Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference
-
The report (in two volumes, two PDF files):
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdfThe report largely confirms that the Russians interfered with the 2016 elections in the USA in manners that favored Trump.
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
The report (in two volumes, two PDF files):
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdfThe report largely confirms that the Russians interfered with the 2016 elections in the USA in manners that favored Trump.
You read them?
-
From "Volume 2" of the report, page 4:
II. (U) FINDINGS
- (U),The Committee found,that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction ofthe Kremlin.
(U) The Committee found that the IRA's :lnformation warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result ofthe 2016 presidential election. Further, the Committee's analysis of the IRA's activities on social media supports the key judgments of the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," that "Russia's, goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,· and harm her electability and potential presidency."5 However, where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment.of Secretary Clinton's campaign.
(U) The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA's interference in the 2016 U.S. election. ...
From "Volume 2" page 6:
- (U) The Committee found that the IRA targeted not only Hillary Clinton, but also Republican candidates during the presidential primaries. For example, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were targeted and denigrated, as was Jeb Bush. ...
From "Volume 2" page 7:
- (U) The Committee found that the IRA coopted unwitting Americans to engage in- .offline activities in furtherance of their objectives. The IRA's online influence operations were not constrained to the unilateral dissemination of content in the virtual realm, and its operatives were not just focused on inciting anger and provoking division on the internet. Instead, the IRA also persuaded Americans to deepen their engagement with IRA operatives. For exci.mple, the IRA targeted African-Americans over social media and attempted and succeeded in .some cases to influence their targets to sign petitions, share personal information, and teach self-defense training courses.18 In addition, posing as U.S. political activists, the IRA requested-and in some cases obtained-assistance from the Trump Campaign in procuring materials for rallies and in promoting and organizing the rallies.
From "Volume 2" page 32:
(U) At the direction ofthe Kremlin, the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by.harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump.
From "Volume 2" page 34:
(U) In contrast to the consistent denigration of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's candidacy received mostly positive attention from the IRA's influence operatives, though it is important to note that this assessment specifically applies to pre-election content. The Committee's analysis indicates that post-election IRA activity shifted to emphasize and provoke anti-Trump sentiment on the left. DiResta's team assesses that in relation to pre-election content: "The majority ofthe political content was anti-Hillary Clinton; there appeared to be a consistent preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, beginning in the early primaries. . . . There was no pro-Clinton content."
(U) Evidence of an overarching pro-Trump and anti-Clinton bias leading up to Election Day 2016 is also fuund in information obtained by Special Counsel's Office. For instance, IRA employees were directed to focus on U.S. politics and to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump-we support"them)."138 Another IRA employee was criticized internally for having a '"low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton' and was told 'it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton' in future posts."139 Content and hashtags produced by IRA employees included "#Trump2016," "#TrumpTrain," "#MAGA," "#IWorttProtec~Hillary," and "#Hillary4Prison."140
(U) One communication obtained by the Committee details an IRA employee's description of Election Day 2016, from the vantage of an information warfare operative: "On November 9, 2016, a sleepless night was ahead ofus. And when around 8 a.m. the most important result of our work arrived, we uncorked a tiny bottle of champagne...took one gulp each and looked into each other's eyes.... We uttered almost in unison: 'We. made America great.'" - (U),The Committee found,that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction ofthe Kremlin.
-
What the Russians did is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the person running for the office participated in it. Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
-
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
From "Volume 2" of the report, page 4:
II. (U) FINDINGS
- (U),The Committee found,that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction ofthe Kremlin.
(U) The Committee found that the IRA's :lnformation warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result ofthe 2016 presidential election. Further, the Committee's analysis of the IRA's activities on social media supports the key judgments of the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," that "Russia's, goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,· and harm her electability and potential presidency."5 However, where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment.of Secretary Clinton's campaign.
(U) The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA's interference in the 2016 U.S. election. ...
From "Volume 2" page 6:
- (U) The Committee found that the IRA targeted not only Hillary Clinton, but also Republican candidates during the presidential primaries. For example, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were targeted and denigrated, as was Jeb Bush. ...
From "Volume 2" page 7:
- (U) The Committee found that the IRA coopted unwitting Americans to engage in- .offline activities in furtherance of their objectives. The IRA's online influence operations were not constrained to the unilateral dissemination of content in the virtual realm, and its operatives were not just focused on inciting anger and provoking division on the internet. Instead, the IRA also persuaded Americans to deepen their engagement with IRA operatives. For exci.mple, the IRA targeted African-Americans over social media and attempted and succeeded in .some cases to influence their targets to sign petitions, share personal information, and teach self-defense training courses.18 In addition, posing as U.S. political activists, the IRA requested-and in some cases obtained-assistance from the Trump Campaign in procuring materials for rallies and in promoting and organizing the rallies.
From "Volume 2" page 32:
(U) At the direction ofthe Kremlin, the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by.harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump.
From "Volume 2" page 34:
(U) In contrast to the consistent denigration of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's candidacy received mostly positive attention from the IRA's influence operatives, though it is important to note that this assessment specifically applies to pre-election content. The Committee's analysis indicates that post-election IRA activity shifted to emphasize and provoke anti-Trump sentiment on the left. DiResta's team assesses that in relation to pre-election content: "The majority ofthe political content was anti-Hillary Clinton; there appeared to be a consistent preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, beginning in the early primaries. . . . There was no pro-Clinton content."
(U) Evidence of an overarching pro-Trump and anti-Clinton bias leading up to Election Day 2016 is also fuund in information obtained by Special Counsel's Office. For instance, IRA employees were directed to focus on U.S. politics and to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump-we support"them)."138 Another IRA employee was criticized internally for having a '"low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton' and was told 'it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton' in future posts."139 Content and hashtags produced by IRA employees included "#Trump2016," "#TrumpTrain," "#MAGA," "#IWorttProtec~Hillary," and "#Hillary4Prison."140
(U) One communication obtained by the Committee details an IRA employee's description of Election Day 2016, from the vantage of an information warfare operative: "On November 9, 2016, a sleepless night was ahead ofus. And when around 8 a.m. the most important result of our work arrived, we uncorked a tiny bottle of champagne...took one gulp each and looked into each other's eyes.... We uttered almost in unison: 'We. made America great.'"That didn't answer the question, did it?
- (U),The Committee found,that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction ofthe Kremlin.
-
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
-
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Should the guy in office acknowledge this and at least tell the Russians to knock it off?
Or rather - at the very least not say the intelligence community doesn't know they're talking about.
You can tell them all you want to. Since they haven't listened since before WW2, I doubt it will make much difference.
Secondly, I would be shocked if we weren't diddling in their politics...
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
What are you, the ultimate arbitrator of conversation?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Should the guy in office acknowledge this and at least tell the Russians to knock it off?
Or rather - at the very least not say the intelligence community doesn't know they're talking about.
You can tell them all you want to. Since they haven't listened since before WW2, I doubt it will make much difference.
Secondly, I would be shocked if we weren't cuddling in their politics...
I'm reading this as, foreign policy beyond war is not a thing. Unless someone listens when we ask nicely.
Doesn't matter if they run troll farms to stoke partisanship on American social media.
In the face of this - deny reality and denigrate your own intelligence community.
I know that's not what you mean - but that's how I read it. Russians did us harm, we should at the very least be willing to call it out.
-
@Jolly said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
What are you, the ultimate arbitrator of conversation?
I am one who can tell lies from truth. I am one who can tell bullshit from facts.
What @Larry posted are lies and you should know it. -
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
Fuck you.
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Jolly said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
What are you, the ultimate arbitrator of conversation?
I am one who can tell lies from truth. I am one who can tell bullshit from facts.
What @Larry posted are lies and you should know it.No they're not. I can't help it that you're a moron.
-
-
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/richard-burr-senate-russia-investigation-1156624
Read it and weep, Ax. Then get off your ass and look the other ones up yourself.
Before you call someone a liar again, pull your head out of your ass and educate yourself.
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Ah, the weak and the pathetic resort to personal insults when they know they have neither the facts nor the argument behind them. Sad!
You're the one who called me a liar, you stupid sack of shit.
-
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Jolly said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Axtremus said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
What the Russians did is not the issue.
Wow, why do you not love the USA, that you don't think a foreign country systematically interfering in the USA's election is not the issue?
Another Senate committee has already released a report that showed that Trump did not participate in it, and yet another committee report concluded that Hillary DID participate in it.
You post lies. You're just making shit up. Cite the specific reports or go away with your lies.
What are you, the ultimate arbitrator of conversation?
I am one who can tell lies from truth. I am one who can tell bullshit from facts.
What @Larry posted are lies and you should know it.Look, you're a pinheaded, one-trick pony, with such a glaring lack of social skills you couldn't get laid in a whore house with a ten-inch strap-on and a fistful of $100 bills.
Did the Russians screw around in our election? Yep. Did they have any real effect? Nope. Did the Trump Campaign collude in any way with the Russians? Nope.
Have the Chinese ever meddled in American elections? Yep. Effectively? I dunno, what can the Clinton's and the DNC do with a few million bucks? Was a special prosecutor appointed to look into that? Nope. Has Hillary gone out of her way, even during this latest COVID-19 pandemic to praise the Chinese? Yep. What is she getting out of it? I don't know.
Now, I'm going to watch Trump's briefing and you can go piss up a rope with your feigned concern.
-
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Should the guy in office acknowledge this and at least tell the Russians to knock it off?
Maybe the previous president should have done something to stop it, huh?
But he did nothing. It occurred on the Obama/Biden watch, didn't it?
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Should the guy in office acknowledge this and at least tell the Russians to knock it off?
Or rather - at the very least not say the intelligence community doesn't know they're talking about.
-
No.
-
When he said they didnt know what they were talking about, he was referring to their attempts to claim he colluded with the Russians, not whether or not they were meddling in the election.
You need to remember a few things, as you seem to be of the opinion that this report proves something negative about Trump. It does not. All it proves is that the Russians meddle in our election in an attempt to help Trump. It does not make the claim that Trump knew this, colluded with the Russians, or that the intelligence community is not guilty of pushing an attempted coup. All it does is prove the Russians meddle in our election, and in their opinion, did so in an attempt to help Trump win. That's old news. The Russians have been meddling in our elections for decades. They meddle in our election tions when Obama won, too. Maybe a Senate committee would prove the did so to help Obama win.
Don't think this proves anything. It doesnt.
-
-
@Improviso said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Should the guy in office acknowledge this and at least tell the Russians to knock it off?
Maybe the previous president should have done something to stop it, huh?
But he did nothing. It occurred on the Obama/Biden watch, didn't it?
He did - he sanctioned them in Dec 2016 after the election. Hard to say Russians are backing Trump during an active election without seeming biased.
The original IC report came out in Jan 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html
