W. Niederhut Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The alleged voter database story was retracted. It is fake news Exhibit A. The “vast” Facebook ad buy amounted to about $40,000. To describe it as statistically insignificant would be an exaggeration. The firm involved was a commercial click-bait operation, as the Mueller Report concedes. The alleged Russian military activity is, to date, an unproven assertion made by an investigatory body which has been frequently wrong. Factual information please. Jeff, Here are some references on the subject of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections. Meanwhile, can you post some references to support Trump's claim that Russian hacking of our 2016 election is "fake news?" House Democrats release more than 3,500 Russian Facebook ads https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/10/house-democrats-facebook-russia/ https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/social-media-advertisements.htm Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html?auth=login-email&login=email Russian Hackers Were ‘In a Position’ to Alter Florida Voter Rolls, Rubio Confirms https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/florida-russia-hacking-election.html Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Honestly guys - believe what you want to believe. Good luck to you. The establishment beef with Trump has been based on foreign policy, specifically his opinions on improving relations with Russia. No lie or slander has been out of bounds in an effort to prevent a policy of rapprochement. The New York Times and Marco Rubio have been leading the pack on these efforts, and their sources and methods have often lacked simple journalistic ethics. Anyone can write a report or make an assertion - the devil is in the details, as you should know. The professional journalists and analysts who have broken down the details - rather than simply take everything at face value - have clearly demonstrated that the establishment line is a pack of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: Honestly guys - believe what you want to believe. Good luck to you. The establishment beef with Trump has been based on foreign policy, specifically his opinions on improving relations with Russia. Then why did the Russia-hacks-DNC story only make two 24 hour news cycles over the last 5 months of the campaign, with nothing on that matter over the last 70 days? The Obama administration denounced Russia for interference in the US election on Oct. 7 and that item never made the news cycle. The Mueller investigation didn't start until after Trump fired Comey -- the guy who installed him in the White House! If "the establishment" wanted Clinton to win why was she hammered relentlessly for two years over her nothing-burger e-mails? Quote No lie or slander has been out of bounds in an effort to prevent a policy of rapprochement. Trump openly solicited Russian interference in the 2016 election. He's openly solicited Ukrainian and Chinese interference in the 2020 election. Team Fascist wants to call this fake news... Quote The New York Times and Marco Rubio have been leading the pack on these efforts, and their sources and methods have often lacked simple journalistic ethics. Anyone can write a report or make an assertion - the devil is in the details, as you should know. The professional journalists and analysts who have broken down the details - rather than simply take everything at face value - have clearly demonstrated that the establishment line is a pack of lies. The only journalists and analysts you credit are those who feed into your confirmation bias. Those who claim The Deep State was out to sabotage Trump's campaign couldn't "deep analyze" their way out of an open paper bag. Edited October 19, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 19, 2019 Author Share Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) I posted this days ago. To me its probably the best article there is on the so called FB angle and it specifically deals with the MSM accusations. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/10/the-shaky-case-that-russia-manipulated-social-media-to-tip-the-2016-election/ Second, how can you possibly say that the FBI played a crucial role in beating HRC, and ignore what they did with the Steele Dossier and trying to get people close to Trump interested in the so called HRC emails? Third, what Trump has tried to do through people like Barr, and unsuccessfully Gowdy, is trace the beginnings of this whole Steele Dossier, Russian collusion angle which began before the election. Mr. Wheeler has posted some really interesting stuff about this that you will not get from the MSM. And when I say MSM, I also include the so called liberal blogosphere. Which has become the MSM online. They invested tons of credibility in this Russian collusion idea also. Here is a pretty good article on the whole can you indict a sitting president issue: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3 Edited October 19, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Why is it when answers to direct questions or responses are asked for the subject is either ignored or changed? Specifically regarding the Mutual Defense Agreements the unindictable, pardon dispensing, omnipresedential, lilly white rose in the Oval Office enjoys with a half dozen or so felons and another two dozen subjects in the Russian conspiracy bit? How about the money expended in organic searches, never mind the ridiculous 40k number for Facebook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Here is a pretty good article on the whole can you indict a sitting president issue: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3 From Jawarski's memon which you have sited: "As we understand it, the conclusions regarding indictment of an incumbent President reached by the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s office, and this office, are all consistent: there is nothing in the language or legislative history of the Constitution that bars indictment of a sitting president, but there are a number of ‘policy’ factors that weigh heavily against it. " Nixon was named as an unindited co-conspirator because of policy not legal considerations. His inclusion meant that he couldn't run out the clock on the 5 year statute of limitations (which Ford killed anyway). My bet is OLC basically punted to Congressional Impeachment proceedings instead of forcing another Supremes showdown. I'm still curious. At what point could he be indicted and be subjected to a trial? Murder? Conspiracy? Spousal abuse? What is it? Never? I'm being facetious of course but the principle remains. The OLC letter isn't only weak it's wrong. Edited October 20, 2019 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 20, 2019 Author Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) From that article, the idea of not indicting a sitting president was Justice Department doctrine all the way up until the Starr inquiry. It was only then that some of the people the fruity Starr hired began to question it. As for that whole murder thing, do you know how fast Trump would be removed from office if that happened? They would be working on the indictment in the SDNY as the impeachment proceedings began. As per a direct answer on Mutual defense agreements: from New York Magazine 9/14/18, "In the criminal defense world, there is nothing untoward or immoral about lawyers for targets and subjects of complex criminal investigations pooling resources and sharing their notes. There's power in numbers, and joint defense agreement are a perfectly acceptable, if not preferable, way for lawyers to navigate a complex criminal investigation and not do double work and for their clients to get their stories straight and feel as if they're not alone in this. Big government is coming after them, after all, its resources are limitless, and a coherent defense strategy makes perfect sense." That article then adds, that whenever someone wants to drop out, as Flynn did to cop a plea, he lets the other lawyers know and the flowing of info stops. If these things are common practice and designed to pool resources in these types of large complex inquiries, then why should their use be some kind of golden talisman in this case? Edited October 20, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) As a guy who believed for most of the past 56 years that Lee Harvey Oswald had murdered JFK, I need to be humble about any disagreements with JFK historians like James DiEugenio, et.al., but the evidence that Russia hacked our 2016 U.S. elections to undermine the U.S. and NATO seems overwhelming to me.* And, incidentally, I have been highly skeptical about U.S. Cold War propaganda and the U.S. military-industrial complex since the late 60s. In recent years, I have also been increasingly skeptical about U.S. and NATO black ops, and the PNAC/Neocon wars in the Middle East. I don't view the conflicts between the U.S. (and NATO) and the former Soviet empire as "Good vs. Evil," but rather as "Evil I vs. Evil II." As John LeCarre wrote in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, "The Berlin Wall is not a wall. It's a seam." Nevertheless, the alleged 2016 Russian hacking of U.S.elections also seems consistent with the strategic framework of the Russian military's Gerasimov Doctrine-- waging asymmetrical cyber warfare to foment social divisions and destabilize "enemy" nations. * The most important document you may ever read Senate Intelligence report on Russian interference should chill Americans who value our democracy https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/the-most-important-document-you-may-ever-read Edited October 20, 2019 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 16 hours ago, Bob Ness said: How about the money expended in organic searches, never mind the ridiculous 40k number for Facebook? The "ridiculous" $40,000 number sources directly to Facebook. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/ "we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017 — associated with roughly 3,000 ads — that was connected to about 470 inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies. Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia." $40,000 of that total was spent during the 2016 election cycle, as described to Senate investigators in public hearings. Compared to overall election related spending, or even spending through the facebook platform, it represents an extremely small fraction of a single percentage point and can therefore be described as statistically insignificant, organic searches or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said: The "ridiculous" $40,000 number sources directly to Facebook. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/ "we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017 — associated with roughly 3,000 ads — that was connected to about 470 inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies. Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia." $40,000 of that total was spent during the 2016 election cycle, as described to Senate investigators in public hearings. Compared to overall election related spending, or even spending through the facebook platform, it represents an extremely small fraction of a single percentage point and can therefore be described as statistically insignificant, organic searches or not. Do you have any idea what it cost to optimize for organic searches? That cost would include teams of people doing keyword research studies, formulating content that incorporates the keywords according to theoretical algorythms based on best guesses of what FB, Google et al MAY be doing and testing them. Believe it or not that has to be done by humans because they don't tell anyone their formulas for searches because that's their secret sauce. They also need to backlink articles, posts, propaganda by using link strategies because back links from authoritative domains boosts organic rankings (that at least was the most important ranking factor). And you think that is inconsequential? I think not? I've done all off the aforementioned and know from experience the numbers that are thrown around are BS. For example I personally spent 10-12k a month for a limited regional market for a law firm on Google and it was quite effective.I know this stuff and and my BS meter is pinned to the right Since I've done this professionally I know you can't use employees offset ad buys but you can cost underwrite an organic effort with staff who are being paid anyway. This can amount to millions of dollars which you or I would never know about. Edited October 20, 2019 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: If it is, then why don’t you link directly to it instead of an opinion piece by Roll Call? Here is an “important” question. Why was Senator Mark Warren, author of “the most important document anyone has ever read*”, trying to get in touch with Christopher Steele in March 2017? Sen. Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, texted last year with Adam Waldman, a D.C. lobbyist connected to Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, in an attempt to gain a meeting with Christopher Steele, the author of the controversial Trump-Russia dossier, according to text messages obtained by Fox News. Here is another important question. How am I supposed to take a Senate report seriously if one of its primary authors, Sen. Warren, knowingly pushed a dossier he already knew was fake? A final question. Is it possible for the planets most important document to exist in our universe if the author has zero credibility? *hyperbole yours Robert, Where are you getting your concept that the Steele Dossier is fake? Please post a credible source to back up that Trump/GOP talking point. There was quite a bizarre outcry in our mainstream U.S. media when Buzz Feed first published the Steele Dossier in January of 2017, on the grounds that it was "unverified," (presumably unlike all of those unverified anonymous FBI "leaks" about Hillary's Emails in the headlines throughout 2016, eh?) Yet, since January 2017, many of the Dossier's details have, in fact, been verified. (We're still waiting on others-- including Trump's "pee pee" tape. But who on earth would be surprised to learn that an old KGB kompromat pro like Putin had filmed a guy like Donald Trump cavorting with prostitutes?) Also, what are we to make of Oleg Erovinkin's death right after Putin learned about Steele's Dossier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 25 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said: Let’s see, 13 Russians, 48 Indians, a dozen translators in the Philippines, and the cost to lease twenty 486s for four months. ....calculating $13,453.62 Right. You have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Robert, Where are you getting your concept that the Steele Dossier is fake? Please post a credible source to back up that Trump/GOP talking point. There was quite a bizarre outcry in our mainstream U.S. media when Buzz Feed first published the Steele Dossier in January of 2017, on the grounds that it was "unverified," (presumably unlike all of those unverified anonymous FBI "leaks" about Hillary's Emails in the headlines throughout 2016, eh?) Yet, since January 2017, many of the Dossier's details have, in fact, been verified. (We're still waiting on others-- including Trump's "pee pee" tape. But who on earth would be surprised to learn that an old KGB kompromat pro like Putin had filmed a guy like Donald Trump cavorting with prostitutes?) Also, what are we to make of Oleg Erovinkin's death right after Putin learned about Steele's Dossier? I agree. It’s become a mantra to declare the dossier disproven. Definitely a Trumper talking point. But I will repeat that domestic forces, such as Trump’s family operations and Cambridge Analytica, spent millions on FB, using sophisticated and expensive algorithms. The hidden but slowly coming to light expose of Trumps financial ties to Russians and others is the real story of his ill gotten presidency. Congress mistakenly made Russian collusion the centerpiece of Mueller’s investigation. Meanwhile NY and other states are pursuing, with great difficulty, Deutche Bank, Cyprus, Russian oligarch money and the full extent of Trumps financial shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 I’m not sure who you think is dumb - Me or Congress? In either case it’s not much of a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said: We’re all experts on the Internet Bob. You’re friends with Jeff Bezos and Hewlett Packard is my cousin. Yeah. I can tell you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now