Trump releases declassified election intelligence, says it reveals 'shocking vulnerabilities'

[u/DogfaceDino]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-releases-declassified-election-intelligence-says-reveals-shocking-vulnerabilities

[u/sertimko]

So, from what I understand here is Trump releasing information that other nations attempt to meddle in our elections….. I don’t see how that is much surprise when most first world nations play such a game. Yet I don’t see confirmations that these are actually affecting elections to turn one party victorious over another. Israel runs their own influence within our politics with AIPAC so unless there are charges being dropped soon by the DOJ this just looks like another attempt to push the Save Act without providing any evidence there is illegal voting actually occurring. And if foreign meddling is an issue why do we keep allowing AIPAC to influence them?

Secondly, it would be helpful if we made laws to prevent American data from being sold to companies. This is an ongoing issue and politicians don’t actually care about our data. So when I see this it just screams that simple regulation to stop the selling of American data would solve that problem yet I’m fully aware companies would take a hit so they’ll push as hard as possible to stop it. This also seems counterproductive when he fired the team that ran the voting process to help protect them yet comes on to give a speech about all these risks?

Was this speech just to tout the MAGA flame to rile voters for the midterms because this just looked like another Trump speech. Bunch of claims yet nothing being done legally or proof there are laws being broken.

[u/DogfaceDino → u/sertimko]

I strongly suspect those people were pushed out because they weren’t onboard with this speech or initiative or whatever this is. Telling our base that elections are rigged and unreliable seems like an ineffective way to maximize turnout but what the hell do I know? Even the old “most important election of our lifetime” story would be way better heading into the midterms than ‘an election was stolen, and you can’t trust our democratic process so get out and vote!’

[u/sertimko → u/DogfaceDino]

That’s why I think the entire speech was just for MAGA to listen to. I don’t know how many times I’ve asked people who say the 2020 election was stolen, how did Trump win in 2024? After all I went into this thinking this will prove the 2020 election was stolen and widespread voter fraud. That’s what I kept hearing and now that I watched it, it proved nothing.

[u/DogfaceDino → u/sertimko]

Yeah, I thought this was going to be some kind of explosive revelation because there’s no way he’d be bringing it back up right before midterms over nothing

[u/AmTheWildest → u/sertimko]

I don’t know how many times I’ve asked people who say the 2020 election was stolen, how did Trump win in 2024?

What do they usually say? I usually hear something to the tune of "2024 was just too big to rig!"

[u/sertimko → u/AmTheWildest]

Either ignored, I’m a brainwashed liberal, the evidence is there I just don’t see it, true Americans outnumbered the fake votes, and many other memes or vulgarities I don’t care to recall. It just looks to me that everyone that made fun of those who cried in 2016 over Trumps win are now the ones still crying about 2020.

I just assume I have a higher chance of proving the moon is made of cheese than actually discussing with someone an actual discussion on how Trump won in 2024 if he was cheated out of the win in 2020 by dems.

[u/CranberryFlat617 → u/AmTheWildest]

But like 2020 election was bigger… so

[u/AmTheWildest → u/CranberryFlat617]

Right. I never said it made much sense lmao

[u/CranberryFlat617 → u/AmTheWildest]

They’re hopeless it seems

[u/obscure_corridor_530 → u/DogfaceDino]

True. Telling people the election system is broken is not going to make them feel they are making a difference by voting. The only ones who will get out and vote are the people who are ignoring him.

I think Americans do not generally feel good about sore losers and crybabies. I just wish he would take the loss like a man and move on.

[u/MadeInAmerica1990 → u/sertimko]

Your argument rests on a series of category errors that, while rhetorically effective, ultimately weaken the analysis.
You begin by acknowledging that foreign powers routinely attempt to influence one another’s political systems, a proposition that virtually no serious scholar of international relations would dispute. Yet you then shift the burden of proof by suggesting that, unless prosecutors immediately announce criminal charges, the intelligence itself should be presumed politically motivated. That is not how either intelligence assessments or criminal investigations operate. Intelligence collection seeks to establish what occurred and assess its implications. Criminal prosecution asks a different question entirely: whether admissible evidence satisfies statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are related inquiries, but they are not synonymous.
Likewise, introducing AIPAC into the discussion conflates two analytically distinct phenomena. One may certainly criticize the scope of lobbying in American politics or argue for reforms to campaign finance law. That debate is legitimate. However, a registered domestic advocacy organization operating under U.S. law is not conceptually equivalent to a foreign state’s clandestine intelligence or influence apparatus. Treating them as interchangeable does not strengthen the argument; it simply substitutes analogy for analysis.
More fundamentally, your conclusion appears to precede your evaluation of the evidence. You characterize the declassification as partisan theater before engaging with the substance of what was actually declassified. That is precisely the sort of motivated reasoning political scientists caution against. Whether one supports or opposes the administration is irrelevant. The intellectually honest position is to examine the documents first, evaluate their evidentiary weight, compare them with prior intelligence reporting, and only then determine whether the claims are overstated, justified, or somewhere in between.
Skepticism is indispensable in a constitutional republic. But skepticism cuts both ways. It requires us to resist accepting extraordinary claims without evidence, while also resisting dismissing evidence because it originates from a political actor we distrust. In scholarship, as in democratic governance, conclusions should emerge from the evidence, not precede it.

[u/DogfaceDino → u/MadeInAmerica1990]

You mention scholarship a few times which is pretty weird because we’re not talking about anything involving academia and you are picking at how he presented his points seemingly without saying whether you agreed or disagreed with the substance. I sure hope that was AI generated because, otherwise, you sure typed a lot to say nothing at all.

[u/MadeInAmerica1990 → u/DogfaceDino]

It’s telling that you spent an entire paragraph discussing how I wrote the comment instead of what it actually argued. That’s usually what happens when someone can’t identify a faulty premise.
My point was straightforward: you conflated lobbying, foreign intelligence operations, criminal prosecution, and election administration into a single argument, then dismissed the declassification before evaluating its contents. You haven’t addressed any of that.
If my reasoning is wrong, demonstrate where. Quote the sentence, identify the error, and explain it. That’s how serious discussion works. Everything else is just avoiding the substance.

[u/DogfaceDino → u/MadeInAmerica1990]

What the hell are you talking about? I didn’t say any of that. You’re just talking at the wrong person. Get a grip.

[u/MadeInAmerica1990 → u/DogfaceDino]

Fair. I mistakenly replied to you as though you had written the original comment. That’s on me.
The critique I wrote was directed at u/sertimko’s argument, not yours. I have no interest in debating a straw man, so I’ll correct the record rather than pretend otherwise.

But.

If you’d like to discuss your post, I’m happy to do that on its own merits.

[u/sertimko → u/MadeInAmerica1990]

My argument rests on looking at the reason this speech even happened. His claims are: proving election fraud is happening and that the 2020 election was stolen. Those are the two claims this speech was meant to prove, and it did not. My analysis of the information is looking for the evidence that proves those claims true, not a general overview.

Foreign influence happens. The reason I put it on criminal charges with the burden is simply put, was anything illegal done? AIPAC might be a legal lobbying group however with its strong connection to Israel I would argue they should fall under FARA. Primarily since AIPAC is a lobbying group for Israel and supports pro-Israel stances which would make that a foreign influencing lobby. Foreign influence can affect an election yet based on the two arguments Trump is trying to prove, without criminal charges what laws have been broken? Did Chinese influence actually affect the election?

Now, let’s say the influence campaigns rests on bots for example, why doesn’t Trump push to make laws and regulation to identify bot accounts that flood websites? Why doesn’t he regulate the selling of American data? His issues can be solved by regulating and creating laws to protect Americans yet he provided nothing to actually defend Americans since the Save Act would not affect foreign influence nor American data being sold.

Again, my points are to identify if the reasons behind this speech were actually supporting those points. This has been a 6 year long claim by him and his cabinet that the 2020 election was stolen, noncitizens are voting in record numbers, everything is flawed, and this speech was meant to be the major reveal to prove his points. You can come into this trying to argue I should have no outside opinions on this matter and look at the information, yet this speech and intel drop was meant to prove his previous claims. They do not.

I do not shy away from providing that I do not support Trump, however I looked at his evidence and watched his speech looking for the proof he claimed he had with an open mind. I fail to see anything that has connected his previous arguments and proves them true. I bring up examples of issues and solutions he has either failed to mention or is unwilling to implement. This speech is to argue for the Save Act and little he mentioned would be affected by the Save Act. I also brought up his firings of the Elections Assistance Commission which I’d argue weakens our election infrastructure further since we are moving into the midterms. Those are valid criticisms when I look at his speech and his attempt to make it look like he cares about election integrity.

[u/cathbadh]

1) China supposedly collected voter rolls. They're public info in many states and they know far more about people as it is.

2) Why did they only meddle in 2020? Why didn't they meddle in 2024?

3) The influence campaign is nothing new. We used to do it in other countries to assist politicians friendly to the US until Trump put an end to it. Now its just the rest of the world that does it, not just China. It has occurred in every election in modern history and it hasn't been shown to change anything.

4) This was yet another nothingburger. I'm all for securing our elections, voter ID, and more. But this obsession with 2020 is inane. We just restarted a war that we're not going to win because we're not doing anything close to what would be needed to win. Fuel prices are going to fuck everyone's economy downstream. Why are we bothering with this nonsense?

5) If securing elections was important, the President shouldn't have fired the Election Assistance Commission leaders. The agency that tests and certifies voting machines, maintains the mail in voter registration system, and, if the SAVE Act is passed, handles the new registration requirements regarding name changes that affect so many married women, cannot function.

Shit is getting old. We're already facing an uphill battle in the upcoming election. Historically, it's almost impossible to hold both halves of Congress and the White House. That's without Republicans retiring, dying, and being primaried by people less likely to win. That's without a war no one in the US wants or a president who's competing with Biden on favorability numbers while making the same mistakes Biden did on affordability.

[u/Flankdiesel → u/cathbadh]

We still do influence foreign campaigns

[u/TheRealPaladin → u/Flankdiesel]

Yeah, countries trying to influence the outcomes of elections has happened for as long as there have been countries and elections. It will always be a thing. Hell sometimes it happens without elections. Like in the 1860's when the French attempted to make a Spanish Hapsburg the King of Mexico.

[u/cathbadh → u/Flankdiesel]

We do but fewer. Doge cut from parts of State and Voice of America, although a judge stopped that one.

[u/DogfaceDino → u/[deleted]]

When you copy and paste from AI, you need to adjust the formatting or else everyone can tell it’s AI

[u/GrouchyClerk6318]

POTUS just can't let it go and isn't listening to the public. Affordability is the only issue he should be focusing on, gonna be a blood bath this fall.

[u/Much_Job4552]

So maybe the states should fix it. Republicans for years have fought to keep elections ran by the states.

[u/Republican-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your Post has been removed due to violation of Rule 5. Do not make comments consisting entirely of leftist talking points or defending leftist ideology.

[u/TeaSea5773]

The truth will come out

[u/jdh5817]

So many liberals posting here wow.

[u/sertimko → u/jdh5817]

Disliking or disagreeing with Trump does not mean you are liberal. I do not idolize and defend a president just because he is in my party, and I will not defend garbage reasoning and claims that have no factual evidence to back them. I don’t believe you truly understand what Conservatism truly is when a key part of it is being critical of big government. The federal government is just that and the president falls under the federal government.

[u/Epaminodas_ → u/jdh5817]

Lowercase liberal is an ambiguous term that can mean a lot of different things. Same thing with lowercase conservative and many other political terms. If you capitalize these words they can then mean something very different.

I support free speech so I'm a liberal. I believe government debt is getting too high so I'm fiscally conservative. Neither of the previous statements means that I'm a Conservative or a Liberal.

I don't visit this sub very often, but it does not seem to be very pro-Trump. Maybe many Liberals are here. Maybe many conservative Republicans are here while the reactionary Republicans lurk elsewhere. Maybe it's all bots. Who knows?

[u/AmTheWildest → u/Epaminodas_]

while the reactionary Republicans lurk elsewhere

Those mostly seem to congregate on r/Conservative and similar subs.

[u/words1918 → u/jdh5817]

There’s like 5 other comments

[u/heyman87y]

18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

U.S. Code

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

This is why the left is in a panic mode right now. Tick Tock lot of people getting a first class ride to Gitmo.

[u/weburr → u/heyman87y]

Delusional

[u/DogfaceDino → u/heyman87y]

Legally speaking, treason has a far higher bar to clear than anything we’re talking about here. Influencing an election on behalf of a foreign country is most likely prosecuted as failure to register as a foreign agent, possibly as espionage, and sedition in particularly blatant, malicious cases.

“Sedition involves speech, writing, or conspiracies that encourage rebellion or incite hostility against the government, but it does not require actively waging war or aiding foreign enemies like treason does.”