Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

[CowboyX]

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____


Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

[Belthazor]

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____


Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

While I won't go so far as to advocate hacking politicians as a matter of normal practice, I will say I found it rather amusing some truths were there for the public to see if they so chose. How refreshing for some honesty in politics for a change since I don't think anyone was saying any of it was made up.
So if the Russians were trying to hurt Hillary's candidacy, at least they were doing it with the truth as apposed to making it all up.

And in case you were going to ask, I probably would have found it amusing if it had happened to Trump/other republican candidate as well.

In fact, that would have made it more "fair"

[CowboyX]

I will say I found it rather amusing some truths were there for the public to see if they so chose.

What truths?

[Belthazor]

What truths?

I assume then you have not read any of the emails in question, but no matter. That would change little in your mind anyway.

The fact that Hillary and the Dem party were embarrassed by those emails and implored Rep's to "not use that information, since they could be hacked next and their secrets exposed", pretty clearly shows things were revealed that they wanted kept secret.

We could argue things like "did Bernie even have a chance" or whatever, but the point is, pretty clearly, Hillary did not want those emails public! Since she did not say ANY of it was false/fabricated/made up, obviously what was in those emails was true and she did not want the public to know!
What part of this doesn't make sense???

May I ask, do you think either Bill or Hillary have ever done anything wrong, as in, are they even capable of doing wrong???

[CowboyX]

I assume then you have not read any of the emails in question, but no matter. That would change little in your mind anyway.

Well, I don't know how you would know that. What emails in question?

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

"not use that information, since they could be hacked next and their secrets exposed"

Where is this quote from?

---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

May I ask, do you think either Bill or Hillary have ever done anything wrong, as in, are they even capable of doing wrong???

Give me an example.

[Belthazor]

Well, I don't know how you would know that.

True, I don't know for sure. That comment was based on your past posts, what your most likely current position would be on this subject.

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

What emails in question?[COLOR="Silver"]

The ones on Hillary's email server that were hacked and became public.

[Sigfried]

The ones on Hillary's email server that were hacked and became public.

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

[Belthazor]

Where is this quote from?[COLOR="Silver"]

My girlfriend used to watch the news on tv and I overheard the remark or similar, on several occasions. I don't remember who said it or if it was the same person each time.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Give me an example.

Huh?
I asked:
"May I ask, do you think either Bill or Hillary have ever done anything wrong, as in, are they even capable of doing wrong??? "

"Give me an example" does not answer that question nor does it seek clarification.

For example.
I like Ronald Reagan as a president. I also believe he did some things that were wrong and should not have been done!!

How about you and the Clinton's??

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

I admit, I mistakenly was thinking of Podesta's email acc't that was hacked when I posted, though it does seem quite likely Hillary's was hacked as well considering her level of security on her personal server.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

True , though off Op, I find it telling that the left wasn't more outraged by this!

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

Also off Op, but there were issues with content.

[CowboyX]

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Yeah, I'm not sure I care about that. Was there a law broken? I thought Squatch talked about this once and they violated the party's bylaws or something.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? But they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

What I don't get is what do people think are in those emails.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Huh?
I asked:
"May I ask, do you think either Bill or Hillary have ever done anything wrong, as in, are they even capable of doing wrong??? "

"Give me an example" does not answer that question nor does it seek clarification.

For example.
I like Ronald Reagan as a president. I also believe he did some things that were wrong and should not have been done!!

How about you and the Clinton's??[COLOR="Silver"]

Hmm, something they did wrong that I think they were wrong to do...I really can't think of anything offhand. Give me an example of something you think they did wrong and let's see if I agree.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

True , though off Op, I find it telling that the left wasn't more outraged by this![COLOR="Silver"]

Why? I live in Massachusetts and voted for Bernie and he lost here. He should have dropped out shortly thereafter.

[Sigfried]

Yeah, I'm not sure I care about that. Was there a law broken? I thought Squatch talked about this once and they violated the party's bylaws or something.

Well, the hacking broke laws, but not the emails. The party maintained they were neutral, but the emails showed that was not true. The real significance of them is they greatly angered some of Sanders supporters and cemented them against Hillary. (Though that is somewhat irrational as Hillary wasn't at all in direct control of what the DNC was doing.) But at any rate, they had an impact and I still see anti-establishment leftists complaining bitterly about it from time to time so it was impactful. Though seriously, who didn't think they were in the bag for Hillary? It's pretty naive.

THough, I would not say that means the primary was "rigged" as some conclude. The DNC was also in the bag for Hillary during Obama's first run. I was at caucuses and the party faithful totally backed her. He just had so many outsider supporters show up the insiders were totally overwhelmed. Bernie just didn't quite generate that level of outsider support such that it could overcome the insider preference.

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? But they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

Well, she didn't delete anything (at least not that anyone can prove or has been admitted). The IT company that administrated her server deleted a buch of archived emails. They say it was an accident. But the timeing, and the fact the Clinton campaign had some calls into them around that time, make many suspicious that it was intentional. They were supposedly personal emails rather than state department emails, but when recovered by the FBI they found quite a few that they deemed to be related to her state department work.

I think we can definately say she acted in a way to protect herelf as much as she could while claiming to be complying with the investigation. Not total stonewalling, but not what we might call full and ready compliance either. Definately walking the tight rope where she looks really bad in public opinion, but it's hard to take her to court over it.

What I don't get is what do people think are in those emails.

Well, they were looking for dirt on Benghazi. But mostly what they found was just her doing her job, but doing it in a way that wasn't very secure or in compliance with the security regulations for the state department. Some call it criminal, others just sloppy. (I tend to feel that whatever the case, it would be very hard to prove criminality in court.)

[Belthazor]

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? ut they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

Would that mean she did something wrong??

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

Hmm, something they did wrong that I think they were wrong to do...I really can't think of anything offhand.

Hmmmm, you said:
"Well, I don't know how you would know that."
in post #5.

Since you believe both Clinton's are above the normal human condition, (in that ALL people have actually done wrong, including the Clinton's and every other human that ever lived) that is how I came to that conclusion. Just by your own words.

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

Why? I live in Massachusetts and voted for Bernie and he lost here. He should have dropped out shortly thereafter.

Had the Dem party allowed a fair and open contest, Bernie might not have lost is kinda the point, and your guy might have one over Trump!!!
I may have voted for him for instance, and a lot of other People that would never vote for Hillary may have as well.

It amazes me this doesn't bother you at all having your choice being trampled by the "more informed leaders" of the Dem party.

This would by one of the reasons "Dem's are more extreme than Rep's" as the other thread would say....

I have not heard a Rep say their candidate could not do/have not done anything wrong.......EVER....
I have heard an endless supply tell me Clintons could/did not do wrong.

[CowboyX]

Would that mean she did something wrong??

Maybe, I thought there was some disagreement about that.

---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

Hmmmm, you said:
"Well, I don't know how you would know that."
in post #5.

Since you believe both Clinton's are above the normal human condition, (in that ALL people have actually done wrong, including the Clinton's and every other human that ever lived) that is how I came to that conclusion. Just by your own words.

I imagined we were talking about something serious not rolling through a stop sign.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

Had the Dem party allowed a fair and open contest, Bernie might not have lost is kinda the point, and your guy might have one over Trump!!!

Sure, if wishes were fishes. The guy couldn't win Massachusetts of all places where he should've won. He should've gotten on board and taken his high level post in the administration or committee leaderships where he could have done real good...but no.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

I have heard an endless supply tell me Clintons could/did not do wrong.

Like who?

[Belthazor]

Maybe, I thought there was some disagreement about that.[COLOR="Silver"]

Well if one was "reprimanded", I presume it was because they did something wrong, but ya, that was my real point. For a segment of the electorate, Clinton's are incapable of doing wrong so of course there was "disagreement".

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 AM ----------

I imagined we were talking about something serious not rolling through a stop sign.[COLOR="Silver"]

And I as well, but I will note, you didn't say either Clinton ever even came that close to doing something wrong.

---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

Sure, if wishes were fishes.

Fine, but if I were a Rep'n and "my party" acted that way I would be mad. It still means the higher ups in the party know better than you who the candidate should be.

---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 AM ----------

He should've gotten on board and taken his high level post in the administration or committee leaderships where he could have done real good...but no.[COLOR="Silver"]
[?

I believe he doesn't agree with her policies, why would he want to be part of her Admin??

---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------

Like who?

I work with a couple, there are some here on ODN and just listening to people talk. It was much more common when Bill was in office.

[CowboyX]

Well if one was "reprimanded", I presume it was because they did something wrong, but ya, that was my real point. For a segment of the electorate, Clinton's are incapable of doing wrong so of course there was "disagreement".

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 AM ----------



And I as well, but I will note, you didn't say either Clinton ever even came that close to doing something wrong.[COLOR="Silver"]

Not that I could think of...or that rose to the level of any kind of seriousness. Certainly nothing which portrayed any type of malice with intent.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

Fine, but if I were a Rep'n and "my party" acted that way I would be mad. It still means the higher ups in the party know better than you who the candidate should be.[COLOR="Silver"]

Maybe...hmm, if we were talking about the candidate most likely to win. Sure, I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

I believe he doesn't agree with her policies, why would he want to be part of her Admin??[COLOR="Silver"]

He could take the committee leaderships. Lots of power there.

[Belthazor]

Not that I could think of....

So she was reprimanded for nothing and is incapable of wrong doing.

I appreciate your honesty

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Maybe...hmm, if we were talking about the candidate most likely to win. Sure, I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me.[COLOR="Silver"]

Two things:

1. I worry a lot less (if at all...) if a candidate is "most likely to win", than I am what they stand for and how they will govern.

2. Why bother voting in the primary election at all then? We should just let the party higher ups decide for us since they will always "have vastly more information" than the average voter????

---------- Post added at 10:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

He could take the committee leaderships. Lots of power there.

Agreed, though he would still have to basically fallow Hillary's will or be replaced, and no matter what, would be seen as a part of her admin by voters. I think he wanted to separate himself from others coattails and forward what he believes is right.

It's kinda like not compromising your own values just to be part of the admin.

[CowboyX]

So she was reprimanded for nothing and is incapable of wrong doing. or that rose to the level of any kind of seriousness. Certainly nothing which portrayed any type of malice with intent.

Sure. Nothing you have presented violates that.

Any other examples?

---------- Post added at 04:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------

1. I worry a lot less (if at all...) if a candidate is "most likely to win", than I am what they stand for and how they will govern.

Then why be a member of a party at all?

---------- Post added at 04:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------

2. Why bother voting in the primary election at all then? We should just let the party higher ups decide for us since they will always "have vastly more information" than the average voter????[COLOR="Silver"]

Timing. The Massachusetts primary was early.

---------- Post added at 04:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 AM ----------

Agreed, though he would still have to basically fallow Hillary's will or be replaced, and no matter what, would be seen as a part of her admin by voters.

Maybe your side which yearns for a king or emperor. But our government doesn't work like that, nor does it work like a business where you can just fire anyone who doesn't kiss ass. Trump is finding this out.

[Belthazor]

Sure. Nothing you have presented violates that.

I was just looking to exemplify the thinking of the average Clinton supporter.

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

Then why be a member of a party at all?[COLOR="Silver"]

Indeed!

It was your point though that " I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me."
Why not just have party leadership nominate the candidate openly instead of trying to do it in secret?

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

Timing. The Massachusetts primary was early.[COLOR="Silver"]

Non-sequitur.

You said "Maybe...hmm, if we were talking about the candidate most likely to win. Sure, I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me."

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

Maybe your side which yearns for a king or emperor.

What side is "my side" there Scooter???


For the record:
I believe Trump is a nut
I am in no way a republican
I did NOT vote for Trump


---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

But our government doesn't work like that, nor does it work like a business where you can just fire anyone who doesn't kiss ass.

Hmmm, let's see how this would work in the real world instead of an idealistic mentality:

The President is in charge of the EPA (or pick whatever Fed Gov't Agency you like if you' rather).
The Pres won his election on a strong, regulated enforcement of existing environmental laws.
He appoints some one to head EPA.
This person slows enforcement actions, loosens regulatory regulations, and sees more exemptions for businesses that have to fallow regulatory guidlines.
No laws were broken and this person may even believe these new policies are in the best interest of the American, but clearly, the wishes of the President are not being carried out.

The President should not be able to fire this person why?

[CowboyX]

I was just looking to exemplify the thinking of the average Clinton supporter.

How do you know what that is?

---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

It was your point though that " I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me."[COLOR="Silver"]

Sure, in that situation.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

Non-sequitur.

You said "Maybe...hmm, if we were talking about the candidate most likely to win. Sure, I'd defer to someone with vastly more information than me."[COLOR="Silver"]

How does that not follow?

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 AM ----------

What side is "my side" there Scooter???

Well, from your description of a president just replacing the highest ranking senators at will, on a whim, I take it that you're a conservative with a traditionalist bent. You'd therefore be supportive of a single headman in charge, usually the strongest. Probably divinely selected. You'd be a tory and would've supported the king during the revolution.

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

Hmmm, let's see how this would work in the real world instead of an idealistic mentality:

The President is in charge of the EPA (or pick whatever Fed Gov't Agency you like if you' rather).
The Pres won his election on a strong, regulated enforcement of existing environmental laws.
He appoints some one to head EPA.
This person slows enforcement actions, loosens regulatory regulations, and sees more exemptions for businesses that have to fallow regulatory guidlines.
No laws were broken and this person may even believe these new policies are in the best interest of the American, but clearly, the wishes of the President are not being carried out.

The President should not be able to fire this person why?

They could fire them but there would be repercussions..."didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" In business nobody's going to say boo about the secretary you fired who said she could type but couldn't.

---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

This thread has gotten far off track from the OP. I'm going to ask that you respond one more time to what we're talking about and let the thread get back on track.

[Belthazor]

How do you know what that is?[COLOR="Silver"]

It's so typical it's almost cliché.

I just don't remember that kind of blind devotion to another political candidate being held by so many.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

Sure, in that situation.[COLOR="Silver"]

That "situation" was voting in the primaries and should the regular democrat voter be upset by party officials try to "fix" the procedures so as to further their choice above a majority vote of all memebers.

---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

How does that not follow?[COLOR="Silver"]

How does the timing of the primary affect whether party officials have :... vastly more information than me."?
You are saying would defer to their judgement in Mass if the "timing" had been different???

I still don't understand how that relates to my comment...

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

They could fire them but there would be repercussions..."didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" In business nobody's going to say boo about the secretary you fired who said she could type but couldn't.[COLOR="Silver"]

Wow. Having your political opposition say "didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" would be a huge price to pay to see your policies are carried out by your staff appointments

Are you saying no other president has removed Agency heads that he appointed?

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

This thread has gotten far off track from the OP. I'm going to ask that you respond one more time to what we're talking about and let the thread get back on track.

Indeed we have and I just one last comment I missed in your post, then the Op can move (PM me is you still want to discuss any of this).

---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

I take it that you're a conservative with a traditionalist bent. You'd therefore be supportive of a single headman in charge, usually the strongest. Probably divinely selected. You'd be a tory and would've supported the king during the revolution.

I have some conservative leanings depending on subject matter. I have no big issue with "tradition" and I am a realist, I know things will always be changing.

"a single head man in charge"? If you mean a king or President with no Congress nor Supreme Court, that would be a big, big NO'er on that one.
"the strongest" (I assume you mean physically) is NO kind of qualification for leadership

"divinely selected"??? WOW!!! I almost snapped my garter belt on that one Scootter!! If there were a God, I doubt "He" would select the leader of a country (that seems too dumb to even contemplate). However, as my many, many posts on ODN religious Op's will attest to, I am definitely agnostic.

"a Tory"? Highly unlikely. I am not good with wonton authority at all....

"would've supported the king during the revolution." What revolution?? No matter, since I think we (humans) suffer from some of our emotions, one person should never really be in charge.

I believe "absolute power corrupts absolutely" (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, also known as Lord Acton)
(God is said to have absolute power...hmmmm...)

[Belthazor]

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____


Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

So, according to your link, the Russian Hacking tried to affect the elections by basically releasing actual true confidential emails from the DNC and Hillary to the public? Is this correct?

Also, are you implying the US is not doing similar "hacks" or otherwise trying to influence the elections of other Govt's all over the world?
After all we wire tapped Chancellor Merkel's phone...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...213-story.html
"The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02d5d5ed382bd
"Indeed, meddling in foreign politics is a great American pastime, and one that Clinton has some familiarity with. For more than 100 years, without any significant break, the U.S. has been doing whatever it can to influence the outcome of elections ― up to and including assassinating politicians it has found unfriendly."

P:robably the US would not do that since it is against the law:

https://spectator.org/obamas-meddlin...-six-examples/
"Meddling in other’s elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal […] affairs of any other State.” And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections."

Since it is against international law and US tax dollars can not be used for such a purpose by US law, I am convinced the US would not try to influence another country's elections so we are justified in being outraged that a country would try to influence ours (*by allowing some truths to be known about one party only).



*unless you are claiming they interfered in other ways as well