How much longer are we going to be inundated with Russian interference in our election stories? Countries, including ours, interfere in other countries elections all the time. In 1996, President Clinton interfered with the Israeli election of Netanyahu, according to The Times of Israel and in 2015, President Obama’s team tried to intervene in an election, to support groups to undermine the election of Netanyahu, according to reports from The Washington Times. It was not successful, Netanyahu was once again elected.

This Russian interference happened under the Obama Administration, why didn’t they prevent it? President Trump was elected by the American people, just like presidents before him. The Democrats will not accept this, just as now they will not accept the outcome of the long-awaited Mueller report. I can’t wait for the re-election of Trump in 2020. That doesn’t make me racist, bad, stupid or deplorable. It makes me pretty smart, I’d say.

Betty Styron Tyree

Harrisonburg

(7) comments

sbsheridan

The Obama administration detected Russian interference in the 2016 election, and there is videotape of Obama -- in person -- looking Putin in the eye and telling him to, "Cut it out." As for preventing it, I think we've seen in recent Congressional hearings with social media executives that prevention is not an easy thing to do. If this type of interference doesn't worry you, I invite you to read recent articles in Time and The Atlantic, as well as the novel 1984.

bishopsboy

Dear Susan, foreign countries have always used propaganda campaigns to influence our elections. It’s nothing new and our country is probably one of the worst offenders in violating the integrity of foreign elections. For instance, President Obama openly spoke out against Netanyahu’s reelection in 2015 and sent $350,000 in taxpayer money to opposition political groups. If we interfere with foreign elections, why should foreign countries restrain from interfering in ours? That’s a little like the kettle calling the pot black, is it not? Furthermore, what exactly did “the Russians” do or reveal that caused Hillary Clinton voters to vote for Trump instead? Where are these vast hordes of lemming voters who were so easily fooled into switching their vote for Hillary to Trump? Not one person out of 110 million voters has publicly come forward to admit “the Russians” fooled them into voting for Trump rather than Hillary. It’s much more likely that James Comey, rather than “the Russians”, is the one who derailed Clinton’s campaign by first exonerating her in the email scandal where she was clearly guilty of violating federal law and then reopening the investigation 2 weeks before the election. Also, the MSM did her no favors in videoing her face plant roll into a black van or showing her public stumbles or seizures – raising questions about her truthfulness regarding her health issues. Similarly, she looked and sounded like a robot during the presidential debates, which again did not help her public perception. And then there is her 30+ years of blatant lying, scandals, and cover ups. Just accept that Hillary Clinton’s actions and behaviors and political record caused her to lose. She was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign and lost to someone less hated than herself. That’s what happened. “The Russian” did nothing to make Americans hate Hillary Clinton – she did that all by herself.

sbsheridan

Indeed, Ms. Clinton did a lot of damage to herself. But I suspect you are not understanding the true power of the internet to single out neighborhoods and zip codes and to present false stories in ways that cause doubt and hatred and leave little recourse for disavowal. In that way, people who had no idea which way there were going to vote were persuaded by false stories to stay away from Clinton. I agree that Clinton was a bad candidate. But I also know, from much evidence that has been well publicized, that there was something insidious going on during the campaign, and that it involved fantastical stories and hackers and, yes, some Russians. If you would look into this, I think you would agree. I urge you to do so, because one day it may be a candidate you like who is subjected to this treatment.

bishopsboy

Dear Susan, my candidate is subjected to that treatment on a daily basis by the MSM. How many times have I heard on the MSM this past week that President Trump is a racist or white nationalist even though he is not? I'm more concerned about Google, Facebook, and the MSM censoring and biasing the narrative more than I'm concerned about malfeasance from the Russians.

sbsheridan

Repy to Bishopsboy 8/12 -- I suggest that you may be following the wrong thread. As you note in your letter, the "MSM" did not always treat HRC with kid gloves. And I do not agree with your reports that Trump is being called a racist by anyone reporting the news. although they certainly are reporting such comments by others, which is part of their jobs. I think that some of your pre-conceived convictions may be leading you to ignore the proverbial "elephant in the room," thus making yours an incomplete analysis.

Chief601

What were these "false stories"? Name the "insidious" things going on. Could it be the $120 million the the Clinton foundation received as she (as Sec. of State) directed nuclear materials to the RUSSIANS? Could it be that thinking people knew very quickly that the Steele dossier as a phony and was presented as fact to the overseeing judge when Comey knew it was a lie? Could it be that many voters learned very quickly that the Democrat Party was the contractor of these lies? Could it be that people understood the Democrat Party FIXED the nomination of Clinton? Are these the insidious things to which you are referring?

sbsheridan

Reply to Chief 601 8/12. Do we have to keep going over this? I know I will be accused of cherry-picking sources and quotes, but the same can be said for the other side. Can we just agree that we don’t agree and move on? Both sides are tainted.

From Politifact: “As secretary of state, Clinton did serve on a government board that ultimately approved a transfer of uranium, but she wasn’t the deciding vote. And the Clinton Foundation did receive $145 million from parties involved in the transaction — but the dates of a large share of the donations and the deal don’t add up to suggest a quid pro quo.”

From CNN: “President Trump never misses a chance to deny the claims made in … the Steele dossier, but special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is proving some of the details contained inside to be true”

From Vox: “And then he [Sanders] got a gift. Clinton, in reality, didn’t just clear the Democratic field for herself — she cleared it for Sanders also ... He was the only candidate representing the party’s populist-liberal wing and … the only candidate who offered Clinton’s critics a chance to stop her coronation.”

From ThinkProgress.com: “For months … Trump and his allies have tried to smear Christopher Steele … as someone bent on bringing down the president through lies and deceit. But after this week’s revelations, they might have to try a new strategy ... These investigators queried Steele, a former British intelligence agent, about his sources and methodology in putting together the Steele Dossier, which alleged that Russian officials maintained compromising material on Trump. The dossier, first commissioned by conservative opponents of Trump’s 2016 primary campaign, also offered details about Russia’s broader interference campaign. It also noted that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page specifically acted as a conduit for the Trump campaign and Russian officials."

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.