Is there evidence that the Russians had more of an impact than the Saudis in the election?
Both gave generously to Hillary's nonprofit. My brother-in-law does the legal work for these people.
Saudi Arabia didn't influence the election. The donation would have influenced policy if Hillary won but had nothing to do with the election.
IrishAl ... oh, so Mrs Clinton didn't spend the money on propaganda and will be returning the hundreds of millions of dollars, right?
This'll be an amazing change for the corrupt one! Thanks for breaking the news!
Maybe up to 20 percent of her campaign was funded by the sauds. McCain also took donations in 2014. And they will continue to fund whatever politician supports their policy. They've been doing it ever since Exxon mobile was around.
I guess since trump won then donations to hillarys campaign had less of an impact on the election than "Russian hackers"
IrishAl ... moral equivalence? Is that the best you've got?
Mrs Clinton spent over a billion dollars spreading her lies. As you admit, that's over $200 million from the Saudis. Are you really so naive as to suggest that the Saudis' money had NO INFLUENCE?
Of course it did! Mrs Clinton had to pay people to come to her meager rallies, she had to pay for the votes. There is absolutely no proof that Mr Trump benefited from anything nefarious. None!
Well to answer your question the evidence should be apparent based off the results of the election. However, it's impossible to get evidence for what Hillary did with that donation money - unless you're a Russian hacker that can hack into her bank statements haha.
China influenced trumps campaign too. His ties are made in China which he profited from and funded his campaign with.
IrishAl ... it's painfully clear that you continue to guess wrong. Both logic and math appear beyond your comprehension!
There's no proven impact from the Russians. Just imagine what the blowout would've been like if Mrs Clinton hadn't had the $200 million to spend on propaganda!
Psst ... is like to be in the room when you and corrupt Mrs Clinton explain to the Saudis that their "investments" had no impact on the election!
You leftists simply can't compete with the facts!
If the money had anything to do with the election and not just paying off her own personal assets which is also possible then it only influenced the primary election.
The sauds help put a moderate republican up as the democratic primary
IrishAl ... do you ever read the trash you throw up? What utter nonsense!
Please share the video of Mrs Clinton telling the Saudis that their $200 million had "no impact" on the election. No credible adult believes that idiocy!
Bernie sanders would probably be president right now if the saudis didn't fund that moderate Republican.
IrishAl ... keep that delusion alive! Republicans appreciate your support!
Twink I agree Clintons and the Clinton foundation, and Clinton defenders make democrats look really bad. They are using the same argument republicans used when they opposed campaign finance reform and citizen United.
“independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That is the argument Clinton defenders are accepting, which is 100 percent a republican argument.
Clinton is a moderate republican; the whole dnc has been shifted to the right since 2001
IrishAl ... nifty attempt, but you still fail! The Citizens United wasn't focused on the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars by foreign regimes to impact our elections. They were focused on allowing American citizens to have a voice.
Leftists just hate the competition. You all just want unions and government agencies to use their millions to sway an election, while silencing average Americans.
Too bad, you lost.
Yes, the Russians hacked the Democratic Party and deliberately spread misinformation. The Saudis had no clear impact on the election, other than generating controversy by donating to the Clinton Foundation, which has nothing to do with the actual mechanisms of the campaign.
Misinformation? Those were emails those democrats actually wrote.
I'm not referring to the emails. I'm referring to the fake news propagated by Russian agents as an escalation of their decades long dezinformatsiya campaign
Skin ... please share your sources of the lies.
From your article "some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so"
Even if Russia is guilty of hacking the DNC, what are they really guilty of? Giving the American people more information than they would have had? Without people hacking into the DNC email, we would never have known about Hillary's public and private policy's. We would never have known that Hillary spoke disparagingly about Catholics or pay to play or colluded with the media or any of it. The left is just mad that there was too much transparency in this last election. I'm sorry that the people saw right through your candidate. It was exposed by someone that seems to care more about this country and democracy than the democrats. That's sad if it's the Russians instead of real journalists.
Break ... exactly! If they're responsible (which Wikileaks denies), then they're only guilty of exposing the corruption of the left! Of course the left doesn't like that!
But the poll says impact, neither positive or negative. If the Russians (assuming they did it for the sake of argument) did not release emails, then the people wouldn't have seen the corruption. Assuming the Russians did hack the DNC, they definitely had more of an impact than Saudi Arabia, but it is not an impact that we have to do anything about because it was a good thing for democracy, not a bad thing.
Breck. You hit the nail on the head. The liberals are just angry because they were exposed.
You're right of course. I didn't answer the question very well. In fact I don't even know what impact the Saudi's had on the election. I missed that news article
AKA ... didn't Mrs Clinton spend the Saudis ' hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda? Ya, the Saudis bought influence and Mrs Clinton is their whore.
So far it looks like 7 democrats have voted and they all said yes. Despite a democrat insider saying that they leaked everything because of the way the Democrats handled their primary.
They conspired to steal the nomination from sanders and democrats act like the American people didn't deserve to Learn about it. I don't care if it came from a hack or leak. They really did a number on sanders and his supporters.
Did the Russians at least hack into the DNC? Yes. Did this make any difference in the outcome of the election? Impossible to say for sure.
Polster ... show your proof of the Wild allegation.
Here's another source corroborating what Hillary Clinton said in October:
Polster ... wait ... Mrs Clinton's "word" is now proof!?
You've GOT to be kidding!
No, independent fact checkers have corroborated what she said in October. You didn't read the links, did you?
Here's the statement released on October 7th from the intelligence community proving that what she said was true:
Polster ... your problem is that you -- as so many headless leftists -- have attempted to jump the shark. Unfortunate for your position, your fast talking doesn't validate your lies!
Conflating supposed Russian hacking with affecting the election fails on its face. You've shown. I connection that affected the outcome of the election.
I specifically said in my first comment, if you had bothered to read it, that it's unknown whether the Russian hacking handed Mr. Trump the victory. All we know is that the hacking occurred.
Polster ... psst ... the election wasn't held until November.
It appears that you're in the cusp of admitting that MrO knew about supposed Russian hacking before the election and chose to do nothing about it.
Again, you've failed in your attempt to conflate supposed Russian hacking with election outcome.
I haven't conflated the two. Obama did know about Russia's hacking before the election and did nothing.
How many times do I have to say that it is not known whether the Russian hacking had any impact on the election results?
Polster ... many more times! How many times have you admitted that Saudi support of corrupt Mrs Clinton had a real impact in the election?
None since there's no direct evidence of that.
I'll trust the 17 US intelligence agencies that have implicated Russia in the hacking over some lousy tabloid article, thanks.
LITERALLY FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:
"The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named."
lj74...Nowhere did I say that Russia influenced or even tried to influence the election. All I said was that Russia did, in fact, hack into the DNC. That's all.
Polster ... do you trust those 17 agencies with their reports on WMDs in Iraq?
What's the FBI saying about Russian influence on the election?
Think...If you're not going to believe the experts, then who are you going to believe?
Polster ... who'd expect you to be honest and answer the question?
Think...The FBI has not commented on whether the DNC was hacked, but why don't believe the 17 US intelligence agencies that have said it was?
That is far different then what you are alluding to! Nice try!! So much for critical thinking.
What's far different than what I was alluding to?
Well, the FBI released a statement today. Guess what? There's agreement between the FBI and the CIA that the Russian hacking was meant to get Trump elected president.
Polster ... the Russian intent is of little interest. Did it impact the election as much as the hundreds of millions from the arabs to Mrs Clinton.
Impossible to say. Where's your evidence that Arabs funding the Clinton Foundation were able to influence the election outcome?
Polster ... thanks for admitting that there was no impact. Mrs Clinton's corruption was well understood by voters all along. They didn't need Mr Podesta's emails.
It's curious that no leftists are arguing the relevant point that the content of the emails -- not the source of the info -- was damning.
Way to ignore the relevant facts!
Polster ... you didn't answer the question! Did you believe the intelligence agencies in WMDs?
When are you going to admit that the Saudis funding the Clinton Foundation had no impact on the election?
Teapublicans don't give a flying fart about links, truth or opinions. They just want to see Hillary in jail.
If you answered yes, please share your evidence.
When can we expect your evidence of Saudis swinging the election?
Guy ... keep moving the goalposts, that's all the pathetic left has remaining. Over the past eight years you all have shown that Democrats can't govern, and so it's time to let the adults on the right clean up your mess.
I expect that the 100s of millions of dollars "invested" by the Saudis and other nefarious actors close to the corrupt Mrs Clinton swayed some feeble-minded voters.
There is absolutely no confirmed tie between the Russians and ANYTHING. It's all pathetic leftists who knowingly and dishonestly tried to influence the election.
So no evidence. Cool. Just checking.
Think loves the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It's commonly used by conspiracy theorists. Basically, they say "you can't prove that what I said isn't true!!!!" Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists usually have no evidence that what they say is, in fact, true.
Guy ... are you saying that the Russians changed the outcome of the election? If so, prove it.
Polster ... you're a gnat, shooo!
Think...yet you cannot dispute that your ridiculous assertion that the Saudis helped Clinton win votes is supported by absolutely zero credible evidence.
Polsters ... my claim is totally valid. Are you attempting to suggest that we don't already have the proof that the Saudis contributed tens of millions of dollars to Mrs Clinton's campaign of deceit?
Think...that's a different assertion altogether. What you said before is that the Saudis directly influenced the outcome of the election. There is no credible evidence of that anywhere.
Polster ... answer the questions! Did the Saudis contribute to the corrupt Mrs Clinton's campaign? Do you have evidence that instead of propagandizing the country with her lies that Mrs Clinton used the Saudi money to give dying kids in Africa malaria shots?
Just stop the lies!
Think...Saudis did contribute to the Clinton Foundation. However, there is no evidence that Saudis contributed to the Clinton campaign.
The Saudis are listed as Clinton Foundation donors.
I just said that. Prove that the Saudis won Hillary Clinton votes.
Polster ... what did Mrs Clinton spend the Saudis' money on?
Not sure. Look at the Clinton Foundation's budget.
Where can I see that the Saudis even have money to them.
Apparently not, and being butt hurt isn't evidence.
@RussianThunder here is another video I hope makes you smile. It's a spoof of Oprah Winfrey and how she used to give free gifts to the audience and the women went crazy.
That was funny. I had to look up who she was. I have never seen her show.
Yeah. You have to have seen the show to "get it". She was on probably before you were born. Had her own talk show for many years.