How come Russia propaganda in USA politics so bad but China propaganda seems to be just fine with everyone?

[ZiprHead]

Were those the same partison FBI agents who actively attempted to overturn the results of the last POTUS election?

Huh?!? This is big news! Got a link?

 

[blastula]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chinese-broadens-propaganda-drive-heartland-132238597.html

I just don't get it. Why was Russia spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on facebook the end of the world. But China openly publishing propaganda in central US apparently is just fine? Was one so much worse than the other? Perhaps Mueller be concentrating resources on why China is attempting to sway US citizens against a standing president?

What election campaign is China meddling with? If they are, it's not ok.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did you meet the "full disclosure" requirement before posting your opinion in this message board?

The question is whether or not undue influence can be applied to someone by hiding who is the influencer, or what is their agenda, which . . .

And what is YOUR secret hidden agenda? Do we just have to take your word for it that you have no hidden "agenda"?

. . . which is precisely why we require disclosure on all political ads.

"political ads"?

What about our posts here in this message board? How are these different than "political ads"?

Or posts in any place? If political opinions are expressed, how is that not the same as a "political ad"?

If you express an opinion which relates to a political issue or a candidate's claims, couldn't that have an impact on the election? Should you have to register with the government first, before you are allowed to post such an opinion? Why not? You might be having an undue influence on someone reading your post.

If you think I’m a friend of yours, you are going to give undue weight to my opinions/beliefs.

So then you should not be allowed to post a political opinion on anything, without first registering with the government, because someone reading it might think you're their friend so you would unduly affect their opinion/belief. So you can't ever post an opinion on anything without full "disclosure."

This is a well established fact about human socialization. We are not nearly as critical of people we think we are allied with as we should be. Hence the disclosure requirement.

So then did you meet this "disclosure" requirement before you posted this opinion? You registered with the authorities, so we can check up on your personal background, to make sure you're not having an "undue" influence on us?

Disclosure, however, in no way impedes free speech and/or has nothing to do with censorship or “approval from those in power.”

So then, who did you register with in order to gain permission to post this political opinion which might unduly influence readers?

What does "disclosure" mean? Who has to meet this "disclosure" requirement and who does not? Why do you demand freedom to post your opinions without having to meet the "disclosure" requirement? and yet you demand that others running a campaign have to meet this requirement? How are you deciding who has to meet this requirement and who does not?

If you exempt certain select writers from this requirement, then what prevents a Russian propagandist from being one of those select writers and "interfering" with the election while still avoiding the "disclosure" requirement?

It is about transparancy and protecting the ignorant from con men.

Which could be ANYONE expressing a political opinion. Including anyone posting on this message board.

How do we know half the participants in this message board are not "con men"?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And what is YOUR secret hidden agenda?

Not secret, nor hidden. To reveal sophistry in all of its forms. Cases in point...

"political ads"

No need for quotes. Political ads are real.

What about our posts here in this message board? How are these different than "political ads"?

Again, take away the quotation marks and you've answered your own insipid question.

If political opinions are expressed, how is that not the same as a political ad?

There, I removed the quotes for you. Did that help, or can you seriously not understand the difference between a friend of yours expressing their opinion and the well-documented effect of advertising? And are you under the impression that all the Russians did was say, "We think you should vote for Trump"?

If you express an opinion which relates to a political issue or a candidate's claims, couldn't that have an impact on the election?

It does. Now do you want to explore how much of an impact it has as opposed to how much an impact other things have and so on or are you now capable of figuring that out on your own?

Should you have to register with the government first, before you are allowed to post such an opinion? Why not? You might be having an undue influence on someone reading your post.

Does this just keep going?

If you think I’m a friend of yours, you are going to give undue weight to my opinions/beliefs.

So then you should not be allowed to post a political opinion on anything

So many questions. None of them relevant. It must be difficult.

This is a well established fact about human socialization. We are not nearly as critical of people we think we are allied with as we should be. Hence the disclosure requirement.

So then did you meet this "disclosure" requirement before you posted this opinion?

Oh, hey, sort of something on topic. We actually all did do that here in a sense, but I see anything non-binary is difficult for you to parse on your own. Do you know what the word "context" means?

Disclosure, however, in no way impedes free speech and/or has nothing to do with censorship or “approval from those in power.”

So then, who did you register with in order to gain permission to post this political opinion

The board, same as you. And you agreed to the rules of conduct and you understand that there are different fora with different topics, etc; topics like "politics" which you choose from and actively decide to participate in (big hint there, don't miss it), thus engaging you to post even this poorly thought out drivel that you nevertheless thought about after having read and engaged with my post (mentally, and again, poorly).

It took time for you to come up with this drivel (remarkably so). You then had to actively decide to engage by hitting the "reply" button and then typing out your response, etc.

A whole series of complex cognitive actions had to be taken by you in order to respond, in spite of the lack of intellectual vigor you applied to your counter-argument. And you no doubt know my posts and therefore my politics, as we've interacted before and you read this thread, so you at least know exactly where I stand in this particular thread with its own specific topic within the sub-forum "Politics."

Iow, a whole shitload of specifiers and qualifiers that engaged an active cognitive response. Can you guess where this is heading now? The part you completely missed in all of this?

We'll let that gestate because you've got so many questions still coming and I hate to see such wallowing.

What does "disclosure" mean?

To reveal pertinent information.

Who has to meet this "disclosure" requirement and who does not?

In regard to political ads, anyone running for office.

Why do you demand freedom to post your opinions without having to meet the "disclosure" requirement?

I didn't.

and yet you demand that others running a campaign have to meet this requirement?

I didn't, but I do and so does Congress and the Federal Election Commission.

How are you deciding who has to meet this requirement and who does not?

I decide by jungle law, but here's a 40 page PDF on how the FEC decides for you not to read and better educate yourself.

If you exempt certain select writers from this requirement, then what prevents a Russian propagandist from being one of those select writers and "interfering" with the election while still avoiding the "disclosure" requirement?

Excellent on-point question (it's not). I guess the general answer would be, then, that we should always try to not allow foreign governments to interfere in our elections?

It is about transparency and protecting the ignorant from con men.

Which could be ANYONE expressing a political opinion.

Again, are you under the impression that all Russia did was say, "We think you should vote for Trump," because this is the second time you've grossly misunderstood a fundamental aspect to the problem while focusing instead on an even more basic misunderstanding of what constitutes a political ad? Almost as if you've never seen one before. Actually, exactly as if you've never seen one before. Is that the case? You've never seen a political ad before or know the fundamental difference between advertising and someone expressing their opinion? And all in aid of you pursuing a side point of mine that was really just describing why we require political disclosure on political ads?

Just checking on you. No need to address any of that, especially not with dozens of questions you could have easily answered yourself.

How do we know half the participants in this message board are not "con men"?

I'm fairly sure several are. You should get on that.

Now, do you have any questions about the actual point I was making? I'll give you another hint, it has to do with "active" vs. "passive." You can do it. Well, no, you demonstrably cannot, but maybe now with all of this spoon feeding you can find your way back?

 

[funinspace]

Should you have to register with the government first, before you are allowed to post such an opinion? Why not? You might be having an undue influence on someone reading your post.

Does this just keep going?

So then did you meet this "disclosure" requirement before you posted this opinion?

Oh, hey, sort of something on topic. We actually all did do that here in a sense, but I see anything non-binary is difficult for you to parse on your own. Do you know what the word "context" means?

Lumpy has lots of special meanings for many words...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one is answering why Russian "interference" does any harm which needs to be curtailed.

Why won't anyone give a straight answer?

Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about and need to prosecute as a crime? And it's understood that this "interference" does not mean tampering with the vote count, such as hacking the vote-counting machines to change the outcome. That of course is criminal, no matter who does it, even if an American citizen does it.

Rather, it's about Russians (or other foreigners) having some kind of undue influence in U.S. elections by doing something a citizen could do legally. But somehow if a foreigner does it, it's sinister and has to be made illegal, because it's a threat to the country.

And yet no one yet has given an example of what this is. There has been no example of such "interference" cited and an explanation why it's a threat to the U.S.

Not even a HYPOTHETICAL example has been given of any such "interference" which would need to be counter-acted by taking some legal action against the offender.

Here's a REAL case of a Russian woman who has been charged. https://www.apnews.com/1333a5643d8140e0953c36e9ec8fc17a . Where is there anything here posing a danger to the country? i.e., anything criminal or a threat to national security that needs to be prosecuted as a crime?

A Russian woman has been charged with interfering in American elections, including next month’s midterms, through a vast social media effort aimed at trying to sway American public opinion. . . .

"to sway American public opinion"? This is a crime? This threatens the country? What is the harm if ANYONE, including a foreigner, tries to sway public opinion? The only response to that, if you don't like it, is to try to sway public opinion the other way.

. . . after U.S. intelligence agencies said in a joint statement that they were concerned about efforts by Russia, China and Iran to influence U.S. voters and policy.

What's wrong with someone, even foreigners or a foreign government, trying to influence U.S. voters or policy? Let them try. Who cares? How do we know the influence is necessarily bad for the country? And if it's bad, aren't we capable of resisting it and doing what's good for the country instead? There are a million (billion) influences on voters and policy. We're supposed to police them all and try to restrict some of them? Why not instead just let anyone who wants to make counter-efforts to influence voters and policy in a different direction?

The complaint says the woman, Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, worked for the same Russian social media troll farm that was indicted in February by special counsel Robert Mueller.

"troll"? That word is a label pinned onto millions of people who post something someone else doesn't like. Probably most participants in this message board have been called a "troll" by someone. I have been labeled that a dozen times. I joined the Thom Hartmann chatroom years ago and every time I entered, someone typed "Troll alert" to warn the other participants to disregard what I might say.

We need more than just name-calling to explain how someone posting something is engaged in something dangerous or criminal, or how it has to be a threat to our country because they happen to be Russian.

The complaint accuses Khusyaynova of helping to control the finances of a Russian effort to use fake social media postings to sow . . .

What's wrong with "fake social media postings"? Should these be criminalized?

I tried to do something "fake" years ago, which fell flat. I tried to create a fake religious cult, showing pictures of disciples worshiping a duck who was a guru, who preached to them by quacking, mesmerizing them and sending them to higher levels of consciousness. This was a creative effort, and I hoped there would be some who actually believed the disciples were real worshipers of this duck. Should anything like that be banned from the Internet? Why?

Even if it's done by foreigners, why does it matter if someone creates a fake scenario and tries to fool people into believing it's real? It's a creative way to communicate a message.

I saw a fake documentary recently, which was a report about a retarded girl whose parents were going to have her euthanized, and the reporters fooled me for a minute or 2, but as it continued I became suspicious that it was fake. Then I laughed it off, but was impressed by the acting and how they had fooled me.

So then, this has to be banned if it's done by foreigners? or by Russians? or contains anything political? What? How do you draw the line between "fake" reports which have to be banned and those which are tolerated as innocent entertainment?

. . . fake social media postings to sow anger and division among American voters.

So "anger and division" among voters has to be policed? Like we must protect livestock animals from anything which might disturb them? keep them calm, like contented cows, so they produce more milk?

Why should American voters be a protected class who are shielded from any "fake" postings? Are American voters such stupid idiots that they require censors to step in and filter everything they're exposed to and decide what is "wholesome" or "unwholesome" for them to see?

U.S. intelligence officials say they’re concerned about “ongoing campaigns” by Russia, China, Iran and other countries to undermine confidence in American democracy.

"undermine"? You mean "American democracy" is a sacred religion which cannot be questioned? You mean it's subversive to say anything which would shake someone's faith in this sacred institution?

Maybe there is good reason to have doubts about this institution. Maybe it should change in some ways, to make it less phony. Maybe there's much about "American democracy" that needs undermining, and which we should NOT be confident about.

Why can't this be an open question -- whether American democracy is flawed and needs fixing, rather than a dogma or catechism that must be protected against doubts or anything which would undermine it or cast doubt on its infallibility?

In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Department, the Justice Department and the FBI say they’re worried about activities that “seek to influence voter perceptions and decision-making” in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

So it's a crime or a threat to our nation to influence voter perceptions and decision-making? Why? What's wrong with influencing anyone's perception or decision-making? What is the need to police everyone who wants to influence someone's perceptions or decision-making?

The agencies say the “ongoing campaigns” could take many forms. Examples include attempts to influence voters through social media, sponsoring . . .

That's a threat to America? that someone tries to influence voters through social media? This has to be policed? Why? If you don't like someone's influence, then you're free to offset it with your own influencing people in the opposite direction.

. . . sponsoring content in English language media such as the Russian outlet RT, or “seeding disinformation through sympathetic spokespersons regarding political candidates and disseminating foreign propaganda.”

"disinformation"? You mean anything you disagree with? The other guy has to be censored because he's putting out "disinformation"? said something "sympathetic" to the wrong side? or regarding the wrong political candidates?

Oh, there was something "foreign" about it, so therefore it's dangerous and we have to crack down on it. Them damn foreigners! That makes it a threat, so we have to suppress it, make it illegal, and prosecute them for "interfering" because they're outside aliens scheming against us.

Intelligence officials said last year that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election through similar means.

And what is the damage they did? The wrong candidate won? So that's why it's criminal to let the foreigners interfere -- because there is a candidate chosen by God as the right one, and them godless foreigners might cause the wrong candidate to win, bringing God's wrath down onto our country.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why won't anyone give a straight answer?

I did, but let's focus on the fallacy of your questions. There are two questions in one, which I'll break out from this:

Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about and need to prosecute as a crime?

The first question is: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about?

The second is: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we need to prosecute as a crime?

We can easily dispense with the second, because it isn't Russians (or any foreign nation) interfering that is the crime; it is a US citizen conspiring with (or otherwise controlled by) a foreign nation interfering in our country's election process that is the crime. Exactly what form of crime is on the order of treason/being a traitor/aiding and abetting the overthrow of our government/etc.

So then, back to the first question: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about?

And now you see it answers itself.

 

[blastula]

The hacking by the Russians was a crime. And it was more than hacking the DNC, they also hacked into state election databases.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't anyone give a serious answer why we should care about "Russian interference"?

Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about and need to prosecute as a crime?

The first question is: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about?

The second is: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we need to prosecute as a crime?

We can easily dispense with the second, because it isn't Russians (or any foreign nation) interfering that is the crime; it is a US citizen conspiring . . .

Yes it is Russians/foreigners interfering which is the alleged crime.

I cited a recent case:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-national-charged-interfering-us-political-system
A criminal complaint was unsealed in Alexandria, Virginia, today charging a Russian national for her alleged role in a Russian conspiracy to interfere in the U.S. political system, including the 2018 midterm election. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger of the Eastern District of Virginia, and FBI Director Christopher Wray made the announcement after the charges were unsealed.

This is a Russian charged with a crime by the U.S. Justice Department.

The above page makes it clear that she would be put on trial in a U.S. court if it were possible to arrest her.

The U.S. law makes it illegal for foreigners to engage in this "interference" in U.S. elections.

. . . it is a US citizen conspiring with (or otherwise controlled by) a foreign nation interfering in our country's election process that is the crime.

It's both. It's a crime for the Russian/foreigner to "interfere" and it's illegal for the U.S. citizen to conspire with the foreigner.

And the question (which you're not answering) is why this should be a crime.

Suppose I hear of the Russian "conspiracy" to "interfere" in U.S. elections and I agree with their interference, thinking that they are performing a service by making fun of some candidate, or even making fun of that candidate's supporters. Maybe they create a "fake" scenario of some kind to make someone look stupid. What's wrong with me contributing toward this Russian "interference" if I think they're making a good point? Why should that be illegal, either for the Russian to do it or for a U.S. citizen to contribute to it?

Exactly what form of crime is on the order of treason/being a traitor/aiding and abetting the overthrow of our government/etc.

That's what I'm asking. And you're still not answering what is criminal about any of this Russian "interference" or about any U.S. citizen contributing to it. The Russian woman charged did not do anything criminal or anything to "overthrow" our government, nor is there anything criminal or treasonous about a U.S. citizen helping her or other foreigner to do what she has been charged with. (Or more correctly, it should not be a crime.)

So then, back to the first question: Why is so-called "Russian interference" in elections something we have to be alarmed about?

And now you see it answers itself.

No, I see you pretending to respond but only blowing smoke.

What did this Russian woman do which was criminal or which threatens to "overthrow" the U.S. government?

And why should it be a crime or treason for a U.S. citizen to contribute to a foreigner doing what this Russian is charged with?

So, do you want to cut out the horseplay and finally give an answer?

No, probably not. Your problem is that you're an extreme partisan who is outraged over the Trump election, and you want to believe that his election was fraudulent for some reason, and the "Russian interference" nonsense gives you some hope that maybe the election can be overturned somehow.

Except for that, you don't gave a rat's rear end about any "Russian interference" or foreigners "interfering" in U.S. elections.

 

[barbos]

The hacking by the Russians was a crime. And it was more than hacking the DNC, they also hacked into state election databases.

Do you have links for that?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes it is Russians/foreigners interfering which is the alleged crime.

No, that is an ancillary matter. The relevant crime is whether or not a US citizen committed treasonous acts.

I cited a recent case...This is a Russian charged with a crime by the U.S. Justice Department.

The crime she is charged with is: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

The U.S. law makes it illegal for foreigners to engage in this "interference" in U.S. elections.

Not exactly:

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "{i}f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.​

...
The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

There is more at the link.

And the question (which you're not answering) is why this should be a crime.

Now you know this too, but, again, if it's still not clear to you, there is more at the link. A link that took me literally ten seconds to google on my own. I suggest you brush up on your own googling skills to avoid all your blather.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one is answering why "Russia propaganda in USA politics is so bad."

The hacking by the Russians was a crime. And it was more than hacking the DNC, they also hacked into state election databases.

Yeah, every country hacks into every other country's databases and political parties. If every hacker was arrested and prosecuted we'd probably double our prison population, and waste billions of dollars.

None of this hysteria explains what damage has been done by Russian "interference" or why "Russian propaganda in U.S. politics is so bad."

The answer is that it's not so bad, nor is the China propaganda or any other foreign political propaganda in the U.S. so bad that we need all this hysteria about "interference" in our elections.

It's all paranoia, and no one posting here is giving any reason why any of it should be treated as criminal, or why anything should be done to stop it, or why it poses any danger to the nation.

Nor can anyone give a reason why it would be "treason" for a U.S. citizen to contribute to such foreign propaganda or "interference" in U.S. politics.

No one is giving any example of harm which this Russian "interference" has done.

And no one can give a reason why it would be bad for the country even if the foreign propaganda should influence voters in a way as to cause a change in the outcome of the election. Even if it changed the outcome in 2016, you can't say why that's bad for the country. There is no nothing sinister or unAmerican about someone being influenced by Russians (or Chinese or Mongolians or Swazilanders or Uzbekibekibekistaners) to change their mind about something.

 

[ZiprHead]

No one is giving any example of harm which this Russian "interference" has done.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

[SimpleDon]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chinese-broadens-propaganda-drive-heartland-132238597.html

I just don't get it. Why was Russia spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on facebook the end of the world? But China openly publishing propaganda in the central US apparently is just fine? Was one so much worse than the other? Perhaps Mueller be concentrating resources on why China is attempting to sway US citizens against a standing president?

Russia buying thousands of dollars worth of Facebook ads wasn't the problem that caused the investigations. It was the possibility that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to hack into the DNC servers to get dirt on Clinton and then coordinated the release of the emails when it was most beneficial to the Trump campaign, for example just after a tape was released with Trump boosting about his many sexual assaults on women.

China and Russia are more than welcome to place ads anywhere that they want to in the US. But the only way that they can legally participate in our elections, however, is through the unfortunate Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations, including those who are foreign owned to buy campaign ads to support their favored candidates. Where Russia stepped over the line to support Trump was that it was the government who apparently conspired with the Trump campaign. If the Russians had been smart they would have used the Citizens United loophole that allows foreign interests to openly support candidates in US elections.

 

[blastula]

The hacking by the Russians was a crime. And it was more than hacking the DNC, they also hacked into state election databases.

Yeah, every country hacks into every other country's databases and political parties. If every hacker was arrested and prosecuted we'd probably double our prison population, and waste billions of dollars.

Weak handwaving.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

None of this hysteria explains what damage has been done by Russian "interference" or why "Russian propaganda in U.S. politics is so bad."

Once again, wrong questions.

Nor can anyone give a reason why it would be "treason" for a U.S. citizen to contribute to such foreign propaganda or "interference" in U.S. politics.

"Treasonous" is more accurate, actually and the answer is obvious to everyone including you, so stop pretending you don't fully understand the issue with this painfully obvious attempt to reword everything in order to try and downplay what the issue is.

No one is giving any example of harm which this Russian "interference" has done.

No one need to. That's as stupid as saying, "But the robbers didn't actually get away with that much money, so what law did they break?"

The Russians--in full traitorous collusion with Trump and members of his team--successfully attacked the US for the express purpose of overthrowing our government and placing their own asset in the Oval Office. Iow, the Presidency is controlled--right now--by a foreign government.

That is an "example of harm which this Russian 'interference' has done," which you know all too well and this pathetic sham of a thread can't even begin to obfuscate.

We used to stand such traitors in front of firing squads, but now that's evidently only for Hillary for having done absolutely nothing even remotely treasonous.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the harm done (by Russian "interference") which no one can name but everyone is shrieking about and . . .

. . . and keeps swearing has happened even though they won't say what it is?

No one is giving any example of harm which this Russian "interference" has done.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

What's one example?

Other than the crybaby whining that God's chosen candidate lost because of something a Russian did.

I.e., Hillary. But the other side could whine that the evil Russian interference almost caused God's candidate to lose.

Other than this crybaby nonsense, who has given any example of damage done?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The wrong candidate won? If that's the only "problem," then there is NO PROBLEM.

No, just because it caused Hillary to lose does not mean there's a "problem" or that a crime happened.

Russia buying thousands of dollars worth of Facebook ads wasn't the problem that caused the investigations. It was the possibility that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to hack into the DNC servers to get dirt on Clinton and then coordinated the release of the emails when it was most beneficial to the Trump campaign, for example just after a tape was released with Trump boasting about his many sexual assaults on women.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...hillary-clinton-email-server-trump-indictment
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/...tic-national-convention-and-passed-its-emails
http://www.newindianexpress.com/wor...ns-2016-us-presidential-campaign-1843200.html

Let's assume the worst: that some illegal hacking took place and the Trump campaign used it to win some votes, by influencing voters with emails stolen from Hillary.

So Hillary had secret emails which contained something embarrassing to her, and they were stolen and used against her. When exposed, they caused dissension within the Democrat Party, which weakened her cause.

That's it? OK, so it's just more "dirty tricks" like always, except modern technology provides new forms of it. The lesson is to keep your files clear of anything embarrassing.

Even if Trump is guilty and gets impeached, it still doesn't mean that Russian "interference" did any damage to the country.

The hacking is the only crime. Getting dirt, "conspiring" with Russians, coordinating the release of emails is not a crime and does no damage to the country.

Even if the hacking took place, there is a lot of hacking which goes on which is not prosecuted even though it could be.

You can't claim it did damage just because it might have influenced voters, even if it changed the election outcome as a result. Changing the minds of some voters is not a crime or damage to the country, regardless if it influences the outcome. It's not a crime to influence voters to change, even if this changes the outcome.

So there is no serious crime here, or damage to the country, any more than if a vandal threw a rock through the DNC office window. Catch and prosecute the culprit, but this is not "interference" into the election.

It's not about foreign or Russian interference, but about illegally hacking someone's computer, regardless who did it. Wouldn't it be just as illegal if it were U.S. citizens who did it rather than Russians?

No one has shown how Russian "interference" in elections is something bad. What was bad, if anything, is the content of Hillary's embarrassing emails.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

just because it caused Hillary to lose does not mean there's a "problem" or that a crime happened.

No one is saying anything at all about Hillary Clinton. Trump is a traitor and Russia succeeded in overthrowing our government.

The irony is, if the roles were reversed, you’d be demanding Hillary be hung by piano wire. This transparent regurgitation of Trump talking points is pathetic and obvious to everyone.