• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yes, Virginia, Russians did help Trump Win

Fletch said:
Russian activity did not sway the election. Period.
Click to expand...

*Snort*

Russians chose a candidate and bought ads to support him and attack his opponents. Russians recruited activists to amplify their message. They organized rallies. They focused on swing states. They did what all campaigns do to win votes.

Yeah, they swayed the election.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Russian activity did not sway the election. Period.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, that point is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that they meddled in our election and that Donald accepted their help. Collusion.
 
Kal'Stang said:
To be honest I'm conflicted. As an American yes, it does piss me off that the Russians tried to interfere. However also as an American all the advertising and words is just free speech. A Right that I apply to one and all no matter where they are in the world. Which should I put above the other? Country? Or Rights? That is the dilemma that I have.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most naive statements that I have heard on DP. A foreign nation is trying to destabilize the country and you think that is protected by free speech? WTF? Its an act of war its about as of an aggressive enough attack without actually using conventional weapons as you can get. This isnt a couple trolls making posts its a big operation that has apparently been working on people like you. Wake up and smell the roses, you've been manipulated by Putin to hate your fellow Americans.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don’t even remember what those emails said.

They were stolen emails, so they are akin to “fruits of the poisoned tree.”
Click to expand...

No. :no:

Aside from the fact the information was not used in a court of law, but published in an open media forums, they are not "fruit of the poisonous tree." That is an extension of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to evidence obtained illegally by government official/agency.

SCOTUS clarified this in Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921):

1. The United States may retain for use as evidence in the criminal prosecution of their owner incriminating documents which are turned over to it by private individuals who procured them, without the participation or knowledge of any government official, through a wrongful search of the owner's private desk and papers in an office. P. 256 U. S. 474.

2. The provision of the Fourth Amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures refers to governmental action; the Fifth Amendment secures the citizen from compulsory testimony against himself by protecting him from extorted confessions and examinations in court proceedings by compulsory methods. P. 256 U. S. 475.
Click to expand...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

The SCOTUS also rejected indiscriminate use of the Exclusionary Rule in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984):

The question whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case as a judicially created remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, must be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of preventing the use in the prosecution's case in chief of inherently trustworthy tangible evidence. Indiscriminate application of the exclusionary rule -- impeding the criminal justice system's truthfinding function and allowing some guilty defendants to go free -- may well generate disrespect for the law and the administration of justice.
Click to expand...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/897/case.html

Again in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006) HUDSON v. MICHIGAN [04-1360] | FindLaw

In any case, the exclusionary rule applies to court cases, not public dissemination in either WikiLeaks, or those other more public organizations like MSN, Twitter, etc.

While the information may have had an unscrupulous source, it was nonetheless true and WE can and did use it to help make our decisions during the election.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
That is one of the most naive statements that I have heard on DP. A foreign nation is trying to destabilize the country and you think that is protected by free speech? WTF? Its an act of war its about as of an aggressive enough attack without actually using conventional weapons as you can get. This isnt a couple trolls making posts its a big operation that has apparently been working on people like you. Wake up and smell the roses, you've been manipulated by Putin to hate your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Ok, its obvious that you care more for the country than free speech rights. And thats perfectly fine. World would suck if we all thought the same. ;)
 
You can only trust the POTUS ;)





:elephantf:usflag2:

tumblr_p1nla88DZ81skfdzbo1_1280.jpg
 
Redress said:
That is not what he said.
Click to expand...

His actual words were:

"There is no allegation in the indictment, that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

.
 
calamity said:
Trump and his minions are pretending that yesterday's indictments mean nothing. In fact, the Dotard is trying to argue that the indictment proves Russians did not sway the election his way---an amazing bit of denial that only an idiot would conclude or could possibly believe. Anyway, this article states the obvious.
Click to expand...

No Calamity, it pretty much means little to nothing in the overall scheme of things.

It is an indictment. An indictment is not evidence or fact. It is a legal accusation, the Prosecutors narrative, that is all.
Those accused are likely never to see the interior of a US Court and thus these charges/accusations will never be legally established, verified or rebutted.
Which makes his announcement and language used suspect.


As for the alleged activities? Sewing discord was the objective and it appears as though they succeeded giving the numerous irrational anti-Trump posts on this very forum.
They are not likely to have caused anyone to vote differently than they already were because peoples minds were already made up when Trump won the primary, which is when they supposedly shifted to Trump support messaging.

As Barnacle previously pointed out, the Facebook VP of ads, Rob Goldman (you know, the guy who saw all those ads) contradicts Mueller's narrative in the indictment which also contributes to it being suspect.


Rob Goldman said:
Feb 16
Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.​

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.
5:57 PM - 16 Feb 2018​

Feb 16
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.​

Feb 16

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.


The single best demonstration of Russia's true motives is the Houston anti-islamic protest. Americans were literally puppeted into the streets by trolls who organized both the sides of protest.​


LINK
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
*Snort*

Russians chose a candidate and bought ads to support him and attack his opponents. Russians recruited activists to amplify their message. They organized rallies. They focused on swing states. They did what all campaigns do to win votes.

Yeah, they swayed the election.
Click to expand...

Really? You are going with that?

Please, elaborate.
This supposed support came after Trump won the primary (you know, at a time when it is likely that most people had already made up their mind who they were going to vote for.
So how did the alleged meager effort influence anyone not to vote for who they already chose to vote for?

Please show everybody this significant mass of folks who would have swung the election the other way but for this meager ad effort. And keep in mind what Rob Goldman, Facebook VP of ads said about the ads and the spending for those ads.
 
calamity said:
Trump and his minions are pretending that yesterday's indictments mean nothing. In fact, the Dotard is trying to argue that the indictment proves Russians did not sway the election his way---an amazing bit of denial that only an idiot would conclude or could possibly believe. Anyway, this article states the obvious.
Click to expand...

Seeing as even Comey, under oath. Already shot down this whole Russia nonsense.

This is Just another big nothing burger.
 
Redress said:
What about the wire fraud? What about the identity theft? What about the hackings(though that was not part of this indictment)? This is not a free speech issue, it is a criminal issue, as in people breaking our laws. Your attempts to spin it into a free speech issue to defend your dear Trump is laughable and sad.
Click to expand...

None of the theft and fraud changes any of the First Amendment issues.

"The Post" was just in theaters. It's about the Pentagon Papers. The papers were leaked illegally. But that didn't negate the NYT's or WaPo's First Amendment right to publish them. So sayeth the Supreme Court in that landmark case.

Crimes are crimes and should be prosecuted. But true information is still true information however it was obtained.

Do you argue that it should have been illegal to publish hacked e-mails?
 
Grim17 said:
His actual words were:

"There is no allegation in the indictment, that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

.
Click to expand...

Which is nothing like saying Russian interference did not affect the outcome, or even that the people indicted did not affect the election. All it says is that there is nothing in the indictment saying it affected the outcome, which should be obvious since it is outside the realm of the indictment to make such a claim.
 
Harshaw said:
None of the theft and fraud changes any of the First Amendment issues.

"The Post" was just in theaters. It's about the Pentagon Papers. The papers were leaked illegally. But that didn't negate the NYT's or WaPo's First Amendment right to publish them. So sayeth the Supreme Court in that landmark case.

Crimes are crimes and should be prosecuted. But true information is still true information however it was obtained.

Do you argue that it should have been illegal to publish hacked e-mails?
Click to expand...

I think my post went way over your head, or you are trying to build some really weird strawman. Not sure which, but your post has exactly jack and **** to do with what I wrote.
 
Redress said:
I think my post went way over your head, or you are trying to build some really weird strawman. Not sure which, but your post has exactly jack and **** to do with what I wrote.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with what you wrote. You want to focus on the crimes and decry what you call an attempt to turn it into a "free speech issue." But the issues are separate, and concurrent.

As for "strawmen," your reply to Kal about wire fraud and theft had little to do with his post about advertising and propaganda.

The issue of Russian meddling via social media and advertising is very much a First Amendment issue. It can suck, yet still be so.
 
Kal'Stang said:
According to Rosenstein it didn't affect the outcome. But I guess you will ignore the DAG of the DOJ....cause, ya know....TRUMP! :roll:
Click to expand...

Rosenstein also believes the Trump administration needs to be investigated for crimes by Mueller. Do you agree with him or were you just cherry picking when you think it helps you?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
No. I just understand that Putin has no right to free speech, in the US.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Everyone has a Right to Free Speech.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...

Just because the US government may not recognize other peoples Rights doesn't mean that they do not have those Rights.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Rosenstein also believes the Trump administration needs to be investigated for crimes by Mueller. Do you agree with him or were you just cherry picking when you think it helps you?
Click to expand...

I believe that anyone that is legitimately suspected of a crime should be investigated for said crime. :shrug: Trump is no different.
 
Kal'Stang said:
According to Rosenstein it didn't affect the outcome. But I guess you will ignore the DAG of the DOJ....cause, ya know....TRUMP! :roll:
Click to expand...

That is not what Rosenstein said:
There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.
Click to expand...
QUESTION: Jack, is there concern that this -- the (ph) indictment undermines the outcome of the election?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, haven't I (ph) identified for you the allegations in the indictment? There's no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ve_deputy_ag_rod_rosenstein_announcement.html

He did not say there was no effect on the outcome. He said there was no allegation in the indictment that the results of the election were altered. Those are two completely different statements.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Meh, semantical really. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Words have meanings. There either is, or is not an allegation that the results of the election were altered. This conclusion was not offered in the indictment. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the indictment doesn't speak to it one way or another.

Mueller does make numerous allegations of the persons in the indictment actively engaging in trying to interfere with the election.
Defendant INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC ("ORGANIZATION") is a Russian
organization engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes.
Click to expand...
3. Beginning as early as 2014, Defendant ORGANIZATION began operations to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Click to expand...
7. In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.
Click to expand...

Read the full indictment against 13 Russians in special counsel probe - ABC News

Were they successful? We don't know, but Mueller doesn't offer that conclusion, nor does he say they weren't successful in altering the outcome.

Until the investigation is over, it's premature to say one way or the other.
 
Gina said:
Words have meanings. There either is, or is not an allegation that the results of the election were altered. This conclusion was not offered in the indictment. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the indictment doesn't speak to it one way or another.

Mueller does make numerous allegations of the persons in the indictment actively engaging in trying to interfere with the election.




Read the full indictment against 13 Russians in special counsel probe - ABC News

Were they successful? We don't know, but Mueller doesn't offer that conclusion, nor does he say they weren't successful in altering the outcome.

Until the investigation is over, it's premature to say one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Actually it is possible to say right now. Just ask yourself a question. Did anything that you saw through out the campaign convince you to vote the way that you did? What was it? Was it an aggregate of things? If so then what were they? Any of it because of Russians? If the answer to that last question is "no" then they did not influence your vote. I know for a fact that they didn't influence mine.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually it is possible to say right now. Just ask yourself a question. Did anything that you saw through out the campaign convince you to vote the way that you did? What was it? Was it an aggregate of things? If so then what were they? Any of it because of Russians? If the answer to that last question is "no" then they did not influence your vote. I know for a fact that they didn't influence mine.
Click to expand...

And so that's two people. Not the entire electorate. There may be no way to prove the outcome was effected. One way or the other. So stating there was no effect, or there was an effect on the results of the election, may eventually just come down to opinion. One thing we can see though, is that Mueller has not made allegations or offered a conclusion, one way or the other.
 
Gina said:
And so that's two people. Not the entire electorate. There may be no way to prove the outcome was effected. One way or the other. So stating there was no effect, or there was an effect on the results of the election, may eventually just come down to opinion. One thing we can see though, is that Mueller has not made allegations or offered a conclusion, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Nor should he as that is not his job. And my questions apply to everyone that voted or even those that did vote. So it should be an easy question to answer. Unfortunately people aren't near as introspective as they should be. So you're right that we probably will never know for sure. But I do have a fairly good idea. Most of our electorate more than likely voted based on single issues. Maybe two or three if they happened to coincide with their first issue. That would lead them to the candidate that they thought best represented that issue. Which for many means either a "D" or an "R". Not any particular candidate.

However there is another reason that I'm fairly certain that the Russians attempt to influence our election failed, particularly when it came to its support of Trump. I saw more vitriol against Trump than I have ever seen against any other Presidential Candidate in my entire lifetime. From the very beginning the majority of the media laughed at even the thought of a Trump Presidency. Towards the end there they were so vitriolic that I'm surprised that they didn't burn a hole to the other side of the earth.
 
Grand Mal said:
maybe not, but the effort was made. Doesn't that piss you off>
Click to expand...

Doesn't it piss you off that the American people are such idiots that anyone...from any country...can mount a campaign to sway our election...and succeed? Or, at least, that's what you appear to think about the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom