A New Conspiracy Theory

For serious discussion of politics, political news, policy, political theory and economics and events happening round the world
User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Fri May 05, 2017 8:28 pm

And Trump acted like a complete jackass pretty much the whole time (and still does.)

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Fri May 05, 2017 8:30 pm

[quote=""praxis""]Clinton controlled her media exposure in typical political fashion [/quote]So did Obama. He got 93% of the black vote compared to Clinton's 88, 71% of the Latinos compared to Clinton's 65% and so on. The difference was caused by what they were perceived to stand for. Clinton was perceived to be a Wall Street shill, and that perception was not an unreasonable one.

praxis
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Post by praxis » Fri May 05, 2017 9:11 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]And Trump acted like a complete jackass pretty much the whole time (and still does.)[/quote]That was on display 24/7. The media didn't need to do much negative coverage other than show him acting out. And he still beat Clinton. Ain't that something!

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 12:52 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670624 wrote:Iow, judging solely by intent and/or informed choice the numbers for Clinton are closer to 80-90 million voters than 65 million.
Let's just go by actual votes and polls rather than speculating on intentions. [/quote]

No, let's not actually, since the speculation is supported by the evidence and arguments presented. The point of which is further evidence that Hillary Clinton was the clear choice of the American people and indicative of who we should be grooming for 2020 (i.e., a centrist as opposed to what seems to be going on with Sanders and his ilk, who, ironically, was actually moving centrist in most policies, just with ridiculous radical rhetoric).
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Sat May 06, 2017 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 1:40 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
praxis;670630 wrote:Clinton controlled her media exposure in typical political fashion
So did Obama. He got 93% of the black vote compared to Clinton's 88, 71% of the Latinos compared to Clinton's 65% and so on. The difference was caused by what they were perceived to stand for. Clinton was perceived to be a Wall Street shill, and that perception was not an unreasonable one.[/QUOTE]

That is an excellent example of an "unreasonable" perception, but more importantly an inaccurate correlation. Obama's numbers were extraordinary, not a baseline. Black voter turnout has historically been extremely low. Clinton's numbers do not represent a fall from grace; they represent a remarkable record setting achievement, second only to Obama's numbers, which are themselves second only to the turnout in 1964 ffs!

This is a perfect example of what I've been on about in regard to the "loser" psychology. Hillary won in so many different ways, but because she isn't President it's nothing. All of her truly remarkable achievements are erased through no fault of her own. The narrative emerging (planted) is that Hillary is personally at fault for not being "likeable" enough to beat someone as horrible as Trump when in fact she did beat him and the American people as a whole soundly rejected Trump and preferred Clinton. The fringe outliers (on both sides) are once again shouting the loudest and insisting that their negative perceptions supplant history as the one true narrative, but far worse is the fact that the squeaky wheel is evidently getting the grease, dooming us in 2020.

The objective facts are that Clinton was the definitive preferred choice. The subjective revision within the party is that she was a "Wall St. hawk who cost us the election." That's just wrong. There is no other way to put it.

When less than 5% of the party (that likewise lost, so the irony abounds) tries to assert dominance over the other 95%, there is no possible avenue where that leads to victory in 2020 (other than hypocritically; i.e., to just clone Clinton only pretend that's not what you're doing).
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Sat May 06, 2017 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 1:47 pm

[quote=""praxis""]
MattShizzle;670631 wrote:And Trump acted like a complete jackass pretty much the whole time (and still does.)
That was on display 24/7. The media didn't need to do much negative coverage other than show him acting out. And he still beat Clinton.[/quote]

Again, no he did not. Ain't that something!
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 2:59 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]All of her truly remarkable achievements are erased through no fault of her own.[/quote]
Lots of factors contributed to Clinton failing to become the 45th POTUS. No need to list them because everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows already.

Alongside those factors is another list, a list of factors that sum up to the fact that Clinton should have romped into the presidency. Her party stood undivided behind her. She outspent her opponent 2:1 in campaigning. And just have a look at the opponent: A buffoon without political experience, a narcissistic, ignorant, megalomaniacal, psychopathic arseclown who got caught out lying time after time during the campaign, who contradicted himself day after day and who should have basically lost the women's vote in toto when that bus recording leaked. A candidate that did not have the confidence, loyalty or backing by the party he formally was a member of.

Comey, Wikileaks, fake news, Putin and whatever else you have do not add up to Clinton's defeat without also taking into consideration that she is and was a Wall Street shill, a war hawk and - along with the Democratic Party - unconcerned with the lot of the common people. The arseclown outcampaigned her and convinced enough of the electorate that he is the common people's man to actually vote him into office.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]the American people as a whole soundly rejected Trump and preferred Clinton.[/quote]A 2.8 million vote lag out of 120 million does not constitute a sound rejection of trump. And banging on about what the results would have been if voters who did not vote had voted is just begging the question. Are you seriously suggesting that Clinton was ignorant of the possibilities or that she could have done nothing about it had she known?

In passing I'd like to comment on your mention of Clinton's "truly remarkable achievements": Luckily I did not have coffee in my mouth when I read that.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 3:09 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
praxis;670634 wrote:
MattShizzle;670631 wrote:And Trump acted like a complete jackass pretty much the whole time (and still does.)
That was on display 24/7. The media didn't need to do much negative coverage other than show him acting out. And he still beat Clinton.
Again, no he did not. Ain't that something![/QUOTE]
Yes, he did. Resoundingly. 304:227. Even Al Gore did better than Clinton. While his lead over Bush in the popular vote was smaller than Clinton's over Trump he only trailed in the electoral college 266:271.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 4:20 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670649 wrote:
praxis;670634 wrote:
MattShizzle;670631 wrote:And Trump acted like a complete jackass pretty much the whole time (and still does.)
That was on display 24/7. The media didn't need to do much negative coverage other than show him acting out. And he still beat Clinton.
Again, no he did not. Ain't that something!
Yes, he did. Resoundingly. 304:227.[/quote]

As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, which is precisely what praxis is referring to in regard to "beating" Clinton so his (and your) EC equivocation is not applicable.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 4:38 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Hermit;670651 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;670649 wrote:
praxis;670634 wrote:That was on display 24/7. The media didn't need to do much negative coverage other than show him acting out. And he still beat Clinton.
Again, no he did not. Ain't that something!
Yes, he did. Resoundingly. 304:227.
As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, which is precisely what praxis is referring to in regard to "beating" Clinton so his (and your) EC equivocation is not applicable.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps one day the recognition will hit you that Clinton and Trump both knew before they announced their respective candidacies for the presidency that what matters is winning the votes of the Electoral College. And that's where Trump beat Clinton. Resoundingly.

praxis
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Post by praxis » Sat May 06, 2017 4:43 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, [/quote]The EC reflects the will of the people regionally.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 5:02 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670648 wrote:All of her truly remarkable achievements are erased through no fault of her own.
Lots of factors contributed to Clinton failing to become the 45th POTUS. [/quote]

Strawman.
Alongside those factors is another list, a list of factors that sum up to the fact that Clinton should have romped into the presidency.
False, as, again our boy Nate Silver demonstrated: It Wasn't Clinton's Election To Lose

And I might as well repost this as well since you seem to keep avoiding Silver when it suits you: Clinton's Ground Game Didn't Cost Her The Election
Her party stood undivided behind her.
Uh, no. Again, as you well know there was a bitter and extended (Russian and Republican fueled) primary that would not fucking die in spite of the fact that it was stillborn. Month after month after month of resources and precious time that could have been spent attacking Trump and bolstering Clinton's campaign was instead utterly wasted on a zombie that nevertheless was weoponized and nearly destroyed the party, forcing the party chair to step down when in fact she had done absolutely nothing wrong, but complain privately about the zombie that would not stop.
She outspent her opponent 2:1 in campaigning.
Again, thanks exclusively to all of that wasted time kicking a dead horse around, while Trump was given a free reign to campaign unopposed for over a year.
And just have a look at the opponent
And the outcome of the popular vote.
Comey, Wikileaks, fake news, Putin and whatever else you have do not add up to Clinton's defeat without also taking into consideration
Aspects that I already took into consideration. As, again, did Silver. You remember Silver, right?
The arseclown outcampaigned her and convinced enough of the electorate that he is the common people's man to actually vote him into office.
No, he did not. The people did not vote him into office; the electoral college did. There is a significant difference as you well know. Why are you regurgitating crap you know is not true and has already been substantiated by at least one source that you previously chastised me with?
[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]the American people as a whole soundly rejected Trump and preferred Clinton.
A 2.8 million vote lag out of 120 million does not constitute a sound rejection of trump. [/quote]

Aside from the other millions out there, it most certainly does, but more importantly it demonstrates your confirmation bias. Your assumption was that the election was Clinton's to lose, so how in the world could she have lost it? It's a very common refrain especially among Democrats. I know, remember? We had extensive debates over exactly how wrong I was in my estimation of the anti-Trump/Clinton's got this in a lock stance.
And banging on about what the results would have been if voters who did not vote had voted is just begging the question.
How about then you actually attack the arguments and not the man "banging on", because the evidence supports my assertions.
Are you seriously suggesting that Clinton was ignorant of the possibilities or that she could have done nothing about it had she known?
What are you referring to? Had she known what? That a .02% differential in states that were all polling consistently in her favor would undo a record breaking popular vote? Remember the chances Silver gave of such an outcome? 10.2% was it?
In passing I'd like to comment on your mention of Clinton's "truly remarkable achievements"
Like the fact that in spite of everything against her--the FBI; her gender; the fact that almost never does a Dem get elected after a two-term Dem in office; a protracted and bitter "civil war" within the party; the most negative media coverage of any candidate (including from supposedly "left wing" sources); three decades of concentrated and relentless Republican smear tactics; AND a massive Russian weoponization of social media in collusion with her opponent--she still managed to top black voter turnout (the second largest in US history); managed to come within a couple hundred thousand votes of the second place holder in US history; received more votes than any white male in US history; and won the popular vote by almost three million votes?

But thanks for perfectly demonstrating the exact, objectively wrong narrative that is guaranteed to fail us in 2020 if it continues unabated.
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Sat May 06, 2017 5:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 5:05 pm

[quote=""praxis""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote:As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that,
The EC reflects the will of the people regionally.[/QUOTE]

Which is a meaningless distinction and has been for almost the same amount of time since it was first codified. Tell me exactly what is the difference between 50,000 popular votes from three particular states and 3,000,000 popular votes from another and why in the world should the lesser number outweigh the larger? Don't bother, it was rhetorical.

The Will of the People is not a regional construct. Literally. It is always a reference--a term of art--for the entire national population as a whole.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 5:08 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote:
Hermit;670651 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;670649 wrote: Again, no he did not. Ain't that something!
Yes, he did. Resoundingly. 304:227.
As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, which is precisely what praxis is referring to in regard to "beating" Clinton so his (and your) EC equivocation is not applicable.
Perhaps one day the recognition will hit you that Clinton and Trump both knew before they announced their respective candidacies for the presidency that what matters is winning the votes of the Electoral College. And that's where Trump beat Clinton. Resoundingly.[/QUOTE]

And perhaps RIGHT NOW you will acknowledge and comprehend that we are discussing what the country as a whole voted for and wants going forward in regard to who we should be grooming for 2020.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 5:18 pm

[quote=""praxis""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote:As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that,
The EC reflects the will of the people regionally.[/QUOTE]Winner takes all (in 48 of the 50 states) is probably the worst possible system for reflecting the will of the people. Hypothetically, a candidate could get zero votes in 39 states and the District of Columbia but still win the presidency by getting a simple majority of the vote in the other 11.

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Sat May 06, 2017 5:23 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
praxis;670657 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote:As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that,
The EC reflects the will of the people regionally.
Winner takes all (in 48 of the 50 states) is probably the worst possible system for reflecting the will of the people. Hypothetically, a candidate could get zero votes in 39 states and the District of Columbia but still win the presidency by getting a simple majority of the vote in the other 11.[/QUOTE]

Not even a majority - a plurality would do it.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 5:45 pm

Getting back on track to the topic of this thread (though a general thanks to praxis, Hermit and Matt for leading me back to something I had not previously linked up), we have this from Silver:
Speaking of the conventional wisdom, we should talk some about how the media covered Clinton’s and Trump’s Electoral College tactics. Being among the most technical aspects of the campaign, this was generally not a strength of mainstream coverage. For instance, on Oct. 30, The New York Times jabbed at Trump for “campaigning well outside the traditional band of states that decide presidential elections,” including in New Mexico and Michigan, “two solidly blue states where polling has shown Mrs. Clinton with a clear lead” — failing to recognize that they were potentially tipping-point states even if Clinton was ahead there. A few days later, on Nov. 3, the Times criticized Trump for campaigning in too wide a range of states:

Rather than wielding data and turnout machinery as tools, Mr. Trump has instead battered at the political map in a less discriminating way, trying to shift the national race a point or two in his favor and perhaps find a soft spot in Mrs. Clinton’s support.

This was, it would turn out, pretty much exactly the strategy that swung the Electoral College to Trump. The national race tightened by a percentage point or two — actually a bit more than that after Comey’s letter to Congress — and Trump found a soft spot in Clinton’s support in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. As you read appraisals that second-guess Clinton campaign’s tactics, keep in mind that reporters often had the same blind spots. Trump was also often scolded by pundits and analysts for campaigning in the very states that would win him the presidency.
Silver's analysis is of course in regard to each respective candidate's EC strategy (he argues Trump had a slightly better one, but not by much). But the point in regard to the thread is that Trump's unconventional strategy actually reveals more of the Russian collusion conspiracy. The Times is correct in their bewildered criticism, so what motivated Trump to take such risks?

Well, recall earlier the fact that Russian troll farms were specifically targeting voters in those states and the intricate lengths they went to.

ETA: For anyone who actually read the links I've provided from Silver, the demographic that continues to come up in his analysis as the primary problem for Clinton was under-educated white people. Guess who relies the most on social media (Facebook primarily) for their news according to the PEW Center. Yes, you guessed it; under-educated white people.
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Sat May 06, 2017 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 5:56 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Hermit;670656 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote:
Hermit;670651 wrote: Yes, he did. Resoundingly. 304:227.
As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, which is precisely what praxis is referring to in regard to "beating" Clinton so his (and your) EC equivocation is not applicable.
Perhaps one day the recognition will hit you that Clinton and Trump both knew before they announced their respective candidacies for the presidency that what matters is winning the votes of the Electoral College. And that's where Trump beat Clinton. Resoundingly.
And perhaps RIGHT NOW you will acknowledge and comprehend that we are discussing what the country as a whole voted for and wants going forward in regard to who we should be grooming for 2020.[/QUOTE]
That's not what we are discussing. You are whining that Clinton should have won the presidency. Everybody else is pointing at the fact that she didn't. Then follows interminable argument about why she didn't. According to you Clinton herself as a factor among others that contributed to Trump becoming the 45th POTUS is "extremely low on the totem pole". It's not a view I noticed being shared by any other forum member who cared to participate in the discussion so far.

If you wish to discuss what the country as a whole voted for and wants going forward in regard to who we should be grooming for 2020, by all means, start a thread on it. It'll make for a pleasant change. I shall argue that a deep and accurate analysis of every member of the electorate who did not vote reveals that what the country as a whole would have voted for and wants is someone exactly like Leon Trotsky, only without the icepick. The stacked Supreme Court will block his candidacy, of course, so a Rosa Luxemburg will have to do (sans bullet in head), or Bernie Sanders at a pinch, provided he can be dissuaded from writing short fiction.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 6:19 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670661 wrote:
Hermit;670656 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;670655 wrote: As you well know that was the electoral college which does not reflect the will of the people. Only the popular vote can do that, which is precisely what praxis is referring to in regard to "beating" Clinton so his (and your) EC equivocation is not applicable.
Perhaps one day the recognition will hit you that Clinton and Trump both knew before they announced their respective candidacies for the presidency that what matters is winning the votes of the Electoral College. And that's where Trump beat Clinton. Resoundingly.
And perhaps RIGHT NOW you will acknowledge and comprehend that we are discussing what the country as a whole voted for and wants going forward in regard to who we should be grooming for 2020.
That's not what we are discussing.[/quote]

That is precisely what we were discussing.
You are whining that Clinton should have won the presidency.
:noid: Absolutely false. Enough. This thread is about my conspiracy theory and this whole bit of ancillary noise was a derail that I went along with for long enough.

If YOU wish to further discuss what the country as a whole voted for you can do so in the several other threads already out there or start your own and I'll gladly participate. I'm getting this one back on track.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat May 06, 2017 6:27 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]I'm getting this one back on track.[/quote]That is only fair, seeing you started the derailment with the following paragraph in post #55:
The problem is that, contrary to the demonstrably wrong yet vocal opinions of a very small (and equally statistically non-existent percentage) of radical liberals, Hillary Clinton was the best candidate we had and if that squeaky-wheel component won't shut the fuck up and wake up to that fact--and we know they won't--they will also lose us Congress in 2018. We are on that road now in fact with Sanders being allowed to speak instead of rightfully shunned (because Dems are pussies who were bullied as children and thus play dead when bullied as adults, even by their own side).
So I welcome your resumption of discussing the new conspiracy theory.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 8:08 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Koyaanisqatsi;670669 wrote:I'm getting this one back on track.
That is only fair, seeing you started the derailment with the following paragraph in post #55[/quote]

That was in response to questions Arpie had asked. The more significant derail was actually started by you in post 60 when you mistakenly asserted:
...you cannot exclude her personally from being one of them.
Something I never did.
So I welcome your resumption of discussing the new conspiracy theory.
Great. Except for your additions, already done with post 92.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat May 06, 2017 9:30 pm

Ok, here we have some interesting if garbled bit of translating via DailyKOS from the Senate Intelligence Investigation (as presented):
Sen. Warner: but the question of targeting -- here's the last question, and it just -- i've heard and it's been reported that part of the misinformation, disinformation campaign that was launched was launched in three key states, wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania, and it was launched interestingly enough not -- not to reinforce trump voters to go out but actually targeted at potential clinton voters, with misinformation in the last week where they were not suddenly reading, if they got their news from facebook and twitter, but stories about clinton being sick and other things. My final point here, this may be beyond anybody's expertise, my understanding is the russians, they're very good at some of this technology, they might not have been so good at being able to target to a precinct level american political turnout. That would mean they might be actually receiving some, you know, information or alliance from some american political expertise to be able to figure out where to focus these efforts.

00:30:38

Dr. Rid

Dr. Rid: i haven't seen a detailed analysis of precinct level target bug that would be good enough to sub stain shate this assumption but this relates to a more fundamental problem. One -- separate, an entire group of actors in some -- and some completely he jate mat within the campaign were taking advantage of social media. It's difficult to distinguish for researchers after the fact what actually is a fake account and what is a real account. Ultimately we need the cooperation of some of the media, social media companies to give us heuristics and visibility into the data that only they have.

00:31:23

General alexander

General alexander: i would take it a step higher, senator. I think what they were trying to do is drive a wedge within the democratic party between the clinton group and the sanders group and then within our nation between republicans and democrats. And i think what that does is it drives us further apart. It's in their best interest. We see that elsewhere. I'm not sure i can zone it down to a specific precinct but we expect them to create divisions within a framework and destroy our unity.
And speaking of post 55, there's this from Rubio:
Sen. Rubio: my second question to the panel is, my concern in our debate here is we're so focused on the hacking and the emails that we've lost, and i think others have used the terminology, we're focused on the trees and lost sight of the forest. This -- the hacking is a tactic to gather information for the broader goal of introducing information into the political environment, into the public discourse, to achieve an aim and a goal. And it is the combination of information leaked to the media which of course is always very interested in salacious things, as is their right in a free society. The public wants to read about that too sometimes. But it's also part of the effort of misinformation, fake news and the like. Would you not advise the panel to look beyond the emails to the broader effort of which the emails and the strategic placement of information into the press is one aspect of a much broader campaign?
Recall what I was saying about indicators? Well that would be a very big one.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Mon May 08, 2017 4:32 am

Scary and in-depth piece tangentially related: The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Tue May 09, 2017 1:05 pm

On a different note, here's something no one seems to be talking about:
Russia also collected on certain Republican Party- affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data.
What did they collect and from who (and not others)?

We already know Putin wanted Trump in the WH in order to do his bidding, so it makes sense Putin would target Clinton and the DNC. But Trump was running unopposed almost literally from the beginning of the primaries (certainly by May onward), so why would Russia waste resources on gathering compromising information on any other Republicans?

So if that collection effort occurred before the primaries, did they use it to coerce any Republican contenders out of the race? If it were collected after Trump ran unopposed, to what end? Security against exactly this kind of investigation?

ETA: I posted too soon. There was this interesting exchange much later in the transcript:
GRASSLEY: Mr. Clapper, you sent the Russians -- you said the Russians did not release any negative information on Republican candidates. I believe that that's not quite right. On June the 15th, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 released to Gawker and The Smoking Gun more than 200 pages of the DNC's opposition research on Mr. Trump's -- hundreds of pages of what I would call dirt. This happened just two days after The Wall Street Journal published a plan for Republican Convention delegates to revolt to prevent Mr. Trump from securing the nomination.

Why wasn't - why wasn't the Russian release of harmful information about Mr. Trump addressed in the Russia report? And was this even evaluated during the review?

CLAPPER: I would have to consult with the analysts that were involved in the report to definitively answer that. I don't know personally whether they considered that or not.

GRASSLEY: Can you submit that as an answer in writing?

CLAPPER: Well, I'm a private citizen now, sir. I don't know what -- what the rules are on my...

GRASSLEY: Well, give me the name...

CLAPPER: ... obtaining classified -- potentially classified information, so I will look in to it.

GRASSLEY: OK. Mr. Clapper, you testified that the intelligence community conducted an exhaustive review of Russian interference and the analysts involved had complete, unfettered access to all sensitive raw intelligence data. Do you have any reason to believe that any agency withheld any relevant information?

CLAPPER: I don't believe so, with one potential caveat, which is that there is the possibility, again acknowledging this role that the FBI plays in straddling both intelligence and law enforcement, that for whatever reason they may have chosen to withhold investigatory sensitive information from the report. I don't know that to be a fact. I was not apprised of that, I'm just suggesting that as a possibility.
Interesting in particular in regard to Grassley's last question, Do you have any reason to believe that any agency withheld any relevant information? Iow, he's looking to confirm the same thing I am, but perhaps for different reasons (i.e., he was one targeted).

As to the opposition report he's referring to, that is this, but it is hardly an example of Russia targeting Trump in the same manner and for the same reason that they targeted Clinton and the DNC. Keeping in mind that the Trump camp knew of the Russian interference and was acting on it, it reads more like Guccifer was hiding in plain sight and using gawker/smoking gun as a simple conduit to provide the Trump camp with the Clinton camp's research in order to the Trump camp to know exactly how the Clinton camp was planning their strategy against him.

If I may stoop to a sports analogy, that would be like stealing the other team's playbook the night before the Super Bowl.
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Tue May 09, 2017 2:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Tue May 09, 2017 6:02 pm

Worth reposting at this juncture: Of Course There Is Evidence Trump Colluded With Russian Intelligence. Snippet:
There is, in fact, copious evidence of at least tacit collaboration between the Russians and the Trump campaign, collaboration in which Trump personally participated on multiple occasions. But we have collectively discounted this cooperation for two related, and quite perverse, reasons: It was overt and public and it was legal. The consequence has been that we largely ignore it in discussing the matter.

Collusion, in this context anyway, is not a legal term. For legal purposes, it matters if Trump or his people conspired with Russian agents to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or some other criminal law; it matters if they acted as agents of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA or as agents of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA.

When people say there is no evidence of collusion, they mean, we suppose, that there is no evidence of covert or illegal collaboration with the criminal activity undertaken in the course of this foreign intelligence operation against the United States.

But that is rather a different matter than acquitting Trump and his campaign of collaborating with the Russians. It ignores, after all, the overt and perfectly legal collaboration they plainly engaged in with what they knew to be an ongoing foreign intelligence operation against their country. We don’t need an investigation to show that this overt activity took place, for the Trumpists were caught in flagrante delicto throughout the entire campaign; indeed, caught is even the wrong word here. The cooperation was an open and public feature of the campaign.
Stupidity is not intellen

Post Reply