https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...
>The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump
>The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The DoJ literally published a report outlining the Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Republican control Senate Intel Committee also published a report outlining the Russian meddling the 2016 election. If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about.
Journalists qualify as "folks" I would think. But it's true I suppose, much of what they said had some basis in reality. Nothing to see here.
> If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about.
There's this: "Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years?"
This holier than though "how dare you!" culture when someone asks legitimate questions about legitimate wrongdoing (here I refer to journalists and their tendency to wildly speculate, which clearly exerts psychological influence on belief formation in the public) is annoying. And on top of it I get a [reported]. Nice.
I’m not a fan of either party in the US — they both have glaring fatal flaws — but this comment is an irresponsible level of whataboutism.
The folks commenting on Russian influence in 2016 were doing it with some basis in reality, and it turned out that the facts were confirmed by the current administration’s DoJ. I will add that Russian interference was not their top beef — Comey’s statements seemed to be more disconcerting for these people.
The crazy shit that Trump is saying is a figment of his own imagination and nothing more. There is no basis in reality. No one will come in later and confirm that any of his ramblings were actually correct.
Free speech has always had limits when it has had the potential to harm others. While the line is not always clear, undermining the mechanics of US democracy with verifiably false accusations can easily be seen as something that is harmful to others.