3 ms·

Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. While there was obviously some of that already happ

Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. While there was obviously some of that already happening, a big part of the efforts did in fact focus on trying to split the vote of the Left and push people to Bernie/Stein/etc. The efforts don't have to have been purely pro-Trump to have been effective.

xster 9y ago
Assume I temporarily freeze all other thoughts and fully accept that there was such a thing as 'election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left', that would be them tossing out their one in a lifetime chance to get a massive foot-gun against their interest instead. More than any high level official, Clinton has a sparkling track record of financial pliability towards Russian interest. A 0.5 million speech for Bill Clinton to a Russian bank was pretty much all it took for 20% of US uranium assets. With insiders like Tony Podesta, a Clinton presidency is like a Russian wet dream. Even Clinton campaign's internal self assessment of their own candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted her being pretty much a Russian agent as being one of her top vulnerabilities as a candidate. Clinton has her share of hawkish tendencies but only to countries that are principled and didn't bribe her. Unlike the Republicans that are the original neocons and empire builders, Clinton wasn't ideological. Weapons, chemicals, anything was for everyone, Algeria, Egypt, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, anything was for grabs for cheap. Another Republican would have been far more damaging for the Russians whereas a Clinton presidency would have been an extremely rare opportunity.
- shostack 9y ago
  You only partially quoted me. I said a "large part of their interference," not all of it as your quote implies. It has been confirmed by the intelligence community that a general theme of the interference was that they wanted to ruin Hillary specifically. I suggest you get up to speed on the official findings that have been declassified and released.[1] I also suggest you read up on the Uranium One situation[2] as what you are portraying is very different from what the facts say, and follow a debunked narrative. In fact, in his Wednesday testimony this week, AG Sessions indicated it did not currently merit a special prosecutor due to lack of evidence.[3] If you'd like to continue this debate and making claims, I request that you back them up with credible sources. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... [2] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-ur... [3] http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-in-house-hearing-even-republicans-are-1510678347-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essenti...
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. No, 100% of it focussed on dividing and weakening America, guaranteeing that whoever won would be in a weaker position from which to counter Russian geopolitical efforts.
- shostack 9y ago
  I don't disagree, but when we delve into specific tactics, it has been confirmed by the intelligence community that one approach they took was trying to sow dissent among the left by splitting the voter base and trying to suppress voter turnout for Hillary.

xster 9y ago

Assume I temporarily freeze all other thoughts and fully accept that there was such a thing as 'election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left', that would be them tossing out their one in a lifetime chance to get a massive foot-gun against their interest instead. More than any high level official, Clinton has a sparkling track record of financial pliability towards Russian interest. A 0.5 million speech for Bill Clinton to a Russian bank was pretty much all it took for 20% of US uranium assets. With insiders like Tony Podesta, a Clinton presidency is like a Russian wet dream. Even Clinton campaign's internal self assessment of their own candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted her being pretty much a Russian agent as being one of her top vulnerabilities as a candidate. Clinton has her share of hawkish tendencies but only to countries that are principled and didn't bribe her. Unlike the Republicans that are the original neocons and empire builders, Clinton wasn't ideological. Weapons, chemicals, anything was for everyone, Algeria, Egypt, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, anything was for grabs for cheap. Another Republican would have been far more damaging for the Russians whereas a Clinton presidency would have been an extremely rare opportunity.

shostack 9y ago
You only partially quoted me. I said a "large part of their interference," not all of it as your quote implies. It has been confirmed by the intelligence community that a general theme of the interference was that they wanted to ruin Hillary specifically. I suggest you get up to speed on the official findings that have been declassified and released.[1] I also suggest you read up on the Uranium One situation[2] as what you are portraying is very different from what the facts say, and follow a debunked narrative. In fact, in his Wednesday testimony this week, AG Sessions indicated it did not currently merit a special prosecutor due to lack of evidence.[3] If you'd like to continue this debate and making claims, I request that you back them up with credible sources. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-inte... [2] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-ur... [3] http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-in-house-hearing-even-republicans-are-1510678347-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essenti...

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Please keep in mind that a large part of the election interference from Russia focused on dividing the left. No, 100% of it focussed on dividing and weakening America, guaranteeing that whoever won would be in a weaker position from which to counter Russian geopolitical efforts.

shostack 9y ago
I don't disagree, but when we delve into specific tactics, it has been confirmed by the intelligence community that one approach they took was trying to sow dissent among the left by splitting the voter base and trying to suppress voter turnout for Hillary.