The 2016 US General Election

[Wooglin]

Surely first and foremost, all Americans should be disturbed by Russian interference. People want to jump ahead and downplay Russian involvement, focus on the idea of liberal cry babies and their bias. Snapper is just stating the plain obvious here, Russia tried to alter the american political process, even if they didnt think Trump could win, at its core, is not essentially relevant in establishing if this development is intrinsically troubling and needs attention.

It seems likely they won alteast one extra vote for Trump and not impossible that they were a meaningful force given how close the election was. But the attempt is enough in itself to be very scary. What about the next election, what about important votes in Europe. Where can it lead? This is something the american government needs to investigate and counter...That's the clear takeaway point.

Ok. What do you suggest we do about it?

[YellowFever]

YF,



note the first remarks on the subject were made by Congressional Republicans (namely McCain and Graham) first.

it's precisely to avoid the impression of partisanship that the WH kept quiet for so long. intelligence assessments don't get pulled out of a hat at a moment's notice.

No, the first actions taken were by Democrats Eric Swalwell and Elijah Cummings and McCain and Graham responded by launching an investigation, due to pressure or their sense of fair play, I don't know and I don't care.

I am talking about why Obama made public his directive to investigate and why he's so adamant that the investigation be complete before he leaves the White House.

That's what makes it seem so political.

Why weren't these actions taken before the elections by Obama? What, some new evidence popped up afterwards?

[astralis]

YF,

I am talking about why Obama made public his directive to investigate and why he's so adamant that the investigation be complete before he leaves the White House.

gee, what do you think a Trump administration will do with such an investigation?

Why weren't these ations taken before the elections? What, some new evidence popped up afterwards?

-before- the elections? yet the hacking of both the RNC/DNC happened during. asking for an investigation afterwards shows considerably less politicization than, say, during the middle of October, right?

[tantalus]

Ok. What do you suggest we do about it?

I don't really have the knowledge to prescribe. So best treat what I say lightly. Cyber defense is a necessarily secret activity and any measures obviously should remain so. I have seen arguments put forward on this thread that America is over investing in conventional armaments versus cyber.

Congressional investigation seems prudent, can't really criticise an Admin which hasn't even taken office yet, and obviously there needs to be time to investigate and draw proper conclusions, but I hope they are publicly robust in their official statements. We need a strong projection of power on an issue such as this, words matter and it's clear that Putin's Russia has abandoned even the illusion its going to play ball and act reasonably.

In the end, there needs to be public awareness if countries like Russia are succeeding in this kind of activity in elections moving forward. If the trend continues much more serious measures would have to eventually be considered. This is the new world, a new threat emerging. Like always, there is an opportunity to shape an approach efficiently.

[YellowFever]

YF,
gee, what do you think a Trump administration will do with such an investigation?

No, that's what congress is for (as they are doing).

If Trump orders an investigation (highly unlikely), the press would accuse him of launching one to cover it up.

There was no way he was going to win with the press.

-before- the elections? yet the hacking of both the RNC/DNC happened during. asking for an investigation afterwards shows considerably less politicization than, say, during the middle of October, right?

Disagree.

Launching one while there is no winner would be less politicization. Launching one after the person you hoped get in lost the election shows more politicization.

[drhuy]

Analysis: The CIA concluded Russia worked to elect Trump. Republicans now face an impossible choice.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...209-story.html
Dec 9, 2016

The Washington Post is now reporting that the CIA has concluded something widely suspected but never flatly stated by the intelligence community: That Russia moved deliberately to help elect Donald Trump as president of the United States -- not just to undermine the U.S. political process more generally.

The Post's report cites officials who say they have identified individuals connected to the Russian government who gave WikiLeaks emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta. One official described the conclusion that this was intended to help Trump as "the consensus view."

The report highlights and exacerbates the increasingly fraught situation in which congressional Republicans find themselves with regard to Russia and Trump. By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped -- or at least attempted to help -- tip the scales in Trump's favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.

Trump, after all, won by a margin of about 80,000 votes cast across three states, winning each of the decisive states by less than 1 percentage point. So even a slight influence could have plausibly made the difference, though we'll never be able to prove it one way or another.

While saying that Russia clearly tried to help Trump doesn't inherently call into question the legitimacy of Trump's win -- the White House made sure to emphasize that it's not making that case earlier Friday -- it's not hard to connect the dots. And Trump and his party know it. The Post's report cited Republicans who expressed skepticism about the available evidence when presented with it in September, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

In addition, any GOP effort to dig into the matter risks antagonizing the president-elect, who has said flatly that he doesn't believe Russia interfered with the election, despite receiving intelligence briefings to the contrary. And he's proven more than willing to go after fellow Republicans who run afoul of him.

On the other hand, if Republicans downplay the issue, they risk giving a pass to an antagonistic foreign power whom significant majorities of Americans and members of Congress don't trust and who, if the evidence is accurate, wields significant power to wage successful cyber warfare with the United States.

Already, House Democrats have begun pushing for something akin to the 9/11 Commission to look into allegations of Russian meddling. During the campaign, they pushed for hearings on the same issue.

Until this week, they'd been unable to get much buy-in from congressional Republicans. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., voiced support for a probe on Wednesday, and now Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., says he is working with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., on a wide-ranging Senate probe, as The Post's Karoun Demirjian reported Thursday.

"I'm going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia," Graham said. "I think they're one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they did interfere with our elections, and I want [Russian President Vladimir] Putin personally to pay the price."

But even as these probes start to materialize, Trump is singing a far different tune. In his interview with Time magazine for his "Person of the Year" award, Trump suggested the interference could just as well have come from someone in New Jersey as from the Russian government.
"I don't believe they interfered," Trump said. "That became a laughing point -- not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say, 'Oh, Russia interfered.'"

Trump added: "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey."

Trump also maintained over and over again on the campaign trail that he wanted a better relationship with Russia and praised Putin as a strong leader - while downplaying Russia's favoritism for his campaign. And he did all of this at a time when Putin was very unpopular in the United States and even as the evidence was pointing in the direction of Russian meddling.

In other words, Trump has shown he's committed to seeing the best in Russia, and it's unlikely another report from the "dishonest media" citing anonymous sources is going to change his mind.

And Trump has every reason to continue to dig in. He doesn't want to breathe any life into the storyline that his election owes to Russian interference. Trump, after all, is a winner, and the idea that someone else might have won it for him just won't fly.

In a statement Friday night, Trump's transition team, as expected, took a defiant tone about The Post's report: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "

But for congressional Republicans, the evidence is increasingly getting to the point where they simply can't ignore it and some of them are feeling compelled to act - in a way that Trump isn't likely to take kindly to.

Compounding the dilemma for these Republicans is the fact that many GOP and Trump voters are disinclined to believe Russia meddled in the election. A poll released Friday by Democratic pollster Democracy Corps showed 55 percent of Trump voters and Republicans who didn't vote for Trump say it's probably true that stories alleging Russian interference in the election are conspiracy theories pushed by Clinton.

Many Republicans are undoubtedly concerned about this. But as long as Trump is holding fast to the idea that this is all made up in an effort to undermine him, this whole thing could reinforce the longstanding chasm within the GOP, with him and his base pitted against establishment Republicans who will (again) be made to look like they're trying to take down their outsider president-elect. And you can bet that'll be how Trump pitches it.

It all presents a possibly inauspicious start for the GOP Congress in the Trump era: A potential Trump vs. congressional Republicans battle over he same election that surprisingly installed him as president.

yah, let do-over the democrats primaries, they were proven to be rigged against bernie. That way, we can be sure exactly who was beaten by trump.

[drhuy]

Surely first and foremost, all Americans should be disturbed by Russian interference. People want to jump ahead and downplay Russian involvement, focus on the idea of liberal cry babies and their bias. Snapper is just stating the plain obvious here, Russia tried to alter the american political process, even if they didnt think Trump could win, at its core, is not essentially relevant in establishing if this development is intrinsically troubling and needs attention.

It seems likely they won alteast one extra vote for Trump and not impossible that they were a meaningful force given how close the election was. But the attempt is enough in itself to be very scary. What about the next election, what about important votes in Europe. Where can it lead? This is something the american government needs to investigate and counter...That's the clear takeaway point.

interference here means exposing the corruption of the democrat party and that their primaries were rigged? unless you're clinton supporter, why should you be disturbed?

[drhuy]

so far, has any "intelligence" official publicly confirmed this? or it is still a news from a "secret source"?

[citanon]

The investigation is a liability for trump in the domestic front but probably an asset for him when dealing with Russia. WP Barry.

[JAD_333]

How widespread is pro-Russian sentiment in the US? I would think not much. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Clinton benefited from a backlash vote in reaction to pre-election news that Russians had hacked the DNC. Obviously it wasn't enough, or even much, if indeed such a backlash vote happened at all.

But what would have happened had the post-election CIA revelations of Russian meddling been reported before the election? Would there have been a greater backlash that might have benefited Clinton? No one will ever know.

Still the fact that Trump won even though suspicion of Russian meddling had already emerged before the election, suggests that he might have won by a wider margin had there been no reports of meddling.

This somewhat downplays any attempt by the dems to blame the Russians for Clinton's loss. On the other hand if it is revealed that the Russians had, for example, tampered with election results, which I think unlikely, then we have a whole new ballgame.

Trump is not taking any of this lying down. Just yesterday he attacked the CIA report, saying he does not believe it.

And while we're on the subject, a case can be made that Russia, if indeed it wanted and abetted a Trump victory, may end up with a pyrrhic victory. It could be a geopolitical loser should Trump follow through on his promise to restore America's greatness, particularly if he follows through on promises to expand the military, prods NATO members to increase their military spending, etc. I recently read an assessment (can't find it now) that foreign governments are nervous about what Trump may do. They're bracing for a resurgence of American power in the wake of Obama's go-soft policy, largely considered a failure. Obama's policy to draw back from asserting US influence abroad in contrast to some previous administrations, such as Reagan (confronting the USSR), will likely be reversed.

[citanon]

Like.

And on that last point, I believe that the Russians probably realized it was a possibility, and likely did not actually want Trump to win. What they wanted was a weakened Clinton and increased division, and, in particular, at least one chamber going to the Republican in Congress, which was both achievable and plausible. It backfired on them when the election ended up delivering a black swan Trump victory.

[JRT]

Exxon Mobil CEO Said to Be Trump’s Secretary of State Choice

by Jennifer Jacobs and Joe Carroll
December 9, 2016
Bloomberg

Past ties to Russia may aid administration’ Moscow outreach President-elect said to be ready to announce pick next week

Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson is Donald Trump’s choice as secretary of state, NBC reported on Saturday, a move that would hand top diplomatic powers to a man whose ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin go back almost two decades.

The report couldn’t be immediately confirmed. NBC said its sources, people close to the president-elect’s transition, cautioned that nothing is final until the president-elect makes an announcement. Trump has said he’ll announce his decision next week.

Tillerson, who reaches Exxon’s mandatory retirement age of 65 in March, has become the leading candidate for the post of top U.S. diplomat over the past few days, two people familiar with the matter said late Friday. If confirmed by the Senate, Tillerson would be the first oil executive and only the second Texan to lead the State Department.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president and a critic of Trump during this year’s campaign, remains on the short list of candidates, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private.

Long Short List

Kellyanne Conway, a top Trump adviser, said Friday on Fox News that the list currently includes “a very diverse group.” In addition to Tillerson and Romney, she mentioned Alan Mulally, the former CEO of Ford Motor Co., former CIA Director David Petraeus, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier that Tillerson was the leading candidate. NBC reported Saturday that Bolton may be tapped as Tillerson’s deputy.

Tillerson has ties to Putin that go back almost two decades. The pair met in 1999 on remote Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East. He was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship and as recently as 2015 visited with officials in Putin’s inner circle. That connection could make him a useful bridge between the Russian leader and Trump, who has repeatedly said he’d seek a more cooperative relationship with Moscow.

Climate Change

Tillerson would probably face stiff opposition from Democratic and some Republican senators for both his foreign business ventures and an escalating legal tussle over how much Exxon knew about climate change and when. The world’s largest oil explorer by market value has said a probe by state attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts and elsewhere of whether it misled investors about climate risks is politically motivated. Exxon has also been questioned on whether it’s correctly written down the value of its reserves following a global collapse in crude prices.

Environmental groups quickly decried the potential appointment. “Tillerson may be a friend of Putin, but he’s no friend of the planet,” May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, said in a statement.

With the selection, Trump would sidestep a feud that had broken out among his advisers and supporters over the two men seen as the front-runners for the spot: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani, who had fervently supported Trump for president, campaigned openly for the job. By contrast, Romney sought to mobilize opposition to Trump during the presidential campaign, calling him “a con man, a fake.”

‘Take the Oil’

But Tillerson’s selection will also fuel critics who say U.S. foreign policy has long been driven by the country’s demand for oil and that naming an oil executive is the last straw. During the campaign, Trump said the U.S. should have seized Iraq’s oil fields after the U.S. invasion in 2003, a move which he says would have prevented the rise and spread of the Islamic State terror group.

“I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil,” Trump said in September. “It used to be, to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil.”

Exxon pumps oil and natural gas from about 36,000 wells worldwide and holds drilling rights to more than 110 million acres in more than two dozen countries. Tillerson’s resume included stints representing the world’s largest oil explorer by market value in places as far afield as Yemen and Russia.

An Exxon lifer and University of Texas-trained engineer, Tillerson would be the first native-born Texan to lead the State Department since James A. Baker’s tenure ended in 1992.

Record Profits

He’d also add to a Cabinet increasingly full of millionaires and billionaires, including Commerce Secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, whose fortune is estimated at about $2.9 billion. Tillerson was paid $27.3 million in salary, bonus, stock awards and other compensation in 2015; his 2.6 million shares of Exxon common stock had a value of about $228 million as of early December.

After becoming CEO in 2006, Tillerson led Exxon through more than a decade of ups and downs that included the late Hugo Chavez’ seizure of Venezuelan oil fields, annual profits that set U.S. corporate records, and a 2010 shale acquisition that turned into a $35 billion wrong-way bet on natural gas.

Outside work, Tillerson used his cachet as a past president of the Boy Scouts of America to help end a long-standing ban on gay scouts in 2013. He also trains rodeo horses on his ranch north of Fort Worth, Texas, and is a former competitive rider himself.

Republican Donor

Tillerson and his wife Renda contributed $493,000 to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. The largest chunk, $159,000, went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He contributed the maximum $2,700 allowed under law to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in the 2016 presidential primaries and $5,000 to the Right to Rise USA, the pro-Bush super-PAC, but didn’t contribute to Trump. Renda Tillerson sat out the presidential race entirely.

As he closes in on retirement, Tillerson is grappling with international sanctions against Russia that froze a $1 billion investment and billion-barrel oil discovery in the Arctic Ocean.

Under Tillerson’s leadership, Russia became Exxon’s single biggest exploration theater as the company amassed drilling rights across tens of millions of acres, dwarfing its holdings in its home country, formerly its largest drilling opportunity, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. When the Putin regime forced Royal Dutch Shell Plc and other foreign investors to cede control of a massive gas export project on Sakhalin Island in 2007, Exxon’s holdings in the same region remained intact and untouched by the government.

.

...

[citanon]

remember also the guy he's sending to China? Trump is picking his defense guys to be tough sobs and his diplomats to be friends of the most difficult people he has to deal with. pretty smart if you ask me.

first, you know a lot about your friends. secondly you are likely to give your friends a better deal.

[YellowFever]

Some headlines on the first page of Google search:


"Trump, Mocking Claim That Russia Hacked Election, At odds With GOP"
-New York Times-


"Hacking the Election"
-Wahington Post-


"Yes, it's possible to hack the election"
-ABC News-


No you dumbf*cks.

The election weren't hacked. The mail servers were.

And they cry over the "fake news".

How about you a-holes try to tell it accurately for once, such as this headline:


"Russia 'tried to help' Donald Trump win the election, CIA concludes"
-Independent-

It's sad I have to go overseas for a decent headline that tells it like it is.. And they friggin complain about the fake news or why Trump is so hostile towards them....

[JRT]

Not the rhetoric that I want from a man who wants to be POTUS, but there it is.

The fictional character Archie Bunker expressing some of the frustrations
that resulted in Donald J. Trump becoming POTUS-elect.