2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Hey, alright Mr. Cohen. Just throw the guy a 'thank you for your service' bone. Yeesh.

Interesting to bring up the Starr investigation and contrast the language used with Mueller.

Mueller is not enjoying himself. At All. It's a really jarring contrast watching him try to flip through his report to verify citations while these committee members are gatling gunning him with questions.

[bundabergdevil]

Theresa May giving her farewell address now, too. Wow. Lot's going on today!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hey, alright Mr. Cohen. Just throw the guy a 'thank you for your service' bone. Yeesh.

Interesting to bring up the Starr investigation and contrast the language used with Mueller.

Mueller is not enjoying himself. At All. It's a really jarring contrast watching him try to flip through his report to verify citations while these committee members are gatling gunning him with questions.

Well, when every question is "isn't it true that you stated..." you have to be very careful and make sure you are being properly represented.

There's really no point to this - especially with the caveat going into the hearings that he would only stick to the text of the report.

Both sides seem stuck trying to put words in his mouth about things he elected not to say.

[Matches]

I believe the biggest benefit for the Democrats will be to get a previously-mostly-silent Mueller on camera stating his conclusions. Most Americans will not or have not read the report but there's some equity in having this guy on camera. A second benefit is what Mueller is saying now and what contradicts the President's "no collusion" declaration --- that's not a legal term and they did not investigate it but did not find sufficient evidence to establish a crime. Finally, the testimony about Russia's interference and the obstruction findings should provide an enormous amount of sound byte fodder that undercuts Trump's claims.

I did read the report. Assuming Mueller testifies in a way consistent with his report, essentially he will say there was no evidence of collusion by Trump. Since logically one cannot prove a negative, that's as close to exoneration as one can reasonably get.

But he'll also describe numerous acts by Trump that could arguably be taken as evidence of obstruction. Mueller didn't find that there was no evidence of obstruction; there was actually a plethora of it. He just didn't undertake to charge Trump with a crime.

So both sides will pull away the soundbites they're trying to get. And no one will care about actually examining what the Russians did, which was the original purpose of the whole investigation and about which Mueller made a TON of findings.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

... And no one will care about actually examining what the Russians did, which was the original purpose of the whole investigation and about which Mueller made a TON of findings.

Shush! The partisans are busy scoring points!

[OldPhiKap]

I did read the report. Assuming Mueller testifies in a way consistent with his report, essentially he will say there was no evidence of collusion by Trump. Since logically one cannot prove a negative, that's as close to exoneration as one can reasonably get.

But he'll also describe numerous acts by Trump that could arguably be taken as evidence of obstruction. Mueller didn't find that there was no evidence of obstruction; there was actually a plethora of it. He just didn't undertake to charge Trump with a crime.

So both sides will pull away the soundbites they're trying to get. And no one will care about actually examining what the Russians did, which was the original purpose of the whole investigation and about which Mueller made a TON of findings.

"Collusion" is not a legal term, it is not something he looked for. He looked at whether there was enough evidence to bring a criminal conspiracy indictment (which he did not find). VERY different.

[Matches]

"Collusion" is not a legal term, it is not something he looked for. He looked at whether there was enough evidence to bring a criminal conspiracy indictment (which he did not find). VERY different.

Sure - yes, and he explicitly makes that point in the report. The report details a laundry list of attempts by the Russians to make contact with the Trump campaign, many of which have been reported previously by the press. It also details a massive disinformation and cyberhacking campaign perpetrated by the Russians, largely for Trump's benefit. But there's no evidence presented that Trump himself was a party to any of it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

"Collusion" is not a legal term, it is not something he looked for. He looked at whether there was enough evidence to bring a criminal conspiracy indictment (which he did not find). VERY different.

Right. So, Trump stating that the Mueller report did not prove "collusion" is akin to me going to McDonald's and saying there are no "whoppers." It is, in fact, technically accurate. But besides the point.

Especially in the context of all the evidence of Russian interference, it actually becomes sort of like going to a McDonald's and saying "there's no whoppers" while there's a nuclear weapon in the men's room of said McDonald's. Still technically true, but missing the bigger point to a massive degree.

(I'm the king of terrible metaphor)

[bundabergdevil]

Wow. Mr. Gohmert breathing some fire. He's a Tea Party member from Texas and the document he entered into the record, Mueller Unmasked, can be found here.

It's not a very nice document, essentially a character assassination. Amazing that Mueller is a Republican ---

[PackMan97]

It also details a massive disinformation and cyberhacking campaign perpetrated by the Russians, largely for Trump's benefit.

"cyberhacking" is a bit extreme. They called up a DNC staffer and got their password and were able to penetrate the system from there. Two factor authentication (something that has been around for decades) would have defeated their "hacking" attempts.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

"cyberhacking" is a bit extreme. They called up a DNC staffer and got their password and were able to penetrate the system from there. Two factor authentication (something that has been around for decades) would have defeated their "hacking" attempts.

The fact the its execution was simple doesn't change that it was an elaborate and calculated attack, planned well in advance and executed over a long period of time, authorized (conceived?) by Putin.

Honestly, if there were direct evidence that our government were that pointedly involved in another country's election, I would be appalled. Every American ought to be enraged about this. Even if they skewed towards your candidate, who is to say they won't go to the direction next time?

[PackMan97]

The fact the its execution was simple doesn't change that it was an elaborate and calculated attack, planned well in advance and executed over a long period of time, authorized (conceived?) by Putin.

Honestly, if there were direct evidence that our government were that pointedly involved in another country's election, I would be appalled. Every American ought to be enraged about this. Even if they skewed towards your candidate, who is to say they won't go to the direction next time?

I would hope my preferred candidate and their party would use two factor authentication. Barring better security, I would hope they don't make complete ***** out of themselves in their emails to each other.

I am certain that America messing with foreign elections has happened, is happening and will happen.

[bundabergdevil]

Sure - yes, and he explicitly makes that point in the report. The report details a laundry list of attempts by the Russians to make contact with the Trump campaign, many of which have been reported previously by the press. It also details a massive disinformation and cyberhacking campaign perpetrated by the Russians, largely for Trump's benefit. But there's no evidence presented that Trump himself was a party to any of it.

Polling suggests that Americans' faith in the fairness of our elections has dropped a good bit since Trump's election. On the Democratic side, it's driven a lot by the Russian interference claims and gerrymandering. On the Republican side, by Trump's claims of illegal immigrants voting and other shenanigans. Personally, I think the two are connected.

We'll have to solve our in-the-family issues ourselves but it's important any time we can keep foreign interference claims, which aren't going anywhere, in the public consciousness. If I had to make a prediction, given the pace and change of technology, we will encounter a "stolen" election by a foreign power (Russia, China, etc) that's able to gain wide access to voting machines, etc and tip the scales. There's evidence that happened in 2016. But, attempts will only become more sophisticated and egregious in the future. Whichever party benefits from it will almost certainly fight to keep the results intact...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Polling suggests that Americans' faith in the fairness of our elections has dropped a good bit since Trump's election. On the Democratic side, it's driven a lot by the Russian interference claims and gerrymandering. On the Republican side, by Trump's claims of illegal immigrants voting and other shenanigans. Personally, I think the two are connected.

We'll have to solve our in-the-family issues ourselves but it's important any time we can keep foreign interference claims, which aren't going anywhere, in the public consciousness. If I had to make a prediction, given the pace and change of technology, we will encounter a "stolen" election by a foreign power (Russia, China, etc) that's able to gain wide access to voting machines, etc and tip the scales. There's evidence that happened in 2016. But, attempts will only become more sophisticated and egregious in the future. Whichever party benefits from it will almost certainly fight to keep the results intact...

Well, and the inevitable move to "electronic voting" via cell phones or some other technology will invariably make mess of a paper trail for the actual physical voting. It should be a scary prospect for anyone.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I would hope my preferred candidate and their party would use two factor authentication. Barring better security, I would hope they don't make complete ***** out of themselves in their emails to each other.

I am certain that America messing with foreign elections has happened, is happening and will happen.

That's your takeaway from the Russian interference? That's fascinating.

And yes, I'm not naive enough to think the US doesn't interfere. The CIA exists for reasons I'd rather not consider. But I do hope that we aren't THAT on the nose.

[bundabergdevil]

Just checked some quick dot com headlines.

CNN: "Mueller confirms report did not exonerate Trump."

Fox: "LIVE: GOP rep blasts Mueller for obstruction report: ‘180 pages of decisions that weren’t reached'"


Yeah, this'll settle it. {sarcastic emoji}

Sigh. Yeah, I tend to triangulate my news sources and check in on outlets that I deem as both on the left and right, as well as those I like to think strive for dispassion. Few things get me down more ---- the number of times I've had conversations with family/friends on the left and right and heard them parrot straight-from-strategist-to-news-outlet talking points is disconcerting.

Not saying I'm immune but if you're only seeing one characterization, you're not even giving yourself a choice.

[bundabergdevil]

I would hope my preferred candidate and their party would use two factor authentication. Barring better security, I would hope they don't make complete ***** out of themselves in their emails to each other.

I am certain that America messing with foreign elections has happened, is happening and will happen.

1. Pffft, two factor authentication. Give me three factor authentication any day of the week and twice, neigh three times, on Tuesday.

2. Well, yeah, and the citizens of those countries are usually pretty pissed when it happens. A lot of foreign leaders rabble rouse on the back of the American interference narrative --- and a lot have accepted American interference on their behalf. Russia interfered in our election to advance their national interests, just as we interfere in elections for the same purpose. Russia succeeded and many of their interests have been advanced as a result. Kudos to Vlad. Doesn't mean we don't battle it out as an (American) family and try to prevent it.

[bundabergdevil]

Hah. Gaetz just described Mueller as loquacious...that is demonstrably false.

[Matches]

"cyberhacking" is a bit extreme. They called up a DNC staffer and got their password and were able to penetrate the system from there. Two factor authentication (something that has been around for decades) would have defeated their "hacking" attempts.

IIRC they used phishing emails and installed keystroke monitoring malware on DNC computers. Yea a more observant DNC probably could have prevented it - but they didn't. The Russians harvested hundreds of thousands of emails and documents from the DNC servers, and then began releasing it in drips at times they considered politically opportunistic. Regardless of politics, that's a problem. It's in our interest to identify exactly what they did so we can hopefully prevent it from happening again. But it doesn't really seem like anyone on either side of the aisle is focused on that. Instead, they're locked in a political tit-for-tat that won't actually change anyone's mind about Trump - if anything (IMO) it further validates the outrage on both the far left and far right, and makes it more difficult for a moderate to gain nomination from either party.

[Tazman10]

IIRC they used phishing emails and installed keystroke monitoring malware on DNC computers. Yea a more observant DNC probably could have prevented it - but they didn't. The Russians harvested hundreds of thousands of emails and documents from the DNC servers, and then began releasing it in drips at times they considered politically opportunistic. Regardless of politics, that's a problem. It's in our interest to identify exactly what they did so we can hopefully prevent it from happening again. But it doesn't really seem like anyone on either side of the aisle is focused on that. Instead, they're locked in a political tit-for-tat that won't actually change anyone's mind about Trump - if anything (IMO) it further validates the outrage on both the far left and far right, and makes it more difficult for a moderate to gain nomination from either party.

Prevent it from happening, isn’t it alarming of what was released? I see we are upset they interfered with the election but we are not upset in what it revealed? It is ok for the opposition to interfer but not foreign countries? This logic is exactly why we are in the mess we are in, we look the other way when someone we like does something wrong but when someone we don’t like does it, it is a problem, wrong.

It does not matter who committed it, wrong is wrong and those who did wrong need to be held accountable. Trump, Clinton, etc. wrong is wrong, take those colored glasses off.