Wray says Russia engaged in 'very active efforts' to interfere in election, damage Biden

[homersapien 11,423]

 

The FBI director also broke with Trump’s claim that antifa is a terrorist organization.

By KYLE CHENEY

09/17/2020

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday described “very active efforts” by Russia to interfere in the 2020 election, primarily by working to damage former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Wray said Russians have been using social media, as well as “proxies, state media, online journals" and other vehicles to hurt Biden and what it views as anti-Russian factions in U.S. politics.

Wray’s assessment affirms the findings of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which last month described Russia’s efforts to damage Biden and specifically identified Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker who has met with President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as an agent of Russia’s influence operations.

Wray’s testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee affirmed that Russia is continuing to take an active role in the 2020 campaign with less than 50 days until Election Day. He offered no new specifics in the early-going of the hearing, but emphasized that the intelligence community has not seen evidence that Russia is reprising its 2016 attempt to target election infrastructure, such as voter databases.

In testimony to the Homeland Security Committee, Wray also diverged from Trump’s claim that “antifa” is a terrorist organization. Rather, Wray said antifa is “more of an ideology or a movement than an organization” and though there has been violence by some who self-identify as antifa, it has not appeared to be part of a central organization.

“Antifa is a real thing,” Wray said. “But it’s not an organization or a structure.”

Under questioning from Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Wray indicated that white supremacist violence is the largest portion of what he described as the most significant domestic terrorism threat in the country: “racially motivated violent extremism.”

Though racially motivated violence is a broader term that encompasses multiple ideologies, he said “people ascribing to some white supremacy type of ideology is certainly the largest chunk of that.”

Under questioning from lawmakers, Wray also characterized Qanon as “a sort of complex set of conspiracy theories” that has, at times, inspired violent acts. Believers, some of whom have won congressional primary elections, have embraced outlandish, baseless claims — some rooted in antisemitic tropes — about a secret cabal of Satan worshipping government leaders running an international child sex ring. Its adherents have characterized Trump as a hero fighting to put a stop to it.

Wray said the FBI doesn’t investigate any particular set of beliefs but would pursue any violence that might stem from it. “I don’t think we’ve seen lethal attacks involving that kind of motivation,” he added.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/fbi-director-russia-election-meddling-416839

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,059]

The Russians could never damage Biden more than he does all by himself.

[DKW 86 7,438]

Here we go again. 

Yes, there is some very small, negligible Russian Presence, just as there is an Israeli, Chinese, Cuban, Korean, etc etc etc Presence as well. 
Will it change the outcome? No, It never has. But there are some on here that unless they get 100% of their wish list on election day will buy into every lame disproven conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. 

[Grumps 3,704]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Here we go again. 

Yes, there is some very small, negligible Russian Presence, just as there is an Israeli, Chinese, Cuban, Korean, etc etc etc Presence as well. 
Will it change the outcome? No, It never has. But there are some on here that unless they get 100% of there wish list on election day will not buy into every lame disproven conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. 

What if the people here knew that the U.S. tries to influence foreign elections as well?

[bigbird 60,578]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

What if the people here knew that the U.S. tries to influence foreign elections as well?

They wouldn't care or say anything about it

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

They wouldn't care or say anything about it

What makes you say that and how is it relevant to Trump being Putin's preferred candidate?

[johnnyAU 3,637]

Just now, McLoofus said:

What makes you say that and how is it relevant to Trump being Putin's preferred candidate?

Or how Biden is China's preferred candidate?

[bigbird 60,578]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

What makes you say that and how is it relevant to Trump being Putin's preferred candidate?

Because neither side acknowledges much of their own hypocrisy. If HRC had won, and the "Russians helped", then the left wouldn't be saying s*** about it. In Fact, they'd be arguing that the right was just sour over the loss. Just like the right has done for four years. 

As far as how it relates to your thought of Trump being Putin's preferred candidate, its not relevant. It's relevant to the post I quoted.

[AUDub 11,164]

Just now, McLoofus said:

What makes you say that and how is it relevant to Trump being Putin's preferred candidate?

They like to deflect like that.

Have we ****** around clandestinely with other countries? Oh yeah, no doubt about that. s***, look at the Shah in Iran or the various banana republics in central America. The excuse was often "stopping the insidious spread of socialism/communism" or some other thing.

But they're equivocating in this day and age.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Or how Biden is China's preferred candidate?

Are you certain of that? Btw this really isn't helping your image as a Biden-obsessed creeper with no actual viewpoint.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Because neither side acknowledges much of their own hypocrisy. If HRC had won, and the "Russians helped", then the left wouldn't be saying s*** about it. In Fact, they'd be arguing that the right was just sour over the loss. Just like the right has done for four years. 

As far as how it relates to your thought of Trump being Putin's preferred candidate, its not relevant. It's relevant to the post I quoted.

So it's irrelevant to the topic. Just making sure.

But also, you're wrong.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Because neither side acknowledges much of their own hypocrisy. If HRC had won, and the "Russians helped", then the left wouldn't be saying s*** about it. In Fact, they'd be arguing that the right was just sour over the loss. Just like the right has done for four years. 

As far as how it relates to your thought of Trump being Putin's preferred candidate, its not relevant. It's relevant to the post I quoted.

Speaking of hypocrisy, you like to start anti-Biden threads and then insist upon strict adherence to narrow topic definitions without unnecessary insult. Huh.

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They like to deflect like that.

Have we ****** around clandestinely with other countries? Oh yeah, no doubt about that. s***, look at the Shah in Iran or the various banana republics in central America. The excuse was often "stopping the insidious spread of socialism/communism" or some other thing.

But they're equivocating in this day and age.

Yeah, I know we have plenty of blood on our hands. It would be surprising that anyone bothering to post in this forum thought that was news to anyone else, were it not Grumps. Hardly surprised he would bring it up as though it were some startling revelation or that it is in any way germane to our own, current election.

[bigbird 60,578]

31 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

So it's irrelevant to the topic. Just making sure.

But also, you're wrong.

Again, I wasn't responding to the topic. I was responding to Grumps' comment. My comment was relevant to what it was posted for. 

 

It what way am I wrong? Or do you really think Homer et. al would post 27 articles a day attacking his preferred candidate

[bigbird 60,578]

36 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Speaking of hypocrisy, you like to start anti-Biden threads and then insist upon strict adherence to narrow topic definitions without unnecessary insult. Huh.

I have on many occasions called out Trump and his actions. I've never seen you say an ill word towards any left leaning persona.

The articles I've, on rare occasions, posted are only anti-biden to those that read them that way. The majority of articles I've posted in the past have been arguing against the unconstitutional articles of impeachment. They are only read politically by those that don't agree with the facts layed out in them.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Again, I wasn't responding to the topic. I was responding to Grumps' comment. My comment was relevant to what it was posted for. 

 

It what way am I wrong? Or do you really think Homer et. al would post 27 articles a day attacking his preferred candidate

Except the comment you responded to was irrelevant and your response was needlessly and counterproductively aggressive. Don't pretend that's not the *exact* same behavior you've complained about in the past while posturing as a centrist who just wants good discussion.

As for whether or not Homer would obsess over it were the shoe on the other foot, that's a mighty big leap from not acknowledging it at all as you initially posited.

You'd probably be better off just posting "I hate Homer" on occasion.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I've never seen you say an ill word towards any left leaning persona.

The articles I've, on rare occasions, posted are only anti-biden to those that read them that way.

The first comment is maybe accurate but also ignorant. The second is dishonest.

[bigbird 60,578]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Except the comment you responded to was irrelevant and your response was needlessly and counterproductively aggressive. Don't pretend that's not the *exact* same behavior you've complained about in the past while posturing as a centrist who just wants good discussion.

As for whether or not Homer would obsess over it were the shoe on the other foot, that's a mighty big leap from not acknowledging it at all as you initially posited.

You'd probably be better off just posting "I hate Homer" on occasion.

That's rich. So you've never made a comment that wasn't on topic? Or ever made a "needlessly and counterproductively aggressive" comment. Let me know when you want to dismount and I'll gett you a ladder to climb down on.

I don't hate Homer. In fact I respect him greatly. I don't agree with him, but that doesn't affect the way I think of him personally.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That's rich. So you've never made a comment that wasn't on topic? Or ever made a "needlessly and counterproductively aggressive" comment. Let me know when you want to dismount and I'll gett you a ladder to climb down on.

I don't hate Homer. In fact I respect him greatly. I don't agree with him, but that doesn't affect the way I think of him personally.

I'm not the one who pretends to adhere to a higher standard. Save your ladder for yourself.

I'll be sure to remember how much you respect Homer the next time you deflect away from obvious idiocy and inanity- or, in fact, uphold it- to attack his posting habits.

[bigbird 60,578]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The first comment is maybe accurate but also ignorant.

Only ignorant to those that are intentionally blind to it.

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The second is dishonest.

It should be easy to prove. In fact, here you go...

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/search/?&q=Www&type=forums_topic&author=bigbird&nodes=122&search_and_or=or

[bigbird 60,578]

Just now, McLoofus said:

I'm not the one who pretends to adhere to a higher standard. Save your ladder for yourself.

I'll be sure to remember how much you respect Homer the next time you deflect away from obvious idiocy and inanity- or, in fact, uphold it- to attack his posting habits.

Do you not understand the difference between a personal attack vs an attack against one's actions?  I've never attacked Homer personally.

[bigbird 60,578]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm not the one who pretends to adhere to a higher standard. Save your ladder for yourself.

Its not pretending. It's attempt to be better than the fray. Do I always? No, but I always try to. I'm glad it's been noticed.

[savorytiger 182]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Are you certain of that? Btw this really isn't helping your image as a Biden-obsessed creeper with no actual viewpoint.

There's been several reports that China is working against Trump's reelection: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/07/900245813/u-s-intelligence-warns-china-opposes-trump-reelection-russia-works-against-biden

The OP doesn't suggest any evidence that Russia has stepped beyond social media/disinformation campaigns (vs. the cyberattacks in 2016), so I guess the question is what steps should be taken against what we're seeing now? 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Its not pretending. It's attempt to be better than the fray. Do I always? No, but I always try to. I'm glad it's been noticed.

Words have been noticed. Effort? Eh.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, savorytiger said:

There's been several reports that China is working against Trump's reelection: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/07/900245813/u-s-intelligence-warns-china-opposes-trump-reelection-russia-works-against-biden

The OP doesn't suggest any evidence that Russia has stepped beyond social media/disinformation campaigns (vs. the cyberattacks in 2016), so I guess the question is what steps should be taken against what we're seeing now? 

I mean, from the voter's perspective, I can think of one step...