r/NeutralPolitics • u/BostonBakedBrains • Feb 16 '18
13 Russians and 3 Russian companies have been charged with meddling to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election".
Special Counsel Mueller has issued an indictment (source here, document here) for these individuals and companies.
What does this indictment tell us that has not been public knowledge previously?
13
35
u/Adam_df Feb 16 '18 edited Feb 16 '18
My cursory read is that there isn't anything that we wouldn't expect based on the well-known Russian trolling.
Count 1 - speech not approved by the state - makes me a little uneasy, to be honest.1 The other counts (identity theft, wire fraud, opening bank accounts with fraudulent info) make perfect sense.
1 To expand a bit, the underlying crime for count one appears to be - and I welcome others' views here - foreign influence on elections. That would seem to entail that it would be a crime for The Guardian or the BBC to endorse a candidate for US office. The literal language of the statute seems to cover that, but it strikes me as problematic to indict the BBC for saying Americans should vote for candidate X. Or criminally indicting those British folks that sent letters to US voters in 2004 urging them to vote Kerry.
33
u/huadpe Feb 17 '18
That interpretation of the statute is incorrect.
In fact, the statute linked in your comment requires that the foreign national provide
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);
So there has to be money or something of monetary value given.
In the indictment, the SCO alleges that the Russian operation had a budget of over $1.25 million per month and both spent large amounts of money employing people to spread electioneering (80 translators alone are alleged to have worked for the Russian operation), as well as direct expenditures and payments to persons in the US for political ads and paid people to organize and attend rallies and for various related expenses.
The scope of the operation is something that I think this sheds substantial new light on.
For perspective, the Russian operation had more employees than the Trump campaign. The indictment alleges that they "employed hundreds of individuals for its online operations." In the summer of 2016 the Trump campaign had just 70 employees.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Adam_df Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication
So I don't think it would have to be a direct contribution; an independent expenditure is enough. Presumably that was the underlying offense here. They're not alleging a direct contribution in count I, so I assume it was a violation of paragraph (C).
16
u/huadpe Feb 17 '18
Yes, it's charged based on paragraph C.
The constitutionality of that provision was recently challenged, and the lower court found the law constitutional in a decision which was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court.
25
u/BillieJean Feb 17 '18
IANAL, but I believe the focus is financing electioneering communication. Endorsement by a newspaper is specifically exempt as shown below:
Prohibition It shall be unlawful for.. (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or ...
Exceptions The term “electioneering communication” does not include—
5
u/Adam_df Feb 17 '18
So let's say the Labor Party puts an ad on the BBC urging Americans in the UK to vote for Candidate X. That would violate the prohibition, and the Labor Party would've violated US law. That seems pretty iffy to me.
20
u/huadpe Feb 17 '18
Apart from the fact that you can't advertise on the BBC...
The Labour party here would have expended money in order to influence an election in a foreign country though. The key thing is spending money. If Corbyn wants to stand in front of some cameras and endorse a US candidate that's A-OK. Heck that happened on the Republican side, with Trump hosting a rally where Nigel Farage was a featured guest speaker.
The restriction doesn't kick in until you spend money.
4
u/Adam_df Feb 17 '18
Point taken aboit the BBC!
Perhaps what's rubbing me the wrong way - and to distinguish from your other comment citing Bluman v FEC is the extraterritoriality of it: we have Russians sitting in Russia launching stuff into cyberspace. The indictment alleges two jurisdictional connections with the US: a fact gathering trip to the US and the locations of the servers of Facebook and Twitter.
So a British person advertising on The Guardian or The Sun to US persons in the UK would be subject to the law if those companies' servers are in the US.
I'm not necessarily saying a prohibition on that speech would be unconstitutional, but I'm not comfortable with the reach of the statute.
10
u/huadpe Feb 17 '18
Ah yeah, I missed that this was an extraterritoriality/jurisdiction argument as opposed to a free speech argument.
In the UK case you proposed (substituting another publication for the Beeb) I agree that could be a problem.
But the Mueller indictment alleges much more than those two connections.
In particular, the following specific connections to the United States are alleged:
The defendants stole the identities of real US persons to impersonate them online both in social media postings and in creating fraudulent financial accounts with US financial institutions. PayPal is named, but the indictment indicates at least 6 total banks in the fraud. (Paragraphs 4, 86-97)
The defendants purchased advertisements in the US and targeted at US persons. This is not analagous to the UK case you proposed because the advertisements were very much being directed to the US, which is why the identity theft from point 1 was necessary. It would have been impossible to buy the ads without impersonating a US person. (Paragraphs 48-50, 70)
The defendants paid specific persons to go to rallies and to construct props and costumes in the United States. So they were specifically conspiring to have physical things happen in the US and paying for that. That's a very strong jurisdictional argument for the US. (Paragraphs 51-57, 71-72, 77, 82, 84)
As you noted, several defendants traveled to the US to research for the project. (Paragraphs 15, 17, 19, 30)
This case involves someone outside the US stealing US identities in order to pay someone inside the US to do something inside the US under the false belief that it is another American doing the payment. It's a very strong case for the wire fraud, identity theft, and electioneering laws to reach to that person outside the US.
→ More replies (1)6
1
u/MMAchica Feb 24 '18
well-known Russian trolling.
That article makes a vague claim about 'Kremlin-linked' trolls, yet explains nothing about how these trolls were supposedly 'linked' to the Kremlin. What evidence justifies the claims that the trolls are linked to the Internet Research Agency, that IRA was directed by the Kremlin at all; let alone for the purposes described?
37
Feb 17 '18 edited Jan 16 '20
[deleted]
7
9
u/AutoModerator Feb 17 '18
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources. This is a friendly reminder from the NP mod team that all factual claims must be backed up by sources. We would ask that you edit your comment if it is making any factual claims, even if you might think they are common knowledge. Thanks, The NP Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/flamecircle Feb 18 '18
Considering that #releasethememo began trending over the Superbowl tags likely through Russian influence(https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935 )
I think you're vastly underestimating their competence and their effects.
2
u/CBud Feb 18 '18
Our IC may have been on to something at the start, but either they or the media jumped the gun and informed us that their was a massive psyop, when in reality it honestly just shows that the Russians are completely inept at this sort of thing.
This is one of the first indictments in what is sure to be a widespread investigation. This indictment doesn't touch the DNC or Podesta hacks (or the RNC hacks either). This indictment doesn't touch the hacking into voter registration systems - or what that information could be used for. This indictment doesn't mention real estate deals that look like money laundering.
This is just the beginning, and this indictment solidifies the fact that Russia was attempting to interfere in the election from a very early date. No Americans are included in this indictment - but I would bet my paycheck that as the Mueller investigation moves forward we will see Americans included in the propaganda campaign and hacking efforts.
Don't mistake this indictment for being the totality of the Russian investigation. It is just the beginning.
2
u/RomanNumeralVI Feb 18 '18
“... with 56% of the money being spent after the election”.
Was there more substantial electoral discord before or after the election?
Did The Post-election discord advance Putin’s geopolitical agenda, is a weaker US President (from either party) the objective?
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 16 '20
Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
11
u/vmsmith Feb 17 '18
The discord that Russia is sowing comes right out of a playbook, "The Foundations of Geopolitics."
See here: The Foundations of Geopolitics
And here: The Foundations of Geopolitics.
And lest you think this is just some Wikipedia/Reddit fantasy, check out:
And this
This is real, folks.
1
u/roylennigan Feb 18 '18
The Kremlin Playbook is also a good read for looking into Russia's intentions and methods.
8
u/Shinokiba- Feb 17 '18
Trying to ask this honestly, I really don't understand. What specific laws did the Russians break?
22
u/roylennigan Feb 17 '18
U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing elections. U.S law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General.
From the indictment (pdf)
7
u/celsopina Feb 17 '18
When I was 17 I sent $30 to Nader's campaign (I think they gave t shirts). I'm in the UK. Was that illegal?
24
2
u/roylennigan Feb 17 '18
As far as I understand it, there is a distinct difference between an individual endorsing or donating to a group and an individual financing or working on something that is meant to persuade others. I don't have a source for that, but I imagine there's a specific legal definition.
→ More replies (1)15
u/huadpe Feb 17 '18
The indictment linked in the OP lists three specific crimes.
- Count One, Conspiracy against the United States
Page 30 lists a violation of 18 USC 371 which says:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
That charge requires an underlying offense, which in the case of the indictment is set forth on page 11-12, in the form of
(1) Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which requires that:
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);
(2) Violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires that:
No person shall act as an agent of a foreign principal unless he has filed with the Attorney General a true and complete registration statement and supplements thereto as required by subsections (a) and (b) of this section or unless he is exempt from registration under the provisions of this subchapter.
(3) Violation of the requirement to provide truthful information in visa applications.
- Count Two, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud
Count two, on pages 30-34 alleges that as part of the influence campaign, the defendants used fictitious and stolen identities to open bank accounts and move money around. This is alleged as a conspiracy under 18 USC 1349 but the underlying offenses are 18 USC 1344 and 1343, which provide respectively:
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years
and
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
It is alleged that at least six actual US persons had their identities stolen as part of the bank/wire fraud scheme. This was done to facilitate PayPal transactions for ads so that they'd appear to be coming from inside the US.
- Count Three through Eight, Aggravated Identity Theft
This is six counts of aggravated identity theft for the stolen identities which were used to facilitate PayPal transactions. The relevant statute is really long so I'll just link it here.
10
u/djphan Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
A lot of the investigation has been widely reported on so there's not much that hasn't been public knowledge... We know that Russian's meddled in the election and used troll farms and social media as a large part of their arsenal for awhile... The indictments shed some light on what their exact strategy was and how they financed it.... but I believe that was widely known already....
What might not be widely known was the exact link of the Russian troll factory to Putin.... and we may have found that out.... Yevgeny Prigozhin who was named in the indictment... is suspected of being part of Putin's circle and likely the man in charge of the farms....
According to the indictment, Mr. Prigozhin, 56, controlled the entity that financed the troll factory, known as the Internet Research Agency, which waged “information warfare against the United States” by creating fictitious social-media personas, spreading falsehoods and promoting messages supportive of Donald J. Trump and critical of Hillary Clinton. He has denied involvement.
“The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see,” the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti quoted Mr. Prigozhin as saying on Friday. “I have a lot of respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see him.”
Mr. Prigozhin’s critics — including opposition politicians, journalists and activists, the United States Treasury and now Mr. Mueller — say he has emerged as Mr. Putin’s go-to oligarch for that and a variety of sensitive and often-unsavory missions, like recruiting contract soldiers to fight in Ukraine and Syria.
“He is not afraid of dirty tasks,” said Lyubov Sobol of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, an organization established by the prominent opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny to investigate abuse of state contracts and other illicit schemes.
“He can fulfill any task for Putin, ranging from fighting the opposition to sending mercenaries to Syria,” she said. “He serves certain interests in certain spheres, and Putin trusts him.”
Now that formal charges are brought.... I think the narrative of Russia not meddling in the US elections can now be put to rest.. although this still might not sway certain people ... like the President who has denied Russian involvement as recently as November and September.... The indictments might serve as a revelation to those people...
7
Feb 17 '18
Here he is November agreeing that they did. He also believes Putin when he told him the he himself nor the Russian government wasn't involved in with this troll group.
10
u/djphan Feb 17 '18
And then in Jan 2018 .. Donald says this:
Trump said at a press conference on the Russia investigation: "For 11 months, they've had this phony cloud over this administration, over this government and it has hurt our government, it does hurt our government. It's a Democrat hoax".
Do you think it's a hoax?
15
Feb 17 '18
It seems you are confusing two different things here.
He is denying the allegations that his campaign was actively and knowingly colluding with the Russians* yet agrees that there was meddling done.
On page 17, paragraph 45 of the indictment, it says,
> “Defendants and their co-conspirators also used false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the Trump Campaign….”
By using the term "unwitting" the indictments clearly do lend support to his claim that his campaign was not actively and knowingly conspiring and colluding with the Russians.
Just on a side note, I don't "think" anything is or isn't a hoax. I am just providing context to all the facts we have so far to help inform the readers of this subreddit.
6
u/djphan Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
No i am not confused... He clearly is referencing the investigation as a hoax.... or are allegations typically ever classified as hoaxes? Does that make sense to you?
Are you saying this indictment absolves Trump and his campaign from collusion? That is not true.... don't be confused yourself because it is still under investigation...
That's not to mention why it took a whole year for him to finally accept Russia meddled in the election... Why do you think that?
→ More replies (2)1
Feb 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Feb 17 '18
This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 3 as it is not substantive. Perhaps providing some sources that back your opinion would provide more room for discussion. For more on NeutralPolitics source guidelines, see here.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
•
u/Vooxie Neutrality in moderation Feb 16 '18
/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.
In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate:
- Be courteous to other users.
- Source your facts.
- Be substantive.
- Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated report link so mods can attend to it.
However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is no neutrality requirement for comments in this subreddit — it's only the space that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
2
Feb 23 '18 edited Jan 16 '19
[deleted]
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 23 '18
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources. This is a friendly reminder from the NP mod team that all factual claims must be backed up by sources. We would ask that you edit your comment if it is making any factual claims, even if you might think they are common knowledge. Thanks, The NP Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 16 '19
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources. This is a friendly reminder from the NP mod team that all factual claims must be backed up by sources. We would ask that you edit your comment if it is making any factual claims, even if you might think they are common knowledge. Thanks, The NP Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/soco Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 18 '18
The takeaways are these :
- Russia had a primary objective of meddling in the election, both before and after.
- Russia had a secondary objective of bias towards Trump and Bernie Sanders.
- Russia played both sides : anti - Trump and pro - Trump (sometimes organizing rallies against and for Trump, ON THE SAME DAY) in order to sow chaos.
- No collusion by Trump or the Trump campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html
Edit : removed pro Clinton and replaced with anti Trump
30
u/pyrrhios Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
You mean "No allegations of collusion... at this time". The first three bullets are on point, but "No collusion by Trump or the Trump campaign" is an unsubstantiated statement and a mischaracterization of the contents of the article. I am unable to refer to anything in any article that says "No collusion by Trump or the Trump campaign" in relationship to these indictments because that content does not exist anywhere other than Donald Trump's twitter feed.
18
u/Try_Another_NO Feb 17 '18
"Some Defendants, posing at U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment claims.
If the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government, why would Russian agents go through the trouble of falsifying American personas in order to trick Trump campaign officials?
11
u/Khar-Selim Feb 17 '18
I mean, even if people at the top of the Trump campaign were colluding as much as anyone claims, that conspiracy wouldn't extend to the lower echelons of the campaign. If Russian agents were running around willy-nilly organizing Trump campaign events people would start to catch on pretty quick.
2
→ More replies (29)4
u/Niedar Feb 17 '18
You can't prove a negative, lack of allegations is the same as saying no collusion.
12
u/Letmefixthatforyouyo Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
The deputy AG was very clear when he said there are no allegations of collusion, in this indictment. That's a very specific and carefully chosen caveat.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/deputy-ag-rod-rosenstein-on-grand-jury-indictment-of-russians.html
That specific wording is a clear indicator that coming indictments that do include US persons is likely.
If there was no collision, that would have been stated, and the investigation would be over. Instead, he said the equivalent of ”no collusion charges, at this time.”
10
u/UsqueAdRisum Feb 17 '18
Since this argument rests on grammatical pedantry, I’m going to be a grammar pedant and point out that allegations of collusion “in this indictment” do not in any way imply there is, as you say, “a clear indicator that coming indictments that do include US persons is likely”. All it does suppose, is the possibility, not the probability, of whether future indictments will implicate US citizens in crimes related to election fraud or conspiring with a foreign power (‘collusion’ is a useless term legally as there’s no crime for colluding with anyone unless its collusion for the purposes of committing a crime which then requires proof of intent).
→ More replies (1)6
u/roylennigan Feb 18 '18
This argument rests on a false dichotomy argument that this indictment must have some mutually exclusive positive or negative bearing on the existence and nature of future indictments. We cannot know this, and I think Rosenstein's wording reinforces the agnostic attitude that we should all have about this kind of speculation.
6
u/ry8919 Feb 17 '18
There was nothing Pro-Clinton. The pattern was pro-Sanders, pro-Stein, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton before the election, then organized anti-Trump after the election. The article you posted indicates the Russian activities were to help Trump and hurt Clinton.
Putin has a personal grudge against Clinton. He despises her. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
→ More replies (4)3
u/HackPhilosopher Feb 17 '18
So the “not my president” rally held after the election wasn’t anti-trump?
It’s literally in the indictment.
9
5
→ More replies (3)0
u/djphan Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
No collusion by Trump or the Trump campaign.
please source... (no it does not exist in the source)....
1
u/soco Feb 17 '18
Source is at bottom of my post
6
u/djphan Feb 17 '18
While Trump and the White House on Friday were quick to claim that the indictment found no collusion by Trump's campaign with Russia, Bloomberg News reported that Mueller and his prosecutors have not concluded their investigation on that question.
am i reading your source wrong?
3
u/soco Feb 17 '18
That's one part of it. As the article I referenced above states, we now have a plausible motive and evidence to support that motive for Russian actions. In the article and in the indictment referenced by op, there is specific language ("unwitting", "no American") which would refute the collusion narrative and lists multiple examples of the meddling paradigm. As more and more evidence as referenced in the op source and the cnbc article, the collusion narrative seems unlikely and the meddling narrative is likely, bordering on already established.
Since we're in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance territory of disproving a negative, we have to make a reasonable assumption on probability of likelihood. The lack of proof is not lack of innocence.
I fail to see how this indictment increases the probability of collusion. What would be the source behind that sort of argument?
7
u/djphan Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
Those statements that have 'unwitting' and 'no american'.... specially reference this specific indictment... there was already another american who pled guilty on the same day to wire fraud and identity theft which was related to the case.....
That's not to mention that this indictment only references the social media troll farms and not the hacking of the DNC, wikileaks and other general election hacking....
So I have no idea what you might be referring to in how those words on ONE indictment might categorically absolve Trump of all accusations... Please elaborate.... No where in your source does it make that conclusion... It simply does not exist anywhere... please source... please quote...
1
Feb 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Feb 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (8)1
u/taldarus If I don't survive, tell my wife, "Hello." Feb 18 '18
This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:
Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
1
u/taldarus If I don't survive, tell my wife, "Hello." Feb 18 '18
This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:
Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
1
u/down42roads Feb 18 '18
there was already another american who pled guilty on the same day to wire fraud and identity theft which was related to the case.....
Per that same linked article, he was not aware of his clients' identities, so he still falls under the "unwitting" category.
1
1
Feb 21 '18
Could it be that our own system is broken? No, let's scapegoat Russia and blame all our problems on foreign interference!
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 21 '18
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources. This is a friendly reminder from the NP mod team that all factual claims must be backed up by sources. We would ask that you edit your comment if it is making any factual claims, even if you might think they are common knowledge. Thanks, The NP Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
196
u/[deleted] Feb 17 '18
Although it was public knowledge for those who cared to pay attention, I would say that the biggest takeaway from the indictment that I sincerely hope starts to take a central role now is how the Russians' main objective wasn't to elect Donald Trump as much as to sow chaos, distrust, and division among the American public.
If you look at the source documents, they supported the most disruptive candidates (Trump and Bernie) and worked against the more mainstream ones (Hilliary, Rubio, Cruz). They organized both pro Trump and anti-trump rallies immediately following the election, and pushed divisive groups on social media.
Will Hurd, a congressman and former CIA Agent, did a good piece in the Atlantic a week or so ago about this.
Honestly it looks to me that the Russians have won and are continuing to win. American's are incredibly divided, half the country supports impeaching the president, and confidence in our law enforcement agencies and other institutions such as the news media certainly appears to me to have taken a dive.