How EXACTLY did the Russians sway the election.

[BubbaJack]

What specific piece of information stolen by Nixon's Watergate burglars impacted upon his re-election?
Oh, can't name any?
Then why the fuss? Why did his men have to go to jail and he have to quit office?

Well, the person who improperly used servers isn't going to jail (thought the head of the FBI said that anyone else who did what she did would), so at this point, what difference does it make?

 

[mark46]

Mark46,

I like to see violations of the law and corruption exposed. Clinton has only herself to blame, and she deserves to be prosecuted.

The open question is whether the release of such information allowed Trump to win.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the person who improperly used servers isn't going to jail (thought the head of the FBI said that anyone else who did what she did would), so at this point, what difference does it make?

Not quite what the head of the FBI said.

 

[Allandavid]

Well, the person who improperly used servers isn't going to jail (thought the head of the FBI said that anyone else who did what she did would), so at this point, what difference does it make?

You avoid my point.
The Russian hackers have committed a very similar act to Nixon's Watergate burglars.
Many Trump supporters seem to think that it's a
'storm in a teacup' that should be ignored.
So I ask; should the actions of Nixon and his henchman have been ignored? Should those men have gone to jail? Should Nixon have been forced to resign? Was he a "crook"? Did you think it proper that the whole incident was thoroughly investigated?

 

[lasthero]

You avoid my point.
The Russian hackers have committed a very similar act to Nixon's Watergate burglars.
Many Trump supporters seem to think that it's a
'storm in a teacup' that should be ignored.
So I ask; should the actions of Nixon and his henchman have been ignored? Should those men have gone to jail? Should Nixon have been forced to resign? Was he a "crook"? Did you think it proper that the whole incident was thoroughly investigated?

I think that's actually a very salient point.

Let's say that, instead of hacking, they'd PHYSICALLY broke in and did what they did. Would that still be something we should ignore? If not, why does the fact they did it over a computer make is so much less of a problem?

 

[Allandavid]

I think that's actually a very salient point.

Let's say that, instead of hacking, they'd PHYSICALLY broke in and did what they did. Would that still be something we should ignore? If not, why does the fact they did it over a computer make is so much less of a problem?

Exactly. In fact, in an era that is dominated by cyber activity, it could be argued that hacking in 2016 is exactly the same as a physical break-in in 1972.
My question to Trump defenders remains: if it was good enough for sanctions to be imposed for the same crime back then, why are these people springing to the Russians' defence now?

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. In fact, in an era that is dominated by cyber activity, it could be argued that hacking in 2016 is exactly the same as a physical break-in in 1972.
My question to Trump defenders remains: if it was good enough for sanctions to be imposed for the same crime back then, why are these people springing to the Russians' defence now?

I didnt vote for trump, so let me get that out of the way. The difference between nixon's illegal activities and hacking is, the hackers didnt work for trump (unless you have evidence they did). Much of nixon's activities was spreading propoganda about his opponents. What the hacking basically did, was release real factual emails from the clinton campaign and the dnc. None of the emails released were refuted as false. Not saying it is ok to hack, just pointing out differences. I will say again, i believe what hurt clinton the most, was the revelation the dnc was plotting how to crater bernie's campaign.

 

[Allandavid]

I didnt vote for trump, so let me get that out of the way.

Neither did I. They don't let Australians vote in your elections

The difference between nixon's illegal activities and hacking is, the hackers didnt work for trump (unless you have evidence they did).

But, according to all of your intelligence agencies, the hacking was done on Trump's behalf. And that hacking was nevertheless illegal, should be thoroughly investigated and sanctions applied where appropriate. And yet, many of his supporters, including Trump himself, would rather that it just go away and people forget about it.
If the hacking played absolutely no part in the outcome of the election, as Trump claims, then why would he not be as keen as everyone else to see this matter investigated in full and punishments applied where possible?

Much of nixon's activities was spreading propoganda about his opponents.

Was any of the information stolen found to be false? Were any of the taped conversations bogus?

What the hacking basically did, was release real factual emails from the clinton campaign and the dnc. None of the emails released were refuted as false.

How is this different from what was stolen from the DNC in 1972? Was any Of that material refuted as false?

Not saying it is ok to hack, just pointing out differences.

The only difference was that one was the stealing of physical documents, the other electronic. Is that really a difference?

I will say again, i believe what hurt clinton the most, was the revelation the dnc was plotting how to crater bernie's campaign.

Irrelevant. Despite the lie told by Trump, your intelligence agencies made it clear that they make no conclusion about whether the election was swayed or not. This is, at this point, an argument solely about who was behind the hacking, what were the intentions and motivations of the hackers and what should be the appropriate response.

 

[bhsmte]

Neither did I. They don't let Australians vote in your elections



But, according to all of your intelligence agencies, the hacking was done on Trump's behalf. And that hacking was nevertheless illegal, should be thoroughly investigated and sanctions applied where appropriate. And yet, many of his supporters, including Trump himself, would rather that it just go away and people forget about it.
If the hacking played absolutely no part in the outcome of the election, as Trump claims, then why would he not be as keen as everyone else to see this matter investigated in full and punishments applied where possible?



Was any of the information stolen found to be false? Were any of the taped conversations bogus?



How is this different from what was stolen from the DNC in 1972? Was any Of that material refuted as false?



The only difference was that one was the stealing of physical documents, the other electronic. Is that really a difference?



Irrelevant. Despite the lie told by Trump, your intelligence agencies made it clear that they make no conclusion about whether the election was swayed or not. This is, at this point, an argument solely about who was behind the hacking, what were the intentions and motivations of the hackers and what should be the appropriate response.

I would read up on Nixon's white house activities to attack his opponents. Watergate, was child's play an actually revealed nothing useful. He had an group of people that were spreading propaganda about his opponents for years. Watergate was only important, because it revealed all the other activity that was going on.

And, unless Trump himself hired people to perform the hacking, the two are different situations.

 

[Allandavid]

I would read up on Nixon's white house activities to attack his opponents. Watergate, was child's play an actually revealed nothing useful. He had an group of people that were spreading propaganda about his opponents for years. Watergate was only important, because it revealed all the other activity that was going on.

And, unless Trump himself hired people to perform the hacking, the two are different situations.

No, they aren't really.
In both situations, you have the case of material being stolen from the files of the DNC.
Iin both situations, the intent was to use that information to weaken one side of politics and to advantage the other.
In both situations, there is a tale of continued denials that any crime took place.
In both situations, we find that investigation reveals that such a crime did take place.
In both situations, there was an attempt to cover up the crime, or at least to sow seeds of doubt that one had occurred.
The only variation is the nature of the sanctions. In 1972, the actors were found to be US citizens and so they were tried. This time it is a foreign power, so different sanctions are appropriate.

 

[Allandavid]

And, while there has been no definitive finding that the hacking swung the election, ask yourself the obvious question:
Why would the Russians bother, if they didn't think it would make a difference?

 

[bhsmte]

No, they aren't really.
In both situations, you have the case of material being stolen from the files of the DNC.
Iin both situations, the intent was to use that information to weaken one side of politics and to advantage the other.
In both situations, there is a tale of continued denials that any crime took place.
In both situations, we find that investigation reveals that such a crime did take place.
In both situations, there was an attempt to cover up the crime, or at least to sow seeds of doubt that one had occurred.
The only variation is the nature of the sanctions. In 1972, the actors were found to be US citizens and so they were tried. This time it is a foreign power, so different sanctions are appropriate.

I will say one more time; the major difference (and it is a big one), is Nixon had his people directly involved in the activities and most of those activities were not stealing information, they were spreading propaganda against his opponents.

Unless you have evidence that Trump had his people perform the hacking, he had nothing to cover up, because he or his people didn't perform the hacking.

 

[bhsmte]

And, while there has been no definitive finding that the hacking swung the election, ask yourself the obvious question:
Why would the Russians bother, if they didn't think it would make a difference?

They did it because they could and other countries do it because they can. Independent people not attached to governments were just as capable of doing this hacking as well. Did the Russians want Trump to win? Probably they did, but we will never know whether it had any impact on the results. What we do know is, Clinton has a track record of losing national elections when she is the heavy favorite (Obama in 08) and even Sanders who no one expected to do much, won 20 states and even some of the crucial rust belt states Clinton needed to win. We also know both Trump and Clinton were highly unpopular, even amongst people in their own party and not deemed trustworthy by well over 50% of the population. Lastly, the polls from early on, showed voters were fed up with establishment politicians and wanted change and Clinton has never done well against change candidates, which Obama was, Sanders was and so was Trump.

That is what we do know.

 

[Allandavid]

I will say one more time; the major difference (and it is a big one), is Nixon had his people directly involved in the activities and most of those activities were not stealing information, they were spreading propaganda against his opponents.

The charges against them included their involvement in the burglary.
And yes, Nixon's people were directly involved - that's why they went to jail!
No one is suggesting that Trump or his people go to jail (unless further information leads in that direction).
But, likewise, it is also obvious that, just as in Watergate, there was a theft of information from files. While no one might go to jail over it, sanctions against the perpetrators (the Russians) are appropriate. At the very least, it is inappropriate for Trump and his minions to be attempting to block any investigation of the perpetrators.

Unless you have evidence that Trump had his people perform the hacking, he had nothing to cover up, because he or his people didn't perform the hacking.

The cover up in this case includes all of those efforts by Trump and his gang to deflect attention away from an investigation of the Russians and towards virtually anyone else - the Chinese or a 400lb guy on his bed!
Why do you think he was sooooo strenuous in those efforts to divert attention?

 

[Allandavid]

Another strange comparison just occurred to me:
Nixon won his election following the 'hacking' in 1972, didn't he? It wasn't until several months into that presidency that the complete story unfolded and his complicity became obvious, was it? Too many people were involved and the truth was always going to leak out, no?

Who knows?

 

[bhsmte]

The charges against them included their involvement in the burglary.
And yes, Nixon's people were directly involved - that's why they went to jail!
No one is suggesting that Trump or his people go to jail (unless further information leads in that direction).
But, likewise, it is also obvious that, just as in Watergate, there was a theft of information from files. While no one might go to jail over it, sanctions against the perpetrators (the Russians) are appropriate. At the very least, it is inappropriate for Trump and his minions to be attempting to block any investigation of the perpetrators.



The cover up in this case includes all of those efforts by Trump and his gang to deflect attention away from an investigation of the Russians and towards virtually anyone else - the Chinese or a 400lb guy on his bed!
Why do you think he was sooooo strenuous in those efforts to divert attention?

Has Trump not admitted after his intelligence briefing, that it appears Russia was involved in the hacking? Trump has stuck to; the hacking had no impact on the results of the election, which based on Clintons track record, very well may be the case.

Listen, I didn't vote for Trump and I didn't vote for Clinton. But, IMO, not enough people are talking about just how horrible a candidate Clinton was and how the DNC rammed her down everyone's throats, because she was entitled and it was her turn. They lost touch with a large chunk of voters and it bit them in the end. Just as, the republicans lost touch with their base and why they were shocked when Trump won.

 

[Allandavid]

They did it because they could and other countries do it because they can. Independent people not attached to governments were just as capable of doing this hacking as well. Did the Russians want Trump to win? Probably they did, but we will never know whether it had any impact on the results. What we do know is, Clinton has a track record of losing national elections when she is the heavy favorite (Obama in 08) and even Sanders who no one expected to do much, won 20 states and even some of the crucial rust belt states Clinton needed to win. We also know both Trump and Clinton were highly unpopular, even amongst people in their own party and not deemed trustworthy by well over 50% of the population. Lastly, the polls from early on, showed voters were fed up with establishment politicians and wanted change and Clinton has never done well against change candidates, which Obama was, Sanders was and so was Trump.

That is what we do know.

I'm sorry, but nearly all of that is irrelevant.
Yes, indeed, a weak candidate from both parties.
So what? That does not alter the fact that you have the situation of a foreign power hacking into your elections, with the express purpose of affecting the result in favour of one over the other.
Any responsible leadership would seek some means of reacting to that threat. Any patriot would be placing the interests of his own country above the desire to placate a dictator in another.

 

[bhsmte]

Another strange comparison just occurred to me:
Nixon won his election following the 'hacking' in 1972, didn't he? It wasn't until several months into that presidency that the complete story unfolded and his complicity became obvious, was it? Too many people were involved and the truth was always going to leak out, no?

Who knows?

I know Watergate quite well and have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. Nixon was riding high going into the summer of 72 after his trip to China and he had a lot of support. This is why the activities he was supporting, were so stupid, because he didn't need the help. Watergate was reported on often before the November election, but it was thought to be limited to the five burglers and didn't go further then them. In time, it came out after the election it went deeper and by early 74, Nixon was either going to be impeached or he resigned.

And once again, the activities at Watergate yielded nothing of value to Nixon, but the burglers getting caught, started the domino effect of all the other activities Nixon's people were involved with, got exposed.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, but nearly all of that is irrelevant.
Yes, indeed, a weak candidate from both parties.
So what? That does not alter the fact that you have the situation of a foreign power hacking into your elections, with the express purpose of affecting the result in favour of one over the other.
Any responsible leadership would seek some means of reacting to that threat. Any patriot would be placing the interests of his own country above the desire to placate a dictator in another.

Did I say the US shouldn't do something about the hacking? I don't believe I did. Furthermore, what did Germany do, when it was discovered the United Stated was intercepting emails and cell phone calls from people in the German government, including Merkel? Did that bother you as well?

 

[Allandavid]

Has Trump not admitted after his intelligence briefing, that it appears Russia was involved in the hacking?

He has been dragged, kicking and screaming (and tweeting ) into that admission. But then he quickly segués into ---------

Trump has stuck to; the hacking had no impact on the results of the election, which based on Clintons track record, very well may be the case.

Listen, I didn't vote for Trump and I didn't vote for Clinton.

You've said that several times, I notice. Don't worry, you shouldn't feel bad.

But, IMO, not enough people are talking about just how horrible a candidate Clinton was and how the DNC rammed her down everyone's throats, because she was entitled and it was her turn. They lost touch with a large chunk of voters and it bit them in the end. Just as, the republicans lost touch with their base and why they were shocked when Trump won.

Horrible, but 3 million less horrible than the other guy!

But again, this hasn't been the thrust of my posts. Unlike you, I don't have to justify why I did or didn't vote for either of them. I don't have to feel bad about wasting my vote. I don't have a dog in the race at all. My comments have all been about what should be a reasonable response to those who seek to illegally influence an election. That's all.