5 ms·
Other have rebutted the claim that the evidence of Russian influence was "tenuous" and "circumstantial", but one piece of information that they haven't mentione
by purephase 6y ago
Other have rebutted the claim that the evidence of Russian influence was "tenuous" and "circumstantial", but one piece of information that they haven't mentioned is that the Republican led Senates' own intel report the coroborated the claims made by the Democrats.
Also, it was the Republican DoJ w/Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein that commissionned the Mueller report (Robert Mueller, a Republican as well).
To continue to believe otherwise and post these false claims online only makes you part of the problem, not actually looking for a solution.
I say this as someone who is generally not a fan of the approach that Twitter, Youtube etc. make in terms of censorship like this. I just think we all need to call a spade a spade when we see it though, and the evidence here is overwhelming.
- sixQuarks 6y agoWhat claims did the senate corroborate?
- mrlala 6y ago>https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-new-report-intel-community-assessment-russian-interference https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea... >The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump >The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I'm not sure why people go around saying that Russian interference was not a real thing? The REPUBLICAN senate confirmed this.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xadhominemx 6y agoHave you tried googling for this information?
- sixQuarks 6y agoYes, and it says republicans and democrats disagreed with the conclusions. The appendix written by each side is totally different. Ok forget about trump Russia collusion. What about when they said Russia was trying to interfere with the Bernie campaign. What are we to believe? Who decides what to censor?
- mywittyname 6y agoThere's inherently wrong with circumstantial evidence. A lot of the most conclusive evidence can be circumstantial. DNS evidence is almost always circumstantial, yet nobody would use that to cast doubt on a claim.
- cambalache 6y agoHow is that the previous election under Obama was heavily compromised and this election under Trump is the most secure in the history of the country? What changed? Because in these 4 years foreign online attacks have become better and more sophisticated, not less/
- purephase 6y agoIt's not the actual election and it's machinations that were comprised in 2016. It was online discourse and disinformation tactics used to discredit Hilary in favour of Trump. And, no one believes that 2020 was any different in that regard. They may have been more sophisticated this time around, but the force of COVID and Trump's utter ineptitude really broke through to a lot of people who sat out 2016. I imagine that if you dive into the anti-COVID rhetoric, Stop the Steal etc. you'll find the same cast of characters responsible for Lock Her Up, and Emails etc.