U.S. Politics

[Tom Graves]

Apparently your only source for that story is MSNBC which is no source at all.

Apparently you missed it.


REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.

I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?

Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.

I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.

(emphasis added)

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629462401/transcript-president-trump-and-russian-president-putins-joint-press-conference

[John Corbett]

Apparently you missed it.


REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

"Every U.S. intelligence agency" There's a reliable source. Agencies headed by Brennan and Crapper. Those a-holes blew their credibility all to hell when they signed the letter questioning the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop story. They were rabid anti-Trumpers who can't be trusted on anything related to Trump.

I ask you again. Do you have any reliable sources.

[Tom Graves]

"Every U.S. intelligence agency" There's a reliable source. Agencies headed by Brennan and Crapper. Those a-holes blew their credibility all to hell when they signed the letter questioning the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop story. They were rabid anti-Trumpers who can't be trusted on anything related to Trump.

I ask you again. Do you have any reliable sources.

So you, like Trump, trust Putin more than our own Intelligence agencies regarding whether or not Russia meddled in our 2016 election.

Okay.

What about the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

Do you disagree with it, too?


Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

[John Corbett]

So you, like Trump, trust Putin more than our own Intelligence agencies regarding whether or not Russia meddled in our 2016 election.

Okay.

What about the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

Do you disagree with it, too?


Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

I trust Brennan and Crapper as much as I trust Putin which is not at all.

As for the Senate Intelligence Committee, you were deliberately non-specific on their findings so I cannot comment.

The rest of your diatribe is a classic non-denial denial.

[Tom Graves]

As for the Senate Intelligence Committee, you were deliberately non-specific on their findings so I cannot comment.

ME: What were the specific conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding whether or not Russia had interfered in the 2016 election?

GROK: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), in its bipartisan five-volume report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election (released across 2019–2020, with the final Volume 5 on August 18, 2020), reached the following specific conclusions regarding Russian interference:

Russia conducted an aggressive, multifaceted influence operation aimed at the 2016 presidential election. The Committee explicitly found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

This effort included cyber intrusions (such as the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and subsequent leaks of stolen material damaging to Hillary Clinton), social media disinformation and troll campaigns (e.g., via the Internet Research Agency), and other active measures. The report affirmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin approved and directed aspects of the campaign.

The Committee reviewed and endorsed the core judgments of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference, concluding that the ICA was a sound intelligence product supported by all-source intelligence and proper analytic tradecraft. It described Russian activities as a significant escalation compared to prior operations, with the goal of undermining the U.S. democratic process and favoring then-candidate Donald Trump over Clinton.

The report detailed how Russia targeted U.S. election infrastructure (scanning and probing voter registration and related systems in all 50 states) and used social media to sow discord and amplify divisive issues.

On the question of coordination or "collusion":

The Committee found no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the election. Then-Acting Chairman Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated: "We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in our elections."

However, the report identified numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian-linked individuals, describing some as posing counterintelligence threats or vulnerabilities. For example:

Paul Manafort (campaign chairman) was deemed to have represented a "grave counterintelligence threat" due to his sharing of internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the Committee assessed as tied to Russian intelligence.

The campaign had repeated contacts with Russian operatives, and some Trump associates (e.g., George Papadopoulos) were seen as potential vectors for Russian influence, even if not witting participants.

The investigation was bipartisan, involved over 200 interviews and more than one million pages of documents, and was praised by members of both parties for its thoroughness and lack of partisan division on the core interference findings (though interpretations of contacts varied). Volumes 1–4 addressed specific aspects like election security, social media, and the ICA review, while Volume 5 focused on counterintelligence threats.

These conclusions aligned with the broader U.S. intelligence community's assessment while providing additional detail on campaign contacts without establishing criminal conspiracy or coordination. The full redacted reports are available on the Senate Intelligence Committee's website.

ME: Did the Committee conclude that the Intelligence agencies "got it right"?

GROK: Yes, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) explicitly concluded that the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) "got it right" on its core assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

This is detailed most directly in Volume 4 of the Committee's bipartisan report (Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment), released in April 2020, which focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.

"Key Conclusions from the SSCI:

The Committee found that the ICA is a sound intelligence product that met President Obama's tasking. It presented a "coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis" for the conclusion that Russia engaged in an aggressive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

All analytic lines in the ICA were supported by all-source intelligence, and the assessment reflected strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning, and proper justification for the one area of analytic disagreement (differing confidence levels among agencies on whether Putin specifically aspired to help Trump win).

The Committee saw no reason to dispute the ICA's conclusions and stated that subsequent intelligence collection and analysis continued to reinforce them. There was no evidence of political pressure on analysts to reach specific outcomes.

Earlier, in a July 2018 unclassified summary of its initial findings on the ICA, the Committee (then under Chairman Richard Burr, R-NC, and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-VA) stated: "The Committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the Intelligence Community Assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions." It reaffirmed that the ICA's judgments—that Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at harming Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump, as part of a broader effort to undermine U.S. democracy—were well-supported.

These findings were bipartisan. Chairman Burr emphasized the strength of the tradecraft, while Vice Chairman Warner noted that the ICA's findings had been "unanimously re-affirmed" by intelligence officials in the Trump administration.

The Committee's overall five-volume report (2019–2020) built on this by detailing Russian active measures (hacking/leaks, social media disinformation via the Internet Research Agency, targeting of election infrastructure, etc.) and concluded that Russia conducted a multifaceted campaign directed or approved at high levels, consistent with the ICA. It described Russian efforts as a "significant escalation" and warned that such interference should be considered "the new normal."

Caveats and nuances: The SSCI did criticize specific IC/FBI handling in places (e.g., the FBI's over-reliance on the Steele dossier in FISA applications and its advocacy to include it in the ICA without full validation). However, these points concerned tradecraft or sourcing issues in limited contexts and did not undermine the ICA's core judgments on Russian interference itself. The Committee explicitly distinguished these from the overall soundness of the assessment on Russia's campaign.

In short, on the central question of whether Russia interfered and with what goals, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed the underlying intelligence, sources, and processes in depth (including thousands of pages of documents and interviews with analysts and agency heads) and affirmed that the Intelligence Community's 2017 assessment was fundamentally accurate and professionally produced. The full reports (with some redactions for sources/methods) are publicly available on the Senate Intelligence Committee's website.

. . . . . . .

Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

[John Corbett]

ME: What were the specific conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding whether or not Russia had interfered in the 2016 election?

GROK: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), in its bipartisan five-volume report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election (released across 2019–2020, with the final Volume 5 on August 18, 2020), reached the following specific conclusions regarding Russian interference:

Russia conducted an aggressive, multifaceted influence operation aimed at the 2016 presidential election. The Committee explicitly found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Newsflash: The Soviets/Russians have been meddling in our elections for as long as anyone can remember and we have meddled in theirs. There isn't an iota of evidence that any of these efforts has affected the outcome of a single election. Democrats don't want to admit one of the reasons Trump beat Hillary and Kamala is because the Democrats nominated losers. Hillary is one of the worst candidates in recent memory. From the time she first sought elective office, her poll numbers have always peaked at the start of her campaign and then tumbled before the votes were cast. That was true of her run for the Senate which she won anyway. That was true in 2008 when despite having the Democrat establishment on her side, she still managed to lose the nomination to a relative newcomer by the name of Barack Obama. She would have repeated that feat in 2016 if the Democrat establishment hadn't put their thumb on the scale through the use of unelected superdelegates who ensured it would be the party establishment that would choose the nominee, not the primary voters. Otherwise Bernie Sanders would likely have won the nomination. Once handed the nomination, she managed to lose a general election almost every pundit didn't think was possible.

Kamala might have been even worse. In 2020, she was polling 4th in her home state when she dropped out of the race before the first primary or caucus. Still Sleepy Joe Biden was told to pick her as his running mate in what was obviously a DEI hire. The plan was for Joe to get elected masquerading as a moderate, then Joe was supposed to step aside, either midway through his term but at the latest, before the 2024 primary season. Joe screwed them over when he refused to step aside as he had promised. Knowing they couldn't hide Biden's severe mental decline any longer, the Democrat establishment sabotaged Joe by taking the unprecedented step of scheduling the first debate a month before the conventions knowing it was likely Joe would have a disastrous debate which would give them justification to remove him from the ticket. It worked. The Democrats took the unprecedented, undemocratic step of rejecting the person who won all the primaries and arbitrarily chose Kamala Harris to be their nominee. Over the next 107 days, Kamala made a bonfire out of $1.5 billion and turned a 3% lead in the average of the polls into a 2% defeat in the election, losing every single swing state in the process.

And of course, rather than accept any accountability for their poor choice of candidates, the party chose to blame Russian influence for their own failures. They even went so far as to burn their own post-mortem report which would have disclosed their incompetence. The ultimate irony is that this is the party that claims they are fighting for democracy. Democrats claim to love democracy until democracy kicks their asses which it frequently does. Then they do everything in their power to delegitimize the choice of the voters.

[Tom Graves]

The Soviets/Russians have been meddling in our elections for as long as anyone can remember and we have meddled in theirs.

ME: Did the [Republican-controlled] Senate Select Committee on Intelligence find that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was more widespread and intensive than it had been in previous years?

GROK: Yes, the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) explicitly affirmed that Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election represented a significant escalation compared to previous Russian operations.

In Volume 4 of its report ("Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment"), the committee reviewed the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and found it presented a coherent, well-supported case. The SSCI stated that the ICA made a clear argument that the manner and aggressiveness of the Russian interference was historically unprecedented. It specifically endorsed the ICA's judgment that the Russian campaign "demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations."

Key supporting elements from the SSCI's multi-volume report include:

Unprecedented activity against election infrastructure: Volume 1 described "an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure" by Russian intelligence, which occurred in all 50 states. The committee viewed this as potentially a "trial run" to probe U.S. defenses.

Aggressive, multi-faceted campaign: Across volumes, the report concluded that "the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." This included hacking-and-leaking (e.g., DNC and Podesta emails), a sophisticated social media/information warfare operation by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) aimed at polarizing Americans and boosting Trump while harming Clinton, and other active measures.

Broader context and scale: The committee noted this went beyond prior Russian efforts (e.g., in 2008 or 2012), with greater directness, cyber elements, and scope. It affirmed the ICA's core findings on Russian leadership intent (ordered by Putin, with a preference for Trump) while critiquing the ICA for limited historical context on earlier interference.

The SSCI's investigation was one of the most exhaustive congressional reviews, involving over 200 interviews and more than a million pages of documents. Its findings were bipartisan (Republican-led at the time, with input from both parties) and aligned with the 2017 ICA and other assessments (e.g., Special Counsel Mueller's report described the interference as "sweeping and systematic"). The committee highlighted ongoing vulnerabilities but did not find evidence of collusion/coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government—though it identified significant counterintelligence risks from contacts.

In short, the SSCI did not merely repeat prior assessments; it independently reviewed the underlying intelligence and explicitly supported the conclusion that 2016 marked a more intensive and widespread Russian effort than in earlier years. The full reports (Volumes 1–5) are available on the Senate Intelligence Committee's website.

. . . . . . .

Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

[John Corbett]

ME: Did the [Republican-controlled] Senate Select Committee on Intelligence find that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was more widespread and intensive than it had been in previous years?

GROK: Yes, the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) explicitly affirmed that Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election represented a significant escalation compared to previous Russian operations.

In Volume 4 of its report ("Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment"), the committee reviewed the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and found it presented a coherent, well-supported case. The SSCI stated that the ICA made a clear argument that the manner and aggressiveness of the Russian interference was historically unprecedented. It specifically endorsed the ICA's judgment that the Russian campaign "demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations."

Key supporting elements from the SSCI's multi-volume report include:

Unprecedented activity against election infrastructure: Volume 1 described "an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure" by Russian intelligence, which occurred in all 50 states. The committee viewed this as potentially a "trial run" to probe U.S. defenses.

Aggressive, multi-faceted campaign: Across volumes, the report concluded that "the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." This included hacking-and-leaking (e.g., DNC and Podesta emails), a sophisticated social media/information warfare operation by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) aimed at polarizing Americans and boosting Trump while harming Clinton, and other active measures.

Broader context and scale: The committee noted this went beyond prior Russian efforts (e.g., in 2008 or 2012), with greater directness, cyber elements, and scope. It affirmed the ICA's core findings on Russian leadership intent (ordered by Putin, with a preference for Trump) while critiquing the ICA for limited historical context on earlier interference.

The SSCI's investigation was one of the most exhaustive congressional reviews, involving over 200 interviews and more than a million pages of documents. Its findings were bipartisan (Republican-led at the time, with input from both parties) and aligned with the 2017 ICA and other assessments (e.g., Special Counsel Mueller's report described the interference as "sweeping and systematic"). The committee highlighted ongoing vulnerabilities but did not find evidence of collusion/coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government—though it identified significant counterintelligence risks from contacts.

In short, the SSCI did not merely repeat prior assessments; it independently reviewed the underlying intelligence and explicitly supported the conclusion that 2016 marked a more intensive and widespread Russian effort than in earlier years. The full reports (Volumes 1–5) are available on the Senate Intelligence Committee's website.

. . . . . . .

Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

Still no evidence the Russians affected the outcome of the election in either 2016 or 2024. Both Hillary and Kamala lost the electoral college decisively and they had nobody but themselves to blame. Both would have had to win at least 3 additional states to win the election. If is far fetched to think the Russians affected the outcome in even one state. Three is preposterous.

Hillary and Kamala are both losers who won't accept accountability for their own deficiencies as candidates. Do the country a favor and nominate Kamala again in 2028. Better yet, put both Kamala and Hillary on the ticket. I don't care which one you put on the top of the ticket.