Mueller directly states the he doesn't believe any of this affected the election.

I have read that IRA spent about $500 each in ad buys in the 3 borderline blue/red 'purple' states that went to Trump in the Nov 2016 election.

Even if we assume the 100k they spent on ad buys went directly to the 3 purple states, and generated a million CPM... ads paid for by the RNC and DNC and the PACs generated several trillion impressions.

> Mueller directly states the he doesn't believe any of this affected the election.

please cite this because that sounds like an extraordinary claim.

You know what, I'm Fake News. I was not reading Mueller's remarks. I was reading Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Rod Rosenstein's prepared remarks about the indictment.

Rosenstein said there was no proof anything covered by the indictment affected the Nov 2016 election.

Here is C-SPAN video of Rosenstein announcing the indicment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAf_I3ULwE

at 5m 28s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAf_I3ULwE&t=5m28s

Rosenstein, reading from his prepared remarks, says:

"There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

I loathe linking to "real clear politics" but they put up a transcript:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_liv...

"There is no allegation in the indictment" has nothing to do with what anyone believes and even less to do with what is actually true. Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.

> Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.

I realize this isn't math, but I've studied the ads that IRA paid for, I am pretty familiar with what the employees of IRA did, I've read about how much money was spent on Facebook ads (100k, and almost half of that was spent after the Nov 2016 election ), I've read about how many CPMs were generated vs how many ads American facebook viewers saw ( a few million vs 16 trillion), I'm pretty sure I know!

yes, he did say that, but also that does not say "he does not believe this affected the outcome". It was widely noted that his wording in this statement was extremely careful, and merely stated a true fact: "there is no allegation in the indictment". Which of course there isn't because it is impossible to legally prove the outcome of the election being affected by nearly anything. Having documents like this indictment that are 100% on solid ground is very helpful, as in this discussion it is pointing out how many people here seem unconcerned about foreign interference in an election due to reasons like "people want it to be true" and "you can't prove it changed the outcome". Those aren't good reasons to just let the Russians come in every election and go nuts.

I agree we shouldn't let the Russians just do whatever they want in America.

I have carefully read the indictment. I also notice the indictment is mostly stuff from sources like the RBC IRA report. None of this is deep state deep secret stuff.

I just want proof the Russians affected the election! I'm willing to believe.

I can point to many documented cases of various US intelligence agency and non intelligence agency campaigns to affect elections in other countries. It's all there, in black and white, very clear.

The recent Mueller indictment doesn't convince me. Maybe there will be future indictments. I just don't think the IRA spending a few hundred dollars on targeted ads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got Trump elected. I think it was the billions of dollars spent by various conservative entities over the last 25 years, who have been plotting to take down the Clintons since the early 90s.

The question that is critical though -> was it with the knowledge and support of Trump or was the agistation designed simply to sow discord by taking out the front runner (Clinton.)

My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians, So, some are under the impression that Trump colluded with the Russians while the real story appears to be that Russia wasn’t colluding with Trump but simply trying to create chaos over the election process. There is evidence to this because some of this Russian stuff dates back to 2014 — long before Trump was even thinking about running and far before anyone took him to be a contender. There will be the argument that Trump’s campaign met with Russian officials during the campaign. However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)

This Russia thing is real; that Trump was part of it is not. Honestly, Trump wasn't sophisticated enough to run a multinational spy/propaganda operation with the Russians. If he were, then that would necessarily discredit arguments that he isn’t smart or sophisticated enough to be president.

> My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians

That doesn't matter. The Russian government interfered, that's a fact. Also a fact, the president is illegally refusing to enact sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by congress in retaliation for this interference. You should be extremely concerned that the president is actively breaking the law every day by refusing to defend the country against a foreign enemy.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressma...

> However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)

it is not illegal to speak to foreign governments during a political campaign. You should read up on the difference between accepting stolen materials from foreign governments, allowing foreign governments to spend money on a US poltiical campaign, vs. merely speaking to foreign governments.

Not to mention that the House Intelligence Committee would be all over a Clinton scandal in the election if they could find one. They tried to fabricate the notion that the Russians were actually working for Clinton. That was a better stream of inquiry, they felt, than whatever this "meeting with Chinese officials" that some right wing blog has told you is important (I can't even find any google results for it).