real threat Russia poses to our democracy, and you shouldn’t help the propagandists who support such techniques.
Perhaps they would like to know how that Republican platform plank supporting Ukraine against Russia suddenly went Poof! Gone! Frankly, so would I. Perhaps our esteemed expert on geopolitical machinations has an explanation? One minute it was there, the next there was just a hole in space-time that it once occupied.
“Meddle” is an imprecise and pejorative word that could encompass a lot of things, so I’m not ready to sign up to the question the way you phrased it.
I’d say it this way: I think it is inappropriate for foreign countries (and people) to become active, but legal, participants in another country’s elections. Like for example, when Trump offered his opinion that he supported Brexit. Inappropriate.
My state of concern goes from “inappropriate” to “holy shit this has got to stop” when the participation is covert and illegal.
In this particular case, I merely skimmed the long article. This case seems to be about a political consultant, on her own initiative, not being directed by a campaign, went off trying to dig up dirt on Trump’s aides, and that involved asking questions of the Ukrainian Embassy. She then tried to get the DNC interested in that dirt, which the DNC didn’t seem very interested in.
If my brief synopsis of the situation is in the ballpark, I’m not seeing a means for outrage. The Ukrainian Embassy answering questions about a Trump aide is not a serious problem to me – I’m not sure any country is obligated to take an oath of silence as to activities of Americans in their country. I’m not sure this even amounts to “tinkering” much less “interference” in our elections.
But I’m open to correction on my understanding of the case. Again, I just did a quick skim.
One key question is: is the Ukrainian information about Manafort (including the ledger) legit?
If not, then that changes things a lot, IMO.
I don’t get your post. The gist of what you’re saying seems to be that the DNC wasn’t really involved. OK, but in the case of the Russians, there’s no indication at all that the RNC was involved. The issue there is that the Russians tried to interfere with the election and we should all be outraged and do something about it. I don’t see how your post even addresses that.
Yeah, it’s really hard to tell when something is espionage vs not espionage…