The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[GMan]

Who said the emails "changed" the election? Here we go moving the goal posts again. YOU said they weren't released in time to have an effect on the election, I proved you wrong. They were released in plenty of time to have an effect. An "effect" does not necessarily mean that they changed the outcome of the election. Two big data dumps like that, along with the corresponding media coverage, almost certainly had some type of effect on public opinion. But the point is, being released three months and one month before the election is plenty of time for any information to have an effect on an election.

OK, so you believe that the CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA/etc. are all lying to you. And you believe that the entire mainstream media is lying to you. And apparently you also believe that all the top cyber-security firms are lying to you. What about Republicans in Congress? While they continue to deny that Trump colluded with the Russians, Republicans in Congress fully admit that Russia interfered in our election via coordinated hacking efforts and disseminating fake news propaganda to influence the American electorate. THEY ADMIT THIS. Not Democrats, mind you, but Republicans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/congre...rticle/2006181



Here's Senator Marco Rubio talking about how he was targeted by Russian hackers when he was running against Trump in the primaries:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politi...earing-russia/

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: "We must punish Russia for interfering in our election" and "I'm 1,000 percent certain that the Russians interfered in our election."
http://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-grah...eddling-608900

The ship has sailed on this. The only people at this point who are still claiming that Russia didn't interfere at all in our election are the following: Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Alex Jones, and Vladmir Putin.

So think about that collection of above individuals that you find trustworthy and do some soul-searching.

AJ I can see you are a very detailed person. Kudo's to you.
Influence over a system suggests change of some sort. To influence change and not have any appreciable effect on the outcome than why try and why investigate? Why not study what was "Successful" while not "changing" the outcome, with out trying to cripple this presidency?

Yes all the alphabet agencies are susceptible to "lying" as it furthers their power / influence over control of the budget.
Who pushes their narrative? How about defense related companies who make millions pushing for conflicts so they can sell weapons or components. There's plenty of yellowcake, er B.S. to be spread in the media to get public support for conflict so millions can be made. Looks like they are gonna get their conflict anyway. If not with Russia over Crimea, then N.K. and it's missile program.
So who wins when the Military Industrial Complex wins over the public will expressed by an "unchanged" election?

[aj3647]

AJ I can see you are a very detailed person. Kudo's to you.
Influence over a system suggests change of some sort. To influence change and not have any appreciable effect on the outcome than why try and why investigate? Why not study what was "Successful" while not "changing" the outcome, with out trying to cripple this presidency?

With what data are we supposed to determine what effect the DNC emails and Podesta emails had on the outcome of the election? Maybe it changed the outcome, maybe it didn't, there's no way to know that. Add to that the fact that these two hacks were hardly the only forms of Russian interference, so when we investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election [[as Republican-led committees in both the House and Senate are already doing, independently of the Mueller investigation), it makes sense to investigate the effects of the totality of those efforts. That would include dozens of attempted hacks of state-level voter registration systems [[including at least one successful hack of data in Illinois, in which the Russians may have had access to voter registration data) and coordinated Russian efforts to produce and disseminate fake news via social media aimed at the American electorate, especially Facebook.

The argument you seem to be making is "if the Russian efforts to influence the election did not change the outcome, then who cares?" This is the absolute worst possible attitude to have. That's like looking at a failed terrorist attack and saying "well their homemade bomb didn't detonate, so who cares? Why investigate if it didn't work?"

You investigate and you react because to NOT do so would embolden the Russians to do this again. And given the lessons they learned from this election plus several years to prepare, they are only going to get better at hacking our systems and influencing our elections. We need to investigate so we know how to better ensure the integrity of our elections from foreign interference and we need to respond so the Russians know that they can't keep getting away with it. We're not the only country they are doing this so, the Russians have been doing the exact same thing in nations across Europe, trying to influence elections.