Who was responsible for not revealing Russian

[Value Buy]

involvement in the Presidential race before the November election?
The answer might surprise you.
President Obama.
FBI Director wanted to make the announcement of Russian involvement in the election last summer.
The White House said no.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-tried-to-reveal-russian-plot-before-election/ar-BBz1IS3?li=BBnb7Kz

All because people wanted to make a joint announcement.........that never happened.

Our Government at work...........

[Tennesseer]

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

[Value Buy]

Mar 29, 2017 22:55:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

I agree with your assessment.
All we have to do is remember the Democrats argument with Hillary's dilemma with Comey.

BUT, it does not change the fact the Obama Administration kept it quiet for whatever reason, Trump won, and then people in sensitive government positions started releasing secret info almost every day after Trump became President and we have this mess now.
It looks like a case where the Obama Administration could not make a critical decision (again) which seems to be his biggest shortcoming in office.
Maybe they thought Trump would never win, and did not have to worry, and could release the data after the election?? 

[Value Buy]

Also from the article in the link


Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting , which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Homeland Security’s director and the national security adviser.

Related: FBI director confirms probe into possible Trump-Russia ties

The other national security leaders didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

[Value Buy]

I have to say, I have much more admiration for Comey with this disclosure.
He wanted to go public and was stopped in his tracks.

Is it possible, the Hillary situation became an issue when it did because Comey wanted to go public with the Russian situation, decided it was getting worse, did it his way, then get shut down by the WH because it would make the Administration look bad for not releasing it in June when first discussed?

Hillary might have been collateral damage with the infighting going on?

I am not saying this is what happened. I am asking if this was a possibility.

[zibazinski]

Russians had nothing to do with Hillary losing. Where's that dead horse symbol?

[Value Buy]

Mar 30, 2017 4:39:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Russians had nothing to do with Hillary losing. Where's that dead horse symbol?

Right here.    

I am not claiming it did. This is about the Russian meddling with the process. It looks like they did.
I am asking a question if Hillary became the collateral damage late in the game a week before the election with Comey announcing an investigation of the e-mails which were always part of the Russian release (if it was the Russians who did it and gave to WIKI Leaks.
It is beginning to look like Comey had enough, and had to come clean, and he might have been shutdown by the Administration without the real details coming out that this was thoeroughly discussed in June.
Hillary did indeed lose the battle on her own.
Very poor candidate.
Did not bother going to Wisconsin once. 
Let Hollywood celebs do the campaign appearances with/for her in the last month, especially in the rust belt where the actors and singers out shined her on the stage.
People came for the performing acts and put up with her 20 minute speeches where she told everyone it was a woman's time to be President.
Problem was the women's boyfriends or husbands across America listened to this a hundred times over the campaign season, and quietly decided, no it is not, and voted for Trump without consulting their soul mate, to the shock of their mates.
It looks like male voters  who do not always vote, came out in key states and actually decided the race for the guy who should have lost.
There were serious gender issues this time, which imo, backfired on Hillary who kept pushing the issue adnauseum..
There were serious immigration issues for America with people whose religion does not accept our Constitutional principles and practice religion that refutes these rights and our President had no issue with it. The major problem was his insistence it was not an issue, but in American's minds it is, and voted accordingly.
There were serious issues with a non-border on our southern border with Mexico where anyone could just come over and stay.
There were serious issues in America with Obamacare guarenteeing new hires were stuck at 27 hours and could not get full time employment because businesses would be forced to carry insurance on said employee.
There was a serious problem with businesses moving out to foreign lands due to political legislation hurting their profits as well as making it harder to produce their product here, as well as the wage differential.
There were serious issues with political correctness run amuck, and people were just at the point to scream 'STOP". I  blame this on the internet where everything seems to be magnified a 1,000 percent over night and becomes a national issue with voters.
Voters recognized that MSM was in the tank for one person and did not accept this.
Lastly, Hillary thought she watched the Electoral College map and had it cinched due to major polls that were politically slanted to show her winning states that were not there. This was not intentional.
No business wants to be proved totally inept. It was an error in data gathering processes where they spent time looking at certain demographics at too large of the percentage of the total vote that occurred.

[zibazinski]

Even though I'm glad she's not president, I feel sorry for her thinking she had it at last and had it rudely snatched away from her. That'd hurt anyone deeply.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 29, 2017 22:55:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

So do you think Obama made the right decision?

[engineerdoe]

Mar 29, 2017 23:28:44 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Also from the article in the link


Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting , which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Homeland Security’s director and the national security adviser.

Related: FBI director confirms probe into possible Trump-Russia ties

The other national security leaders didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

So Obama is at fault because he took the advice of the other national security leaders in the room?

[engineerdoe]

Mar 30, 2017 6:46:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 30, 2017 4:39:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Russians had nothing to do with Hillary losing. Where's that dead horse symbol?

Right here.    

I am not claiming it did. This is about the Russian meddling with the process. It looks like they did.
I am asking a question if Hillary became the collateral damage late in the game a week before the election with Comey announcing an investigation of the e-mails which were always part of the Russian release (if it was the Russians who did it and gave to WIKI Leaks.
It is beginning to look like Comey had enough, and had to come clean, and he might have been shutdown by the Administration without the real details coming out that this was thoeroughly discussed in June.
Hillary did indeed lose the battle on her own.
Very poor candidate.
Did not bother going to Wisconsin once. 
Let Hollywood celebs do the campaign appearances with/for her in the last month, especially in the rust belt where the actors and singers out shined her on the stage.
People came for the performing acts and put up with her 20 minute speeches where she told everyone it was a woman's time to be President.
Problem was the women's boyfriends or husbands across America listened to this a hundred times over the campaign season, and quietly decided, no it is not, and voted for Trump without consulting their soul mate, to the shock of their mates.
It looks like male voters  who do not always vote, came out in key states and actually decided the race for the guy who should have lost.
There were serious gender issues this time, which imo, backfired on Hillary who kept pushing the issue adnauseum..
There were serious immigration issues for America with people whose religion does not accept our Constitutional principles and practice religion that refutes these rights and our President had no issue with it. The major problem was his insistence it was not an issue, but in American's minds it is, and voted accordingly.
There were serious issues with a non-border on our southern border with Mexico where anyone could just come over and stay.
There were serious issues in America with Obamacare guarenteeing new hires were stuck at 27 hours and could not get full time employment because businesses would be forced to carry insurance on said employee.
There was a serious problem with businesses moving out to foreign lands due to political legislation hurting their profits as well as making it harder to produce their product here, as well as the wage differential.
There were serious issues with political correctness run amuck, and people were just at the point to scream 'STOP". I  blame this on the internet where everything seems to be magnified a 1,000 percent over night and becomes a national issue with voters.
Voters recognized that MSM was in the tank for one person and did not accept this.
Lastly, Hillary thought she watched the Electoral College map and had it cinched due to major polls that were politically slanted to show her winning states that were not there. This was not intentional.
No business wants to be proved totally inept. It was an error in data gathering processes where they spent time looking at certain demographics at too large of the percentage of the total vote that occurred.

The announcement by Comey was about emails the FBI found on a laptop in their possession in relation to the Spitzer investigation nothing to do with the Russians hacking the DNC.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 29, 2017 23:27:21 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 29, 2017 22:55:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

I agree with your assessment.
All we have to do is remember the Democrats argument with Hillary's dilemma with Comey.

BUT, it does not change the fact the Obama Administration kept it quiet for whatever reason, Trump won, and then people in sensitive government positions started releasing secret info almost every day after Trump became President and we have this mess now.
It looks like a case where the Obama Administration could not make a critical decision (again) which seems to be his biggest shortcoming in office.
Maybe they thought Trump would never win, and did not have to worry, and could release the data after the election?? 

That's my guess.  They figured it was a moot point and Trump wouldn't win regardless.  They were worried about the blow back from Trump supporters.

Furthermore, Trump was pushing the rhetoric of voter fraud and rigged elections and the media was insisting that he accept the results of the election (which at the time gave a 98% chance of Clinton willing).  Democrats were lambasting Trump, saying that the election is fair and such statements were an attack on democracy itself.

It would have looked pretty bad (i.e. hypocritical) before the election for democrats to come out with news that yeah, the election may be influenced, which would lend credence to Trump's assertion that the election was rigged.  At the very least, it would further muddy the waters of the election and possibly give Trump grounds to contest the election (which was supposedly a slam dunk for Hillary).

But Trump won, so now it's politically advantageous for the democrats to try and damage him as much as possible.   

Bottom line, it's all about the narrative the democrats and the liberal media want to push.  During the election, it was politically advantageous to counter Trump's assertion of rigged elections when they were certain Hillary would win.  But once he won, it was more politically advantageous to smear him as much as possible.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 30, 2017 4:39:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Russians had nothing to do with Hillary losing. Where's that dead horse symbol?

I don't doubt that Russia wanted Trump to win. I also don't doubt that they hacked the DNC servers and leaked some information damaging to the DNC and CNN. I even believe they were possibly behind some of the much discussed "fake news."

But was it enough to influence the election to the extent it changed the results? No, I don't think so. The leaked information from the DNC didn't really affect Clinton herself. It just showed the DNC was carrying the torch for Hillary over Bernie in the primaries, that CNN had e-mailed debate questions to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate, and some other embarrassing e-mails from the DNC. No bombshells.

 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 30, 2017 14:30:24 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 30, 2017 4:39:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Russians had nothing to do with Hillary losing. Where's that dead horse symbol?

I don't doubt that Russia wanted Trump to win. I also don't doubt that they hacked the DNC servers and leaked some information damaging to the DNC and CNN. I even believe they were possibly behind some of the much discussed "fake news."

But was it enough to influence the election to the extent it changed the results? No, I don't think so. The leaked information from the DNC didn't really affect Clinton herself. It just showed the DNC was carrying the torch for Hillary over Bernie in the primaries, that CNN had e-mailed debate questions to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate, and some other embarrassing e-mails from the DNC. No bombshells.

 

really?  you don't think the sum of that was over 1/2%?  because that is all it would have taken for Clinton to win.  and before you say no, 1/2% = movement.  that would be 1% of Democrats staying home, or 1% more Republicans voting, or 1/2% moving from one side to the other.

it is possible that it did NOT impact the outcome.  but to dismiss that possibility seems foolish to me.

[mroped]

"It's Obama's fault!"
Didnt take long to realize that did it?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 30, 2017 14:07:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 29, 2017 22:55:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

So do you think Obama made the right decision?

Not for Obama to intercede on Clinton's behalf in the election process and make it appear partisan? Yes.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 30, 2017 16:11:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 30, 2017 14:30:24 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I don't doubt that Russia wanted Trump to win. I also don't doubt that they hacked the DNC servers and leaked some information damaging to the DNC and CNN. I even believe they were possibly behind some of the much discussed "fake news."

But was it enough to influence the election to the extent it changed the results? No, I don't think so. The leaked information from the DNC didn't really affect Clinton herself. It just showed the DNC was carrying the torch for Hillary over Bernie in the primaries, that CNN had e-mailed debate questions to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate, and some other embarrassing e-mails from the DNC. No bombshells.

 

really?  you don't think the sum of that was over 1/2%?  because that is all it would have taken for Clinton to win.  and before you say no, 1/2% = movement.  that would be 1% of Democrats staying home, or 1% more Republicans voting, or 1/2% moving from one side to the other.

it is possible that it did NOT impact the outcome.  but to dismiss that possibility seems foolish to me.

It's all theoretical either way, we'll never know for sure.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 30, 2017 17:51:40 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 30, 2017 16:11:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  you don't think the sum of that was over 1/2%?  because that is all it would have taken for Clinton to win.  and before you say no, 1/2% = movement.  that would be 1% of Democrats staying home, or 1% more Republicans voting, or 1/2% moving from one side to the other.

it is possible that it did NOT impact the outcome.  but to dismiss that possibility seems foolish to me.

It's all theoretical either way, we'll never know for sure.

right, but that is not the discussion.  what you THINK is what the discussion is.

you said you don't think that it impacted the outcome enough.  what makes you think that?

my opinion is that the difference between winning and losing, particularly in a place like WI, was SO SMALL, that it absolutely could have made enough difference.  it seems silly to preclude that possibility to me.

the easiest thing to say is that Clinton did enough to lose without help from the Russians.  that would have not gotten any objection from me.  but to say that they didn't impact the election for Trump to win is just false.  i am not sure whether it is PROBABLE or not.  but it is certainly POSSIBLE.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 29, 2017 23:27:21 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 29, 2017 22:55:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And had the White House stated the Russians wanted Trump to win, trump supporters would have screamed and cried Obama was making trump look bad and wanted Clinton/Democratic party to win.

From your  link:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

I agree with your assessment.
All we have to do is remember the Democrats argument with Hillary's dilemma with Comey.

BUT, it does not change the fact the Obama Administration kept it quiet for whatever reason, Trump won, and then people in sensitive government positions started releasing secret info almost every day after Trump became President and we have this mess now.
It looks like a case where the Obama Administration could not make a critical decision (again) which seems to be his biggest shortcoming in office.
Maybe they thought Trump would never win, and did not have to worry, and could release the data after the election?? 

Are the insiders gong to be held accountable for their release of secret docs?  How many of the leakers are liberal faithbased?

liberal faithbased there is a good term,, working for the government to further your political views!!

[OldCoyote]

Mar 29, 2017 22:44:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

involvement in the Presidential race before the November election?
The answer might surprise you.
President Obama.
FBI Director wanted to make the announcement of Russian involvement in the election last summer.
The White House said no.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-tried-to-reveal-russian-plot-before-election/ar-BBz1IS3?li=BBnb7Kz

All because people wanted to make a joint announcement.........that never happened.

Our Government at work...........

Weren't we just told that Obama had no power over the FBI wiretapping of Trump towers.

but they have power to stop the so called Russian link!!  so which is it?

[Phoenix84]

Mar 30, 2017 17:56:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 30, 2017 17:51:40 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It's all theoretical either way, we'll never know for sure.

right, but that is not the discussion.  what you THINK is what the discussion is.

you said you don't think that it impacted the outcome enough.  what makes you think that?

my opinion is that the difference between winning and losing, particularly in a place like WI, was SO SMALL, that it absolutely could have made enough difference.  it seems silly to preclude that possibility to me.

the easiest thing to say is that Clinton did enough to lose without help from the Russians.  that would have not gotten any objection from me.  but to say that they didn't impact the election for Trump to win is just false.  i am not sure whether it is PROBABLE or not.  but it is certainly POSSIBLE.

I already stated my reasoning.  I think that the fruits of the Russian hacks were sufficiently divorced from Clinton personally and sufficiently small in scope as to not have a effect in the outcome of the election.

And granted, the margin of victory was incredibly small in some swing states, but Trump could lose any one and still won the presidency. 

If Trump's victory was based on one or two swing states, you might have more justification to say that it influenced the election, but the overall electoral victory was substantial. 

I'm not saying it's impossible, it is, but my assessment is that it didn't influence the outcome. 

[billisonboard]

Mar 30, 2017 22:46:02 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

.. the FBI wiretapping of Trump towers.
...

Other than a three am tweet, do you have a link to FBI wiretapping of Trump Towers?

[Value Buy]

Mar 30, 2017 14:14:16 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

Mar 29, 2017 23:28:44 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Also from the article in the link


Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting , which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Homeland Security’s director and the national security adviser.

Related: FBI director confirms probe into possible Trump-Russia ties

The other national security leaders didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

So Obama is at fault because he took the advice of the other national security leaders in the room?

Yes. Read the article. The WH said it had to be a coordinated public release. It never happened, therefore, the WH and the President himself is reponsible.

[Value Buy]

Mar 30, 2017 14:16:47 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

Mar 30, 2017 6:46:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Right here.    

I am not claiming it did. This is about the Russian meddling with the process. It looks like they did.
I am asking a question if Hillary became the collateral damage late in the game a week before the election with Comey announcing an investigation of the e-mails which were always part of the Russian release (if it was the Russians who did it and gave to WIKI Leaks.
It is beginning to look like Comey had enough, and had to come clean, and he might have been shutdown by the Administration without the real details coming out that this was thoeroughly discussed in June.
Hillary did indeed lose the battle on her own.
Very poor candidate.
Did not bother going to Wisconsin once. 
Let Hollywood celebs do the campaign appearances with/for her in the last month, especially in the rust belt where the actors and singers out shined her on the stage.
People came for the performing acts and put up with her 20 minute speeches where she told everyone it was a woman's time to be President.
Problem was the women's boyfriends or husbands across America listened to this a hundred times over the campaign season, and quietly decided, no it is not, and voted for Trump without consulting their soul mate, to the shock of their mates.
It looks like male voters  who do not always vote, came out in key states and actually decided the race for the guy who should have lost.
There were serious gender issues this time, which imo, backfired on Hillary who kept pushing the issue adnauseum..
There were serious immigration issues for America with people whose religion does not accept our Constitutional principles and practice religion that refutes these rights and our President had no issue with it. The major problem was his insistence it was not an issue, but in American's minds it is, and voted accordingly.
There were serious issues with a non-border on our southern border with Mexico where anyone could just come over and stay.
There were serious issues in America with Obamacare guarenteeing new hires were stuck at 27 hours and could not get full time employment because businesses would be forced to carry insurance on said employee.
There was a serious problem with businesses moving out to foreign lands due to political legislation hurting their profits as well as making it harder to produce their product here, as well as the wage differential.
There were serious issues with political correctness run amuck, and people were just at the point to scream 'STOP". I  blame this on the internet where everything seems to be magnified a 1,000 percent over night and becomes a national issue with voters.
Voters recognized that MSM was in the tank for one person and did not accept this.
Lastly, Hillary thought she watched the Electoral College map and had it cinched due to major polls that were politically slanted to show her winning states that were not there. This was not intentional.
No business wants to be proved totally inept. It was an error in data gathering processes where they spent time looking at certain demographics at too large of the percentage of the total vote that occurred.

The announcement by Comey was about emails the FBI found on a laptop in their possession in relation to the Spitzer investigation nothing to do with the Russians hacking the DNC.

I might be having a senior moment, but you will have to explain how a Spitzer investigation was involved, and it had nothing to do with the Russians hacking the DNC......
I am not remembering  a Spitzer investigation with any of this.
I thought the FBI investigation leading to the email scandal involving Comey were several investigations.
One with Hillary's server and the her aid, having all the emails on a computer at her residence where her husband had access to it,
and two,the FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC.
TY

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2017 9:31:15 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 30, 2017 17:56:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

right, but that is not the discussion.  what you THINK is what the discussion is.

you said you don't think that it impacted the outcome enough.  what makes you think that?

my opinion is that the difference between winning and losing, particularly in a place like WI, was SO SMALL, that it absolutely could have made enough difference.  it seems silly to preclude that possibility to me.

the easiest thing to say is that Clinton did enough to lose without help from the Russians.  that would have not gotten any objection from me.  but to say that they didn't impact the election for Trump to win is just false.  i am not sure whether it is PROBABLE or not.  but it is certainly POSSIBLE.

I already stated my reasoning.  I think that the fruits of the Russian hacks were sufficiently divorced from Clinton personally and sufficiently small in scope as to not have a effect in the outcome of the election.

And granted, the margin of victory was incredibly small in some swing states, but Trump could lose any one and still won the presidency. 

If Trump's victory was based on one or two swing states, you might have more justification to say that it influenced the election, but the overall electoral victory was substantial. 

I'm not saying it's impossible, it is, but my assessment is that it didn't influence the outcome. 

yes, but there is a lot of parallel movement in the polls.  in other words, a 1/2% movement in WI will also result in a 1/2% movement in PA.  i can't remember what this phenomena is called.  LINKEAGE, i think.  the margin of victory was less than 1% in MI, PA and WI.  it was NOT a substantial victory.  at all.

all i am saying is this: this was a very close race.  any number of factors could have tilted it.  imo, it absolutely influenced the outcome- this is undeniable, imo- but it might not have DETERMINED it.

if this presidency is called illegitimate in the future, i think there is significant evidence to back that up.

[engineerdoe]

Apr 1, 2017 13:26:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 30, 2017 14:16:47 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

The announcement by Comey was about emails the FBI found on a laptop in their possession in relation to the Spitzer investigation nothing to do with the Russians hacking the DNC.

I might be having a senior moment, but you will have to explain how a Spitzer investigation was involved, and it had nothing to do with the Russians hacking the DNC......
I am not remembering  a Spitzer investigation with any of this.
I thought the FBI investigation leading to the email scandal involving Comey were several investigations.
One with Hillary's server and the her aid, having all the emails on a computer at her residence where her husband had access to it,
and two,the FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC.
TY

Sorry, I misspoke.  

Anthony Weiner was being investigated for sexting an underage girl and in the process of checking his laptop in that investigation they found some emails that his wife Huma Abedin may have sent to Clinton and others but they were copies of emails they already had in the investigation to Clinton's personal server.  Clinton having the private server was separate from the Russians hacking the DNC.