So what did the Russians do exactly?

Hello all, there is a lot of talk about the Russians "hacking" or "interfering" with the election but I'm not seeing any descriptions of what they actually did. If there is anyone who subscribes to this theory or has access to some of the intel I'd appreciate it if they could enlighten us on what exactly they did.

Assuming the Russian government DID interfere, did they:

-Hack voting machines to change votes from Clinton to Trump?
-Hack data centers tallying votes to change votes from Clinton to Trump?
-Plant paid agents to work polling places and change paper votes or change electronic votes manually?
-Pay people to dispose of paper ballots for Clinton so they would not be counted?
-Manufacture/create fake e-mails that appeared to be from John Podesta's e-mail and provide these manufactured/fake e-mails to wikileaks in order to sway public opinion?
-Something else not listed above?

For the record, I do not personally believe the Russians directly interfered in the election and won't until I see some concrete evidence or a whistleblower comes forth to describe just how and what happened. However, I have an open mind and am willing to consider all avenues/possibilities.

Thanks!

a reply to: Tman2135

No real proof that they did anything.

Even if they did something, it simply let us see the truth.

a reply to: butcherguy

I agree, but I was hoping that someone who subscribes to the theory of Russian involvement could tell us what they think the Kremlin actually did.

a reply to: Tman2135

I see some concrete evidence or a whistleblower comes forth to describe just how and what happened.

loser !!!!!

This what Russians did...they made you skeptical towards "anonymous CIA sources" and "unnamed government officials".

It used to work so flawlessly.

Damn you Ruskies !!!! (Shakes fist towards the invisible enemy)

a reply to: Tman2135

I was hoping that someone who subscribes to the theory of Russian involvement could tell us what they think the Kremlin actually did.

Hope springs eternal.

If you do get some...errr..."facts"....be sure to PM me. I'm dying to see this evidence for weeks now.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You got it.

they built an orbital mind control laser that was supposed to compel 100% of the voters to vote Trump.

It didn't work very well so he only got 48% or something. But he still won so one point for the mind control laser.

Still a more believable theory then hackers somehow hacked voting machines that aren't networked.

Why would they want Trump to win is the biggest red flag for me. Look at Obama and Hillary, Russians made them both look like fools. Assad is back, getting stronger just like the Russians wanted. Nobody did anything about Russia in Ukraine. Then Obama on video telling the Russians he' going to get those warheads pointed in their direction removed.

Really? So now they want Hillary to lose because her policies are the same as Obama's and those policies really really hurt Russia. Yeah right.

a reply to: LifeMode

The Russians are not dummies. Hillary wanted war with them. Her strategy for stopping the Syrian crisis? A no-fly zone. Guess what, ISIS doesn't have any planes. Who has the planes? RUSSIA. With that strategy in place it would only be a matter of time before an American pilot downs a Russian plane or vice versa.

The Russians are helping at the behest of a sovereign nation. They were invited by the Syrian legislature, they are the ones in the right on this situation. We would be wise to work with Moscow, not against.

We used to use finesse and subtlety when trying to influence other nations, we have seemingly lost that, exchanging it for heavy-handed tactics like creating and supplying revolutionary forces to destabilize the nation-state in question.

Guys like Assad, Mubarak, Qaddafi, and Saddam certainly had/have tyrannical aspects to their rule and there were/are significant issues with their governance, however they kept the Islamists at bay.

a reply to: Tman2135


I had this same conversation yesterday as a friend become indignant about Russia hacking and changing US elections. It was kind of funny he started with we need to know if Russia is changing the elections. So I asked well how did they do that? His response is they hacked in to our government releasing Emails. I said no they didn't and he said yes they did have I not seen the news? I said the DNC and Clintons private server is not the US government. He said well no but they used the information they got to change the election. I said really how so? Then he said well it turned people against Hillary making it seem like she did something wrong? To which I said well lets get this straight your mad at the Russian hackers because they made your candidate look bad? To which he said yes they were trying to change what people think of her. To which I said by doing what exposing the truth? He said no they lied. To which I said but you just said she was hacked and the information was released by them ? Yes but they didn't tell the whole truth. to which I said did they not release all the documents they had I mean look at the podesta emails there is years worth there? Yes and they used them to turn people against Hillary. To which I said well in order to use this against her wouldn't she have to be doing something wrong in the first place? To which he said those were private communications not meant to be public. To which I said your ok with being lied to then like Hillary fixing the democratic nomination so she would beat Bernie? Then he actually says well no that wasn't right. Then I said no it wasn't your really mad because you wanted her to win and all the stuff she was doing came out causing her to lose. He said well no I just don't think we should have foreign governments involved in our elections. To which I said I agree but your right back were we started. He laughed said he hated me and I think he learned something. This is the same guy that admitted I was right when I kept telling him I was voting for Bernie because Hillary will lose. Tell you that argument another day lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

This is about how most topics go, except the HRC supporter simply leaves and does not respond.

a reply to: Tman2135

I suppose they are trying to say that we need to thank the russians for exposing the rampant corruption within the dnc,hilary, and the msm?

a reply to: dragonridr

Exactly. We're supposed to be mad at the messenger not the message. The source of the information does not invalidate the contents of the information.

a reply to: interupt42

I said to my wife a few days ago, I have always supported our foreign policy and our military but something is very wrong right now.

The sad part is that the Democratic party now has the opportunity to re-invent itself and what does it do? It goes back to more of the same. Imagine someone like Tim Ryan leading the party rather than Nancy Pelosi, it makes me shake my head.

I will also say this, there is nothing wrong with liberalism. A healthy dose of liberalism balances out negative tendencies of conservatism and vice-versa.

However, Progressivism is dangerous because it is willing to take short-cuts to achieve traditionally liberal goals. Same with neo-Conservatism.

The Russians hacked her robust campaign schedule and deleted all her massive rallies and press conferences. By the time she realized she had too many days off it was too late!

I believe the alleged activity was that Russia hacked and released the DNC's E-mails and released them to cause damage to their party during the election. This would end up benefiting Trump and the Republicans.

Since there's no proof take it for what it is.

It's ironic how Hillary supporters 100% believe Russia hacked and released E-mails with no proof but a month ago believed Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing in mishandling Classified data despite a mountain of evidence.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Right, but this is a logical fallacy. The mere act of leaking the e-mails was not what was damaging, it was the content and showing who these people really are that was damaging.

So, if Hillary and Podesta, et al. were really as good as Clinton supporters believe, why would leaking the e-mails make a difference?

a reply to: Tman2135

Yep the biggest issue I see with this election is the political cheerleaders that refuse to hold their own party accountable. It is because of them and their willingness to overlook every turd their party throws at them that we are were we are with our corrupted gov't. That goes for both party.

The Russian angle is the DNC Gulf of Tonkin incident at worst , or just deflection at best.

It shouldn't be shocking that foreign gov't meddle in other gov'ts elections and that the US is not innocent on that as well.

What should be shocking is what many have suspected to be true all along was finally exposed: that our political parties are working with the MSM to manipulate the truth and hurd the public into voting for their lobbyist endorsed candidate.


This Russian link will never be proven, unlike the corruption that was exposed by these hacks that led to the resignation of several high ranking DNC members.

I also find it rather convenient they can't find who hacked HIllary computers or her lost emails which are captured at the infrastructure level , but somehow they struck gold with identifying the Russians.

Like I said eleswhere:
While its troublesome that foreign agencies could be tampering with our elections like we do with others, its more troubling that we need a foreign agency to disclose the rampant corruption in our elections.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I believe the alleged activity was that Russia hacked and released the DNC's E-mails and released them to cause damage to their party during the election. This would end up benefiting Trump and the Republicans.

Since there's no proof take it for what it is.

It's ironic how Hillary supporters 100% believe Russia hacked and released E-mails with no proof but a month ago believed Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing in mishandling Classified data despite a mountain of evidence.

And when I look at it critically, I can't help but think that Comey's announcement was the exact same thing in that the first one stating that Hillary was back under investigation for the mail SNAFU, and then quickly stated that she was off the hook. When that happened, I was certain it would suck the wind out of the Trump campaign almost as if it was engineered to do just that. Glad I was wrong.

But it sure looks like the big crime here was exposing the corruption that factually existed. When you are angry at that, you kind of have to look at your own integrity and wonder where the hell it went.

They have RT, RussiaToday, putting out information without US spin. More and more people is the US are tuning in. This is a major threat to the 4th arm of government. It must be demonized and outcast on social media.

DT innocuously, imo, mentioned they should find the missing emails and the old guard saw an opening.