Russian Hacking

[task0778]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

So if I attempt to rob a bank but get away with no money, I've committed no crime?

The hacking was a crime in and of itself, was it not?

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

 

[toobfreak]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.

That is because there aren't any. Just baseless allegations. The Left uses the allegation itself as the proof of the allegation. It all stems from the theory that if you keep telling a lie often enough, eventually it will be believed as truth. The Left ran out of facts on their side years ago so bullshit is all they got now.

 

[toobfreak]

Can anyone tell me what Obama means by saying American elections are impossible to hack? I don't quite understand.

That was the mantra just last year when Trump was concerned for voter cheating that our election process was absolutely safe and secure and no one could significantly impact it------ until Hillary LOST the election.

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assesments don't make them any less true.

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

There are lots of things that influence elections. It's called campaigning and free speech.
It may leave a bad taste in our mouths when Russians or other foreigners become active in our politics, but it isn't illegal.
It is an issue for voters. If a voter doesn't like a candidate or those supporting that candidate then they get to vote.
As long as people don't break campaign finance laws, there are no crimes committed.
Unfortunately, communication via the internet has opened the door for the world to participate.

Gaining access to a private email account and releasing that information in such a way that it does maximum damage to one candidate isn't free speech. It is in fact deemed illegal to do so. If the hack would have been traced to a US citizen he would have been charged. And like I said the fact that they did so isn't the most important issue. The more important question is WHY. For a foreign government to interfere in an election is no small matter. It is reasonable to assume that the Russians feel they would have something to gain. WHAT??? You can deny, come up with justification or just say it doesn't matter, but the fact is that a foreign power. An unfriendly foreign power strived for the election to have a specific winner and it is unlikely they did so with the US's best interest in mind.

 

[task0778]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. Worrying about why the Russians did the hacking is YOUR strawman, and has nothing to do with any possible collusion by Trump or his campaign. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information.

 

[BlindBoo]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

 

[bendog]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

The problem was more that Trump used the hacking and Russian false media reports to fuel his campaign narrative. Before 2016, I'd have said there was zero chance of a republican doing that, and if a dem did it, he/she would be called out as being left of McGovern and a traitor.

But yes you're right the real "evil doers" in this aren't even the ruskies. We do the same to other nations. But the evil doers are the Trumpbots, who side with Wikileaks against truthful reporting and the interests of their country in having leaders who don't owe their political success to enemies.

And yes, Clinton took money from bad people and the dems never should have nominated her ... or Bernie the Socialist.

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information. Worrying about why is YOUR strawman.

Why is it a strawman? In my view, and I'm well aware that this is me putting out an opinion, why is the most important thing. If you go by the reasonable assumption that Russia had something to gain from getting Trump elected. It would follow that that something more than likely wouldn't be in the best interest of the United States. That fact alone should give serious pause to those preferring Trump. As to me delegitimizing Trump voters. Most of my in laws voted for Trump. I don't consider them stupid. I do consider them scared and as you pointed out mad at the establishment. I understand the appeal of just saying fuck you to all things political. On the other hand voting for Trump as an answer to political clientelism and globalisation. Is hiring a fox to look over a hen house

 

[toobfreak]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Sorry, Boo, but you've been duped by more, clever, exhaustive attempts at propaganda. Worse, the report admits there is no evidence! Only that they THINK the Russians did it. But lastly, JUST WHERE were these attempts to dissuade voters and discredit Hillary? I follow this stuff closely and I saw nothing. The closest thing it makes to a specific allegation of wrongdoing was to claim RT TV was in on it! What total crap! Who the hell watches RT? I could make the same case that CNN was in the tank trying to undermine public opinion on Trump. Bottom line: your "government report" is bullshit.

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

 

[forkup]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Sorry, Boo, but you've been duped by more, clever, exhaustive attempts at propaganda. Worse, the report admits there is no evidence! Only that they THINK the Russians did it. But lastly, JUST WHERE were these attempts to dissuade voters and discredit Hillary? I follow this stuff closely and I saw nothing. The closest thing it makes to a specific allegation of wrongdoing was to claim RT TV was in on it! What total crap! Who the hell watches RT? I could make the same case that CNN was in the tank trying to undermine public opinion on Trump. Bottom line: your "government report" is bullshit.

Check out all the OP's on wikileaks during the campaign. That constitutes a concerted campaign to discredit Hillary,doesn't it?

 

[toobfreak]

It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument.

Thank you. You have just invalidated this whole topic and basis for complaint. No one can say with any certainty whether anyone was influenced or in which way by who. Since every damned news source out there was putting a spin on things, it was every man for himself. And based on the fact that around 96% of all news stories on Trump is negative, it is an astounding suggestion to say that Hillary lost because an obscure Russian TV station wasn't in the tank for her too. Blowin' my mind on the suspension of credibility here!

 

[toobfreak]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

So if I attempt to rob a bank but get away with no money, I've committed no crime?

non sequitur bullcrap.

 

[toobfreak]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

Obama tried to influence other nation's elections far more than the Russians apparently ever tried!

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

The problem was more that Trump used the hacking and Russian false media reports to fuel his campaign narrative. Before 2016, I'd have said there was zero chance of a republican doing that, and if a dem did it, he/she would be called out as being left of McGovern and a traitor.

But yes you're right the real "evil doers" in this aren't even the ruskies. We do the same to other nations. But the evil doers are the Trumpbots, who side with Wikileaks against truthful reporting and the interests of their country in having leaders who don't owe their political success to enemies.

And yes, Clinton took money from bad people and the dems never should have nominated her ... or Bernie the Socialist.

The evildoers, to use your term, here are the Obama supporters who understand Obama created all this anti Russian hysteria to try to divert attention from the revelations of Clinton's email scandals and have no problem with the Obama administration using the CIA and Justice Department to advance this hoax and have no problem with the Obama administration putting politics in front of policy considerations by using Russia in this way. Like Obama you are saying we should not pay attention to the truth about Clinton because there are rumors that Russians may have helped to expose it. Talk about evildoers!

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

Obama tried to influence other nation's elections far more than the Russians apparently ever tried!

lol The only thing we know about Russia trying to influence our election is what we saw or read in their media. All the rest seems so far to be just unsubstantiated rumors the Democrats and MSM have been trying to pass off as facts.

 

[forkup]

It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument.

Thank you. You have just invalidated this whole topic and basis for complaint. No one can say with any certainty whether anyone was influenced or in which way by who. Since every damned news source out there was putting a spin on things, it was every man for himself. And based on the fact that around 96% of all news stories on Trump is negative, it is an astounding suggestion to say that Hillary lost because an obscure Russian TV station wasn't in the tank for her too. Blowin' my mind on the suspension of credibility here!

So besides that obscure Russian TV station nobody reported on wikileaks, or put out fake news stories.Or put out any negative information about Clinton. I seem to recall stuff like piizzagate, actually accusing Clinton of running a pedofile ring. Or Fox news as current as a few weeks ago claiming that one of the people on her campaign got assasinated. My point is that the Russians did at the very least try to influence the election. And that fact coupled with, and lets not forget that ,Trumps actions point to something at the very least pretty suspicious, or have you ever heard of any previous president not just firing somebody who is investigating your campaign but than subsequently both inviting the other party under investigation and then doing what you were accused of in the first place,(namely collusion with the Russians). Hilary was deemed to be not worthy of the presidency for objectively less reason.

 

[BlindBoo]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

 

[task0778]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information. Worrying about why is YOUR strawman.

Why is it a strawman? In my view, and I'm well aware that this is me putting out an opinion, why is the most important thing. If you go by the reasonable assumption that Russia had something to gain from getting Trump elected. It would follow that that something more than likely wouldn't be in the best interest of the United States. That fact alone should give serious pause to those preferring Trump. As to me delegitimizing Trump voters. Most of my in laws voted for Trump. I don't consider them stupid. I do consider them scared and as you pointed out mad at the establishment. I understand the appeal of just saying fuck you to all things political. On the other hand voting for Trump as an answer to political clientelism and globalisation. Is hiring a fox to look over a hen house

Might have been a personal thing with Putin against Hillary as opposed to them liking Trump more than her. Frankly I think the Russians believed like everyone else did that Hillary was going to win and so this hacking wasn't an attempt to influence our election. It was instead a shot across the bows at Clinton for attacking Putin. The Donald might not be the only thin-skinned political leader out there.