3 ms·

We should all reflect on why this story is getting so little coverage in contrast to the 'Russian interference' narrative of 2017.

• AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  At least partly because interfering with the election of the US president is quite a bit more significant than interfering with the election of one representative.
  • kelnos 5y ago
    On the flip side, though, I could easily see a government spend very little money (say, a couple hundred thousand dollars) to disrupt the campaigns of several tens of potential US Representatives. Given how things work in the House, a state actor could nudge things in the direction they want by disrupting a fairly small percentage of elections. Presidential election interference would seem to cost a lot more than that, and be a bit more difficult to hide.
• HWR_14 5y ago
  1) it was just published today 2) successfully rigging a presidential election is more significant than attempting to influence a congressional primary 3) these people were caught and prosecuted by the federal government, Russian interference was encouraged by the POTUS in 2017 (post Jan 20)