gzt:

Pumpedd:

 

With the release of the intelligence reports today by all 4 of the Intel Chiefs on the election interference by Russia, surely the election has to be rerun?

 

Although it would be almost impossible to work out the actual impact of what Russia has done (massive hacking, false news etc) on the election result it is very clear that interference did occur. Trump is still being coy about the reports clearly because he does not want to admit that a foreign government assisted him in gaining power.

 

If America holds democracy to such high standards then it cannot accept the results of last years election!!

 

The report clearly states that there is no indication that voting machines or vote totals were interfered with. On that basis the election was legitimate.

The wording of statements and responses put out by all sides is subtle but important. The Obama administration and the intelligence agencies have never suggested that Putin or others actually tampered with votes (that is, changed the votes directly so someone appears to have voted for someone they did not). This is also clearly what Obama was referring to when he dismissed the possibility of (Trump's direct assertion) the election was 'rigged'.

What the Obama admin, along with intelligence agencies have been saying, since well before the election, is that Russia has been working in a coordinated and distribution fashion to both undermine the perception of fair elections in the US and to change public perception of candidates, through dissemination of mostly false information - much of which has been lapped up and spread by Trump supporting voters. This is what changed outcomes - people vote for a candide based on fake or false information they believe to be true that was in a big way helped along by a foreign government determined to influence the outcome.

The wikileaks info is a little different, but similar. Note that while everyone is focusing on the fact Julian Assange is adamant that his source was not Russia (and that's most likley true), the language used is subtle and important. In none of his statements has his confirmed that the source of the info provided to Wikileaks was the same person or group who originally obtained the information. Because he's basically only doing interviews with Fox News now, no one has asked him this question. It is very plausible that Russia was indeed the original source of the information, and it has provided to someone else who are ultimately the source to Wikileaks.

While the info provided to Wikileaks does appear to be genuine and not tampered with, much of it was released out of context, including directly misleading statements by Wikileaks themselves that were easily debunked by wider context of the email chains. Wikileaks have indeed confirmed today on Twitter that they hold a partisan political 'position', therefore anything they release, particularly any surrounding commentary, needs to be carefully examined for bias and understood in the correct context.