Loretta Lynch: We Didn't See Any "Technical Interference" From Russia In The Election


#1

Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at an event with Politico’s Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman Thursday morning. there, she was asked about reports that Russian hackers could have impacted the results of the 2016 election. Lynch said that there was no evidence that Russian hackers breached the integrity of the U.S. election system.

“Fortunately we didn’t see the sort of technical interference that I know people had concerns about, also, in terms of voting machines and the like,” Lynch said.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/loretta_lynch_we_didnt_see_any_techincal_interference_from_russia_in_the_election.html


#2

Bet no one asked how a third of Detroit’s precincts had more votes counted then voters?


#3

This is a non-story because shifts the attention away from the e-mail hacking and on to voting machines. But the claim never was about Russian interference with voting machines. So Lynch’s comments say nothing about the real claim of hacking.

This is a good example of a straw man argument. You redefine your opponent’s position (in this case, that Russia hacked DNC e-mail) and proceed to refute that made-up position (in this case, that Russia hacked voting machines or the voting system itself). All the while ignoring your opponent’s true claim.


#4

A true claim, by the people that brought you weapons of mass destruction in Iran?

and at this point what difference does it make?


#5

Who is making a straw man argument? People can dispute and debate the source or sources of Wikileaks hacking or leaks, but Loretta Lynch was asked about Russia and the election and she pointed out that there is no evidence that the machines themselves that are used for voting were interfered with. I think this is a very important point that the Attorney General made.


#6

But it was a point that was never in contention. So why does that make it an “important point”? Clearly the intention of drawing attention to this fact is to draw attention away from the fact that serious allegations have been made about e-mail hacking.

This was not a point that Lynch proffered spontaneously, but a response to a questioner. Therefore any intention associated with this point would be at least partly associated with selection of the question. It is also notable that in the 3:11 video, almost all of it was devoted to hacking outside of the voting system. Yet the headline selected by Real Clear Politics for this story focuses only on the one point of “Technical Interference” that they (Real Clear Politics) wanted to emphasize.


#7

The point is this: The current administration is making the tacit statement that the average American Citizen is so ignorant that we’re easily swayed to vote the way some foreign power wants us to vote.

If the average person had even a single piece of classified information within their possession without the proper clearance(s), that person would be facing federal criminal charges with the possibility of being incarcerated for 20+ years. Furthermore, even if that person did have proper clearance(s), possessing that single piece of classified information in an unapproved, non-secure, location would also place that person in the same criminal jeopardy!

So Riddle-Me-This: How is it that HC isn’t held on bond pending a criminal investigation when we have proof that she was in possession of classified documentation?

I think the average person saw straight thru the lies and not so much as voted for Mr. Trump, but instead, voted against HC and all of this rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to destabilize Government level social and economic relations before the new administration can take over - no matter how badly it hurts the average American citizen.


#8

:thumbsup:


#9

There was no hacked election and it is pure bull to suggest it

Reality, Podesta was hacked by an armature phishing effort.

althouse.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-unbelievable-typo-story-about-how.html

Maybe reason enough to keep Clinton’s team away from the nuclear codes.

Everything that was revealed by wikileaks has been the truth abut how the Demopublicans have been playing the electorate.

powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/the-hackers-the-hacks.php

In the end all it is a Mad Magazine issue of Spy vs Spy, remember Putin ripping on the CIA for messing with his election.


#10

This has been claimed many times, and was even behind the recount efforts.

huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/blaming-russia-to-overtur_b_13408446.html

dailydot.com/layer8/clinton-trump-election-recount-hacked-voting-machines/

snopes.com/wisconsin-recount-observers-find-voting-machines-broken-seals/


#11

Or why the same folks who appear to be so concerned with the possibility of Russia influencing a US election weren’t concerned in the least back in 2015 when a group headed by a key Obama campaign organizer actually touched down in Tel Aviv and began participating in the Israeli election in an effort to unseat Netanyahu…


#12

Funny how that works; there is Putin also complaining about CIA/NGO’s interfering in his election.


#13

There is no need to assume that about the average American Citizen. The election was already inherently close, even without meddling. All it took was a shift in less than 1% of the voters to swing the election. So if only this small portion of the undecided American public was swayed by the embarrassing release of e-mails, that would do it. No matter than 99% of the electorate was not swayed at all.


#14

From Steyn a pretty good take on the kerfuffle:

Unlike the poll workers in Wayne County, Putin didn’t change any vote tallies. All he did, supposedly, was bust into the DNC and reveal a bunch of Democrat emails, all of which happen to be genuine. So “hacking the election” now means: selectively revealing information in order to damage a candidate with voters.

That’s not hacking, that’s business as usual in American politics. See, e.g., P**sygate.

steynonline.com/7635/the-trump-hack-of-notre-dem


#15

Let me pull that last tid-bit out: :idea:embarrassing release of e-mails,:idea:

  • You of course are talking about the emails that showed that HC and her campaign were planning means and methods to undermine the Catholic Church as well as any other Church that opposed her positions
  • You of course are talking about the emails that outlined how she went after good ole Socialist Sanders
  • You of course are talking about the emails that showed that HC was knowingly accepting financial donations from questionable sources
  • You of course are talking about the emails that showed how large donors were given preferential access to HC and other Whitehouse officials.
  • Let us not forget the emails that are talking about the emails on HC server that were classified and how the DNC planned to minimize that information

The current administration is tacitly making the statement that people are easily swayed by emails that implicated HC in illegal activities… :rolleyes: The administration wasn’t worried about the “hacking attempts” prior to the election results, and very recently made clear statements that these emails had no effect upon the election results:
( I have several links to these statements in another post here #34 )

We can call all of this a “conspiracy theory” until the cows come home; however, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re looking at a quintessential red-herring.

I state again, if the average person had done what HC did with a private email server, that person would be rotting in jail.

The DNC, imho, made a very poor choice in selecting HC as their candidate. Frankly, Mr. Kasrich, Mr. Rubio, or even Mr Carson would have been better. The DNC, I suspect, selected HC because they hoped to get the Woman vote. The DNC hoped that the Women in the country would sway the Men in their lives to vote for HC too. - Of course, this is my own opinion; however, she did say… that one of the merits we should consider when voting is that she’s a woman (CNN - Hillary Clinton: ‘One of the merits is I am a woman’ (link) ).

This whole affair is, more than likely, an attempt by the current administration to do two things:

  1. Cover up, and misdirect the people, the potentially criminal activities that HC engaged in; however, we’ll most likely never know that because the press is helping to cover this up and no one in the justice department wants to loose their job.
  2. To cause as much damage to the US economy as possible so that when the next election comes around the DNC has a better chance at regaining control.

#16

Why would an ‘average person’ be rotting in jail for using a private server and having their team email diaparaging emails about religious folks? If that’s illegal, nearly everyone is eligible. The law about using email servers only applies to politic persons and national security interests, hardly average people. In addition, these morethanaverage people usually have political allies to get them out of legal consequences, see every president in history. Just off the top of my head I can think of every administation including and after Nixon.


#17

I personally don’t think people were swayed by those E-mails. The hard working middle class Americans in the mid-west (usually Democrat supporters I might add) had enough of sexual identity politics as practiced by today’s Democrats and wanted a President who was concerned about jobs and keeping them here in America. Hillary Clinton simply was not seen as the person who could make that happen.


#18

I thought by law all polling places were supposed to be properly represented by both parties. What did they do during the primaries?


#19

None whatsoever? Really? They were quite embarrassing. I can’t imagine anyone reading all those e-mails and not feeling some doubt about Clinton. It only takes 1%.


#20

Seems like this would be possible if they counted the absentee ballots. How they determine in which state bucket citizens living abroad get put into is anyone’s guess but it seems a disproportionate number go to CA, WA, and NY.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.