I am not attempting to address every aspect of each of these cases – I’m focusing my comments on my quick skim of the story in the OP with the general principles of foreign governments involving themselves in elections.
Maybe you’re confused because you are assuming that I think that Republicans did something wrong with the Russian hacking issue?
ETA: And I also totally agree with your comment about the veracity of the information supplied being an important issue.
I don’t know what you think of the issue of Republicans being blamed. But the question here is the extent to which the Ukraine-meddling issue is comparable to the Russia-meddling one. And to the extent that the primary issue in the Russia one is not about Republican actions but about Russian ones, then the focus of the comparison to Ukraine would be not be the Democratic actions but the Ukrainian ones.
Now you’re confusing me.
I don’t think the question of whether the RNC was hacked or not has jack-all to do with either case. I’m not sure why you brought it up in the first place.
Let me recapitulate:
Virtually everyone now agrees that the Russians attacked the DNC. That’s unethical, illegal, wrong, bad, and a big deal. (What their intent was for doing so doesn’t change that conclusion – maybe it is a cherry on top or something.)
In the other case, it seems like the Ukrainian Embassy answered some questions about a Trump aide that were posed by someone who seems to have been working for themselves, but hoping to interest the DNC or Clinton campaign in whatever dirt she might dig up. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see that the Ukrainian Embassy did anything seriously wrong.
Clearer?
That someone was a DNC employee, and was paid around $400K for her services over the years.
Ukrainian governing party’s parliamentarians admitted publicly that their goal in releasing information was to prevent Trump from being elected.
I didn’t bring up whether the RNC was hacked. I brought up whether RNC employees/consultants were involved in the Russian government meddling.
The point is that if the “big deal” about the Russian government meddling has little or nothing to do with whether the RNC was involved, then the question of to what extent the Ukrainian government meddling is comparable to the Russian meddling issue has similarly little or nothing to do with whether the DNC was involved.
Since the context of the discussion here has been about the very issue of to what extent these two meddlings are comparable, I would think DNC involvement with the Ukrainian meddling or lack thereof is not a big factor.
And you believe them. Settles that.
Why wouldn’t I believe them when they clearly and publicly stated it?
She was a DNC consultant, and it appears that the DNC wasn’t contracting with her to do this work, based on these parts of the story:
Where does the story say this? Can’t find it. Again, I think this activity by the Embassy is likely inappropriate, but my impression is that they were not acting on their own initiative to get that story out. My impression is that if Chapula hadn’t been asking engaging them, they wouldn’t have been trying to help. Again, open to correction here.
Whatever – I can’t see that the RNC has any bearing on the issue, one way or another. I still have no idea why you’re bringing up the RNC. Let me be clear: I don’t care about the RNC and I think the RNC sheds no light on anything relating to Russian hacking.
If you think the role of the RNC needs to be compared to the role of the DNC in comparing the two cases, go ahead. I think it has no relevance for comparison purposes. The only questions in my mind are: What did the Russians do? and What did the Ukrainians do?
I agree with you as to the “only questions”. I brought up the RNC only because you brought up the DNC, in the fourth paragraph of post #17.
“At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. “For me, it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world,” Leshchenko told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference.”
With all due respect…WE pose a much greater threat with:
It’s not a democracy as we all know. I’m not quibbling, we knew it was an electoral system.
The two party system and all the BS that goes with it. “A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump (duh) not voting is a vote for Trump, voting third party is a vote for Trump”…really mom? JFC…sorry, i went off on a rant there.
and finally…I KNEW most “liberals” were LINOs but man…this is ridiculous. When i can’t tell the difference between the parties anymore…
This post is pretty incoherent. Are you under some misapprehension that an electoral system may not be characterized as a democracy?
Are you also under some misapprehension that if I object to a superpower meddling in our election through illegal actions, with at best the candidate they’re doing this for turning a willfully blind eye to their meddling, I cannot also find the two-party system deeply flawed?
Your LINO business is just namecalling and may safely be ignored.
Whatever your objections to what I said are, it’d behoove you to be more specific.
“Objections”??
I simply posit that America is a much greater danger to itself than Russia is.
Well that sure clears it up.
This whole thread is ridiculous. It’s not a serious comparison, it’s just remotely done in good faith, all it is is deflection.
Russia committing espionage is the same as someone legally asking Ukraine a couple question? Give me a fucking break.
For real. There’s this desperate sense among some members of the right that all Trump’s corruptions and lies and foreign entanglements must be forgiven if something–anything!–on the Democratic side looks remotely like them in any way.
That’s not how it works.
The closest Ukranian action that’s comparable to the Russian suspicions is perhaps when the Manafort “secret ledger” was released. But even that is rather clearly a Ukranian domestic matter as well since they were investigating corruption of the previous regime. It is pretty silly to equate these episodes.
Again, that depends on whether the entry on Manafort is real. If it was forged, then that’s something else altogether.
I didn’t see anyone suggest it was forged. Manafort’s defence was simply that he didn’t recieve any money and the Ukranian investigators admitted they had no evidence that he had and they couldn’t verify signatures in the ledger.
Regardless, I think one instance of a forged ledger is still a completely different animal than an expertly run covert hacking, phishing and data dump campaign.
Then you must have not read the article linked in the OP of this thread.