Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia probe is examining 2016 Jill Stein campaign - Polidicks

[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/russia-intelligence-election-jill-stein-richard-burr/index.html[/url] [quote]Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr says his committee is examining the campaign of Green Party 2016 presidential candidate Jill Stein as part of its investigation into Russian meddling in the US election. Burr said Monday that Stein's campaign was one of two that the committee was beginning to investigate. "I think it's safe to say we have two other campaigns we are just starting on," the North Carolina Republican said when asked whether the panel had interviewed a majority of the witnesses in the Russia probe. Asked what his panel wanted to learn from the Stein campaign, Burr said whether there was "collusion with the Russians."[/quote]

Now that I think about it, it's pretty obvious that the Russians would [I]try[/I] to push the Green campaign - they quite clearly wanted Trump to win, and if they could get a decent number of Democrat voters to switch to Green, that would make it easier. So I will be very surprised if this turns up no attempts by the Russians. At the same time, I highly doubt Stein would knowingly take aid from Russia, much less offer them any sort of quid-pro-quo the way Trump apparently did. It's worth investigating just how far it got, but I would not expect to find any significant wrongdoing.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52989592]At the same time, I highly doubt Stein would knowingly take aid from Russia, much less offer them any sort of quid-pro-quo the way Trump apparently did. It's worth investigating just how far it got, but I would not expect to find any significant wrongdoing.[/QUOTE] Are you sure? [IMG]https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2017_22/1955941/170405-putin-flynn-dinner-jhc-1700_9121372097e5ea9e24a31d275df4466c.jpg[/IMG] Say... What an interesting dinner party.

Fuck, knew I should've went with the Long Johnson.

Best part yet? Whenever she's confronted about this, she resorts to a - I shit you NOT - a "Lamestream Media FAKE NEWS!" response.

[QUOTE=certified;52989605]Are you sure? [IMG]https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2017_22/1955941/170405-putin-flynn-dinner-jhc-1700_9121372097e5ea9e24a31d275df4466c.jpg[/IMG] Say... What an interesting dinner party.[/QUOTE] Okay but what's with those ugly-ass chairs tho? Is the probe gonna look into whoever decided on those?

[QUOTE=certified;52989605]Are you sure? (pic) Say... What an interesting dinner party.[/QUOTE] If I was sure, I wouldn't see the need for an investigation. My priors have it as a low-probability event, but those priors are pretty weak and new data could easily convince me. That picture, though? Not very convincing - too many routine explanations. Flynn's presence seems incriminating but actually makes it less likely anything illicit was discussed during that dinner - Stein would have to be an idiot to talk treason with the former Director of the DIA sitting next to them, not to mention all the other neutral witnesses. Nonetheless, it is evidence, no matter how weak. I have updated my probability estimate from 1% to 1.1%.

It would seem more prudent to me to focus on the clear and present danger, the man currently in the oval office, and only after his guilt or innocence has been conclusively determined make an effort to find the other rats. Then again, I don't trust the congressional intelligence committees not to try and deflect the blame from Trump.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52989687]It would seem more prudent to me to focus on the clear and present danger, the man currently in the oval office, and only after his guilt or innocence has been conclusively determined make an effort to find the other rats. Then again, I don't trust the congressional intelligence committees not to try and deflect the blame from Trump.[/QUOTE] If you look at the investigation as one into Russian interference in the 2016 election and not one with the sole purpose of throwing Trump out, you should be able to see why this is every bit as important. Honestly, I would be very, very shocked if Russia didn't have a bit of money on every single horse in the race, a case of 'no matter who loses, we win' sort of bet. And that Putin decided personally on those [I]hideous[/I] translucent plastic chairs.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52989687]It would seem more prudent to me to focus on the clear and present danger, the man currently in the oval office, and only after his guilt or innocence has been conclusively determined make an effort to find the other rats. Then again, I don't trust the congressional intelligence committees not to try and deflect the blame from Trump.[/QUOTE] There's more than one person on the investigation team, they have more than enough resources to investigate more than just Trump. Not smart to ignore one potential lead just because another one may have bigger political implications.

[QUOTE=Riller;52989698]If you look at the investigation as one into Russian interference in the 2016 election and not one with the sole purpose of throwing Trump out, you should be able to see why this is every bit as important. Honestly, I would be very, very shocked if Russia didn't have a bit of money on every single horse in the race, a case of 'no matter who loses, we win' sort of bet. And that Putin decided personally on those [I]hideous[/I] translucent plastic chairs.[/QUOTE] Aye, but only one of the parties is currently in charge of making actual policy decisions in the country, and has been doing everything it can to make sweeping changes. Not that I'm disagreeing at all with the possibility of Russia getting its hands on politicians across all parties at all. It just doesn't seem to be as great a priority.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52989714]Aye, but only one of the parties is currently in charge of making actual policy decisions in the country, and has been doing everything it can to make sweeping changes. Not that I'm disagreeing at all with the possibility of Russia getting its hands on politicians across all parties at all. It just doesn't seem to be as great a priority.[/QUOTE] It probably is down-prioritized compared to the GOP, but it's essentially the same case.

This investigation needs to go wherever the investigation needs to go. While I am initially sceptical that Stein would knowingly collaborate with a hostile foreign government to undermine our electoral process, especially with effectively zero chance of actually winning, if there is legitimate evidence to suggest that there may have been inappropriate or criminal behavior, it needs to be followed up on. This is an issue that is far more important than party loyalty. Any who are implicated must face justice, regardless of their political affiliations. I simply hope that this isn't a goose chase distraction campaign by the Republican members of the committee to attempt to baselessly shift focus away from their own party's "improprieties."

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52989733]This investigation needs to go wherever the investigation needs to go. While I am initially sceptical that Stein would knowingly collaborate with a hostile foreign government to undermine our electoral process, especially with effectively zero chance of actually winning, if there is legitimate evidence to suggest that there may have been inappropriate or criminal behavior, it needs to be followed up on. This is an issue that is far more important than party loyalty. Any who are implicated must face justice, regardless of their political affiliations. I simply hope that this isn't a goose chase distraction campaign by the Republican members of the committee to attempt to baselessly shift focus away from their own party's "improprieties."[/QUOTE] Whatever votes that stein gets, though, are votes taken away from Hillary and thus effectively benefitting Trump. It makes sense from a Russian perspective to do whatever they can to take votes away from the Democrats as long ad it doesn't also hurt the republicans. There's also the whole " destabilizing the west" angle to consider too. While I don't see why stein would go along, she's received support from worse sources (see:antivaccers) so I remain open to the possibility.

[QUOTE=TFA;52989793]Whatever votes that stein gets, though, are votes taken away from Hillary and thus effectively benefitting Trump. It makes sense from a Russian perspective to do whatever they can to take votes away from the Democrats as long ad it doesn't also hurt the republicans. There's also the whole " destabilizing the west" angle to consider too. While I don't see why stein would go along, she's received support from worse sources (see:antivaccers) so I remain open to the possibility.[/QUOTE] Oh, it absolutely makes sense why Russia might target Stein, just not why Stein would willingly collaborate. She had nothing to gain from Trump winning, and everything to lose from working with a hostile nation to undermine our election. On its face, it just doesn't make much sense for her to have been a willing agent in this.

I always found it strange that Stein ran a largely anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat campaign in swing states that she realistically had no chance of winning. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say she was in cahoots with Russia but it seemed like a strategy with a very particular objective.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52990190]I always found it strange that Stein ran a largely anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat campaign in swing states that she realistically had no chance of winning. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say she was in cahoots with Russia but it seemed like a strategy with a very particular objective.[/QUOTE] Yeah, could be. I'm not sure what the motivation would have been, but if there's evidence to suggest inappropriate or illegal exchanges took place, then it should absolutely be investigated.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52990190]I always found it strange that Stein ran a largely anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat campaign in swing states that she realistically had no chance of winning. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say she was in cahoots with Russia but it seemed like a strategy with a very particular objective.[/QUOTE] It's not a bad strategy in itself, no need to theorize conspiracies. The Green Party is liberal. The four contemporary American parties are basically Green (liberal), Democrat (center-liberal), Republican (center-conservative), and Libertarian (conservative). So the Green Party exists almost entirely of dissatisfied Democrats. So targeting Democrat voters who are dissatisfied with their party's candidate makes sense. Convincing Republicans that Trump is a bad candidate wouldn't have helped Stein much, they'd more likely have gone to Johnson or Clinton. Further, third parties have the best chance in swing states. If DNC/GOP votes are split 50:50, you just have to steal 17% from each to get a 33:33:34 win. But if the vote would be 80:20 without third parties, stealing that same 17% from each gives 63:3:34, you still lose by a lot. Realistically, Stein had no chance of winning. But, getting a single electoral vote does a lot for a third party in the next election, so fighting for that is worth it from her perspective.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52990235]Yeah, could be. I'm not sure what the motivation would have been, but if there's evidence to suggest inappropriate or illegal exchanges took place, then it should absolutely be investigated.[/QUOTE] The difference here is that Jill Stein has been largely forthcoming with her dealings with Russia Today and Russia in general whereas Trump has not. I don't think this will go anywhere.