Does Richard Painter have a point here?

[SHRED]

Link to tweet

[scarletwoman]

1. Yes. nt

[rzemanfl]

2. Absolutely. K&R. n/t

[triron]

3. Only may be partially true. Painter knows damn well

the Russians worked with the Trump campaign to steal the election.
Not sure why he puts it this way. I posted something else he said I don't totally agree with.

[JonLP24]

44. I agree

[onecaliberal]

4. Unfortunately, yes

[old guy]

5. Yes.

[BootinUp]

6. Im starting to wonder if Nader

is connected to Russia.

[BannonsLiver]

8. Ive thought about that as well

But at the end of the day I think Ralph is just a typical Caregory 5 asshole.

[maddiemom]

12. Doubt it. Jill Stein, however...

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. The point isn't that Nader, or Sanders, or Stein, or Hillary..worked with Putin knowingly

That is a big stretch. The story is that Putin worked to create animosity between the left. By spreading rumours, by FB memes, by releasing hacked emails. A year before the election Sanders wasn't even on the radar. It was a fluid attack which changed as time went. After Sanders became a real threat to win, his support sites were inundated with fake news memes about Hillary. Whatever and whoever were abrasive points of attack as it all developed.

[RandomAccess]

7. The Russians seem to excel at

playing both sides against each other. We're going to have to be VERY careful going forward.

[calimary]

9. Yep. One of the oldest strategies in the world: divide and conquer.

[Leghorn21]

14. Thanks, SURKOV:

Surkov is one of President Putin's advisers, and has helped him maintain his power for 15 years, but he has done it in a very new way.

snip

His aim is to undermine peoples' perceptions of the world, so they never know what is really happening.

Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.

But the key thing was, that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake. As one journalist put it: "It is a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused."



More
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/bbcs_adam_curtis_how_propaganda_turned_russian_politics_into_a_circus.html

Learned about him from a DUer back in February or so - a DUer who was born and raised in Russia, was there for the 1999 apartment bombings, and who later emigrated to America...I have never forgotten this Surkov guy (nor the DUer who taught me of him).

I think of Surkov often as I watch our country's daily descent into gut wrenching chaos...

[musette_sf]

10. Operation Chaos 2016 n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Absotively posilutely

[flamingdem]

13. When Dems overreact they leave space for the bots among us to incorporate the "outrage"

and use it to their ends.

#metoo is such a movement and there are others

People in general are too gullible, you'd think they would have learned by now.

For instance a friend of mine was shocked! horrified by the story told about Al Franken sticking his tongue in her mouth.

She just couldn't stop making a face.

But the broader picture? Completely lost to her due to excess emotion. Like that the Dems might lose a seat over something stupid.

[SergeStorms]

15. Definitely.

No doubt about it.

[Skittles]

16. yes

and they all fell for it

[SleeplessinSoCal]

17. We remaining souls at DU know he's right. Our uncivil war was hell. n/t

[SHRED]

18. Yup

[spanone]

19. spot on...

[jg10003]

20. Getting Dems to fight among themselves was just one more tactic to get Trump elected.

The Russians were helping Trump from the day he announced. Only after Bernie started doing unexpectedly well did the Russians realize that they could sow discord among democrats by pushing the Bernie Bro meme. But the goal was always to get Trump elected.

The Franken episode merely shows that Schumer is a very good political chess player. Sacrifice an expendable senator in order to win a special election. If the accusations against Franken had occurred after the Alabama election the Dems would not have forced him to resign.

[mr_lebowski]

21. Uh ... no ...

Well, maybe the last line, okay, maybe that.

But if you think a single f***ing handle was pulled for Jones over Moore in AL ... JUST because Shumer and the Lady Dems forced out Franken, I got a bridge you might be interested in ...

IOW, that line of reasoning? I'm not buying it.

Moore lost ... because it was KIDS ... and because Black folks (very rightly) hate Trump ... and that's about it.

Dem's treatment of Franken had ZERO to do with that particular win, and furthermore ... he was FAR from 'expendable'.

[jg10003]

23. Forcing Franken out prevented Al. voters from saying "they are all the same". Maybe Jones

would have won anyway, maybe not. But a 1.5% margin is very close and forcing Franken out certainly didn't cost Jones any votes. The reason I said that Franken, who I like and admire, is expendable is simply because he would be replaced by another Dem. Again, Schumer is a political chess player. By sacrificing Franken he may have helped the Dems gain a seat without losing any.
I am not a mind reader, but I believe this was Schumer's strategy.

[robbedvoter]

26. he certainly played it differently when it was him under the fake accusations

A bit too self-serving for my taste.

[Ghost Owl]

48. All that needed to happen for the Dems to not ask him to resign

was for Minnesota to have a Republican Governor (see: Senator Menendez).

Shunning Franken didn't win them Alabama. They won Alabama because black folks got out and voted in huge numbers. And they were always going to vote for Jones. Not only because he's a Democrat, but because he put away the KKK for killing four little black girls, because he actually gave a shit about the issues facing black Americans. Jones inspired the black community to come out and vote, not Schumer and not Gillibrand.

Can the Dems just thank the black community of Alabama, instead of trying to give credit to two white Senators from New York? Just give a shit about minorities Dems, get that message across, and you will fucking win. No need to sacrifice your own on the political chess altar.

[JI7]

24. YES YES YES, AND , and while the Franken thing was to distract against Roy Moore and Trump a bit ,

it was FAR FAR more about his exposing of Sessions with Russia and what that resulted in .

with Democrats out of Control , Al FRanken was THE MOST effective Democrat we had .

[robbedvoter]

25. Yes, but...

Bernie bros are - proudly so - NOT democrats. Also far less in numbers than they think they are - as primaries showed. (vastly amplified on line by republicans/Russian bots). The media loves to call them democrats for the "infighting" narrative.
As for Franken - he was targeted because of Sessions. And, especially after the Schumer, Blumenthal episodes, shame on Gillibrand& rest of the Inquisition for making the GOP/Russia game. So, basically Painter is right.

[progressoid]

39. What's a Bernie Bro?

I sit on a couple committees on our county Democratic Party. And there are a lot of Bernie supporters there. In fact, one committee is almost entirely populated with avid Bernie supporters. If you told them they weren't Democrats, you'd be laughed out of the room. The vice-chair is a young lady who joined the Democratic party because of Bernie.

[JonLP24]

43. I don't think "Bernie bros" is helpful

And it isn't even accurate.

[RKP5637]

27. A core problem is, so many Americans are so damn gullible often taking things at face value. I like

Richard Painter, as I often think he cuts right through the bullshit. Yes, I agree with him, because I often think democrats are their own worst enemy.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes, I'm pretty sure he does.

The election was lost in just three states, all of which had enough Stein voters to have elected Hillary. Setting up disputes among Democrats and progressives was just enough to do the trick.

[CrispyQ]

29. The dems are weak. They have been for a very long time, now.

They are partially to blame for this clusterfuck, by not being a true opposition party for 40 years & not paying attention to what was going on in the heartland–the impact of hate radio, which the dems still ignore.

[Hoyt]

30. We saw it right here on DU.

[peggysue2]

31. Yes!

Sow distrust and confusion and pit Dem voters against one another can and did tip the electoral scales. Not by much but just enough. With a 'little' help from the media and social networks to amplify every bizarre accusation and propaganda smear. Not to mention the Trump mania that went on 24/7.

I said it early on--the Left was duped in 2016. We're paying the grim price for that right now.

As for Al Franken? That was a political hit job telegraphed by Roger Stone and his band of dirty tricksters, who just so happen to have Russian-loving friends. Again, we were taken for a ride and ousted a strong opposition voice. Franken outed Jeff Sessions and was forced to pay a penalty for that "sin'. The bitter irony is that his own colleagues pushed him out with a blind, over-the-top righteousness, only to regret the decision later.

We are all susceptible to these mind games. Time to learn the lesson before it destroys us all.

[Sancho]

32. That was a large part...

probably accounted for much of the trolling, bots, and similar things.

[Thrill]

33. This is nothing new. Democrats always eat each other. Never stick with each like Republicans

Which is why they find themselves in the minority so often

[Caliman73]

38. Sorry but you are factually wrong about being in the minority.

Democrats have controlled the House and Senate in 65 of the last 100 years to the Republicans' 35. Democrats held all 3 branches for 35 years compared to Republicans holding for 16 years. At least on the National level, the Democratic party has been clearly the majority.

I do agree that Democrats tend to not fall into line like Republicans do, that is typically because Democrats are about values, ideals, and policies; not about access to power. We hold ourselves to higher standards, which is sometimes very inconvenient when fighting for power, but which makes the Democratic Party good at governing where the Republicans are horrible at it.

[NightWatcher]

34. Of course he's right. Everyone played a part for Russia... Stein and Bernie

Russia paid Stein. Stein shaved off a few thousand Democrats.

RT paid Thom Hartmann who pushed for Bernie even after it was clear that Hillary had the nomination. Bernie Bros and the Bernie or Bust movement didn't have to sway millions, just a few thousand here or there.

Russia played a lot of people and a lot of people were too stubborn to vote smartly.

And this is what we got.

[highplainsdem]

35. Yes.

[Blue_Tires]

36. That's nothing new, although there wasn't a lot of discussion when first revealed

I'd posted it here either last year or very early this year, iirc...

[jimlup]

37. Yes and we need to wise up to their tactics

[barbtries]

40. he has a point,

but it's far from the entire one.

[sarcasmo]

41. Spot on.

[L. Coyote]

42. Ask him.

[Honeycombe8]

45. Good point. And apparently, but sadly, true.

Some people don't know how to create, and keep, the well oiled attack-and-defend machine.

[bitterross]

46. Seems pretty spot on. /nt

[zentrum]

47. So Gillibrand

...was a tool of the Russians? I doubt it. She was simply driven by her own political ambition and calculation.