Thanks. I agree. Despite all the rhetoric, "hacking" the election has specific connotations and none have been proven.

Russia might have aided in smearing another unfit candidate in the court of public opinion - and that's social engineering not hacking. Social engineering which the US political parties (and indeed most democracies) are built on.

What does that even mean? I mean, in specific terms, they did what, actually?

I won't be holding my breath for anybody to specify.

Not yet proven, but there are a remarkable number of people around Trump with ties to shady Russian businessmen.

It may not have been a direct hack of the election either, more the use of Russian intelligence bot operations running an extremely effective social media campaign.

Any accusation is "not yet proven". There can be only two states of any accusation: "not yet proven" and "proven". The one about hacking the election has never been the latter, and never will be. I think there's a time where you have to give up on "not yet" and accept the reality. For some people it takes years or decades or never, of course.

> there are a remarkable number of people around Trump with ties to shady Russian businessmen

There are remarkable number of people around anything in US politics with "ties to shady Russian businessmen". Ever heard, for example, of Podesta Group? Google who they are and who were among their clients. Check out who of the former presidents spoke at Russian Renaissance Capital bank for $500K. Hint: his initials are WJC.

The reason is simple - Russian oligarchy has tons of money and interests in the USA. So there would be a lot of people willing to take that money and be around people with influence to prove that they deserve that money.

That, however, has zero relation to "not yet proven" claim that somebody "hacked election". Because it... Did. Not. Happen.

> It may not have been a direct hack of the election either, more the use of Russian intelligence bot operations running an extremely effective social media campaign.

In other words, not a hack at all. Otherwise any troll band from 4chan is "hacking elections".

> Russian intelligence bot operations running an extremely effective social media campaign.

So a hack.

it did hack the election although still your moronic president would have won

I am not sure what's more deplorable here. Your use of foul language or the foul language seeming to me as something used appropriately?

> Stopped reading at this point.

It's scary to challenge your beliefs isn't it

No, it's useless to read an article which starts with a blatant lie.

I hope you're referring to the common use of the word "hacked" instead of "influenced" as a lie, rather than the underlying fact that Russia influenced the US elections in a variety of ways, and continues to influence through various means?

> I hope you're referring to the common use of the word "hacked" instead of "influenced"

Yes. It's the lie. "Hacking" and "influencing" are completely different things. The first implies that election system was compromised, and, in the mind of 99.999% of common population, that election results were directly tampered with. Nothing of the sort happened.