Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[James DiEugenio]

WN: If the Democrats ever regain control of the White House and Congress they need to reinstate some iteration of the Fairness Doctrine, and enact legislation reversing the disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling, which, as Fred Wertheimer said, "erased a century of campaign finance reforms" in the U.S.A.

 

This is what I meant when I said the Dems have no discipline.  I think Kathy misinterpreted what I said.

If people like Bulloch and Beto and Abrams had run for the senate in 2020, the Dems would be well on their way to regaining that chamber.  And then they could have stopped this whole stacking of the judiciary that has caused things like you mentioned : the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and Citizens United.  Those two moves really reset the whole media/electoral backdrop for elections.  The third peg is the refusal of the Supreme Court to decide on the issues of redistricting, voting rights and gerrymandering.  

Why these people do not do what is good for the country and their party eludes me to no end. Please no more Kavanaughs. The guy who voted for the CIA and against Morley in the morning and had his name sent up that afternoon.

Edited December 19, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

In an interview published last week, William Binney says that a metadata comparison of emails released separately by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show the so-called Russian fingerprints by which the US Intelligence community assessed the emails were obtained by a GRU hack appear only in the Guccifer 2.0 versions -  “which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0 was inserting these files to make it look like the Russians did this hack…In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making it look like the Russians were doing the hack...we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the understanding and knowledge of what’s really happening away from the public of the United States…And the mainstream media is a participant in this.”

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/18/nsa-whistleblower-mueller-report-based-on-fabricated-evidence/

[Douglas Caddy]

 

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

In an interview published last week, William Binney says that a metadata comparison of emails released separately by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show the so-called Russian fingerprints by which the US Intelligence community assessed the emails were obtained by a GRU hack appear only in the Guccifer 2.0 versions -  “which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0 was inserting these files to make it look like the Russians did this hack…In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making it look like the Russians were doing the hack...we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the understanding and knowledge of what’s really happening away from the public of the United States…And the mainstream media is a participant in this.”

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/18/nsa-whistleblower-mueller-report-based-on-fabricated-evidence/

So, Jeff, let me get this straight.

Your latest argument is that, apparently, the CIA -- not the Kremlin-- sabotaged Hillary Clinton in 2016 (by hacking the DNC Emails, etc.) to help elect Trump.

But your core "Spygate" argument all along has been that the CIA sabotaged Trump since 2016 -- framing him as a Russian asset.

So, you are now arguing, in essence, that the CIA, 1) helped Trump, and 2) sabotaged Trump in 2016.

That's a "Deep State" reductio ad absurdum...

[Ty Carpenter]

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

The left can't meme.

 

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, Jeff, let me get this straight.

Your latest argument is that, apparently, the CIA -- not the Kremlin-- sabotaged Hillary Clinton in 2016 (by hacking the DNC Emails, etc.) to help elect Trump.

But your core "Spygate" argument all along has been that the CIA sabotaged Trump since 2016 -- framing him as a Russian asset.

So, you are now arguing, in essence, that the CIA, 1) helped Trump, and 2) sabotaged Trump in 2016.

That's a "Deep State" reductio ad absurdum...

For someone who is often materially factually incorrect on items ranging from the “Gerasimov Doctrine” to the Steele Dossier, your sarcasm seems misplaced, as is your attribution of speculation I’ve never engaged in. If you have an issue with the information I shared, it is best addressed to William Binney and his VIPS colleagues. Otherwise you are just engaging in generalized hypothetical half-informed dismissals.

[Dennis Berube]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, Jeff, let me get this straight.

Your latest argument is that, apparently, the CIA -- not the Kremlin-- sabotaged Hillary Clinton in 2016 (by hacking the DNC Emails, etc.) to help elect Trump.

Why the need to make assumptions? Jeff is pointing out the evidentiary issues with guccifer vs wiki leaks. Wiki leaks says the whole thing was a leak. So it definitely does not mean the "CIA" hacked the  DNC to help Trump. It is quite conceivable however, that the manipulations of guccifer 2.0 was a form of damage control to shift the focus from DNC/Clinton corruption, to the Russia baiting mess we have today. Admittedly speculative, but it seems some of us have a need to jump to a conclusion. 

There is no way to "get this straight" completely at this moment. The only thing that is certain is that this is about more than the "evidence". 

 

And please do not cite a NY times or wapost article. They spew baseline propaganda and won't help anyone.

[Cliff Varnell]

50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Why the need to make assumptions? Jeff is pointing out the evidentiary issues with guccifer vs wiki leaks. Wiki leaks says the whole thing was a leak.

When did Assange say it was a leak?

He said he didn't get the e-mails from Russian state actors, which is nothing more than a non-denial denial.

50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

So it definitely does not mean the "CIA" hacked the  DNC to help Trump.

So the release of the DNC e-mails at the start of the Democratic Convention didn't help Trump?

The alternative universe occupied by Trumpenlinks is such an amazing place!  Lewis Carroll's got nothing on these people!

50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

It is quite conceivable however, that the manipulations of guccifer 2.0 was a form of damage control to shift the focus from DNC/Clinton corruption, to the Russia baiting mess we have today.

So to Dennis Berube it is "quite conceivable" that the DNC was hacked to draw attention away from Clinton by focusing intense attention...on Clinton.

Genius!

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

For someone who is often materially factually incorrect on items ranging from the “Gerasimov Doctrine” to the Steele Dossier, your sarcasm seems misplaced, as is your attribution of speculation I’ve never engaged in. If you have an issue with the information I shared, it is best addressed to William Binney and his VIPS colleagues. Otherwise you are just engaging in generalized hypothetical half-informed dismissals.

Huh?  Factually incorrect?

First you claimed that Russian xxxxx factories didn't significantly influence our 2016 elections, so I posted a Congressional database of 35,000 Russian-sourced 2016 Facebook ads for you to review.

If you had reviewed them, you would have noticed that they were quite graphically consistent with the "Gerasimov" Kremlin strategy of asymmetrical warfare to foment social divisions and conflict within enemy states and alliances (U.S., NATO, EU, etc.)

As for your latest Binney/Eric Zuesse "Spygate" article, hinting that Russia didn't really hack the DNC Emails in 2016, I noticed that Binney hasn't even published his alleged "evidence" of a CIA/Deep State conspiracy yet.

But, my point is entirely logical.  If Binney's "Spygate" claim is true, the CIA was apparently trying to  help Trump get elected in 2016 (by hacking the DNC Emails) while simultaneously trying to sabotage Trump-- framing him to look like a Russian asset.

It's a reductio ad absurdum.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

And please do not cite a NY times or wapost article. They spew baseline propaganda and won't help anyone.

Common Dennis the article is from LaRouche. Let's not go there.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Huh?  Factually incorrect?

First you claimed that Russian xxxxx factories didn't significantly influence our 2016 elections, so I posted a Congressional database of 35,000 Russian-sourced 2016 Facebook ads for you to review.

If you had reviewed them, you would have noticed that they were quite graphically consistent with the "Gerasimov" Kremlin strategy of asymmetrical warfare to foment social divisions and conflict within enemy states and alliances (U.S., NATO, EU, etc.)

As for your latest Binney/Eric Zuesse "Spygate" article, hinting that Russia didn't really hack the DNC Emails in 2016, I noticed that Binney hasn't even published his alleged "evidence" of a CIA/Deep State conspiracy yet.

But, my point is entirely logical.  If Binney's "Spygate" claim is true, the CIA was apparently trying to  help Trump get elected in 2016 (by hacking the DNC Emails) while simultaneously trying to sabotage Trump-- framing him to look like a Russian asset.

It's a reductio ad absurdum.

But Russian trolls did not effect the 2016 election in any meaningful way, except in the fevered imaginations of partisan true believers. Here is a recently published American/Danish academic study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/20/1906420116.full.pdf

“Using Bayesian regression tree models, we find no evidence that interaction with IRA accounts substantially impacted distinctive measures of political attitudes...”

In other words, the messaging was distributed largely through clusters of already decided voters. If you know of a differing analysis please share as nothing of the sort was ever referred by the intelligence agencies and congressional committees which were the main generators of the election interference theories.

Otherwise, your logic holds only to the extent of its self-directed limitations, meaning it doesn’t hold at all.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

But Russian trolls did not effect the 2016 election in any meaningful way, except in the fevered imaginations of partisan true believers. Here is a recently published American/Danish academic study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/20/1906420116.full.pdf

“Using Bayesian regression tree models, we find no evidence that interaction with IRA accounts substantially impacted distinctive measures of political attitudes...”

In other words, the messaging was distributed largely through clusters of already decided voters. If you know of a differing analysis please share as nothing of the sort was ever referred by the intelligence agencies and congressional committees which were the main generators of the election interference theories.

Otherwise, your logic holds only to the extent of its self-directed limitations, meaning it doesn’t hold at all.

Inconvenient quote from report:

We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns.

Their study apparently took place during a whopping one month period in 2017. They did however further confirm for me that it was the IRA and Russia, they did attempt to influence voters here and elsewhere and the effort was extensive.

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Inconvenient quote from report:

We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns.

Their study apparently took place during a whopping one month period in 2017. They did however further confirm for me that it was the IRA and Russia, they did attempt to influence voters here and elsewhere and the effort was extensive.

The authors are careful to address all possible variables, which adds credibility to their report. The sentence which you highlight is not representative of the accumulated analysis. And, again, notably, neither the intelligence community or the congressional committees refer to or commissioned any analysis whatsoever before asserting their maximalist interpretations, which in turn rely on describing statistically insignificant activity as somehow “massive” and “extensive”.

[W. Niederhut]

Jeff,

      Never try to extract from a study a conclusion that isn't there.   It happens all too often, unfortunately.

     You need to go back and re- read your own reference study, (above) along with the database of 2016 Russian propaganda on Facebook that I posted for you at the top of this lengthy thread.*   Your study, clearly, does NOT conclude that Russian trolls had no significant impact on the 2016 U.S. election.  Far from it.  (Consistent with what we have read about Russian xxxxx factories celebrating the shocking, improbable "election" of Donald Trump on Election Night in 2016.  They, certainly, thought that their propaganda had been highly effective, in any case.)

     One of the fatal flaws in the study is that their small sample of Twitter-using probands did not include "independent" voters using Twitter accounts -- the very people whose decisions are most likely to sway electoral outcomes!

     Secondly, the study was conducted in late 2017-- one year after the election.  It is NOT a study of the impact of Russian trolling on the 2016 U.S. election. 

     One of the most striking aspects of Russian-sourced propaganda during our 2016 election, IMO, is how closely it mirrored what the Trump/Manafort campaign was doing simultaneously-- fomenting anxiety and rage about Muslims, illegal immigration, Black Lives Matter protesters, the "War on Christmas," etc.  Like the Trump campaign memes that had dramatically increased Trump's popularity during the Republican primaries, the 2016 Russian propaganda was focused on increasing social divisions within the U.S.-- along ethnic, racial, and religious fault lines.  Trump/Manafort propaganda dovetailed with Putin's Gerasimov cyber warfare strategy to fracture American society.

       Here are some 2016 Russian Facebook Trumpaganda examples that I referenced for you earlier on this thread.

       These were posted by Russian trolls using monikers like, "Army of Jesus," "Heart of Texas," "South United," and "Blacktivist" (urging black people to vote for Jill Stein.)

   https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9111086-3x2-940x627.jpg

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5af5cfd8428d041d008b4853.jpg

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/12/12-russian-facebook-ad-south-united-confederate-flag.w710.h473.png

https://i1.wp.com/skepticreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/examples-of-russian-facebook-ads-in-2016-elec-L-516RRQ.png?w=360&ssl=1

Edited December 20, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

You need to go back and re- read your own reference study, (above) along with the database of 2016 Russian propaganda on Facebook that I posted for you at the top of this lengthy thread.*   ...

You misunderstand the study and the IRA campaign which it describes. There was no significant qualitative difference between the content presented in 2016 and 2017, and the content which referred specifically to election ’16 politics was just a small fraction of the overall effort (see Symantec analysis for detail). That is why the intelligence and congressional reports focussed on efforts to “sow discord” through the disparate push-button messaging. The academic analysis found that the IRA accounts “mostly interacted with those who were already highly polarized” with “strong ideological homophily within their Twitter network”.  There was very little interaction with “independent” or swing voters because the messaging was tuned to the polarized already-decided blocs. If you believe there was a significant qualitative difference between the polarized public in 2016 and the polarized public in 2017, you are advancing such theory with no evidence. The IRA’s methods are entirely onsistent with methods used by cyber marketing firms, as the Mueller Report concedes. There is no “Putin Gerasimov cyber warfare strategy” - that’s something you read in a Politico article. The IRA campaign was comparatively minuscule to overall Twitter and Facebook activity, to the point of statistical irrelevance. It did not “fracture American society.” These ridiculous notions are fact-free assertions which do not withstand objective analysis.