Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

According to the indictment the Internet Research Group spent $1.25 million per month towards interference efforts (see page 7)...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...cial-Counsel-s-Indictment-of-the-Internet.pdf

 

No one disputes this. Im saying no one all of sudden changed their mind on a woman already considered to be a polarizing figure

Maybe the 2020 candidates should hire Russian spies to run their campaigns so they're so good

 

She plead guilty to conspiring with a Russian official to infiltrate the NRA.

Seriously is that all you got? An article from “New Geography”? I think the Seth Rich ordeal got more articles than this.

 

Since it worked well for trump and the russians in 2016, you don't think they will try again... and try even harder in 2020?

A positive from Mueller's investigation is that much more awareness and knowledge about russian interference was uncovered. And it appears more efforts on the US intelligence teams to stop in in 2018. Hopefully this will help restore confidence in our election process in 2020 and beyond.

 

What worked well for Trump is focusing on Reagan Democrats. What didn't work well for Mrs Clinton is this

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

The same independents in the same states are up for grabs every election and Trump focused on them and Mrs Clinton didn't. They didn't change their votes because of emails. They voted for the candidate that appeared in their state wanting their vote

 

I am not saying Clinton didn't make major mistakes that contributed to her losing the election. But you keep repeated the same empty statement about russians actions to influence had no impact on the election... empty because its highly unlikely that it had no impact and you have nothing to prove the statement. And, in an election where a few key states were targeted and so close, any small amount of impact could have swung the race.

 

Because i know people didn't all of sudden form an opinion about a woman we've known 25 years.

The emails showed her to be arrogant and entitled. Thats always been her negatives

Name a more polarizing first lady

No one has ever backed up the claim that people changed their vote with numbers

 

How much did Russia spend internally on uploading their content to FB?

Russia might have decided that they could cause major mischief with out using FB ads.

 

Again, you are simply spouting empty opinions. Ones not even supported by facts. If people were so locked in on their opinions, why did polling shift from mostly pro-Clinton to the last week of some Clinton, a few trump, and almost all within the standard error that aligned with the popular vote results? And why in her previous presidential campaign the polling shifted from Clinton to Obama dramatically? Because people do change their opinions. Even about a candidate that is so well known.

Sure, she has many negatives, despite being extremely qualified and capable. One reason I was an Obama supporter early on. She was way more experience and qualified, but I connected with Obama. Just as there are candidates I am more connected with in 2020.

But... you cannot say the russian interference efforts didn't impact voters. Negative campaigning is most impactful, not just changing opinions, but reinforcing opinions. In a race decided by less than 1%, how can you say there was no impact?

 

If Trump doesn't win, he will declare the election a fraud and refuse to give in.

 

So the Russians supported Obama? She made the same mistake in 08. She took victory gor granted

 

So what? Only FB ads counts because of reasons.

 

You sure seem to have a difficult time engaging in meaningful discussions... perhaps I will simply go back to simply rolling my eyes at your posts...

 

Not sure where 100k number is coming from.

https://adage.com/article/digital/russia-spent-1-25m-ads-acted-agency-mueller/312424/

According to this they were spending 1.25mil/months in ads. I am sure some of it was going to Facebook and Twitter. The bots etc. would not have been official facebook ad spend.

 

it comes from facebook

I guess you could convince me they have reason to lie. More likely, Russia wasn't using Facebook for their small amount of ad buys.

 

Really? FB s the ultimate Broker of the Truth?

 

For what it’s worth that site is left leaning.

Did you even take any time to read how the govt conducted itself in her trial or investigation? Or anything in that article? She was not a spy. She was never paid by the Russians. She was a student and a gun activist in Russia and tried to form ties with the NRA to promote gun rights in Russia which put her under Russian govt surveillance. She was not acting as a spy. She was basically public about everything she was doing and all the meetings she had. The only compensation she received was from Americans. She had opportunities to form ties with people potentially closer in with Trump but never did. She instead pursued this idea of promoting gun rights in Russia, trying to form a Russian NRA, and (GOD FORBID!) trying to get America and Russia to have closer ties.

The govt lied to try to create a narrative of some sort of spy sex thing and they manipulated evidence and emails. In case you think this is some sort of wild conspiracy the lead attorney for Mueller, Andrew Weissman, (he was not specifically leading this case) has been busted for withholding exculpatory evidence before. Innocent people were convicted as a result of this. You can google it if you don’t believe me.

Sure maybe the truth lies somewhere in between but if the reality is even 50% of what this article and the case portrays then this was a complete bullshit investigation against her.

 

And Democrats grabbed the suburban GOP strongholds in 2018. Perhaps that’s temporary, but “non Trump conservetives” don’t seem too thrilled about how Trump conducts himself and his trade war.

Trump merely out lied Clinton in the mid west. It’s amusing that the mid west is still getting left behind despite Trump putting a tax on US consumers.

 

Ok? It seems this type of subject outside their area of interest, unless New Geography isn’t about demographics and development.

I think it would make perfect sense for Russia to use folks like Butina and others to gain influence in US politics. I also think it matches up to what we know about Russia currently operates. There are articles that say Russian intel blessed infiltrating NRA.

 

I don't disagree. Regardless of lying he hit their sweet spots on issues they were concerned about.

My biggest issue with this whole story is Democrats not addressing what Trump did well simply because it can happen again.

As critical as i am of mrs Clinton 2016 was an economics election. Immigration in the midwest is a jobs issue