Mixing
What is the evidence for the Russian interference in the US 2016 election? What are the known facts?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Anyone have a breakdown on what we actually know for sure? There's a lot of speculation out there, but what are the known FACTS?
united-states russian-federation geopolitics
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Anyone have a breakdown on what we actually know for sure? There's a lot of speculation out there, but what are the known FACTS?
united-states russian-federation geopolitics
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Anyone have a breakdown on what we actually know for sure? There's a lot of speculation out there, but what are the known FACTS?
united-states russian-federation geopolitics
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Anyone have a breakdown on what we actually know for sure? There's a lot of speculation out there, but what are the known FACTS?
united-states russian-federation geopolitics
united-states russian-federation geopolitics
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
edited 1 hour ago
Fizz
8,47812265
8,47812265
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
asked 2 hours ago
Deirdre Monaghana
543
543
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
"The known FACTS" is not a terribly well-defined concept. Different types of election interference have been alleged by different people. Some of these allegations have been vetted by news organizations; some have not. Some have been admitted to by the people involved; some have not. It is probably too early, historically speaking, to know precisely what happened.
With this in mind, I will focus on the indictments that have been issued (so far) by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing investigation. The facts alleged in these indictments have not been proven in a court of law, but they are probably the most likely to be true out of the various allegations that are swirling around. I hope that someone else will provide a complementary answer detailing other allegations that have been made.
The indictments issued by the Special Counsel's Office are available on the SCO's webpage. Out of these, there are two that relate directly to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al. This indictment alleges that "Internet Research Agency", a Russian company, carried out a social media campaign with the goal of influencing the 2016 US election. This involved creating fake social media identities that purported to be US citizens; stealing US citizens' identities to post on social media; buying political advertisements under the names of US citizens. The indictment also alleges that the defendants,
posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al. This indictment alleges that the defendants, a group of GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers, hacked into the computers of various parties involved in the 2016 election. They then stole documents from and installed malware on those computers, and staged the release of said documents in order to affect the election. The computers that were hacked belonged to (among others) the Clinton campaign's chairman, the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.
The investigation is ongoing, of course, and it is possible that further indictments will be issued; I will try to remember to update this answer when & if that happens.
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
"for sure" is a relative term. Russia denies any state interference as far as I know, although Putin at one point admitted to "patriotically minded" Russian hackers supposedly doing things on their own.
Anyway, what Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges for (as directly emanating as efforts from Russia) were two "waves" insofar:
13 people were indicted in February:
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
The indictment is 37-pages long, so I obviously cannot go over all the details here, but some examples include:
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their “@donaldtrump.com†email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside. [...]
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly created an Instagram account posing as “Woke Blacks†and railed against the notion that African Americans should choose Clinton as “the lesser of two devils†against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus “United Muslims of America†social media accounts to claim that “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today.â€Â
- An in in July 2018 the Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges was the DNC hack for which 12 Russians were indicted.
The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing†and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. [Deputy US attorney general] Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU. [...]
The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.
More related to the 1st indictment than the 2nd, Congress released some 3,000 Facebook ads they say were purchased by Russian agencies.
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's far too long to be fully quoted, but this assessment from January 2017 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) contains most of the general reasoning behind the intelligence community's consensus of Russian influence in the election.
Unfortunately, the publicly available version is the declassified version, as they obviously want to keep exact sources, contacts, processes, etc. secret in order to keep using them. However, the declassified report contains the same conclusions as the classified report, and includes some examples/info for each assessment.
The report contains four main assessments:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
And offers justification/examples for each assessment:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.
...
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
...
Putin has had many positive experiences
working with Western political leaders whose
business interests made them more disposed
to deal with Russia, such as former Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
...
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
We assess that influence campaigns are
approved at the highest levels of the Russian
Government—particularly those that would be
politically sensitive.
...
Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election
reflected years of investment in its capabilities,
which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet
states.
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represented a significant escalation in
directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations aimed at US
elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign
reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the
worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US
Government and other private data—such as those
conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have
achieved in recent years, and their understanding
of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to
maximize the impact of compromising information.
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest
the Kremlin and the intelligence services will
continue to consider using cyber-enabled
disclosure operations because of their belief
that these can accomplish Russian goals
relatively easily without significant damage to
Russian interests.
There's many more claims and justifications in the report, but this answer is already getting a bit too long. The point is, most of what is publicly know is just summaries and conclusions based on classified information.
Most of the direct sources of information will likely be kept confidential so that they can continue to be used, and most of the direct evidence will not be presented until those charged with election interference go to trial.
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
"The known FACTS" is not a terribly well-defined concept. Different types of election interference have been alleged by different people. Some of these allegations have been vetted by news organizations; some have not. Some have been admitted to by the people involved; some have not. It is probably too early, historically speaking, to know precisely what happened.
With this in mind, I will focus on the indictments that have been issued (so far) by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing investigation. The facts alleged in these indictments have not been proven in a court of law, but they are probably the most likely to be true out of the various allegations that are swirling around. I hope that someone else will provide a complementary answer detailing other allegations that have been made.
The indictments issued by the Special Counsel's Office are available on the SCO's webpage. Out of these, there are two that relate directly to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al. This indictment alleges that "Internet Research Agency", a Russian company, carried out a social media campaign with the goal of influencing the 2016 US election. This involved creating fake social media identities that purported to be US citizens; stealing US citizens' identities to post on social media; buying political advertisements under the names of US citizens. The indictment also alleges that the defendants,
posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al. This indictment alleges that the defendants, a group of GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers, hacked into the computers of various parties involved in the 2016 election. They then stole documents from and installed malware on those computers, and staged the release of said documents in order to affect the election. The computers that were hacked belonged to (among others) the Clinton campaign's chairman, the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.
The investigation is ongoing, of course, and it is possible that further indictments will be issued; I will try to remember to update this answer when & if that happens.
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
"The known FACTS" is not a terribly well-defined concept. Different types of election interference have been alleged by different people. Some of these allegations have been vetted by news organizations; some have not. Some have been admitted to by the people involved; some have not. It is probably too early, historically speaking, to know precisely what happened.
With this in mind, I will focus on the indictments that have been issued (so far) by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing investigation. The facts alleged in these indictments have not been proven in a court of law, but they are probably the most likely to be true out of the various allegations that are swirling around. I hope that someone else will provide a complementary answer detailing other allegations that have been made.
The indictments issued by the Special Counsel's Office are available on the SCO's webpage. Out of these, there are two that relate directly to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al. This indictment alleges that "Internet Research Agency", a Russian company, carried out a social media campaign with the goal of influencing the 2016 US election. This involved creating fake social media identities that purported to be US citizens; stealing US citizens' identities to post on social media; buying political advertisements under the names of US citizens. The indictment also alleges that the defendants,
posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al. This indictment alleges that the defendants, a group of GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers, hacked into the computers of various parties involved in the 2016 election. They then stole documents from and installed malware on those computers, and staged the release of said documents in order to affect the election. The computers that were hacked belonged to (among others) the Clinton campaign's chairman, the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.
The investigation is ongoing, of course, and it is possible that further indictments will be issued; I will try to remember to update this answer when & if that happens.
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
"The known FACTS" is not a terribly well-defined concept. Different types of election interference have been alleged by different people. Some of these allegations have been vetted by news organizations; some have not. Some have been admitted to by the people involved; some have not. It is probably too early, historically speaking, to know precisely what happened.
With this in mind, I will focus on the indictments that have been issued (so far) by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing investigation. The facts alleged in these indictments have not been proven in a court of law, but they are probably the most likely to be true out of the various allegations that are swirling around. I hope that someone else will provide a complementary answer detailing other allegations that have been made.
The indictments issued by the Special Counsel's Office are available on the SCO's webpage. Out of these, there are two that relate directly to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al. This indictment alleges that "Internet Research Agency", a Russian company, carried out a social media campaign with the goal of influencing the 2016 US election. This involved creating fake social media identities that purported to be US citizens; stealing US citizens' identities to post on social media; buying political advertisements under the names of US citizens. The indictment also alleges that the defendants,
posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al. This indictment alleges that the defendants, a group of GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers, hacked into the computers of various parties involved in the 2016 election. They then stole documents from and installed malware on those computers, and staged the release of said documents in order to affect the election. The computers that were hacked belonged to (among others) the Clinton campaign's chairman, the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.
The investigation is ongoing, of course, and it is possible that further indictments will be issued; I will try to remember to update this answer when & if that happens.
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
"The known FACTS" is not a terribly well-defined concept. Different types of election interference have been alleged by different people. Some of these allegations have been vetted by news organizations; some have not. Some have been admitted to by the people involved; some have not. It is probably too early, historically speaking, to know precisely what happened.
With this in mind, I will focus on the indictments that have been issued (so far) by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing investigation. The facts alleged in these indictments have not been proven in a court of law, but they are probably the most likely to be true out of the various allegations that are swirling around. I hope that someone else will provide a complementary answer detailing other allegations that have been made.
The indictments issued by the Special Counsel's Office are available on the SCO's webpage. Out of these, there are two that relate directly to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al. This indictment alleges that "Internet Research Agency", a Russian company, carried out a social media campaign with the goal of influencing the 2016 US election. This involved creating fake social media identities that purported to be US citizens; stealing US citizens' identities to post on social media; buying political advertisements under the names of US citizens. The indictment also alleges that the defendants,
posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al. This indictment alleges that the defendants, a group of GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers, hacked into the computers of various parties involved in the 2016 election. They then stole documents from and installed malware on those computers, and staged the release of said documents in order to affect the election. The computers that were hacked belonged to (among others) the Clinton campaign's chairman, the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.
The investigation is ongoing, of course, and it is possible that further indictments will be issued; I will try to remember to update this answer when & if that happens.
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
answered 51 mins ago
Michael Seifert
35717
35717
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
"for sure" is a relative term. Russia denies any state interference as far as I know, although Putin at one point admitted to "patriotically minded" Russian hackers supposedly doing things on their own.
Anyway, what Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges for (as directly emanating as efforts from Russia) were two "waves" insofar:
13 people were indicted in February:
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
The indictment is 37-pages long, so I obviously cannot go over all the details here, but some examples include:
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their “@donaldtrump.com†email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside. [...]
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly created an Instagram account posing as “Woke Blacks†and railed against the notion that African Americans should choose Clinton as “the lesser of two devils†against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus “United Muslims of America†social media accounts to claim that “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today.â€Â
- An in in July 2018 the Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges was the DNC hack for which 12 Russians were indicted.
The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing†and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. [Deputy US attorney general] Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU. [...]
The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.
More related to the 1st indictment than the 2nd, Congress released some 3,000 Facebook ads they say were purchased by Russian agencies.
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
"for sure" is a relative term. Russia denies any state interference as far as I know, although Putin at one point admitted to "patriotically minded" Russian hackers supposedly doing things on their own.
Anyway, what Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges for (as directly emanating as efforts from Russia) were two "waves" insofar:
13 people were indicted in February:
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
The indictment is 37-pages long, so I obviously cannot go over all the details here, but some examples include:
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their “@donaldtrump.com†email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside. [...]
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly created an Instagram account posing as “Woke Blacks†and railed against the notion that African Americans should choose Clinton as “the lesser of two devils†against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus “United Muslims of America†social media accounts to claim that “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today.â€Â
- An in in July 2018 the Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges was the DNC hack for which 12 Russians were indicted.
The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing†and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. [Deputy US attorney general] Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU. [...]
The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.
More related to the 1st indictment than the 2nd, Congress released some 3,000 Facebook ads they say were purchased by Russian agencies.
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
"for sure" is a relative term. Russia denies any state interference as far as I know, although Putin at one point admitted to "patriotically minded" Russian hackers supposedly doing things on their own.
Anyway, what Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges for (as directly emanating as efforts from Russia) were two "waves" insofar:
13 people were indicted in February:
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
The indictment is 37-pages long, so I obviously cannot go over all the details here, but some examples include:
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their “@donaldtrump.com†email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside. [...]
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly created an Instagram account posing as “Woke Blacks†and railed against the notion that African Americans should choose Clinton as “the lesser of two devils†against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus “United Muslims of America†social media accounts to claim that “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today.â€Â
- An in in July 2018 the Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges was the DNC hack for which 12 Russians were indicted.
The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing†and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. [Deputy US attorney general] Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU. [...]
The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.
More related to the 1st indictment than the 2nd, Congress released some 3,000 Facebook ads they say were purchased by Russian agencies.
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
"for sure" is a relative term. Russia denies any state interference as far as I know, although Putin at one point admitted to "patriotically minded" Russian hackers supposedly doing things on their own.
Anyway, what Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges for (as directly emanating as efforts from Russia) were two "waves" insofar:
13 people were indicted in February:
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
The indictment is 37-pages long, so I obviously cannot go over all the details here, but some examples include:
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their “@donaldtrump.com†email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside. [...]
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly created an Instagram account posing as “Woke Blacks†and railed against the notion that African Americans should choose Clinton as “the lesser of two devils†against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus “United Muslims of America†social media accounts to claim that “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today.â€Â
- An in in July 2018 the Mueller's team was confident enough to bring charges was the DNC hack for which 12 Russians were indicted.
The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing†and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. [Deputy US attorney general] Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU. [...]
The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.
More related to the 1st indictment than the 2nd, Congress released some 3,000 Facebook ads they say were purchased by Russian agencies.
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
edited 44 mins ago
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
answered 49 mins ago
Fizz
8,47812265
8,47812265
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
Regarding Mueller's confidence to indict, recommend highlighting the the probes response to the interest from the indicted to actually have the case tried. As the saying goes, it is possible to indict a ham sandwich.
– Drunk Cynic
42 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm not sure what you mean. Most of that page is about Manafort. The only relevant stuff about the 13-Russians case is " The Russian defendants are all beyond U.S. jurisdiction, so there would be no trial, and thus no possibility that the allegations would ever be tested in court." The same observation surely applies to the later batch of 12 GRU officers. That Russia doesn't extradite anyone is well known by now, see e.g. the Skripals case.
– Fizz
39 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
The hard part is finding a reference that wouldn't be dismissed as 'biased' because not many have well covered what happened in the case after the indictments were issued. link
– Drunk Cynic
18 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
@DrunkCynic: I'm still not seeing your point. The Russian company that was indicted in the 1st wave chose (unlike the Russian individuals) to appear in court (via lawyers, of course) and challenged Mueller's authority, but without luck insofar politico.com/story/2018/08/13/… Of course there's not going to be a totally unbiased view on this matter.
– Fizz
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's far too long to be fully quoted, but this assessment from January 2017 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) contains most of the general reasoning behind the intelligence community's consensus of Russian influence in the election.
Unfortunately, the publicly available version is the declassified version, as they obviously want to keep exact sources, contacts, processes, etc. secret in order to keep using them. However, the declassified report contains the same conclusions as the classified report, and includes some examples/info for each assessment.
The report contains four main assessments:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
And offers justification/examples for each assessment:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.
...
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
...
Putin has had many positive experiences
working with Western political leaders whose
business interests made them more disposed
to deal with Russia, such as former Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
...
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
We assess that influence campaigns are
approved at the highest levels of the Russian
Government—particularly those that would be
politically sensitive.
...
Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election
reflected years of investment in its capabilities,
which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet
states.
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represented a significant escalation in
directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations aimed at US
elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign
reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the
worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US
Government and other private data—such as those
conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have
achieved in recent years, and their understanding
of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to
maximize the impact of compromising information.
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest
the Kremlin and the intelligence services will
continue to consider using cyber-enabled
disclosure operations because of their belief
that these can accomplish Russian goals
relatively easily without significant damage to
Russian interests.
There's many more claims and justifications in the report, but this answer is already getting a bit too long. The point is, most of what is publicly know is just summaries and conclusions based on classified information.
Most of the direct sources of information will likely be kept confidential so that they can continue to be used, and most of the direct evidence will not be presented until those charged with election interference go to trial.
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It's far too long to be fully quoted, but this assessment from January 2017 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) contains most of the general reasoning behind the intelligence community's consensus of Russian influence in the election.
Unfortunately, the publicly available version is the declassified version, as they obviously want to keep exact sources, contacts, processes, etc. secret in order to keep using them. However, the declassified report contains the same conclusions as the classified report, and includes some examples/info for each assessment.
The report contains four main assessments:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
And offers justification/examples for each assessment:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.
...
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
...
Putin has had many positive experiences
working with Western political leaders whose
business interests made them more disposed
to deal with Russia, such as former Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
...
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
We assess that influence campaigns are
approved at the highest levels of the Russian
Government—particularly those that would be
politically sensitive.
...
Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election
reflected years of investment in its capabilities,
which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet
states.
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represented a significant escalation in
directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations aimed at US
elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign
reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the
worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US
Government and other private data—such as those
conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have
achieved in recent years, and their understanding
of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to
maximize the impact of compromising information.
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest
the Kremlin and the intelligence services will
continue to consider using cyber-enabled
disclosure operations because of their belief
that these can accomplish Russian goals
relatively easily without significant damage to
Russian interests.
There's many more claims and justifications in the report, but this answer is already getting a bit too long. The point is, most of what is publicly know is just summaries and conclusions based on classified information.
Most of the direct sources of information will likely be kept confidential so that they can continue to be used, and most of the direct evidence will not be presented until those charged with election interference go to trial.
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It's far too long to be fully quoted, but this assessment from January 2017 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) contains most of the general reasoning behind the intelligence community's consensus of Russian influence in the election.
Unfortunately, the publicly available version is the declassified version, as they obviously want to keep exact sources, contacts, processes, etc. secret in order to keep using them. However, the declassified report contains the same conclusions as the classified report, and includes some examples/info for each assessment.
The report contains four main assessments:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
And offers justification/examples for each assessment:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.
...
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
...
Putin has had many positive experiences
working with Western political leaders whose
business interests made them more disposed
to deal with Russia, such as former Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
...
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
We assess that influence campaigns are
approved at the highest levels of the Russian
Government—particularly those that would be
politically sensitive.
...
Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election
reflected years of investment in its capabilities,
which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet
states.
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represented a significant escalation in
directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations aimed at US
elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign
reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the
worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US
Government and other private data—such as those
conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have
achieved in recent years, and their understanding
of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to
maximize the impact of compromising information.
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest
the Kremlin and the intelligence services will
continue to consider using cyber-enabled
disclosure operations because of their belief
that these can accomplish Russian goals
relatively easily without significant damage to
Russian interests.
There's many more claims and justifications in the report, but this answer is already getting a bit too long. The point is, most of what is publicly know is just summaries and conclusions based on classified information.
Most of the direct sources of information will likely be kept confidential so that they can continue to be used, and most of the direct evidence will not be presented until those charged with election interference go to trial.
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
It's far too long to be fully quoted, but this assessment from January 2017 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) contains most of the general reasoning behind the intelligence community's consensus of Russian influence in the election.
Unfortunately, the publicly available version is the declassified version, as they obviously want to keep exact sources, contacts, processes, etc. secret in order to keep using them. However, the declassified report contains the same conclusions as the classified report, and includes some examples/info for each assessment.
The report contains four main assessments:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
And offers justification/examples for each assessment:
Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election
We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.
...
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
...
Putin has had many positive experiences
working with Western political leaders whose
business interests made them more disposed
to deal with Russia, such as former Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
...
Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted
We assess that influence campaigns are
approved at the highest levels of the Russian
Government—particularly those that would be
politically sensitive.
...
Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election
reflected years of investment in its capabilities,
which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet
states.
Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represented a significant escalation in
directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations aimed at US
elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign
reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the
worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US
Government and other private data—such as those
conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have
achieved in recent years, and their understanding
of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to
maximize the impact of compromising information.
Election Operation Signals “New Normal†in Russian Influence Efforts
Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest
the Kremlin and the intelligence services will
continue to consider using cyber-enabled
disclosure operations because of their belief
that these can accomplish Russian goals
relatively easily without significant damage to
Russian interests.
There's many more claims and justifications in the report, but this answer is already getting a bit too long. The point is, most of what is publicly know is just summaries and conclusions based on classified information.
Most of the direct sources of information will likely be kept confidential so that they can continue to be used, and most of the direct evidence will not be presented until those charged with election interference go to trial.
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
answered 20 mins ago
Giter
2,2951616
2,2951616
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Deirdre Monaghana is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33701%2fwhat-is-the-evidence-for-the-russian-interference-in-the-us-2016-election-what%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Good question. Would also be good to know what crimes are being alleged.
– Michael_B
1 hour ago