Analysis Heres what weve learned from the Senate hearing on Russia so far

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Senate Intelligence Committee held a rare public hearing on Thursday, a first look at its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The hearing, broken up into several sessions, began Thursday morning with a panel of academics brought in to explain Russia's history of trying to influence politics in other countries. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee chairman, and Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman, made it clear that they want to be thorough, starting with an understanding of how Russia interferes in other countries' affairs and why.

On Thursday afternoon, the committee brought in a panel of cybersecurity experts, including Gen. Keith Alexander, who was head of the National Security Agency from 2005 to 2014. They're expected to discuss the techniques Russia uses to influence other countries and their politics over the Internet.

Here's what we have learned from the hearing so far:

1. The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to avoid the partisanship we have seen from the House Intelligence Committee.

Burr and Warner both made it clear that they're working together and that they want to avoid letting politics creep in.

“We're all targets of a sophisticated and capable adversary,” Burr said in his opening statement, “and we must engage in a whole-of-government approach to combat Russian active measures.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-here%e2%80%99s-what-we%e2%80%99ve-learned-from-the-senate-hearing-on-russia-so-far/ar-BBz3NDd?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=edgsp

[ProudLib72]

1. Doesn't this statement go against what intelligence said?

“Candidly, while it helped one candidate this time, they are not favoring one party over another,” Warner said, “and, consequently, should be a concern for all of us.”

I kind of understand why he might say this, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to contradict intelligence.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Supposedly Rubio was targeted

So it seems the Russians were perhaps in the bag for Trump before he was the Republican nominee.

[ProudLib72]

3. Ah ha! That makes a little more sense now

However, Russia was still supporting one party over the other. I dislike Warner's wording because it downplays the significance of collusion. While I get that he is trying to be bipartisan in the interest of encouraging everyone to get on board with the investigation, he could have worded the statement differently so that it did not discount what intelligence has already stated.