I have not ever read in any proper media that these specific campaign Democratic party side had any such type of contact as the documented in the sources like the DW, the FT, Le Monde, etc. of the Trump side.
This after making the excited demande for the evidence for what has been very heavily reported in the major leading global medias of quality, from the Americans Washington Post and The New York Times to the Britishes Financial Times, etc.
Hypocritical rhetorical games.
the direct interferences in the elections in several of the European countries (as mentioned in this The Guardian article but we have also the Deutche Welle and the similar reporting from non anglosaxons.
So it is a boring reflexive anti Americanism that drives your commentary.
I have not any interest in they too comparisons between the Russians and the Americans.
the direct interference in the manner the Russians are doing in the KGB style of dezinformatsia and direct espionnage is a concern beyond whether the Trump or the Clinton campaign prevailed in the American election.
Boy, am I embarrassed! I was about to tell you that this post belonged in the “fake news thread,” but then I looked and realized that’s exactly where you posted it. That’s egg on my face, then!
The answer is: no freaking clue. As I suggested earlier when pointing out how vague your hypothetical was, the problem is I have no idea what acts you’re alleging happened in your hypothetical. This makes a difference.
If Trump paid Russian Ivan Petrovich to hack into the DNC computers, he broke criminal law. If Trump stood up on stage and said, “Hey, Russia, it’s be great if this happened,” then I’m not aware of any law he broke.
Between those extremes are a bunch of different factual scenarios. Give some specifics and I will give you my best understanding of whether any criminal law was breached.
Morally? Again, for me, it makes a different who did what.
I doubt Trump did anything prosecutable. His rhetoric during the campaign was troubling, but Occam’s razor (or Trump’s razor) says that it’s a mistake to assume malice when unplanned idiocy fits just as well. And the Russians had just as much motive to try and influence the election with or without Trump’s (or his team’s) involvement.
Indeed it makes a difference. I’m not alleging anything, though: I’m asking. I’m not clear what the laws are surrounding foreign meddlement in our elections. Iggy helped by describing some of those laws. You mocked by describing what I wrote in silly terms.
What would be helpful, if you’ve got the knowledge, is to describe some laws that circumscribe how Americans may coordinate with foreigners, within or without foreign governments, in influencing American elections. If you don’t have that knowledge, that’s fine; hopefully someone else does.
Trump stood up and with a wink and a nod suggested to the Russians that hacking his opponent would help him. If these claims are acccurate, that is exactly what happened. He is morally responsible. That should matter.
The fact that the Russians believe they have a tactical advantage by putting Trump into office should matter too. The fact that his apparent incoming Sec. State is in favor of getting rid of sanctions against Russia should matter.
There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. –Ned Beatty, Network (1976)
…okay, so Putin may have helped sway the election. The Big Question is: To what end? Is it to make a laughingstock of the USA as we descend further into division and chaos? Or is it to make us an ally, headed by a Prez who will eagerly stand beside him as he declares war on China?
The interesting part of this that isn’t getting attention is that the Russians, according to this story, also hacked the Republicans, but didn’t release that information. You think the Republican party might possibly want to make sure things stay that way? You think Putin doesn’t have a shit ton of leverage over the minority majority party in power?
When Exxon and Putin put together A Deal to explore/exploit Russian Arctic oil finds, it was shepherded by the Exxon CEO, Mr. Tilletson. That deal was torpedoed by sanctions imposed by us and our allies. One can fairly suspect that the Russians would like to have that back. (see Ned Beatty quote, above).
We are advised that Mr Tilletson’s vast geo-political expertise makes him a splendid prospect for Sec/State! We are appalled. But we are not surprised.
Putin is likely to have quite a bit on Donald himself, too, as well as on the Republicans in general. It’s been suggested, anyway, that Donald’s trips to Russia (beginning in 1987, and including the 2013 stay in connection with the Miss Universe pageant) have offered Russian intelligence gatherers a wealth of knowledge.
Putin’s choice will, no doubt, be approved. As will be all Putin’s choices, in coming years.
Some parts of the right’s growing affection for Russia over the last several years has been interesting to watch. It started as admiration for Putin’s “tough” leadership in comparison to how weak Obama was. I guess Obama should’ve poisoned Fox journalists with polonium tipped umbrellas, now that would be strong leadership. There’s also a sort of admiration because Russia is perceived as being against SJW/leftist social policy, like their stance on homosexual propaganda or locking up agitators like Pussy Riot. Also there’s a perception in some quarters of them as the last bastion of strong, non-PC white people.
To the best of my knowledge, the only rule that applies to foreigners is the prohibition of the contribution of money to a campaign. Of course, conduct like hacking is illegal when the Russians do it, but it’s also illegal when a US-based hacker does it. But assuming the information is obtained legally, I don’t know of any law violated by coordinating on its release with a foreigner.
and so?
If it is anything one can take away from his performance in your election campaign over the past year, it is that he completely no shame and does not care at all.
if one thing, it is hard to think anyone can think he can be blackmailed only over being a vulgar abuser.
maybe over some financial issue but even for this if I were the Russian it would be associates and not him that I would think could be pressured (except for direct money owed and even then he seems to be without any scruple there too)
"Forget talking about the Trump Administration. The question now is whether this will be a Trump Putin Administration or a Putin Trump Administration.
Trump can publicly diss the findings of the CIA all he wants - itself a worrying development for a President-elect seemingly allergic to intelligence briefings. But the reality is that America’s intelligence community has found solid evidence that Russia favored electing a President Trump Tweeting in a post-fact world doesn’t change that.
You may say, didn’t we already know this? But assessment is different from conjecture. Republican officials cannot be allowed to duck this issue. Yes some, like Lindsay Graham, are sounding the right notes on the dire need to protect our democratic institutions. We need a full and complete Congressional investigation. Damn partisan politics. Let the facts lead where they may. Let’s get to the truth, or as close to the truth as is humanly possible.
I am struck to the point of extreme disappointment by the complicit silence. Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave. This is Russia; a newly aggressive and assertive Russia. Yes, we The People need new thinking and fresh approaches for dealing with the Russia of today… And, yes—as my friend Professor Steve Cohen of New York University (one of the savviest experts on Russia in the English-speaking world) reminds me—demonizing the Russians and Putin can be carried to counter-productive extremes. And, yes, we have and have had all kinds of mutually beneficial dealings with other dictatorial regimes all over the world (leaders of the old Soviet Union, for example; or leaders past and present in China.) But this has to be weighed against the fact that Putin is a former KGB officer and has done things indicative of a demagogic strongman. Throw in the evidence of serious tampering with the recent U.S. Presidential election and what you have is the making of a global strategic showdown over American ideals.
The craven calculus of too many Republicans at this point seems to be that pursuing a reactionary policy that now includes gutting Medicare and Social Security is more important than the fact that a foreign power has meddled in an election decided in three states by a total vote total that, as somebody I read noted, could fit into a college football stadium.
The news on this front is now compounded by Trump’s choice for Secretary of State - Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson - who has close ties to Putin. This is on top of multiple other links to Russia from members of Trump’s inner circle.
The Founding Fathers worried about a demagogue rising to power backed by a foreign adversary. That notion seemed to grow to the point of a quaint anachronism over the centuries as our democracy solidified and our strength as a world power grew. No longer.
Perhaps it is too strong to suggest that to countenance what Putin and Russia did in our presidential election with a shrug or a justification forfeits the right to call yourself a patriot, no matter how many flags lapel pins you own… that may be going too far. But maybe not."