Democratic politicians such as Maxine Waters, Ted Lieu, and neo-cons such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain are publicly pushing for investigations for alleged Russian interventions in the US elections 2016, both in the Congress and within the government, while Russian officials (namely, the President) denied the claim. Some critics are saying that whether or not Russian hacked the election, they used WikiLeaks' release of Podesta emails to openly harm Hillary Clinton.

However, there are a few instances where foreign government officials openly took sides in the 2016 elections:

  • Enrique Peña Nieto, the president of Mexico, compared Trump to Hitler/Mussolini.
  • In a TV interview, when asked if she would support the US election candidate of Scottish descent, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that there was no way she would support Donald Trump.
  • In a BBC Scotland's debate for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, Nicola Sturgeon along with other partisan leaders criticized Trump in the conclusion.
  • On several occasions the Merkel administration criticized Trump, including this one.

These show that other governments are also trying to change US voters' decisions, similar to what WikiLeaks did. Why is Russian intervention more important than other foreign governments' interventions?

  • 1
    The obvious difference is that those foreign politicians took sides against trump. If you could find one who took side with him, that would be a better comparison with Russia. – Bregalad Apr 5 '17 at 19:35
  • 2
    Two reasons: There are lots of powerful people who would like to keep seeing Russia as an enemy. The Democrats use it to attack the Republicans, similar how the Republicans attacked the Democrats during the Clinton scandal. – dan-klasson Apr 6 '17 at 17:49
  • Now that Kim Dotcom says that he was part of the WikiLeaks dumps, along with Seth Rich, what is the to-do about the Russians? politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19156/… – SDsolar May 22 '17 at 19:32

This question is primarily opinion-based to some extent so I've tried to quote as many sources as possible. Any feedback is welcomed in comments.

It's mainly because it's more complicated and some believed that Russia's actions would undermine the US election and US democracy.

As quoted from the Intelligence Community Assessment report:

Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

(emphasis mine)

As quoted from this article by Quartz:

How big a threat is Russia, really?

It’s a serious threat. Putin seeks to weaken the US, the EU, and NATO to the degree that they can no longer presume to call the shots without his agreement in international affairs. Since western governments are not ordinarily prepared for such stout challenges to their democracies, they are vulnerable to the weapons of doubt he is employing, mainly creating the impression that there are no indisputable facts, that anything could be true, and that everything is either already compromised, or could be. Since trust is the bedrock of democracy, this threatens social stability across the West.

(emphasis mine)

Also, if the Russians are successful this time, they would try to interfere in future elections in the West, such as the French presidential election this year. In this way, they would try to elect leaders who are "more friendly" towards them and develop stronger bilateral ties which would benefit them and put them on the world stage.

You can check out this article for some of the comments made by Republicans lawmakers on the reasons why they're "so obsessed" with the investigation.

Russians officials would obviously deny the claim. Since the Russian government hope to reset ties with the Trump administration, publicly acknowledging that they did it would put Trump in a difficult position should he want to rebuild ties with Russia. Furthermore, the Obama administration had already imposed sanctions on Russia after the election. By publicly acknowledging the claim, it would mean the sanctions would be justified.

The few instances you listed doesn't really interfere with the election since they're just stating their opinions.

For example, if John tells someone that he doesn't support Trump compared to Tom hacking a presidential candidate's emails and releasing potentially confidential and private emails that would reveal discussions within the campaign. This would give the public information that they aren't supposed to know.

One such example is that the DNC had favored Hillary over Bernie to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee. If the emails aren't released, the public wouldn't know that. Similarly, if someone hacked Trump's tax returns and released them, it would also be illegal.

So, the examples you listed basically aren't similar with the scale of the Russian interference at all.

  • 6
    I would like to point that almost all the "anti-Trump" examples have its origin in Trump previously criticizing or making derogatory comments against the country or the people to which these politicians belong. – SJuan76 Apr 4 '17 at 8:01
  • Trump did say in a rally that "I don't know what the hell she is thinking. At some point people are going on the streets and overthrow that woman (Angela Merkel)" however 2016 was not Germany's federal election year and the US did not interfere with previous German elections, nor was Trump a government official of the US. @SJuan76 – Dylan Czenski Apr 5 '17 at 19:38
  • This answer is very detailed. However, your point that the DNC intended to hurt Bernie in the primaries isn't something significant. Democratic Party's super-delegate system has already given the general public a very negative image that the "establishment" is for Hillary. – Dylan Czenski Apr 5 '17 at 19:43
  • Also your point about Russia wants to threaten the social stability across the West is 100% correct. However, WikiLeaks isn't the Russian government and if we want to claim that, we have yet to gather evidence. (also a small thing: NATO does not equal the West because of Turkey's membership, as well as some EU members' absence) – Dylan Czenski Apr 5 '17 at 19:47

Because openly declaring support or taking a stance is quite different than creating a stealth propaganda operation to skew people's opinions by distorting their views on facts or analysis of facts.

If you have a fake "news" site, which superficially resembles actual news sites, that claims that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are using a pizza restaurant as a conduit for a massive child pornography and prostitution ring, for instance, it gets more credibility and gets circulated and cited more than if, say, some nutter in the Russian parliament stands up and makes that accusation.

Another example is when corporations create phony front organizations to propagate their propaganda. Cigarette companies, previously, and now fossil fuel companies pay people to set up phony "think tanks" and to try and obfuscate actual facts and science. It's not as though they actually believe the propaganda - the tobacco industry, back in the 60s, had scientific research of their own that showed how horrible smoking is for human health, and yet they denied it for decades, aided and abetted by their own network of "skeptics" and contrary "scientists." We know that Exxon/Mobile had internally-funded research done that concluded the climate change was real.

What's funny is now, with the climate change "debate," you see not only the same techniques and the identical arguments about the science on this subject, but you see many of the same so-called "scientists" that were used to make the same claims during the "debate" about health science and smoking.

Now, that may seem like a tangent, but what I'm setting the stage for is this - the tobacco industry, then, and the fossil fuel industry now, have been able to delay and minimize actions against their interests, largely by muddying the waters and creating a faux debate where none actually exists. Now, would they have been able to do so effectively if it was just "Marlboro refutes the medical science" or "British Petroleum denies global warming"? Or were they able to do so because "Concerned Scientists Against Liberal Overreach" (hypothetical front organization name, do not Google for it) trot out a lot of phony arguments that don't hold water, but are a step removed from the obvious bias and self-interest in making the phony claims?

The same mechanism is at work here. If the Russians want to openly support Trump, they are free to do so, but as many or more people (who maybe feel that Russian interests might be detrimental to US interests) would react to that in the opposite direction vs what they want or intend (Russia/Putin loves Trump? Good enough for me!). Instead, they manipulated the elections and information circulating during the elections, but hid that they were doing it.

Open and honest democratic elections are entirely about transparency. The Russians operating via stealth propaganda and other espionage and sabotage of the process is contrary to open and honest democratic elections. That's why it's worse than a government taking an open stand for any administration or candidate.

  • "Instead, they manipulated the elections and information circulating during the elections," There is literally zero evidence that happened. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence of CIA meddling in other country's elections. – dan-klasson Apr 6 '17 at 17:46
  • 1
    @dan-klasson - only zero if your head is buried in the sand or somewhere less polite. – PoloHoleSet Apr 6 '17 at 21:49
  • Oh I've heard mass media spewing the same lies yes. That doesn't make it true and that doesn't constitute as evidence. Just be honest and admit you have zero evidence to your ridiculous claims. – dan-klasson Apr 7 '17 at 7:02
  • @dan-klasson - sorry, but there is ample forensic evidence. The fact that you don't want it to be so doesn't constitute fact, either. Non-government cyber-security experts, many months ago, confirmed the source of the DNC hacks. The Russian fake news/propaganda sites were on the web for everyone to see. Well, everyone who isn't invested in denial, that is. – PoloHoleSet Apr 7 '17 at 13:27
  • Then show me that ample evidence. In fact, show me one piece of evidence that proves the hacks was done by the Russian government. Cyber experts that were hired by the DNC claimed they came to that conclusion. That does not constitute as proof. And are you suggesting that the existence of Russian media, proves interference of any kind? – dan-klasson Apr 7 '17 at 14:10

Why is Russian intervention more important than other foreign governments' interventions?

Because it is political. We dish out more interference than anybody else, on a more violent scale. And that is what governments do: try to influence events for their own advantages.

It bubbles up here because a large group of peoples livelihood is threatened by trump and his strategy towards Russia.

Nothing else.

  • 3
    Can you specify whose livelihood is threatened by Trump? Are they foreign governments (e.g. Merkel's Germany)? If so, why aren't their statements/criticism not counted as foreign interventions too? – Dylan Czenski Apr 5 '17 at 19:33

In general you may want to consider who it is that is talking and who stands to gain from the various options suggested. But:

In the examples listed a politician spoke to a reporter to dispute controversial declarations possibly mostly meant for the people in their jurisdictions. The German and Mexican statements appear to be responses to intentionally inflammatory remarks of questionable factualness aimed at their countries, and does anyone outside of Scotland care what the Scottish say? Politicians politicking, time to switch back to cat videos.

The wikileaks action seems to be a considered attempt by a sophisticated group to influence America through breaking our laws. If this is the Russian military defeating the security on a major American institution it may be an indication of a hacker gap with serious balance of power ramifications. And certainly carries home implications about how computers need to be considered in the modern world.

In both cases it seems to be professionals using the tools of their trade, but generally we consider foreign politicians' work less interesting than soldiers'.

  • 2
    The foreign politicians' comments might not make a large influence, although Peña Nieto's comments was widely spread though some US news outlets such as Telemundo and Univisión. Also if you talk about influence, right wing fake news probably made a bigger impact on the election result. – Dylan Czenski Apr 3 '17 at 23:19
  • 2
    @DylanCzenski - and a lot of that fake news circulated or cited stories that originated from Russian-run sources. – PoloHoleSet Apr 4 '17 at 14:42

Enrique Peña Nieto, the president of Mexico, compared Trump to Hitler/Mussolini.

This evidence you have produced proves that other countries may have fiddled in our elections far more than Russia had. Comparisons to Hitler is all but a call to war.

Why Russia?

Why wouldn't Russia want Trump elected? He spoke of peace with them through his entire campaign. The CIA and Obama administration on the other hand almost started WW3 by backing rebels in Ukraine, imposing economic sanctions, manipulating oil prices to bankrupt them, and may have even assassinated their officials.

But that is beside the point. Our politicians are complaining that Russia produced fake news which influenced the election in Trump's favor, when study after study has shown that the opposite happened and the fake news stories actually benefited Hillary.

Why are politicians so obsessed with Russian/WikiLeaks interfering of US elections while some foreign governments openly took sides?

It's because some (although not all) high ranking officials in our intelligence agencies think they can brain wash liberals and neo cons into orchestrating a revolution against our independent president, DJT, by convincing them our old nemesis, Russia, has hacked our election.

Some critics are saying that whether or not Russian hacked the election, they used WikiLeaks' release of Podesta emails to openly harm Hillary Clinton.

Just as the intelligence leaks have hurt the Trump administration. The fact of the matter is, what Podesta did was illegal, and it should not matter whether or not this hurt Hillary; It shows as Trump frequently referred to "Hillary's lack of judgement" in choosing her cabinet.

Why is the left so upset Hillary lost and accusing Trump of being a racist when it was Hillary Clinton who was taught everything she knows about politics by a KKK grand wizard, Robert Byrd? Why do they mock #pizzagate when many different factors suggest it may be true

The same reason they are trying to convince you the GCHQ couldn't have possibly tapped Trump when document after document from Snowden proves the exact opposite. They are brain washing people. The fact of the matter is, they use the GCHQ to avoid the constitution all the time.

So in turn, the politicians are paid off by the same people Trump is fighting against. Now we have an intelligence agency with a horrible track record accusing Trump of being a Russian spy (classic McCarthyism)

  • 5
    Did you even read your sources? You push PizzaGate, then cite a source that specifiaclly points to it as an example of false anti-Clinton propaganda. Besides that, the trafficking bust in California makes no mention of any relation to public officials, you're just making the assumption that all sex offenders are working together. Also, comparing someone to Hitler is hardly "a call to war," unless the American right has been calling for war with the left since 2008. – Will Apr 4 '17 at 18:24
  • 2
    -1 You should include sources in the relevant parts of your answer, not put a bunch of links at the end. Do you have a source to those "studies after studies" showing that fake stories benefited Clinton? Do you have sources that intelligence officials are brainwashing everyone? Do you have sources of statistically significant increase in pedophile arrests? And sources linking them to the thoroughly debunked pizzagate? Do you have links to documents by Snowden showing that Trump was tapped? Honestly, this reads like a rant full of baseless conspiracy theories which barely attempts to answer – tim Apr 4 '17 at 18:31
  • 2
    @Dylan That's my point. The "pot-bellied redneck racists" threatened to assassinate Obama (and his family) pretty frequently, nobody took it seriously. When a long-hair, barefoot hippie threatens Trump, we should be similarly dismissive. – Will Apr 4 '17 at 18:57
  • 5
    @Dylan I was simply using it as a reference to point out that with Podesta, and thousands of paedophiles arrested recently and the mainstream media covering it up: it points to foul play This is your logiacal flaw. You're not confirming or denying, but you seem to think the media not reporting on something is evidence of a coverup, rather than evidence of BS. Like tim said, can you provide a source showing that this sex-trafficking sting was unusual? Is there anything linking it to John Podesta? You accuse us all of being brainwashed, then ask us to accept your accusation at face value. – Will Apr 4 '17 at 19:05
  • 5
    @Dylan They may not have been connected at all. Then why include it in an answer as though it were evidence? But 474 arrested (in the cbs link) is a highly unusual number is it not? I don't know, I'm asking you to cite sources in this claim. Podesta isn't the only one... There has been others. Other what? Others wrongfully accused of peophilia? I truly hope #pizzagate is just a stupid debunked conspiracy theory. It is, and you're partially responsible for its continuance by ignoring it's repeated debunking. – Will Apr 4 '17 at 19:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .