[aldous]

Some fair points, though I don’t agree with all of them. What are your thoughts on the DNC hack and subsequent leaks btw? It seems reasonable to credit the disclosure and the way the Trump campaign encouraged it and then capitalised on it as significant. 12 alleged Russian intelligence officials have been charged as part of Mueller’s investigation. Also there was the the Internet Research Agency "troll farm", based in Saint Petersburg and the alleged intrusions into state voter-registration systems. It’s a combination of all of these events that I believe is making it ‘loom large’ and it’s fair to say this transcends the categorisation of ‘meme’ doesn’t it? What do you think?

[m0zg]

It's not proven (as in, no verifiable evidence was presented) that it was a "hack" rather than a leak in the first place. The emails could have been leaked by an insider. There is some evidence (albeit very weak: file timestamps) that the leaked data was collected locally before it was sent over. I also find it extremely suspicious that the DNC did not allow the FBI to investigate the "hack", but rather chose a private firm to do so, and not just any firm, but Crowdstrike, one of the founders of which, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

As to the Mueller investigation: no US person has been charged with _anything whatsoever_ related to collusion thus far. It's all "tax evasion" or process crimes. And he can charge anybody he wants in absentia: it's no secret that governments spy on each other and wage psy-ops campaigns all the time. Heck, Obama even listened in on Merkel's phone calls. Russia is not unique in that regard. In fact it's somewhat unique in how _little_ it interferes in affairs of other countries it has no common borders with.

For a bit of a historical aside to give some color to my perspective, consider that the US helped to re-elect Yeltsin in broad daylight in 1996 (he would have lost to a communist if it wasn't for the US), and was heavily involved in getting Poroshenko elected in Ukraine, also in broad daylight just a few years ago. US influence in Ukraine predates Poroshenko, though: see e.g. Manafort.

So to sum up: I do believe that there was "interference" to the extent proven by concrete evidence such as Facebook spend. I do also believe that such interference is part and parcel of international affairs: the US itself interferes all the time, often in a rather heavy-handed way. I have seen no evidence thus far that the DNC hack was indeed a hack, and not a leak. I believe about 0% of what Crowdstrike says, given its affiliations. I don't really believe in "alleged intrusions in voter registration systems" in absence of independent evidence. As far as I can tell it's fake news.

[aldous]

My point was that dismissing the ongoing investigation and its emerging findings as a “meme” implies it is un-substantive and trivial when this appears not to be the case. Conflating all the multiple stands of a complex and far reaching investigation as “fake news” is, I believe, dangerous and reductionist. For example, Muller’s 37 page indictment against the Kremlin’s Internet Research Agency and its leadership and affiliates is detailed and has been widely reported on. Mounting evidence suggests we are talking about something significantly larger in scale than the $100,000 advertising campaign. Is the US not right to investigate it and the press to report on it? Isn’t this in our, the publics, interest? Using terms like “fake news” and “meme” in such a context is unhelpful and I believe dangerous. I increasingly see the term being used to shut down debate, undermine opposing viewpoints and sow doubt. It is myopic and doesn’t help discourse and I think we'd all do best to drop the term. I’m assuming we both want to know the truth right? I know some argue that the concept of absolute truth itself is a fallacy but I don’t subscribe to that, do you?

[onlydeadheroes]

Is it an ongoing investigation, or a multi-year, multi-campaign, full media all-hands-on-deck failed hatched job?

[aldous]

It’s an investigation by the common definition. You know Mueller is a Republican right? What do you think it is, can you expand?

[onlydeadheroes]

In response to your last question, please reread my previous comment after the word "or".

[m0zg]

Indictment is not a proof of wrongdoing. It's merely an accusation. The accused will never be tried, and therefore they will remain innocent since they aren't proven guilty in the court of law. But that's just a formality, albeit an important one. That 37 page indictment isn't worth the paper it's written on _unless_ the accused are tried in court.

Note that I did not say that there wasn't an influence campaign - evidence suggests otherwise. I merely said none of the candidates colluded to benefit. If they had, something would have leaked already, and/or collusion-related indictments would have been made against the people involved (note however, that indictment is once again not a proof of wrongdoing).

The "meme" I was referring to is that Putin is this omnipotent evil mastermind who has the capability to decide who gets elected in the US. He's just a thief and not much more. You're de-facto putting him on a pedestal he does not deserve to be on.

And stop the histrionics, will you? Challenging a point of view is not "dangerous". Neither of us has any verifiable evidence either way, so it's a faith-based argument.

[aldous]

I’m not on about the “collusion” accusations (I agree we have still to see hard evidence of this though I’d suggest it may be forthcoming). I am specifically talking about the idea that a Kremlin initiated campaign of influence is the stuff of memes. I also agree to a degree with your assessment of Mr Putin and I am not seeking to imply or promote the simplistic Bond villain caricature (read above, I am not saying this at all). Finally, ref your point about “histrionics”… the concept of “fake news” and its use as a rhetorical tool is, I believe, insidious and I would classify as dangerous in the way it is being wielded. I’m obviously not saying challenging a point of view is dangerous!? Where did you get that from? Why would I come to a site like this if not to have my views challenged? I’m very interested in having my viewpoints challenged, thank you very much. Shutting down discussion with accusations of “fake news” is exactly my point.