You have so far labeled those who disagree with you as fascists and anti-American for not having the same faith in faulty intelligence as you do. It’s exactly the sort of elitism the article I linked before highlights in American discourse. The Senate summary is comprised of evidence from authoritative institutions and their overlords, the scriptural foundation a largely fact-free assessment yet the media insists on passing it off as unassailable fact. We agree that there is disinformation alright, just not on the same side.

Of course anything that provides context is dismissed as ‘whataboutism.’ So here’s some more context for you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.e69dae10b53f
The story was entirely wrong and was retracted, unlike the stories regarding Russian interference in the French and German elections even after they were discredited. California and Wisconsin election officials denied that the Russians hacked local and state voting systems as well.

As for your reference to the meetings which you called “incognito,” after publication of the story, Erik Prince said he was shown evidence by sources from the intelligence community that his name was unmasked and given to the paper. This was the Seychelles meeting. So what are you referring to exactly with the Russian and Arab autocrats meeting GOP secretly?

There are far more consequential threats to democracy than cyber-interference such as the billionaire interference, loss of voting rights protection, mass incarceration, immigrant scare-mongering, gerrymandering, electoral college, US Senate. This may as well be a campaign by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens, who are simply butturt over election results they disagreed with. Those who perpetuate this political narrative are their assets.
Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency
Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.)
Hand-picked analysts, the claims of the latter (NSA) made with only 'moderate confidence.' This is creating a misleading impression of unanimity, since only three of the sixteen intelligence agencies contributed to the report.
Quote Originally Posted by The Assessment
‘Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.’
Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.
The sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely happens between one administration and the next. Not a sign of collusion.
Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.
And the NSA probably knows who, yet hasn't presented the evidence yet. The NSA's ability to trace hacking to its source is a matter of public record.