Trump

[the pink palermo]

Nearly 63m Americans voted for Trump.

And I doubt he'd secure many less today.

There's your problem.

[the pink palermo]

And, while we're at it, why are the Democrats so upset about the Russians interfering with the USA elections ?

The CIA actively partook in overthrowing Governments in these countries.

1953 -Iran
1954 -Guatemala
1960 -Congo
1961 -Dominican Republic
1963 -South Vietnam
1964 -Brazil
1973 -Chile

And, just for good measure stirred the pot elsewhere according to This

So why the brouhaha about the Russians having a tickle in the USA ?

[irving boleyn]

Putin won't admit anything.

If Trump accuses there will be a stand off and continuing friction.

There is mileage in ignoring past transgressions and starting afresh. He hasn't handled it well but it might work.

[jastons]

How exactly have Russia supposed to have interfered in the American elections anyway? Unless Russian agents forced a US citizen to vote for Trump then I can't see they've done anything wrong.

[EvilC]

How exactly have Russia supposed to have interfered in the American elections anyway? Unless Russian agents forced a US citizen to vote for Trump then I can't see they've done anything wrong.

Hacking the servers of Congress isn't doing anything wrong?

[irving boleyn]

They provided on-line propaganda which is supposed to have influenced voters.

[jastons]

Hacking the servers of Congress isn't doing anything wrong?

But how does that equate to Joe Bloggs voting Trump instead of Clinton?

[jastons]

They provided on-line propaganda which is supposed to have influenced voters.

The US electorate were still free to choose wether they believed said propaganda though?

[irving boleyn]

Sure, but exposure to well presented arguments is a factor in their decision making.

[jastons]

Sure, but exposure to well presented arguments is a factor in their decision making.

It's hardly interfering though, is it? The Internet is full of well presented arguments (and plenty of poorly presented ones).

[Cuenca 'ammer]

How exactly have Russia supposed to have interfered in the American elections anyway? Unless Russian agents forced a US citizen to vote for Trump then I can't see they've done anything wrong.

The point that I have been banging on about for ages.......

And they hacked Hillary's servers not Congress. AND Hillary had servers outside of the parameters of where she should have had them. In some mum and dad's toilet or broom closet tucked away. Did NOT have a secured server so no wonder it was so easy to hack..

Honest, doesn't that stupid bitch deserve some of the blame....???????

AND:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... netanyahu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... e993baeb52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The campaign’s explicit goal was to elect “anybody but Bibi [Netanyahu]” by mobilizing center-left voters. . . .

The State Department permitted One Voice to use a taxpayer-funded grant to build valuable political infrastructure—large voter contact lists, a professionally trained network of grassroots organizers/activists, and an impressive social media platform—for the putative purpose of supporting peace negotiations. But during the federal grant period, OneVoice devised a plan to target Prime Minister Netanyahu; immediately after the grant period ended, OneVoice deployed its taxpayer-funded campaign resources to launch the largest anti-Netanyahu grassroots organizing campaign in Israel in 2015. Despite OneVoice’s known history of political activism in Israel, the State Department did nothing to guard against the clear risk that OneVoice could engage in electioneering activities using a taxpayer-funded grassroots campaign infrastructure after the grant period. Remarkably, according to the State Department, OneVoice’s conduct was fully compliant with Department regulations and guidelines.

Pre the election after Trump had suggested that the Russians would maybe see that Hillary won and Obama said it couldn't happen and that he had told Putin to "Stop."

Google it....

If anything Shirley the Russians would have preferred Hillary to have won ????

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

[EvilC]

But how does that equate to Joe Bloggs voting Trump instead of Clinton?

They didn't post Clinton's emails on the internet for fun, it was done for a reason.

[jastons]

They didn't post Clinton's emails on the internet for fun, it was done for a reason.

Exactly. The emails that Clinton sent and received. If anyone voted against her because of them then she needs to take responsibility.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

But how does that equate to Joe Bloggs voting Trump instead of Clinton?

They didn't post Clinton's emails on the internet for fun, it was done for a reason.

Well to be honest she made pretty damn easy for them to do so...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shortly before she was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton set up an email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York. She then relied on this server, home to the email address hdr22@clintonemail.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, for all her electronic correspondence - both work-related and personal - during her four years in office.

She also reportedly set up email addresses on the server for her long-time aide, Huma Abedin, and State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

She did not use, or even activate, a state.gov email account, which would have been hosted on servers owned and managed by the US government.

The State Department inspector general report, released in May 2016, found that Mrs Clinton's email system violated government policy and that she did not receive permission prior to instituting it - approval that would not have been granted had she asked. Such transgressions, however, do not constitute criminal conduct.

FBI director James Comey announced the results of a separate FBI investigation on 5 July and concluded that that while "there is evidence of potential violations" of criminal statues covering the mishandling of classified information, "our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". It referred the matter to the Justice Department, which closed the case against Mrs Clinton and her aides with no charges.

According to Mrs Clinton, she sent or received 62,320 emails during her time as secretary of state. She, or her lawyers, have determined about half of those - 30,490, roughly 55,000 pages, were official and have been turned over to the State Department.

Mrs Clinton said the other emails are private - relating to topics like her daughter's wedding, her mother's funeral and "yoga routines".

At Hillary Clinton's request, the State Department released the first set of emails sent on her private account in May 2015, with many relating to the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

In early August 2015, she signed an affidavit swearing she had turned over all copies of government records from her time in office.

The FBI found "several thousand" work-related emails that were not turned over to the State Department, although it concluded that the emails were deleted prior to 2014 and were not intentionally removed "in an effort to conceal them".

About 3,000 emails are expected to be released in the run-up to election day, but many more will not be processed until after 8 November.

She wasn't alone:

Mrs Clinton is far from alone. Other politicians and officials - both in federal and state governments - sometimes have relied on personal email for official business. Colin Powell, secretary of state under President George W Bush, told ABC he used a personal email account while in office, including to correspond with foreign leaders.

The State Department inspector general report found that many of Mrs Clinton's predecessors - including Mr Powell - were also not in compliance with federal recordkeeping requirements, although the rules governing their actions were less detailed when they were in office.

During her press conference, Mrs Clinton said that that there "were no security breaches" of her server and that robust protections put in place "proved to be effective and secure".

Independent cybersecurity analysts have said that expert hackers can break into email servers without leaving any evidence, however. And commercially available security systems are no match for government-protected systems - but even those aren't invulnerable, as a November 2014 intrusion into the State Department's email system proved.

She has repeatedly said that no classified material was transmitted via her email account and that she sent only one email to a foreign official - in the UK.

But in July 2015, the inspector general of the US intelligence community, Charles McCullough, told Congress she had sent at least four messages that contained information derived from classified material. A month later, Mr McCullough revealed that two of the emails contained information deemed "top secret" - the highest classification level.

Responding to building pressure, Mrs Clinton finally agreed in August 2015 to hand over the private server she used for a preliminary FBI investigation into the security of classified information contained among her emails.

She also said she would hand over memory sticks containing copies of the emails.

By the time the final batch of Clinton emails were released in March 2016, the total number of emails receiving an after-the-fact classified designation had surpassed 2,000.

[sendô]

The US electorate were still free to choose wether they believed said propaganda though?

Said the winner of every rigged election in history.

[irving boleyn]

Thanks for that' cuenca. most informative,

[WCpete]

Regardless whether any individual was forced, coerced, or duped into making a vote one way or another, or whether absolutely no one was affected in any way, and regardless of whether either candidate would benefit from interference, are people genuinely asking why they can't see an issue with one super power interfering (or attempting to interfere) with the electoral process for the leadership of another superpower who happens to be their long standing arch enemy? Does it matter whether they were successful?

[Turns to Stone]

Isn’t it a bit worrying that a country can have an influence over a country’s voting patterns?

Or does it not matter if both candidates are fucktards?

[WCpete]

Yes and an emphatic yes.

[the pink palermo]

But as I pointed out at the top of this page the USA has been engaged in exactly those activities for over 60 years with regards other countries.

They gave up long ago any moral authority on not being interfered with.

It's all well and good complaining about a democratic process being interfered with by a foreign power but start by not engaging in that activity themselves.