The Kremlin's principal international
propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today)
has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT's
editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London
in August 2013, where they discussed renewing
his broadcast contract with RT, according to
Russian and Western media. Russian media
subsequently announced that RT had become
"the only Russian media company" to partner
with WikiLeaks and had received access to
"new leaks of secret information." RT routinely
gives Assange sympathetic coverage and
provides him a platform to denounce the
United States.

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified
assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.

The report says the Russians had a comprehensive cyber campaign to sabotage the presidential election and ultimately sought to help elect Trump.

Over time, Russia developed a clear preference for Trump and sought to artificially boost his chances. Again, either didn't see or missed the specific evidence, or its not there.

Russia thought Clinton would win. Russia "focused on finding ways to undercut Clinton's legitimacy". WaPost article.

Putin avoided saying good things about Trump, just talked about policies supported by Trump. Liked Trump's willingness to work with Russia.

Putin had "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." Again, can't see or didn't notice what supports the "help Trump's chances", as opposed to the denigrating Clinton. If one doesn't like Clinton, one can denigrate Clinton without necessarily intended to elect Trump, especially when you don't think Trump is going to win.

The US intercepted communications where top Russian officials congratulated themselves on Trump's win. WaPost article. I guess I still don't see how that proves anything, unless the communications were very specific, like "I'm glad out efforts to elect Trump worked".

No files given to Wikileaks were forgeries.

This Russian campaign was a large escalation of things they had been doing for years.

"Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote."

"Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence."

"The report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow's long record of trying to influence America's political system."

""Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on U.S. presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin," the report said."

"That Russia considers it possible to influence United States elections has been evident since at least 1968 when, according to Moscow's former longtime ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, the Kremlin decided that Richard M. Nixon was "profoundly anti-Soviet" and must be prevented if possible from winning the presidency. Mr. Dobrynin, in his 1995 memoirs "In Confidence," said he was ordered by Moscow to offer Mr. Nixon's Democratic rival, Hubert Humphrey, "any conceivable help in his election campaign -- including financial aid."

clap off

Obama not the state department did not fund any opponents in Israel. Fake news got you again.

AND

Guess the criminals/terrorists don't care about laws.

Personally, I'm generally not in favor of using the initiative process for issues that carry a direct fiscal impact on a state or municipal budget. Mandating an appropriation by such measures tends to bind the hands of the governing legislative body that's otherwise responsible for budgetary matters.

Taxation and appropriation by popular vote can have unintended consequences. It's not the electorate that has direct responsibility to balance a government budget. California's Proposition 13, passed by voters in June 1978, is one case in point. Its enactment had a cascading and ultimately devastating effect in its impact on city, county and state budgetary processes and fiscal health over the course of several decades.

Further, Prop. 13 created an inherently unequal tax base in local cities and counties, by which newer homeowners are assessed at far higher rates than are older homeowners and corporate property owners who purchased their properties prior to the measure's enactment in 1978, because the latter's own tax rates were effectively fixed by law in relative position for perpetuity.

My stated reservations about such initiatives aside, if people want to raise their own property taxes to provide a direct source of funding for a particular reason, whether it's for elections, their school district or infrastructure improvement, that's their business and their right per state law and local ordinance. It's done all the time by municipalities across the country, and hardly constitutes a "taking." But the residents will also have to deal with any consequential fallout if such subsequently occurs.

Speaking for myself only as someone who has extensive experience in public policy development, any decision making regarding the purposes, means and methodologies of taxation is a task which should never be undertaken lightly or frivolously. Taxes are the price we pay to live in an advanced civilized society such as ours. We seek to undercut the legal basis for their assessment at our own ultimate socio-economic peril.