Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Svartalf]

plenty coal in Sberia

[Brian Peacock]

[Seabass]

With any luck, Trump will also bring back the VHS tape, the floppy disc, and whale-oil lamps. Americans need good jobs.

[Svartalf]

well, it will be hard taking the electronics manufacturing jobs from east asia, but the design and software jobs might come back west from Bangalore...

[Seabass]

I was being sarcastic. I was assuming that VHS tapes and floppy discs have gone the way of the dodo, but if they haven't, I guess the joke doesn't really work.

[Svartalf]

they have, but coal hasn't quite joined them yet, or at least few people realize it should be let go and die naturally, for the good of the planet and all on it.

[Tero]

Why did nothing ever come of the money laundering Trump did for Russians?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/ ... index.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/ ... man-240679

Only Manafort so far.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's not unlawful or even unethical to meet with a former lawyer from Russia, who was lawfully in the US under advance parole approved by the Obama Administration, who said they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. There isn't even anything wrong with doing that.

So why did you try to play it off as an innocent 'meeting in Trump tower between Trump's campaign director and Trump Jr'? Why did you shy away from giving an honest description of the meeting?

And Russia does not have a "crown prosecutor." Rob Goldstone, a former British tabloid journalist, told Trump Jr. that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia met with … Aras [Agalarov] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

Errr.... so what? O.k. Rob Goldstone, how do we get our hands on that incriminating information?

Yes, that was the reason top level Trump people took the meeting--to get information they were told was coming from the Russian government. Somehow you neglected to mention that in your description of the meeting. If you don't see any problem with that, then why not embrace their attempt to get their candidate help from the Russian government?

It wasn't 'a few thousand dollars,' it was over $100,000.

In a world where Presidential races cost billions, a $100,000 ad buy, most of which appeared after the election, and only some of which related to the election rather than "issues," is "a few thousand dollars."

In no context is over 100 equal to 'a few,' despite your attempt to tap-dance around that fact. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for the claim that 'most' of the ads bought by the Russian troll farm appeared after the election?

That's not a lot of money. And, even if it was $100,000,000 - russia is allowed to buy ads on Facebook, even political ads about the US election. It's not illegal. It's not unethical. It's not even "questionable." And, Facebook is perfectly lawfully entitled to take that business and place the ads, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

I'm not sure that it's legal under federal election law for the Russian government to use shady intermediaries to disguise the fact that it's attempting to influence an election (see below). You appear to find this perfectly acceptable though, so why try to diminish their efforts by shrugging it off as 'a few thousand dollars' worth of ads? Why not cheer them on for their initiative and cleverness?

You think that they weren't honestly expressing support for Trump? And, so what if they were spreading "divisiveness"? Your assertion that they they weren't "honest" and/or that they were spreading divisiveness and "ginning up support" for Trump - well, that's a fine view on it. But, it certainly isn't something that's established. So what if "Russian actors" helped organize pro-Trump rallies? Is that illegal? Unethical? Immoral?

I consider it unethical for a foreign government to disguise its contributions to help a particular candidate in a federal election. A prosecutor could argue that it's actually illegal under federal election law. I would hope that if potential Trump supporters had known that they were seeing Russian propaganda supporting Trump, it wouldn't have had the same effect.

I'm unaware of any ads placed by the Russian government in its official capacity, nor of any official Russian statement of support for candidate Trump. If you're aware of such, feel free to post them. I'll ask you directly if you're fine with the Russian government using fake Facebook accounts and ads bought through intermediaries to help Trump get elected?

Every single US intelligence agency has concluded that the Russians were responsible for the hacking, and your continued denial of that fact is not going to change it. The only 'leaking' story is the Seth Rich lie pushed by the lickspittle dingbat Hannity.

They have NOT concluded that. Go head - produce the statement where US intelligence agencies "concluded that the Russias were responsible for the hacking..." - go on. Which US agency inspected the DNC servers?

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

[source]

The statement 'the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations' is a conclusion, and the USIC expressed confidence in that conclusion. How they came to that conclusion is not explained in the statement. Nor am I aware of any direct inspection by a US intelligence agency of the DNC servers. However that isn't the issue in dispute here. Your assertion that 'they have NOT concluded' that the Russians were responsible for the hacking' is false, no matter how many times you shout and repeat your denial.

Despite Sessions' claims to the contrary, there is evidence that he 'discussed matters related to the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, while the 2016 U.S. presidential race was ongoing.'

First of all, that's not established. But, let's assume that he did "discuss matters related to the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, Russian Ambassador to the US..." so? Was that illegal? Was that unethical? Was that immoral? What charges can be brought against Sessions if that's true? There is a law that says people can't discuss the 2016 Election, during the election, with any foreign ambassadors?

If these intelligence intercepts are accurate, Sessions lied about his meetings under oath before Congress; perjury, which is certainly illegal.

[pErvinalia]

He wasn't lying. Like 42 he was just using a different interpretation of the English language to the rest of us.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Interestingly, it may be that Russian hackers got into the Trump Organization computers years ago.

'Hackers Compromised the Trump Organization 4 Years Ago—and the Company Never Noticed'

Four years ago, the Trump Organization experienced a major cyber breach that could have allowed the perpetrator (or perpetrators) to mount malware attacks from the company’s web domains and may have enabled the intruders to gain access to the company’s computer network. Up until this week, this penetration had gone undetected by President Donald Trump’s company, according to several internet security researchers.

In 2013, a hacker (or hackers) apparently obtained access to the Trump Organization’s domain registration account and created at least 250 website subdomains that cybersecurity experts refer to as “shadow” subdomains. Each one of these shadow Trump subdomains pointed to a Russian IP address, meaning that they were hosted at these Russian addresses. (Every website domain is associated with one or more IP addresses. These addresses allow the internet to find the server that hosts the website. Authentic Trump Organization domains point to IP addresses that are hosted in the United States or countries where the company operates.) The creation of these shadow subdomains within the Trump Organization network was visible in the publicly available records of the company’s domains.

[Brian Peacock]

I'll ask you directly if you're fine with the Russian government using fake Facebook accounts and ads bought through intermediaries to help Trump get elected?

I've asked this on numerous occasions, though I've generally framed it such that it doesn't matter which organisation they're seeking to compromise or support. Invariably the question gets the 'Yeah, but Hillary' treatment or is waived away with the idea that the absence of a specific law renders the whole matter moot. I also keep mentioning that Russia's covert attempts to undermine democratic processes and institutions are not limited to the US, and that this should be an issue of importance and interests to all US voters and not just one that concerns one side or the other. It would be great, and far more productive, if this whole matter could be broadened out, but alas it seems that if the blame cannot be laid at the feet of one party or the other then dissemination and obfuscation becomes almost a moral duty.

In other news...

US 'to charge six Russian officials' over election hack

The US Justice Department has gathered enough evidence to charge six members of the Russian government in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers before last year's presidential election, the Wall Street Journal reported.

By identifying individual Russian military and intelligence hackers with charges the US could make it difficult for them to travel, but arresting and jailing them would be unlikely.

The hacking investigation, conducted by cybersecurity experts, predates the appointment in May of special counsel Robert Mueller to lead the probe of alleged Russian meddling in the election, and possible collusion with President Donald Trump's campaign.

Mr Mueller and the Justice Department agreed to allow the technical cyber investigation to continue under the original team of agents and prosecutors, the Wall Street Journal reported.

US intelligence agencies have concluded Russia was behind the cyber attacks,which resulted in thousands of Democrat emails being made public by WikiLeaks during the campaign.

They concluded in January that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the campaign to sway the election in favour of Mr Trump....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... tion-hack/

[Forty Two]

L'emmerdeur -- the quote you gave about the "confidence" of the US intelligence agencies is exactly what they did, yes. They concluded - based on the methods used that were "consistent with" certain groups that had been associated with the Russians in the past, and the scope of the effort being something top people in Russia would be the ones to authorize, if the Russians did it. But, what they don't say is that the methods used were also "consistent with" other hackers being behind it. They did not use novel, Russia-only methods. That's what I mean when I say that nobody has really concluded that the Russians did it. They've surmised it. They've inferred it. They're "confident" (and read the squirrely definition of what it means for them to be "confident" of something, which is very vague and it does not mean that they really "know" it - certainly does not mean that it's been proved with evidence).

[pErvinalia]

Dude, they're charging Russians now.

[Brian Peacock]

So it seems the Russian's agitated in favour of Trump before the election, and then used the same tactics to agitate against him between election day and his inauguration (which was teh biggliest inauguration ever btw). Damn those pesky Ivans.

[L'Emmerdeur]

L'emmerdeur -- the quote you gave about the "confidence" of the US intelligence agencies is exactly what they did, yes. They concluded - based on the methods used that were "consistent with" certain groups that had been associated with the Russians in the past, and the scope of the effort being something top people in Russia would be the ones to authorize, if the Russians did it. But, what they don't say is that the methods used were also "consistent with" other hackers being behind it. They did not use novel, Russia-only methods. That's what I mean when I say that nobody has really concluded that the Russians did it. They've surmised it. They've inferred it. They're "confident" (and read the squirrely definition of what it means for them to be "confident" of something, which is very vague and it does not mean that they really "know" it - certainly does not mean that it's been proved with evidence).

The US intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the Russian government was behind the hacking. I don't think that they have fully explained the basis of that conclusion. Nor do I expect them to, given the nature of intelligence operations, in which publicizing the full extent of operations and their findings could compromise sources and methods. Your speculation about what is proved and not proved is irrelevant to the fact that the USIC came to a particular conclusion, but I fully expect you to continue denying that it came to the conclusion. That denial is bullshit, just as the other points in your post were.