"What we know about U.S. probes of Russian meddling in 2016

The report stopped short of assessing whether Russia succeeded in swaying the election result.

Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly denied interfering in the U.S. election.

What has Trump said about Russia's role in the election?

Trump has not taken a clear public position.

"I will tell you this, Russia: if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a July 2016 news conference, in reference to an FBI probe into Clinton's use of a private email system when she was secretary of state and emails that had possibly been deleted.

Trump subsequently dismissed reports, including from U.S. intelligence officials, that Russia had attempted to intervene in the election on his behalf.

The first time Trump said he accepted the findings of the intelligence agencies was at a Jan. 11 news conference ahead of his inauguration. "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia," Trump said, although he added: "It could have been others also."

Earlier this month, Trump said China may have hacked the emails of Democratic officials to meddle with the election, offering no evidence and countering the view of intelligence officials.

How many U.S. probes are there into Russia's election meddling?

The Justice Department announced on May 17 that it has appointed Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel to lead an independent Russia probe. Mueller would, if the evidence merits, work in tandem with the FBI, which is investigating, to handle any related criminal prosecutions.

Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also investigating and those probes will continue. Comey has been invited to testify about the agency's Russia investigation and his dismissal.

Has there been any fallout for Trump associates over contacts with Russia before, during or after the election campaign?

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser, was fired in February. The White House said he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about the contacts he had with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, before Trump took office.

On May 9, federal prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from people who worked with Flynn when he was a private citizen.

On May 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued the first subpoena in its Russia investigation, demanding documents from Flynn after he declined to voluntarily comply with an earlier request.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related probes at the Justice Department because he had not told Congress of his own contacts with Kislyak in 2016. Rod Rosenstein, the deputy U.S. attorney general, is handling matters related to Russia; he appointed Mueller as special counsel.

Will the FBI probe continue after Comey's dismissal?

Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating Moscow's role in the election, including possible collusion with Trump's campaign. It was the first time he publicly acknowledged the agency was investigating the matter.

Comey's departure does not necessarily mean the FBI's Russia investigation will be disrupted or ended as the career FBI officials Comey put in charge of it will likely continue working on the matter even as the search for a new director begins.

FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe, who will lead the agency until a new director is named, promised the Senate Intelligence Committee that Comey's firing will not affect the investigation and that he will notify the committee of any attempt to delay or derail it.

Why was Comey fired?

Attorney General Sessions sent Trump a May 9 letter attaching a memo from Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, on "Restoring Confidence in the FBI" that recommended Comey's dismissal.

Rosenstein's memo said Comey erred in July 2016 by announcing the FBI had been examining Clinton's use of a private email server and that the case should be closed without prosecution. Rosenstein's view was that Comey's decision to make a public statement on the matter broke with longstanding FBI precedent and should have been handled by the then-U.S. attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

Trump called Comey a "showboat" and "grandstander" in an interview with NBC News on May 11, saying that he would have fired Comey regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation.

Did Comey's firing have anything to do with the Russia probe?

The White House says Comey was dismissed because of his handling of the Clinton email investigation.

The New York Times was the first to report, on May 16, that a memo Comey wrote after a February meeting with Trump stated that the president had asked him to end the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

Trump aides have told Reuters that top Justice Department officials wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say during a May 3 congressional hearing about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email system.

The hearing was just days after Clinton said at a New York event that announcements by Comey in the week before the November election that he had re-opened, and then re-closed, the email probe had swung the election for Trump. Comey told the congressional panel the idea that he may have affected the election result made him "mildly nauseous."

Is Trump being investigated by the FBI?

In the short letter Trump sent to Comey dismissing him from the FBI, he thanked Comey for informing him on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation. Comey has never stated publicly whether or not the FBI was investigating Trump and it would be unorthodox for him to say such a thing to the president. The White House has offered no proof to back Trump's claim.

News of Comey's memo, along with a Washington Post report on May 15 that Trump had revealed classified info during a May 10 meeting at the White House with Russian officials, intensified calls from Democrats and some Republicans for an independent probe of Trump's ties to Russia.

Trump has made clear on multiple occasions he believes the Russia investigations have run their course and should be closed. "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?" he wrote on Twitter on May 8.

"Former FBI chief Mueller appointed to probe Trump-Russia ties" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKCN18D1XT

The U.S. Justice Department, in the face of rising pressure from Capitol Hill, named former FBI chief Robert Mueller on Wednesday as special counsel to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Moscow.

The move followed a week in which the White House was thrown into uproar after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Democrats and some of the president's fellow Republicans had demanded an independent probe of whether Russia tried to sway the outcome of November's election in favor of Trump and against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump, whose anger over the allegations has grown in recent weeks, took the news calmly and used it to rally his team to unite, move on and refocus on his stalled agenda, a senior White House official said.

"We are all in this together," Trump told his team, the official said.

Trump said in a statement after the Justice Department announcement he looked forward to a quick resolution.

"As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know - there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity," he said.

Mueller said in a statement tweeted by CBS News: "I accept this responsibility and will discharge it to the best of my ability."

Trump, who said in a speech earlier on Wednesday that no politician in history "has been treated worse or more unfairly," has long bristled at the notion that Russia played any role in his election victory.

>>140890
>Putin's associates hacked information, paid social media "trolls" and backed efforts by Russian government agencies and state-funded media to sway public opinion, the agencies said.

Wait, so they were actual paid shills? I thought that shills were a /pol/ boogyman.

>>140897
aside from the russian shills, there was also a number of teens in one city in macedonia who were cranking out anti-hillary/pro-trump fake news making money with advertising clickbucks.

>>140897
I remember watching one short documentary of paid trolls/shills, they were based on Petersburg and doing pro-Russia and anti-immigration stuff in finnish. The whole Macedonia thing is also true. Funny thing is that yes, /pol/ was right that there are paid shills. They just though those were anti-russia.

https://www.ft.com/content/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a

>>140890
unfortunately for you it's already been confirmed the leaks came from the DNC, seth rich. not russian hackers. google.

>>140923

paid shills for hillary have not only been proven but nobody in the dnc even denies they exist anymore. CTR and Shareblue. Please educate yourself.

of course the news having a pro hillary bias will flip this sometimes and claim that /pol/ are all bots and not real people.

>>140924
>Please educate yourself
How about you post some sources to back up your claims? Of course you won't, no one takes Infowars or so on seriously. Also, Seth Rich case was already destroyed on the same day as Fox etc brought it up, but of course /t_d/ and /pol/ can't let it go because they love conspiracies.

>>140924
/pol/ are robots, though. Just look at how they've latched onto Pepe for the evidence.

>>140940
They can't let it go because it's the only thing distracting them from Trump's probably looming impeachment.

These libtard leftists on here thinking they are smart enough to confuse the confusers are laughable. Bottom line is no evidence of Russian Collusion. And none of you can link to any. Hillary lost because she was not only a bad candidate. But her followers like you are hated by everyone. You leftists did more to help Hillary lose than anyone did.

So there is a good chance that the pro-Trump posts on /pol/, calling anti-Trump posters "shills," are actually paid Russian shills? I think that's what >>140956(Comrade) is trying to convey.

>>140966
Well, when they say things like Seth rich was "conformed" as the source of the DNC emails, it sure feels like it. I don't know why people here would think such exaggerations would convince me of... whatever they're trying to say. But rather telling an obvious lie just makes me dismiss a poster.

>>140967
>Well, when they say things like Seth rich was "conformed" as the source of the DNC emails, it sure feels like it.
Especially when they say these things by means of spamming a template/copy/paste post that is riddled with poor spelling and grammar.

>>140970
Man, do you know how hard English grammar is for Russians? Russian has a much simpler grammar than English.

>>140966
>>140967
>>140970
Always interesting to see disinfo in action.

The problem is that you are using DNC propaganda as your source of info. The New York Times and Washington Post ARE nothing more than commercials for the DNC, designed to coverup, dismiss and redirect attention of anything negative on the Left while they distort, hype and blow out of proportion anything with Trump or on the right. In short, they are not credible sources!

>>140973
>>140974
>O нeт, oни нa нac ...
>Peжим кoнтpoля пoвpeждeний, aктивиpyйтe!

>>140974

Didnt the NYT investigate and break the Hillary email story?

Hmmmmmm......

>>140984
>Didnt the NYT investigate and break the Hillary email story?
Yes, and the Russian Uranium/Clinton connection before that Breitbart guy wrote a misleading book about it called 'Clinton Cash'.

>>140890
Butthurt liberal detected

>>140966
>So there is a good chance that the pro-Trump posts on /pol/ are actually paid Russian shills?
no.
are there some. probably.
but saying that there is a significant number of russian shills is just dumb.

even the intelligence agencies know this,
>The report stopped short of assessing whether Russia succeeded in swaying the election result.
they wont say how much effect it had, just that they had at least a very little bit of influence.


personally leaking emails is a good kind of influence, whereever it came from.
would have been best if it happened to trump too.

>>141020

/pol/ isnt russian shills
but i do think that a significant minority of the copypastas they like to spam are authored by Russians

eg: >>140878 smacks of professional disinfo

>>141022
They like Putin because of shit like:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/europe/putin-merkel-scared-dog/

They like that sort of crass, immature, confrontational trolling in politics. They like seeing the world destabalized and causing moral outrage or panic. At their heart, they're counter-culture, a reaction to society at large. They're rebels against our current society paradigm, one that can be a stifling liberal hugbox full of outraged sanctimonious hypocrites ready to ruin your life over nothing. That's why they'll do shit like send pictures of shooped children in furnaces to parents, and say they love ethno-Darwinism. Anything to get a rise out of the man.

>>141022
these kind of copypastas are on /pol/ all the time, for all sorts of topics, conspiracies or stupid shitposts.

whether they are autists with too much time, or russian shills is unprovable, but them being autists is much more believable.

>>140897
>>140906
>>140923
not only political but corporate shills have been around for a long time now sadly.

https://www.cnet.com/news/companies-to-pay-350000-fine-over-fake-online-reviews/

hard to believe even other anons these days :^(

>>141026

Obviously I dont know for sure.

but if I was a small russian propaganda group tasked with shilling 4chan, I think that copypastas is an obvious "in".

Shill groups are small, they dont hve the manpower to spam /pol/ themselves. But what they can do is use their advantage in tactical political arguments and the availability of cherrypicked sources to write influential copypastas that hundreds of non-shills will spam for them

it seems believable to me at least

>>141029
Well, if that was my job, that's what I'd aim for: propagation.

>>140984
>>140991
No, they did not. WSJ broke that story and at that point they were going to suffer exactly what they are getting now, which is distrust for being blatantly biased. Hmmmmmm. They don't break stories against the DNC unless there is no way around discussing it. Did they since do everything possible to do exactly what I stated with redirecting and making excuses and redirection for her emails??? THEY SURE DID, PUMPKINS! Are you really trying to argue that they are not biased in that way, when there is overwhelming proof that they are???

In terms of the Russian/Uranium/Clinton connection, they even site other sources as breaking the story . . .

You little libtards are so hilarious trying to protect your ignorant propaganda machines. Most people on here will not be okay with that. JS.

>>141025
A lot of them get burned and ostracized by their peers for not towing the party line enough, calling out a transvestite clownkin for voicing a stupid opinion like "Dinosaurs never existed," or just for being a hetero white man in the wrong place at the wrong time. While they're being made to feel like absolute shit and being relentlessly attacked by their so called friends, in sweeps somebody like BlackPidgeonSpeaks or EdgySphinx to tell them everything will be all right, and that they're a human being worth something. They red pill you, telling you that it's not your fault you're depressed and disenfranchised, it's the brainwashed, evil liberals' fault. They give you a "safe space" to recollect yourself and feel better. Movements like the alt-right pick you back up when you're down, reorient you, and turn your hate or resentment outwards.

>>141027
yeah, things have moved quickly from the information age to the disinformation age. it's hard to articulate how disturbing it is.

>>141032
>THEY SURE DID, PUMPKINS!
First of all, I appreciate your friendly tone and playful banter. Secondly, care to show me some of these excuses and redirection by the NY times?

Well, there's lots of GOP bashing and liberal bashing in editorials of any paper, but I have the feeling the WSJ and co. have managed to keep these opinion articles clearly separated from news articles. Personally, I have no problem with opinion pieces in a paper if they are presented as such.

>>141035
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/clinton-campaign-trump.html

The enormous differences can be seen in the headlines (Trump vs. Clinton); in the tone and wording of the articles (his are attacks; hers are not) it is in the way a single bad piece of press on her will be buried, followed by positive pieces so that it really isn't seen. They will hammer the right non-stop in numerous articles not allowing whatever negative to be forgotten as they blow whatever way out of proportion. How you've missed this is sort of amazing.

>>141037
But this is an editorial... I could easily find such biased articles on any conservative-leaning website.

>>141040
That is not an editorial and is presented as factual. You've gotta be kidding.
Sweeties, 85% of media is Left leaning. That's known. Even if this was an editorial, it's the fact that they will completely glaze over any bad press on the DNC and their stupid figureheads. Wake up and stop making excuses for this blatantly biased garbage. It actually can't even be accused of just being biased. It's just full on propaganda with a few negative facts thrown in just so they make the garbage argument that they are "news." They're a joke!

>>141043
It says analysis right at the top

Boo Boo, analysis does not mean opinion. Analysis is a breakdown of facts. Sorry to tell you. Also, stop trying to make excuses for their lies. It's really sad.

>>141048

This has to be liberal troll at this point

>>141050

You're right! Eeewwww! I just got trolled by a Libtard! That's really shameful!

*Sulks walking away kicking rocks . . .*

>>141048
>Boo Boo
Look man, I'm a liberal, but this level of friendliness is really getting to me. Do you have steam? Let's chill and vidya. I promise I'm nice to Trumpites.

>>141043
Fox is the largest, most watched news in America.

>>141054
No, I'm not really a gamer. I dig horror movies. Also, where I live libtards are a dime a dozen. If you were a Trumper then I might want to talk to you further. Baby, how could you vote for Hillary??? Just why???

>>141056
>Baby, how could you vote for Hillary??? Just why???

If I get asked that, I just tell them to fuck off, and that they should get out of my country before I force them out with my own two hands. I'm not electing some pizza pedo witch.

>>141055
For a single news source, yes . . . However, the majority of media is 85% liberal leaning.

>>141057

Who did you vote for or did you vote?

>>141059
Harambe.

>>141060

Okay, I've been trolled enough today! Toodles Boo!!!

>>140897
No Russia has paid shills, I've even seen an interview with a few of them.

Paid shills, and bots even moreso, are a very real thing on the internet.

Shilling is pretty easy, especially on sites like Reddit. If someone call you a shill, you just use your bot army to downvote them and upvote your alt accounts calling them a conspiracy theorist retard. Then the post becomes hidden and mob mentality takes over and that's the assessment reached. You can get the tools to do this with just a few hundred dollars.

It's very difficult to get concrete proof of shills, which is why they are so effective. Depending on the forum, if it's affected by shills, the consensus is they always give the benefit of the doubt (Reddit), or they assume everyone who disagrees with them is a shill (pol).

Either way it's turning the internet into shit.

>>141102
>with just a few hundred dollars.
damn expensive for something so simple

>>141105
Bot armies are pretty simple but yeah, you still have to spend some dosh to host them.

>>141102
What's turning the internet to shit is reddit meme spammers thinking they have insight into every discussion

>>141121
>Contributes to discussion with a thought through opinion
>"hurr durr reddit meme"

Up late are we, Ivan?

>>141123
You are such a bore

Democrat hack

>>141033
Sounds a lot like Islamists tbh

>>141129

theyre both populist movements, so i guess therell be some surface-level similarites

the same could be said of any organization that aggressively converts desu