No, all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

I don't see the strategic value in denying it happened. It's pretty obvious. I think most people on the right who aren't in the hyper-partisan bandwagon would agree with that.

We should be concerned if it did happened regardless of political ideology.

It'd be much easier to focus efforts on simply discrediting how much it really mattered. Most reports said the Russians spent around $20M on ads which considering both sides campaigns had about a billion each, not to mention the invaluable endless free media coverage over two years most presidential elections take... you can draw your own conclusions.

> I don't see the strategic value in denying it happened. I

It's about sowing doubt and creating a world where there are no 'facts', because then those who lie are on a level playing field with those who deal with the truth.

I don't understand why anyone who was on the Internet in 2016 couldn't see this. The troll farming was obvious and clearly different from the norm. In some cases the Russian origin was overt, e.g. RT all over alt-news sites.

My understanding, and I confess I haven't followed things very closely, is that the Russia meddling claim is somehow connected with the current impeachment of Trump. True? If so, does this report on the FBI at all relate to said impeachment?

As an aside, I have absolutely no idea why Trump is being impeached. Every time I open Google News all the top headlines are "Impeach Trump!". But I never see anything about why exactly he is being impeached. Granted, I haven't really read any of these articles, more than just skimming, but I'd expect at least something in the title or summary that I see in Google News. Very bizarre thing going on. When Clinton was impeached it was very clear it was related to Monica Lewinsky and lying under oath. But regarding Trump, I mostly just see articles about who wants him impeached. Nothing about why. Anyone know the particular reason Trump is being impeached? What law he violated?

UPDATE: I googled it, and someone claims he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden's son. Perhaps impeachable, but not obviously so. I guess that's why the reason is not more widely promoted, since on the face of it does not sound particularly egregious, compared to what other presidents have done.

> I haven't followed things very closely, is that the Russia meddling claim is somehow connected with the current impeachment of Trump.

No.

You could read the articles of impeachment themselves if you want to inform yourself: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeach...

"It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States."

According to your link, there is a connection:

"he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee."

And the document further continues the narrative that Trump is having outside powers interfere with the US election,

"These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections."

So, it is definitely related to the overall narrative of Trump colluding with foreign powers to have them interfere.

Also weird, dems been pushing to impeach Trump for quite awhile, but this is a recent event. It looks like the Dems have been on an impeachment hunt in search of a reason. Which also makes this allegation weird. Searching for reasons to impeach also sounds contrary to law and order, which is the reason given for impeaching Trump in this document.

Yes, it is related, there's a common theme, but the 2016 election is not why he was impeached.

The current allegations seem shaky, based on claims of some insider, so my impression is the impeachment uproar is riding on the 'collusion' updraft and moral fervor rather than hard data. Seems very different than say Watergate or with Clinton where the allegations could be unequivocally substantiated with objective evidence such as recordings.

None of this to say I like the guy or even believe the allegations to be false. However, the impeachment does not seem to be carefully following due process, which is much more undermining of rule by law than whatever Trump may have done.

It's based on the sworn testimony of numerous witnesses, including his own ambassador to the EU. The aid was delayed, and he even asked on live TV for them to open an investigation.

And the obstruction charge is quite verifiable as well.

This is very thorough, and not credibly rebutted anywhehere: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt34...

I hope it is as solid as you say, because an overturned conviction will pretty much guarantee Trump 2020.

A bunch of testimonies sounds convincing, but that depends on whom the people are and what they exactly observed. E.g. why would the ambassador to the UK know what Trump said to Ukraine? I personally am still not getting a solid feeling from all this.

Sorry, I edited it. Ambassador to the EU, Sondland. He was on various phone calls.

You'd really want to go read and review some of this. There are some decent summaries like

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...

This is no 'conviction'. He has been impeached, and that's forever, as with Clinton. More likely than not, he will not be removed from office.

No one really knows what the political consequences are, but the people running the investigation felt compelled to act since what he was doing represents a clear and present threat to free and fair elections.

Hmm, reading your linked article makes it seem even weirder. The whole point of impeachment is to convict and imprison. The best way to do that is to get a really solid case. Even more so if the Dems really think Trump is a threat to our country, and shouldn't run again, they should build a rock solid case against Trump that ensures he ends up in jail. Trump cannot be president from a jail cell.

However, as the article says, the Dems are rushing the impeachment process, which as you say will most likely not remove Trump from office (nor imprison). So, I really don't understand what is the point of this whole thing. How does Trump's behavior present a threat to free and fair elections, and how does this impeachment stop the threat?

Trump may find out Biden's son is doing illegal activities, or that Russia wasn't as meddlesome as supposed, and while that may influence the election, it is unclear to me how learning such information is in itself a bad thing for our system of government, i.e. a threat to free and fair elections.

And the very implication of the articles of impeachment, that Trump could gain something of value from Ukraine, has the implication that what Trump is seeking may actually be correct. In which case, Trump's requests certainly should be followed through by the Ukraine minister.

This whole thing makes less and less sense the more I dig into it, and I understand even more why all the news articles are so light on details.

There is a lot of bunk in that number considering the fact that only 4 of them are intelligence agencies and the context of the answer. That said, of course, Russia meddled in our election. The support Hillary and Trump not to get one elected but to promote a split in this country and we fell for it like morons!

ABeeSea says>"all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election."

No. : "New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding '17 Intel Agencies' Lie About Russian Hacking":

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-for...

Ann Coulter addresses details and history of the "17 intelligence agencies" claims in her book "Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind":

https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Futile-Trump-Hating-Left-C...

The sole sources of the claims were found to be only John Brennan and James Clapper.