Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - document

[GMDino]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-election-exclusive-idUSKBN17L2N3

Quote:A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters.


They described two confidential documents from the think tank as providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies [en.riss.ru/], after the election.

The institute is run by retired senior Russian foreign intelligence officials appointed by Putin’s office.

The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.

It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.

A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.

The current and former U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the Russian documents’ classified status.
They declined to discuss how the United States obtained them. U.S. intelligence agencies also declined to comment on them.

Putin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. Putin’s spokesman and the Russian institute did not respond to requests for comment.

The documents were central to the Obama administration's conclusion that Russia mounted a “fake news” campaign and launched cyber attacks against Democratic Party groups and Clinton's campaign, the current and former officials said.

“Putin had the objective in mind all along, and he asked the institute to draw him a road map,” said one of the sources, a former senior U.S. intelligence official.


Trump has said Russia’s activities had no impact on the outcome of the race. Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election.

Four of the officials said the approach outlined in the June strategy paper was a broadening of an effort the Putin administration launched in March 2016. That month the Kremlin instructed state-backed media outlets, including international platforms Russia Today and Sputnik news agency, to start producing positive reports on Trump’s quest for the U.S. presidency, the officials said.

Russia Today did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Sputnik dismissed the assertions by the U.S. officials that it participated in a Kremlin campaign as an “absolute pack of lies.” “And by the way, it's not the first pack of lies we're hearing from 'sources in U.S. official circles'," the spokesperson said in an email.

PRO-KREMLIN BLOGGERS
Russia Today and Sputnik published anti-Clinton stories while pro-Kremlin bloggers prepared a Twitter campaign calling into question the fairness of an anticipated Clinton victory, according to a report by U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the election made public in January. [bit.ly/2kMiKSA]

Russia Today’s most popular Clinton video - “How 100% of the 2015 Clintons’ ‘charity’ went to ... themselves” - accumulated 9 millions views on social media, according to the January report. [bit.ly/2os8wIt]

The report said Russia Today and Sputnik “consistently cast president elect-Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional media outlets."

The report said the agencies did not assess whether Moscow’s effort had swung the outcome of the race in Trump’s favor, because American intelligence agencies do not “analyze U.S. political processes or U.S. public opinion.” [bit.ly/2kMiKSA]

CYBER ATTACKS
Neither of the Russian institute documents mentioned the release of hacked Democratic Party emails to interfere with the U.S. election, according to four of the officials. The officials said the hacking was a covert intelligence operation run separately out of the Kremlin.

The overt propaganda and covert hacking efforts reinforced each other, according to the officials. Both Russia Today and Sputnik heavily promoted the release of the hacked Democratic Party emails, which often contained embarrassing details.
Five of the U.S. officials described the institute as the Kremlin’s in-house foreign policy think tank.

The institute’s director when the documents were written, Leonid Reshetnikov, rose to the rank of lieutenant general during a 33-year-career in Russia’s foreign intelligence service, according to the institute’s website [bit.ly/2oVhiCF]. After Reshetnikov retired from the institute in January, Putin named as his replacement Mikhail Fradkov. The institute says he served as the director of Russia’s foreign intelligence service from 2007 to 2016. [bit.ly/2os4tvz]

Reuters was unable to determine if either man was directly involved in the drafting of the documents. Reshetnikov’s office referred questions to the Russian institute.

On its website, the Russian institute describes itself as providing “expert appraisals,” “recommendations,” and “analytical materials” to the Russian president’s office, cabinet, National Security Council, ministries and parliament. [bit.ly/2pCBGpR]

On Jan. 31, the websites of Putin’s office [bit.ly/2os9wMr] and the institute [bit.ly/2oLn9Kd] posted a picture and transcript of Reshetnikov and his successor Fradkov meeting with Putin in the Kremlin. Putin thanked Reshetnikov for his service and told Fradkov he wanted the institute to provide objective information and analysis.

“We did our best for nearly eight years to implement your foreign policy concept,” Reshetnikov told Putin. “The policy of Russia and the policy of the President of Russia have been the cornerstone of our operation.”

[Rotobeast]

Seen this today....

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[tigerseye]

The country voted for Rep in state govenor races, Congress, Senate, and individual state seats. Did the Russians cause all that?

I read where the Rep's had taken like 1,000 state and federal seats.

Hillary was close to being unelectable.

HRC was basically saying that she was wanting to go to war with Russia and have first strike capability against them. She also said that a cyber attack was reason enough for a military attack against Russia. And now we have learned that the CIA makes their own cyber attacks to look like Russia, China or whoever else. With all that they would have everything they need to put us in a war when ever they choose to (using false flags).  Based off of what HRC was saying publicly, I could see why Russia wouldn't have wanted her to win but I don't think they had any effect on the elections.

HRC would have a rally and nobody would show up. It's not the Russians fault that she is a %$#@ *&^%$.

The old school respectable liberals need to take their party back from these elitist a holes that took it over. Our country needs them to take it back. Both partys have their share of complete idiots and corrupt low lifes, no doubt. The nonsense that is flowing out of Washington and its media these days is like a bunch of lying children.

Tommy Boy makes more sense than they do.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2017, 01:20 AM)tigerseye Wrote: The country voted for Rep in state govenor races, Congress, Senate, and individual state seats. Did the Russians cause all that?

I read where the Rep's had taken like 1,000 state and federal seats.

Hillary was close to being unelectable.

HRC was basically saying that she was wanting to go to war with Russia and have first strike capability against them. She also said that a cyber attack was reason enough for a military attack against Russia. And now we have learned that the CIA makes their own cyber attacks to look like Russia, China or whoever else. With all that they would have everything they need to put us in a war when ever they choose to (using false flags).  Based off of what HRC was saying publicly, I could see why Russia wouldn't have wanted her to win but I don't think they had any effect on the elections.

HRC would have a rally and nobody would show up. It's not the Russians fault that she is a %$#@ *&^%$.

The old school respectable liberals need to take their party back from these elitist a holes that took it over. Our country needs them to take it back. Both partys have their share of complete idiots and corrupt low lifes, no doubt. The nonsense that is flowing out of Washington and its media these days is like a bunch of lying children.

Tommy Boy makes more sense than they do.

Damn, how did he lose the popular vote by 3 million if she was that shitty? Pretty impressive.

For what it is worth, citing state races means very little when talking about overall political attitudes. It's like showing pictures where they color all of the republican counties and show that "more" of the country voted for Trump. Land mass doesn't equal people. There are more red states but they hold less people. 

Congress is a better figure to look at. You can argue gerrymandering warps the results, but just citing popular vote, Republicans won 1.5m more votes (49.1% vs 48%). giving them 55% of the available seats. So you can argue that more people prefer Hillary over Trump but more people prefer a Republican congress over a Democratic Congress. What does that mean? We're not all either elitist New York liberals or redneck Texas conservatives. We're mostly moderates stuck with more partisan people running for office. 

[GMDino]

(04-19-2017, 11:57 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Seen this today....

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

And?

(04-20-2017, 01:20 AM)tigerseye Wrote: The country voted for Rep in state govenor races, Congress, Senate, and individual state seats. Did the Russians cause all that?

I read where the Rep's had taken like 1,000 state and federal seats.

Hillary was close to being unelectable.

HRC was basically saying that she was wanting to go to war with Russia and have first strike capability against them. She also said that a cyber attack was reason enough for a military attack against Russia. And now we have learned that the CIA makes their own cyber attacks to look like Russia, China or whoever else. With all that they would have everything they need to put us in a war when ever they choose to (using false flags).  Based off of what HRC was saying publicly, I could see why Russia wouldn't have wanted her to win but I don't think they had any effect on the elections.

HRC would have a rally and nobody would show up. It's not the Russians fault that she is a %$#@ *&^%$.

The old school respectable liberals need to take their party back from these elitist a holes that took it over. Our country needs them to take it back. Both partys have their share of complete idiots and corrupt low lifes, no doubt. The nonsense that is flowing out of Washington and its media these days is like a bunch of lying children.

Tommy Boy makes more sense than they do.

Russians were not trying to affect the gov of Iowa race for example.

But if we can just divert attention from the proof that the Russians were deliberately and overtly trying to put fake news out to make people want to vote for someone friendlier to them (Trump) or to make American's doubt the entire process if Clinton won then I guess none of THAT matters?

Add in almost a dozen members of the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration that had contact/meetings with the russians?

Surely there is nothing to see here.




This doesn't fall into the easy argument of "both sides do it".  

[Rotobeast]

(04-20-2017, 08:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: And?


Russians were not trying to affect the gov of Iowa race for example.

But if we can just divert attention from the proof that the Russians were deliberately and overtly trying to put fake news out to make people want to vote for someone friendlier to them (Trump) or to make American's doubt the entire process if Clinton won then I guess none of THAT matters?

Add in almost a dozen members of the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration that had contact/meetings with the russians?

Surely there is nothing to see here.




This doesn't fall into the easy argument of "both sides do it".  

Yeah, I know...I know.

It doesn't make it right.

Just like the argument of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, while we have so many people that are citizens doing the same thing.

[GMDino]

(04-20-2017, 12:29 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yeah, I know...I know.

It doesn't make it right.

Just like the argument of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, while we have so many people that are citizens doing the same thing.

Off  topic: If they are illegal immigrants then I can understand the rush to get rid of them.  Although a shoplifter should be treated different than an armed robber.  But that is too nuanced for a federal government policy I assume.

On topic: I understand the US has interfered many times in the past.  That just doesn't change that this happened and it "looks" like the current administration knew and "perhaps" helped with it.

We hold ourselves to higher standards. Just like we don't behead the enemy just because the enemy does.

[Rotobeast]

(04-20-2017, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Off  topic: If they are illegal immigrants then I can understand the rush to get rid of them.  Although a shoplifter should be treated different than an armed robber.  But that is too nuanced for a federal government policy I assume.

On topic: I understand the US has interfered many times in the past.  That just doesn't change that this happened and it "looks" like the current administration knew and "perhaps" helped with it.

We hold ourselves to higher standards. Just like we don't behead the enemy just because the enemy does.

Per the off topic, cool.
Perhaps I'm misremembering who utilized the reasoning referenced.
So... my apologies for the assumption, if incorrect.

On topic....
Yes, I agree.
We should hold ourselves to higher standard and our involvement with trying to influence elections cheapens our promotion of Democracy.

[GMDino]

(04-20-2017, 12:49 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Per the off topic, cool.
Perhaps I'm misremembering who utilized the reasoning referenced.
So... my apologies for the assumption, if incorrect.

On topic....
Yes, I agree.
We should hold ourselves to higher standard and our involvement with trying to influence elections cheapens our promotion of Democracy.

Won't disagree with you.

Especially when you look at how "successful" we have been putting in friendly dictators duly elected officials in other countries.

But if outsiders want to try and get the "less educated" to believe BS I don't want our politicians helping them, even to help themselves.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-20-2017, 08:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Damn, how did he lose the popular vote by 3 million if she was that shitty? Pretty impressive.

Was it really impressive though? Hillary only won the popular vote because she destroyed Trump in California.

Why does California matter?

CalIfornia matters because it's the most populated state in the US. California was the only state to reach double digit votes in the millions, getting over a whopping 14 million votes. 

What this means is that a candidate can lose in 30 states (like Hillary did) and still win the popular vote if they obliterate their opponent(s) in California (like Hillary did, which isn't surprising considering how Democratic the state of California is)

Trump beat Hillary 30-20. He won thirty states and she won twenty. How does that make her "popular"? She's only more popular because she won by a landslide in California, the most populated state in the US. According to 30 other states, Trump was more popular.

I mean.... can we really say that's impressive? 

[Dill]

(04-20-2017, 09:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Was it really impressive though? Hillary only won the popular vote because she destroyed Trump in California.

Why does California matter?

CalIfornia matters because it's the most populated state in the US. California was the only state to reach double digit votes in the millions, getting over a whopping 14 million votes. 

What this means is that a candidate can lose in 30 states (like Hillary did) and still win the popular vote if they obliterate their opponent(s) in California (like Hillary did, which isn't surprising considering how Democratic the state of California is)

Trump beat Hillary 30-20. He won thirty states and she won twenty. How does that make her "popular"? She's only more popular because she won by a landslide in California, the most populated state in the US. According to 30 other states, Trump was more popular.

I mean.... can we really say that's impressive? 

I wouldn't say "impressive," but if all Americans are equal then winning the popular vote by 3 million means that she had the approval of a clear majority.

Counting states to produce a winning 30-20 number seems rather odd. What is the population of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska? Less than the population of LA, but 4 to 1 if we are counting states.  So whoever wins those states wins "more"???  

That is like wondering why people prefer nickels to dimes, because nickels are bigger.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-20-2017, 10:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I wouldn't say "impressive," but if all Americans are equal then winning the popular vote by 3 million means that she had the approval of a clear majority.

Counting states to produce a winning 30-20 number seems rather odd. What is the population of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska? Less than the population of LA, but 4 to 1 if we are counting states.  So whoever wins those states wins "more"???  

That is like wondering why people prefer nickels to dimes, because nickels are bigger.

It's not odd. What you just said is the kind of thinking that lost Hillary the election. All those "little states" matter, and should matter and do matter. It's the United States of America, not the United state of California. Hillary's landslide in California is neither impressive nor does it make her more popular in all the states where she wasn't the most popular.

Saying Hillary was "more popular" is a dishonest and misleading way for people to act like she was the most popular across the entirety of the United States. But she wasn't.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2017, 09:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Was it really impressive though? Hillary only won the popular vote because she destroyed Trump in California.

Why does California matter?

CalIfornia matters because it's the most populated state in the US. California was the only state to reach double digit votes in the millions, getting over a whopping 14 million votes. 

What this means is that a candidate can lose in 30 states (like Hillary did) and still win the popular vote if they obliterate their opponent(s) in California (like Hillary did, which isn't surprising considering how Democratic the state of California is)

Trump beat Hillary 30-20. He won thirty states and she won twenty. How does that make her "popular"? She's only more popular because she won by a landslide in California, the most populated state in the US. According to 30 other states, Trump was more popular.

I mean.... can we really say that's impressive? 

(04-20-2017, 11:53 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It's not odd. What you just said is the kind of thinking that lost Hillary the election. All those "little states" matter, and should matter and do matter. It's the United States of America, not the United state of California. Hillary's landslide in California is neither impressive nor does it make her more popular in all the states where she wasn't the most popular.

Saying Hillary was "more popular" is a dishonest and misleading way for people to act like she was the most popular across the entirety of the United States. But she wasn't.

She got more votes than anyone ever who wasn't named Barack Obama. That's pretty impressive.


Also impressive is being able to win the electoral vote when 3,000,000 more Americans voted for the other person. 

More Americans voted for her. That makes her more popular. Dishonest and misleading is suggesting that whole states vote the same, that both candidates don't get votes from every state, and that a state with 1 out of every 548 Americans is the same as a state with 1 out of every 8 Americans. If you want to talk about the importance of the electoral college versus a national popular contest in our federal system, that's fine, but we're not discussing how we elect our president, just whether or not getting the most people to vote for you makes you the most popular.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2017, 08:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She got more votes than anyone ever who wasn't named Barack Obama. That's pretty impressive.

Not really.  The next election someone else will take that crown.

Quote:Also impressive is being able to win the electoral vote when 3,000,000 more Americans voted for the other person. 

Again, not really.  The way the system is set up this is going to become more common as large population states continue to widen the gap in population with the "smaller" states. 

Quote:More Americans voted for her. That makes her more popular. Dishonest and misleading is suggesting that whole states vote the same, that both candidates don't get votes from every state, and that a state with 1 out of every 548 Americans is the same as a state with 1 out of every 8 Americans. If you want to talk about the importance of the electoral college versus a national popular contest in our federal system, that's fine, but we're not discussing how we elect our president, just whether or not getting the most people to vote for you makes you the most popular.

Living in CA I can tell you that even discussing Trump in terms that don't involve fire and brimstone condemnation will get you exiled by many people.  Anyone who deals with humans knows that group think and herd mentality is a real thing.  If it wasn't then Putin was wasting his time.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 08:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She got more votes than anyone ever who wasn't named Barack Obama. That's pretty impressive.

Against Donald Trump. I don't find that all that impressive.

Quote:Also impressive is being able to win the electoral vote when 3,000,000 more Americans voted for the other person. 

Hillary really underperformed. She should have gotten way more votes than she did. She got 2% more votes against a guy that everyone was saying had about a 0.0001% chance of winning. I just can't call her popular vote win "impressive". If anything she didn't even meet expectations.

Quote:More Americans voted for her. That makes her more popular. Dishonest and misleading is suggesting that whole states vote the same, that both candidates don't get votes from every state, and that a state with 1 out of every 548 Americans is the same as a state with 1 out of every 8 Americans. If you want to talk about the importance of the electoral college versus a national popular contest in our federal system, that's fine, but we're not discussing how we elect our president, just whether or not getting the most people to vote for you makes you the most popular.

It makes her more popular in the 20 states she won.

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2017, 10:03 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Against Donald Trump. I don't find that all that impressive.




Hillary really underperformed. She should have gotten way more votes than she did. She got 2% more votes against a guy that everyone was saying had about a 0.0001% chance of winning. I just can't call her popular vote win "impressive". If anything she didn't even meet expectations.





It makes her more popular in the 20 states she won.

So it makes her more popular with a larger population. Glad we can move past this. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 10:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So it makes her more popular with a larger population. Glad we can move past this. 

It makes her more popular in the Liberal Stronghold of California.

[Dill]

(04-20-2017, 11:53 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It's not odd. What you just said is the kind of thinking that lost Hillary the election. All those "little states" matter, and should matter and do matter. It's the United States of America, not the United state of California. Hillary's landslide in California is neither impressive nor does it make her more popular in all the states where she wasn't the most popular.

Saying Hillary was "more popular" is a dishonest and misleading way for people to act like she was the most popular across the entirety of the United States. But she wasn't.

What lost Hillary the election was a successful disinformation campaign from Russia and Fox News. People chose the "huge" nickel over the dime. That was the kind of thinking that won Trump the election--to the detriment of the county.

Saying Hillary had the approval of more Americans than Trump is hardly "dishonest" if every citizen is equally a citizen and more of them voted for her.

Saying  Hillary won the popular vote is a "misleading" way of saying she had the approval of more of the population than Trump. Which she did.

How is it that you introduce points not under question in your answer? No one says winning California makes Clinton more popular in Alabama. Acknowledging the fact that Hillary won the popular vote does not entail a claim that "little states don't matter."

[Dill]

(04-21-2017, 10:15 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It makes her more popular in the Liberal Stronghold of California.

Are "liberal strongholds" less American? 

What should be discounted about a in a liberal stronghold?

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2017, 09:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really.  The next election someone else will take that crown.

Not necessarily but someone could. Depends on the candidates. We could easily see a drop just as we have seen before in reelection years. Likewise, we could see a rise like we have also seen in prior reelection years. 

Quote:Again, not really.  The way the system is set up this is going to become more common as large population states continue to widen the gap in population with the "smaller" states. 

While it has happened twice in the past 5 cycles, the phenomenon of someone winning the election while losing the popular vote has only happened 5 times ever and never anywhere close to this gap. That's impressive.


[quote pid='372443' dateline='1492779307']
Living in CA I can tell you that even discussing Trump in terms that don't involve fire and brimstone condemnation will get you exiled by many people.  Anyone who deals with humans knows that group think and herd mentality is a real thing.  If it wasn't then Putin was wasting his time.
[/quote]

I don't doubt it.