Facebook Will Share Copies of Political Ads Purchased by Russian Sources With the US Congress (recode.net)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Facebook will turn over copies of political ads purchased by Russian sources to congressional lawmakers, who are investigating the country's potential interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Initially, Facebook had only released those ads -- 3,000 of them, valued at about $100,000 -- to Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who is spearheading the government's probe into Russia's actions. Facebook had withheld those details from House and Senate leaders, citing privacy concerns. But the move drew sharp rebukes from the likes of Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has charged in recent days that Facebook may not have done enough to scan its systems for potential Russian influence and to ensure that such foreign purchases -- otherwise illegal under U.S. law -- don't happen again. "After an extensive legal and policy review, today we are announcing that we will also share these ads with congressional investigators," wrote Colin Stretch, the company's general counsel. "We believe it is vitally important that government authorities have the information they need to deliver to the public a full assessment of what happened in the 2016 election."

Comments

Mark Zuckerberg

[Templer421]

Is the most trustworthy person. I am sure he would never do anything underhanded.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[gnick]

There are a lot of reasons to bash FB, and you're free to bash the Zuck himself, but what are you worried about here? That FB might alter or withhold ads? Seems unlikely. This seems like a positive move and I can't think of a reason to hold it against FB.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

But, if there are no Russian ads, what will the Democrats blame their next election loss on?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

That they're already withholding the ads from the public is suspect.

Second, their assertion that the ads damage democracy is also suspect.

Wikileaks did not hurt democracy by revealing the corruption of the DNC and Hillary Clinton. (Debate cheating, anti-Bernie rigging, etc)

Exposing people to information about their political masters is ALWAYS GOOD. It literally cannot be bad, unless you are a hypocritical partisan shitbag more interested in protecting The Narrative than having The Truth.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the book, "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal", and find out otherwise.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

you are absolutely right.

So I am sure that you agree with me in calling for Trumps tax returns to be publically disclosed prior to beginning debate on tax reform

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Obama releases his school transcripts. AND is financial aid paperwork listing him as a foreign national.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

How about it directly contradicts what Zuckerberg himself said - that the very idea that FB influenced the election is ridiculous. What is it? There's no problem here or you sold ads to an adversary without vetting them because of your insatiable greed?

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

You dumb vatnik trash. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads paid for in rubles.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[sound vision]

Well, you have to set up a straw man before you can knock him down. It must be a lonely exercise.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[sittingnut]

But, if there are no Russian ads, what will the Democrats blame their next election loss on?

i think hillary trotted out a whole host of entities and people who can be blamed in her new book.
-
its ironic that these politicians think they get elected by amercans voters, who can be easily manipulated by alleged fake news from few macedonians, and $ 100,000 in facebook ads.
they have zero respect for voters who they claim to represent, and who, according to them, are unable to think for themselves, even when they have huge number of sources for information, from one sided legacy media to alternate media(like wikileaks), quite apart from ads and fakes.

voters, if they have any sense, should vote them out just for that attitude. and that seems to be happening , though more fundamentally for other elitist attitudes that are in conflict with voters' interests as well.

-
in reality, this russia probe is just the visible death pangs and hysteria of a mono cultural elite(am elite more exclusive than white males they rage against ) that has been in control of the levers of power for about 50 years, and are now starting to lose them, starting with narrative control.
hopefully they will restrict themselves to sanctimonious screams like the probe, and refrain from resorting to stuff other elites who ended up in the dust bin of history used when desperate . they will regret such tactics.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

9-11 was a Jew job
ae911truth dot org

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[XxtraLarGe]

its ironic that these politicians think they get elected by amercans voters, who can be easily manipulated by alleged fake news from few macedonians, and $ 100,000 in facebook ads. they have zero respect for voters who they claim to represent, and who, according to them, are unable to think for themselves...

That's the current goal of the U.S. indoctrination/miseducation system. They want easily manipulated lemmings, but are shocked when someone else started leading them toward a different cliff.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Boronx]

Support for Trump is a first order indicator that you're unable to think for yourself, unless you're alt-right or rich.

"in reality, this russia probe is just the visible death pangs and hysteria of a mono cultural elite"

In reality, various Russian state organizations spent a lot of money to influence the US election and probably succeeded. Member of the Trump Campaign and Administration including the president himself, have repeatedly lied about their involvement with these efforts, and Trump has protected them and even gone so far as to try to shut down the investigation.

Facebook, for its part, has already lied about their role. They actively helped the Trump campaign target their audience, a service they provide for all high-dollar advertisers.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[modmans2ndcoming]

Still more trustworthy than Trump

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to move on to the next talking points, Ivan. There are undeniably ads.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, absolutely. Trump should have (and still should) release his taxes.

You are pushing a dishonest comparison, however. Hillary Clinton likely committed crimes, and behaved in a demonstrably corrupt manner.

Tax returns are not corrupt, illegal, or offensive... Nor is there any reason to release them, other than as a gesture of transparency. This isn't even in the same universe as the shit Hillary was exposed doing.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[sittingnut]

so you think, without any legally admissible evidence, but with lots of speculations based on other speculations, with no known and discernible direct technique for changing the minds of hundreds of thousands of voters(at least), russians, and pro immigrant globalist zuckerberg, stole the election, for benefit of anti immigrant militaristic nationalist trump, through fake news and online ads worth $100000("lot of money")?
all the while, several fold more well funded (not counting the money from saudi arabia, qatar, israel, ukraine, etc), hillray, had the support of legacy media, big tech and social media corps(including almost every top leader at facebook, google, etc), big banks, hollywood, state apparatus(from president obama down), overt moral support(at least) of european and asian leaders(do i have to mention mexico and canada? ), and tacit support of republican establishment (and open support of never trumper neocons).

lol.
who did you say "can't think for (himself)"?
feel free. lol.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Crazy Taco]

That they're already withholding the ads from the public is suspect.

Exactly. These were PUBLIC ads ostensibly purchased by Russians, that were shown to voters. Why is it we can't release them to anyone but Robert Mueller and maybe a select few congressman, when they were already public? What's the big secret here?

If NBC claimed they found out some of the ads they showed on TV during the election were paid for by Russians, but then wouldn't show them to us due to "privacy" concerns (when they'd already been plastered on TV), would you buy it? Why does anyone buy it when facebook says ads that were plastered on their site are too private to see?

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Crazy Taco]

In reality, various Russian state organizations spent a lot of money to influence the US election and probably succeeded.

Maybe, but why is it assumed that that money only went one way? Even if Russia tried to collude with Trump, they didn't do it for Trump. They did it for Russia. Because it's in Russia's best interest to have the person in power have a favorable opinion of Russia, because that benefits Russia in a whole host of ways.

That being the case, what seems a lot more likely is that Russia would play the field, offering dirt on the other candidate to each campaign, pretending they liked that person and sucking up to them, etc. Ordinarily, given the fact that the two campaigns absolutely do not talk to each other or share information, there would be very little risk to this. They wouldn't talk to each other, and would never realize Russia was saying the same sorts of things to both. I think this scenario is particularly likely given the fact that no one, at any time, thought Trump was going to win, and every poll had him way down. Why would Russia only spend it's time and money sucking up to the Trump campaign, when all the signs said they would be dealing with Hilary?

And I know some will respond saying, "but Hillary isn't an authoritarian who would cooperate with the evil Russians, whereas Trump is a dictator who would sell us out!" Hillary was the author of Obama's "Russian Reset", and she absolutely has shown a willingness to go along to get along with Russia, so again, there's no reason to believe Russia wouldn't play the field with her as well. My big concern about the Mueller investigation is that they seem only interested in Trump, not in trying to discover the full scope of the truth, at least if you can believe what's printed in the press these days.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious that you think $100k in ads lost the election.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

$100k so far identified by Facebook. There's also the ads not found yet by Facebook, and all the rest of the internet. Why else were (are - hello Krembots one and all) Putin's typewriter monkeys bashing out billions of words on social media?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI found that around half the support for Trump on the internet comes from paid Russian trolls and I see no reason to think it's less on Slashdot than anywhere else, indeed it's probably more.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh! Youre making them illegal..

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[rtb61]

It had apparently very little to do with politics but more an particular policy issue, everyone with half a brain can pretty much understand this because https://www.washingtonpost.com.... Ohhh look the corporate whore had a something like one thousand million dollars to spend and $100,000 buys you pretty much fuck all but propaganda must be served and the corrupt democrats must not be held accountable, otherwise all the other corrupt politicians will also fall. So how much did Israel spend on the elections, how much did Saudi Arabia spend on the elections and as a side note, how about a list of all countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation where the bulk of the money went on insider massive salaries. Hell, $100,000 would not even buy you into the Clinton Crime Clan upon a temporary associate guest status https://www.washingtonpost.com..., so what did Saudi Arabia get for over 35 million dollars, apparently lots of guns and bullets.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Kiuas]

in reality, this russia probe is just the visible death pangs and hysteria of a mono cultural elite(am elite more exclusive than white males they rage against ) that has been in control of the levers of power for about 50 years, and are now starting to lose them, starting with narrative control.

Death pangs of an elite? Are you seriously saying that Trump is not himself part of that very elite himself?

This idea that a millionaire who appointed numerous wall street people to his cabinet, and is doing his best to help the rich get tax cuts and further the benefit of large corporations is baffling to me. And before you start bashing me as a Hillary supporter, I'm not even American, and I think Hillary was an awful candidates that the democrats should have never ran. But honestly, the fact that this idea that Trump is somehow separate from, or against 'the elites' is without any basis in reality. He's a different breed of elite than Washington has typically seen in power, but he is still most certainly a member of the elite himself.

Look at how oligarchies are born. It doesn't matter if they're right-wing oligarchies like in Russia, or left-wing oligarchies like in Venezuela, the basic formula is always pretty much the same: a political movement is born, lead by a strongman who most often is a part of the wealthy elite himself. This man then declares to everyone that corruption and greed have ruined everything and that he and only he can save the people from these corrupt elites. This is then used as a reason to purge the major institutions of ideological opponents who're then replaced with a more loyal group of people, often from the close circle of the man himself. This is usually followed by the stripping of the parliament of any de-facto power, and the manning of all relevant courts with judges loyal to the party.

The end result of such movements is pretty much always worse off for the people because of course they never wanted to get rid of the elites, or the corruption, they just wanted to overthrow the elites and take their place. Venezuela has more oil than saudi-arabia but its economy is now below Zimbabwe because what Chavez created and what Maduro has continued is a system so thoroughly corrupt that billions and billions have been shoveled into the back pockets of the elites while the people are now starving. Yet they still claim that they're 'continuing the revolution for the Venezuelan people', and who do they blame on this issue that's entirely of their own creation? 'The elites' of the US and EU, without whom, according to Maduro Venezuela would be prosperous.

As I said this is not a left-right -thing. This is a liberal vs. authoritarian thing. Russia has exactly the same deal going on, where Putin has consolidated all the power to himself and his close group of allies and divided the massive fortunes of his country's raw materials to the select few and shut down any and all opposition by painting it as just malicious 'western propaganda' that seeks to destroy Russia.

What's scary to me is that traditionally Americans have been good at spotting this development when it happens in other countries, even at times supporting it covertly or openly when the new oligarchy is more pro-US than the old. But now that it looks like the exact same deal is staring in your own country, out in broad daylight, somehow myopia sets in and people fall right for it just because they dislike the status quo so much. Traditionally the thing that has kept the US resilient against such movements is the strength of American institutions and the separation of powers that has been able to keep the president in check but Trump is already hard at work at discrediting and attacking all of those institutions: the courts, the media, the FBI and so on. I still personally want to believe that the institutions will withstand these blows and america will not turn the way of Russia or Turkey because I believe there's a large enough segment of intelligent Americans who will

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you assert that attempting to keep foreign influence out of political ads is an elitist insult to the intelligence of voters, you must then believe that any political ad is an insult to the intelligence of voters. After all if our fine minds and plethora of sources rules out any feasible influence of such ads then any use of ads would insult those same minds.

" they will regret such tactics"
Ready to break out the Polonium Sergei?

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Xyrus]

No, I think the last election demonstrated that voters are easily manipulated and not that intelligent, as Winston Churchill pointed out decades ago ("The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.").

Forget democrats for a moment. Let's just look at the republicans. You had a whole host of at least somewhat viable candidates. Then you had a narcissistic sociopath with the mental capacity of a rotting melon who has decades of history of demonstrable behavior that would certainly have made anyone a non-viable candidate.

But did the republicans choose a smart, eloquent, respectable conservative? No. They chose the real life version of Biff Tannen. Not smart, not eloquent, and certainly not respectable. The voters had many chances to chose someone else, but they didn't. So why was he selected and then elected when there were far better candidates?

No, voters in general are not smart. That's why ads work, especially attack ads. It's why despotic chants work. It's why negative smear campaigns work. It's why fake news works. It's how people like Trump can get elected.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious you think that it couldn't be the case.

First, 80 000 votes in swing states decided this election. That $100K generated a few million impressions on microtargetted Americans. Hmm...

Second, this is only the first $100K we're hearing about.

More may be uncovered, with Facebook's help or not. No doubt Zuck is disheartened that his politicking machine just got blown wide open - I would imagine there is some serious damage control going on, lest he lose his own ace in the hole for potential 2020 campaigns.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on, except for one thing:

Most people are aware of the economic warfare that has been inflicted upon Venezuela, and the ones who aren't generally aren't aware of much at all. It is extremely well documented how basically the whole world colluded against Venezuela to artificially drop oil prices to hurt them. While they would've been better off not relying on oil for all their wealth, it is still a dick move to purposefully crash their economy just because they refuse to bow to foreign business interests.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what liberals actually believe

Re: Mark Zuckerberg

[david_thornley]

Please name what crimes Clinton is guilty of, and how she operated in a demonstrably, as opposed to seemingly, corrupt manner. There were things she should have done and didn't do to avoid the appearance of corruption, but that isn't itself corrupt action.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Comrade, you have done well. You earned your ration of one potato. Now fuck off back to Russia with the rest of the tracksuit wearing neanderthals.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg

[Boronx]

"Maybe, but why is it assumed that that money only went one way?"

Because that's what our intelligence agencies have found out. There was a decision made to support Trump. Our agencies did not infer this from detected actions, but have direct evidence of this. Maybe they are lying!

  "Even if Russia tried to collude with Trump, they didn't do it for Trump."

There isn't any possibility Russia would do this if it weren't in there interest.

The only reason they would try to play the field is if they thought there was a chance to compromise Clinton. Presumably if they were going to try that, they already would have done it when she was SoS. In any case, you're just postulating a scenario for which there is no evidence. Obama took a strong stance against Russian interests and Clinton would have continued that stance. The "Russian Reset" was just propaganda.

Trump is anti-democratic, has weakened NATO, opposes the EU, has sown doubt in our partnerships in East Asia, will probably do nothing about Ukraine, has not promised to protect Eastern Europe. That's plenty of reason for Putin to prefer him.

Gerasimov Doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a beam of microwave radiation as many others here are guessing, then there may also be evidence of damaged electronics in the beam's path.

The power levels required to cause physical injury are definitely detectable with very simple circuitry (RF diode in series with an LED, and a very short antenna), so these people could carry one on their person to determine if it is directed RF, if it happens again.

Why the hypocrisy?

[bogaboga]

Didn't the Obama administration do something similar to the Israelis?

How come I never heard any kind of investigation? And by the way, it was to the legitimate government of a sovereign state. An ally of ours if I may add.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[HornWumpus]

That would be the Israelis job. There _should_ be an investigation. For all I know there was/is and our news choses to ignore it.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[greythax]

Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.

Evidently there was an investigation, hence investigators, at least according to the source you linked. Maybe you should stop rushing to post first and, you know, read.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could read a different, more accurate report from a real newspaper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/

US money was used in a campaign because the state department fucked up a contract, not because of nefarious dealings by Obama.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[XxtraLarGe]

Didn't the Obama administration do something similar to the Israelis?

How come I never heard any kind of investigation? And by the way, it was to the legitimate government of a sovereign state. An ally of ours if I may add

Because when we do it, it's okay. It's even more okay because the Obama administration, which even didn't have a single controversy, did it! Are you some sort of racist? /sarcasm

The fact is, we've interfered in the internal workings of governments all over the world from nearly the start of our nation, and that's the cause of many of our problems, especially in the Middle East.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Archangel Michael]

You're right, that is the Israeli's job. The US' job is to figure out how much the Obama Administration was spying on its own citizens. More revelations this week that more US Citizens were being spied on, and yet, barely a peep out of the news organization.

If this was the FIRST time they were caught, I could understand the slow walking it, but it isn't the first, or second ....

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the self-reply. It's clear that the Trump administration is shaping up to be literally a million times better then Obama, who won with the SJW vote. He will be the best president we've seen since Jackson and I expect that we'll see him on currency within the decade.

- Archangel_Michael -

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill in full damage control mode. Impressive.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear that the Trump administration is shaping up to be literally a million times better then Obama

Sorry for the self-reply to the self-reply. I've been taking a lot of anti-depressants and I'm prone to wild mood swings. I don't really think Trump is "shaping up to be literally a million times better than Obama". Please excuse that stupid statement.

I have to go to group in 15 minutes, so it's important to me that I straighten that out. Honesty is an important part of getting better.

-Archangel Michael

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington Post: A real newspaper, or a CIA mouthpiece?

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a prick..

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Archangel Michael]

1) I didn't vote for Trump. Never would have, never will.
2) It is clear that the Trump administration is better than Obama, but then again, that isn't saying much. After Trump, there won't be any Obama Legacy.
3) There will be no currency in a decade, it will all be digital or Crypto. Cash will be outlawed by Bernie who will need to tax everything to pay for all the "Free" things he tends to promise. Yes, I think he'll likely win in 3 years. We'll be just like Venezuela in 10 years. Its either Bernie or Al Franken and Jill Stein, running as "Franken/Stein 2020"

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[PopeRatzo]

It is clear that the Trump administration is better than Obama

We even have a photo of Donald Trump pointing out his accomplishments.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/as...

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[budgenator]

The US' job is to figure out how much the Obama Administration was spying on its own citizens.

The Obama Administration wasn't just spying on citizens of interest, they were spying on presidential candidate of an opposing party. Even if you hate "The Orange Orangutans's" guts, this should be deeply troubling.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[sound vision]

It's pretty old news at this point that the U.S. spies on its own citizens. Around 2013 with the Snowden revelations is when it was getting the most prominent coverage.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington Post? The paper that was caught colluding with the Hillary campaign. They were literally letting Podesta edit their stories before they were run. Yes, the same Podesta that currently works for WaPo.

Yea, more trustworthy, only if you are a complete moron, or in other words your typical liberal.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That I agree. We do it to other countries but god forbid someone else do it to us. I mean we fought wars to put people we want in office in other countries

Now if Russia ask Facebook to prevent US from influence their political ad should they oblige or listen to the US government? I don't like it when any government use private business as chess piece in government dispute.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the Washington Post stopped being a real newspaper a very long time ago. They are right up there with the National Enquirer these days: they'll report some news stories accurately, but they will be scattered among the garbage and there will be no real way to differentiate them, particularly if you care about facts rather than opinions stated as facts.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[modmans2ndcoming]

oh go fuck yourself you bigoted white nationalist loser.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[modmans2ndcoming]

where the fuck do you retards get that shit from? Trump said it so it must be true....dumbfucks.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[modmans2ndcoming]

retard in a tin foil hat who thinks Trump is a master genious

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Billly Gates]

Do you have a credible source? Or is this right wing propaganda from Alex Jones or Briebart news?

Aren't you even concerned at all a foreign unfriendly power altered an election? If this were HIllary and she won would you even write such a post or would you be in the PUT HER IN JAIL NOW group because she doesn't have an R next to her name?

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"1) I didn't vote for Trump. Never would have, never will."

You can't unless he stands in Mother Russia, eh Mikhail? And we all know what Russian elections are like: kill half your opponents, jail the rest, monopolize the media and ensure you have control of the ballot boxes. Putinocracy is a fine thing.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be the typical product of the American public school system. Zero knowledge of actual US history, just the glorified fluff about the Colonies, War of Independence,
War of Emancipation, and the two wars of world liberation.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be the typical product of the American public school system. Zero knowledge of actual US history, just the glorified fluff about the Colonies, War of Independence,
War of Emancipation, and the two wars of world liberation.

You must be the typical neoconservative with party first, country second cult

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I didn't vote for Trump. Never would have, never will.

Felons can't vote, except in Vermont, that's true.

2) It is clear that the Trump administration is better than Obama, but then again, that isn't saying much.

It says a lot. About you.

After Trump, there won't be any Obama Legacy.

Except you know, Obamacare, the Iran deal, rapprochement with Cuba, and just not being Trump.

3) There will be no currency in a decade, it will all be digital or Crypto. Cash will be outlawed by Bernie who will need to tax everything to pay for all the "Free" things he tends to promise. Yes, I think he'll likely win in 3 years.

He won't run in 3 years. And taxes are the price you pay for all the nice things you have. The rest of us don't serve you for free.

We'll be just like Venezuela in 10 years. Its either Bernie or Al Franken and Jill Stein, running as "Franken/Stein 2020"

Oh please, like anybody wants Jill Stein running on their ticket. But seriously, what makes you think that we'll have a military coup in the US?

That's what happened in Venezuela. Then they had another coup. Then another.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama administration wasn't spying on the candidate of the opposing political party, they were monitoring someone engaging in illegal activity who was also communicating with the candidate of the opposing political party.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Archangel Michael.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Terwin]

The Obama administration wasn't spying on the candidate of the opposing political party, they were monitoring someone engaging in illegal activity who was also communicating with the candidate of the opposing political party.

Except that they gave up on that investigation due to lack of evidence, then re-started it a year later, as soon as he became the campaign manager for a political opponent of the sitting president.
I don't know how often secret investigations get re-started after they are dropped due to not finding anything, but the timing on this seems very suspicious to me.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[HornWumpus]

Coincidently. This will happen to all non (incumbent/appointed successor) presidential candidates in the future.

Bet your opinion about it changes when it's Warren whose phones are bugged by Trump. But nobody will give a shit, because at that point you're just a hypocrite.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Archangel Michael]

1) It wasn't just Trump the Obama Administration was caught spying on.
2) Even if it was just Trump, that would be bad enough
3) Unmasking by Susan Rice and Samantha Power were unmasking US citizen's names on wiretaps, well outside their jobs. In Samantha Power's case, an average of one unmasking per working day.
4) IRS targeting opposition

Sharyl Attkisson and James Rosen are two more that we KNOW about. But yeah, you won't hear that on MSNBC or CNN.

Because you haven't heard of these things, doesn't mean I am a "dumbfuck", it means you need to get your news from places other than where you're comfort levels are. I read HufPo, Politico, NYT, watch CNN, MSNBC, in addition to other sources, not because I agree with their biases, but rather because I don't.

An Unchallenged view is unworthy of consideration.

Re: Why the hypocrisy?

[Archangel Michael]

Here is the deal, what "illegal" activity have they found?

Does that illegal activity include Democrat operatives conspiring with Ukraine to create a fake dossier on Trump (the "never mind moment") . Or the Russian Clinton pay to play quid pro quo deals while she was SoS?

Or James Clapper's lies (caught, multiple times now)?

I have YET to see any evidence, other than "secret sources" and innuendo.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, that's actually funny. they "I can't argue on facts, so I'll call NAZI!!!!!" argument. Nicely done

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[XxtraLarGe]

Do you have a credible source? Or is this right wing propaganda from Alex Jones or Briebart news?

I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring to, but I don't usually read those sites.

Aren't you even concerned at all a foreign unfriendly power altered an election?

I would be if they did, but there's 0 evidence that altered the results. You can't point to a single vote that was changed because of "The Russians". The only election that was rigged in 2016 was the Democrat primary.

If this were HIllary and she won would you even write such a post or would you be in the PUT HER IN JAIL NOW group because she doesn't have an R next to her name?

Nice try, I don't vote Republican. I do think they should put her in jail now, though.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[budgenator]

Where do I get it?
CNN,

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe. Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman

Mother Jones

A pair of news reports dropped Monday evening that indicate that the investigation into Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort might be reaching a boiling point, with CNN reporting that Manafort was subject to government wiretapping before and after the presidential campaign, and the New York Times reporting that Manafort has been directly told by government investigators that he should expect to be indicted.The New York Times and CNN Just Published Bombshells About the Trump-Russia Investigation

BBC

Back in March Donald Trump was widely derided for tweeting that President Barack Obama "had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory". Now some Republicans are crowing that the latest revelations vindicate Mr Trump's accusations.

That's not exactly the case. Paul Manafort was the target of the surveillance, not Mr Trump - although the former Trump campaign chairman has an apartment in Trump Tower. And if Mr Trump spoke with Mr Manafort, then it's entirely possible those conversations could have been recorded. FBI wiretapped Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort - reports

(emphasis mine). You know since Trump owns the building, and it was his campaign Manager targeted, the definition of "my" is certainly broader in that context than in normal usage.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[Billly Gates]

Dude how did they not?!

Russians broke into her email server and leaked classified information to Trump's son and fake Teaparty Facebook news sites. People got weary and voted for Trump. Putin wins.

You don't see that level of information about Trump from hacked sources Hillary used. Not to mention much of the news was faked AstroTurf used to motivate the gullible as well and to make legit news sources as the fake news.

I stand by my comment if it were the opposite you would call for impeachment

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[david_thornley]

In other words, you have no evidence that anyone was spying on Trump.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[david_thornley]

I don't want us doing it to other countries. However, they're responsible for defending their countries, and we're responsible for defending our country.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[modmans2ndcoming]

Go back to school. None of that is evidence about wire tapping. It is pronouncements from Trump that Obama wiretapped him... I pronounce you shot your neighbor. Guess it happened.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[modmans2ndcoming]

literally everything you said is false.

Re:Why the hypocrisy?

[budgenator]

Well Trump certainly seemed to know that the electronic communications or "Wires" were being monitored. He never said his personal communication were being specifically monitored, just the building his offices are in was. The most likely reason He would know is because HRC said something that she would only be able to know if his wires had been trapped.

Now after months of denying the wiretaps, we find out nearly every major department head in the Obama administration told baldfaced lies to both the American People and Congressional Oversight Committees.

Hypocrites

[31415926535897]

Look, I don't inherently mind that they're doing this, but there's no way in hell they'd do something like this if Hillary won. They'd mumble about privacy and rights and fight in court. This is what I hate about partisan politics. It's like partisan has come to mean hypocrite--yes, on both sides.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because the accusations against Hillary turned out to be bullshit as the investigation showed.

Re:Hypocrites

[gnick]

Are you condemning FB for behavior that exists only in your speculation?

Re:Hypocrites

[ScentCone]

Mostly because the accusations against Hillary turned out to be bullshit as the investigation showed.

Which ones? The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts? The ones where all of her staff had to be offered immunity deals before they would even talk about it? The ones where the simply broke federal law at numerous levels and looked you in the eye and lied about (and still does to this day), but assures us that her husband's private meeting with the chief law enforcement officer who would be tasked with indicting her, and who then had to recuse herself, didn't have any impact at all? Gotcha.

You're confusing "got away with it" with "didn't do it."

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook hasn't been forthcoming. They were forced to do this via court order.

All of this comes months after Mark Zuckerberg claimed it was "ridiculous" that Facebook had any affect on the election.

In an alternate reality where Hillary won, Trump is still actively contesting the election results, claiming the vote was rigged and that Hillary is illegitimate, and there are plenty of House Republicans happy to lead largely baseless "Bengazhi" type investigations into it.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Err what?

The investigation showed 110 classified emails on her personal computer. It literally was a federal felony offense.

She evaded prosecution, and even real investigating, because she's rich, famous, and Obama was running the show.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody but you is confused, most of us are not so,incredibly stupid as to believe any of the disgusting lies of the scared little weenie mysogynist RWNJ scum/

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO inherently mind otherwise you wouldn't have bothered posting. What you're pissed about is your man is about to be thrown the fuck out of the whitehouse and possibly right into jail. Your feigned outrage is so cute.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Err what?

The investigation showed 110 classified emails on her personal computer. It literally was a federal felony offense.

Actually, no: it was not literally a felony offense. It would have been a felony to disclose classified material to unauthorized people, and it would be a felony to mishandle classified material in such a negligent way that they are disclosed to unauthorized persons (the specific words in the law is "through gross negligence"), but it's not a felony for classified e-mail to on her server per se-- the prosecutor would have had to show either intent, or show that unauthorized people could reasonably be believed to have had access to the classified mail on her server because of her negligence.

That's a hard case to make, and what Comey said was that he did not think that a reasonable prosecutor could reasonably make that case.

(Precisely what he said is here: http://www.latimes.com/politic... )

--interestingly, the government servers did get hacked (presumably by the Chinese), but there's no evidence that her personal server ever was. So she could have made the opposite case-- her emails actually turned out to be safer on her personal server.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Which ones?

All of them. Dating back to the Eighties. Or Seventies if we count the way you tried to claim she was fired from the Warren Commission for a "lack" of ethics.

 

The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts?

You mean the ones where the FBI tortuously tried to make accusations that even they had to admit would be as fabricated as the time they tried to catch Malcolm X?

 

The ones where all of her staff had to be offered immunity deals before they would even talk about it?

You mean the ones where the staff knows the first rule is NEVER talk to the police?

The ones where the simply broke federal law at numerous levels and looked you in the eye and lied about (and still does to this day), but assures us that her husband's private meeting with the chief law enforcement officer who would be tasked with indicting her, and who then had to recuse herself, didn't have any impact at all?

You might as well be accusing her of tearing the tags off mattresses and walking a lobster down the streets of Miami. Your claims of Seth Rich's murder, a dozen wasteful Benghazi investigations, and pardoning Joe Arpaio, show you for who you are.

A crooked crook who crooks crooks.

Gotcha.

Got nothing as usual.

You're confusing "got away with it" with "didn't do it."

You're confusing your obsessive conspiracy theories with reality.

Go back to Moscow you KGB stooge. Let Putin piss over you.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

I really liked a comment by Chelsea whatever her name is the other day - "the Trump/Russian ties must be true because of how long they've stuck around, if they weren't true no way they would stick around this long".

s/Trump/Clinton s/Russian Ties/email.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you assuming "I'm With Her" Zuck is unbiased?

Re: Hypocrites

[SirSlud]

You're dumb. The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."

But even then, even IF the FBI had said, "We found nothing" you'd still say evaded prosecution, and even real investigating, because she's rich, famous, and Obama was running the show, because it's clear that your mind is made up before it processes information available to you.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this at -1 moderation? The director of the FBI and the public statements made by the investigative team direclty said they found 110 felony counts but "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case". They had evidence. They knew it was career suicide for a prosecutor to actually prosecute the crimes because of the political and personal affiliations of the then head of the DOJ.

These are historical facts. You can watch them on youtube. No secondary sources needed. No interpretation needed.

Facts have been moderated down on slashdot.

Re:Hypocrites

[ScentCone]

It's always so funny when a lying, anonymous partisan shill tells other people to be quiet.

You might as well be accusing her of tearing the tags off mattresses

No, tearing off mattress tags isn't the same as destroying government documents under subpoena. It's not the same as handing classified material (some of it extremely sensitive, with highly compartmentalized access) to people who don't even have clearances for storage in their personal home offices. We can tell you know that such crimes are what she got away with because you don't ever actually address the substance of the matter, and just go for the usual juvenile, lazy ad hominem for the benefit of the echo chamber you hope you're in. Thanks for being true to form.

Re:Hypocrites

[gnick]

Didn't say unbiased. Didn't say that at all. I just left open the possibility that FB might have complied with the government investigation even if Hillary had won. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Saying that they would have stood in the way is nothing more than speculation. There are plenty of good reasons to condemn FB; no need to invent more.

Re: Hypocrites

[bobbied]

Not true...

Putting classified onto an unauthorized system or taking it to an unauthorized location and storing it in an unauthorized way IS a crime. Unauthorized disclosure is just the result of unauthorized handling of classified. It's NOT treason, but mishandling classified information is indeed a crime.

Don't fall for Hillary's narrative. It's not true... Don't fall for those who claim she committed treason either, because that's not true. But there *could* be a crime here.

Go back and listen to Comey's statement when he was letting Clinton off the hook before the election. Where I don't agree with is conclusion (that no prosecutor would charge and try this case) it is CLEAR that she was extremely careless with classified information, which by the statute is criminal. Comey just let here skate...

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

"Facts have been moderated down on slashdot."

Slashdot is a haven for SJWs these days, as they've driven most of the old guard away. And SJWs lurve the Lizard Queen, who never, ever did anything bad in her life.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Emailing yourself a classified document and walking out of a SCIF with one shoved in your pants is the same thing according to the law.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

So the staff that she hired to help run her illegal servers weren't unauthorized persons... except in the capacity that they were, and that they also broke the law and required immunity to speak to investigators.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
Comey said that DESPITE being guilty, there would be no prosecution because it wasn't "intentional".
Even leaving aside the question of whether or not any of her actions were intentional, 'intent' is NOT a required component of 'negligence', which is the other part of the statute.

Of course, this is the same Comey that wrote a speech exonerating Clinton before his investigators even interviewed her or her staff.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always so funny when a lying, anonymous partisan shill tells other people to be quiet.

Yes, a lying anonymous partisan shill like you IS a joke. Even your fellow sycophantic trolls in the nearby cubicles are laughing at you.

No, tearing off mattress tags isn't the same as destroying government documents under subpoena.

Indeed, you're never going to care about it when a Republican does either, no matter how much it happens.

It's not the same as handing classified material (some of it extremely sensitive, with highly compartmentalized access) to people who don't even have clearances for storage in their personal home offices.

Yes, yes, like how Daddy Warbush gave a pardon to a guy who leaked CIA contractor identities.

 

We can tell you know that such crimes are what she got away with because you don't ever actually address the substance of the matter, and just go for the usual juvenile, lazy ad hominem for the benefit of the echo chamber you hope you're in. Thanks for being true to form.

Ah, somebody hates that we got you pegged for a lying Republican shill.

You know, when your former speaker of the House confesses to money laundering as a bribe to cover up his sex crimes, when a former president conspires with a nation holding Americans hostage to win an election, when they supplied guns and money to brutal oppressors in the name of Freedom, maybe there is something wrong with you.

But what, we can't even talk about Credit Mobiler or Teapot Dome because it hurts your feelings?

Re: Hypocrites

[Obfuscant]

The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."

What Comey actually said:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

That's something VERY different.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Moscow you KGB stooge. Let Putin piss over you.

That costs extra you know.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,but how else will he attract the Russian Babushka?

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is reason to (pretend to) believe that. The smear job on Hillary was built from this kind of insinuation, and look at the results.

Re: Hypocrites

[Xyrus]

Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.

The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.

Re: Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

The LEFT is strong in this one.
Use your LEFTIST POWER for GOOD rather than EVIL.

Re: Hypocrites

[bobbied]

Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.

The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.

You do understand that the President is the ultimate authority on what's classified and what's not. He can, on his own initiative, declassify anything at any time he so chooses. So by definition, he didn't improperly disclose classified information. It is literally his to do with as he pleases. You can argue the disclosure wasn't a good idea, but it wasn't a criminal act for the president.

Also, TREASON has a specific definition in the US Constitution. Sharing information with "a hostile foreign government" by a president just might not meet the requirements of the crime, depending on what information was supposedly given and the reasons it was given. One could argue that we are not at war with Russia, that they are only our adversaries on the world stage. There is no open conflict, so technically Treason cannot be committed.

Finally, Mueller is specifically limited to the investigation of Russian involvement in the Campaign. Mueller's authority to investigate crimes ends on election night unless there is a cover up of something he's allowed to investigate after that. This means that unless Trump's discussion with the Russians that you consider Treason is tied to the campaign, Mueller has no authority to even look at it. I assume he's staying within his bounds. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Hypocrites

[cyberchondriac]

"The eighties called, they want their cold war back". That was the Lefts' attitude just a few years ago. You're right. Had Hillary won, none of this would be happening. There would be no outrage, no investigation and probably even no accusations that the Russians "hacked" the election (as we often hear or read). The most that the Russians did amounts to some propaganda engineering, and that is hardly shocking.

Re:Hypocrites

[cyberchondriac]

The only thing bullshit is your statement. You just ignored some critical facts, outlined below in the following comments.

Re:Hypocrites

[david_thornley]

The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts?

The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.

Re:Hypocrites

[ScentCone]

The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.

Tell that to the people who have had their careers ended and have gone to federal prison for doing FAR less than what she did, or were sent to prison only for lying about it. The FBI didn't say that nobody's ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, Comey said that given the circumstances he didn't think he could get DoJ to prosecute this particular case. It was in that exact context that he said if it were anyone else, they'd face legal trouble for what they did. You're deliberately choosing to pretend you didn't hear him say those words.

Re:Hypocrites

[david_thornley]

Name some people who went to Federal prison for mishandling classified material without any intent of doing so, please. I haven't found any. Comey said he wouldn't be able to find a prosecutor who'd prosecute for her violations of the law, not that he thought the DoJ would refuse to prosecute. The Attorney General had explicitly left the decision up to Comey, and she would have prosecuted had he recommended it. The statements I read implied no special treatment for Clinton. Some time afterwards, I saw a Republican Congressman arguing that she should be prosecuted, despite there being no precedent for prosecuting what she did. You or I would have faced possible firing and possible loss of clearance for doing what she did.

Continued collusion with the left

[Anonymous Coward]

Good: can we investigate continued collusion with foreign bodies on the left?
e.g. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia

Can we also investigate e.g. antifa?

Can we also investigate left-leaning media outlets like CNN promoting stories originating from Russia Today etc?

Re:Continued collusion with the left

[bobbied]

No, no we cannot.. (QED)

(waving hand) "This is not the hypocrisy you are looking for."

Re: Continued collusion with the left

[Anonymous Coward]

left-leaning ... Russia Today

Ha ha haha ha ha haha haha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha haha haha ha ha ha ha ho oh my sides.

Re:Continued collusion with the left

[jandersen]

Good: can we investigate continued collusion with foreign bodies on the left?

As someone on the left - in fact rather far to the left of what Americans call "the left", since I am European - I agree fully; we could do with a lot more transparency in politics and government on all levels. And not just with China, Russia and N Korea, but with any foreign nation. Just because government and big business find it comfortable to snuggle up to some foreign nation, doesn't mean that the population agrees.

Re:Continued collusion with the left

[david_thornley]

Sure, we should investigate illegal collusion with foreign countries on the part of anyone, provided there's evidence to get an investigation going. Trump, for example, had extensive business dealings with Russia, and people around him have lied about the extent of meetings with Russians, so that's a good place to start.

Sure, investigate Antifa. They've done enough to justify it. This doesn't mean letting up on white supremacists, though, which Trump apparently wants.

Journalism is privileged in this country. I believe in the First Amendment.

Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

...and we'll probably let you run things for a while again.

- The American People
</story title="US President Election 2016">

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Archangel Michael]

They'll run Bernie instead, with his Free everything for everyone policies.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a new argument. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. Trump is only president because the electoral college ignored the will of the American people.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

>implying Bernie will still be alive after Trump's second term wraps up

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC to preserve moderation.

The electoral college in now way "ignored the will of the American people".
The electoral college correctly and rightly "followed the will of the United States", as designed.

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a different argument. Trump won by the rules of the game. If Hillary wanted to win a different game she should of played a different game. #learnHowTheElectionWorks

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[bobbied]

LOL... Good one...

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, and the football team gained way more yards and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.

Yeah, and the baseball team had way more runners on base and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[bobbied]

Try a new argument. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. Trump is only president because the electoral college ignored the will of the American people.

If you don't like this result, you are not going to like the 2024 election at all, the fist one after the 2020 census. The adjustment in house seats is very likely to take electoral votes from many of the very blue states and give them to the solidly red ones.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think we're looking at Zuckerberg & Chelsea Clinton.

I think they're nuts, but I won't be surprised.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and the football team gained way more yards and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.

Yeah, and the baseball team had way more runners on base and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.

You described the Electoral College exactly, it is an arcane and ill-developed (not designed) process that is fundamentally flawed.

Apportionment? Who put that in the Constitution? Oh wait, it isn't defined in it at all, nobody ever passed Article the First.

Actual rules? Still could have the state legislatures vote.

Turnout? Plunging further and further.

And redistricting, a system designed for exploitation, as shown by the numerous proven instances.

So yes, yes, you have the idea right, the metaphor wrong though. But it's not a surprise that you fervently defend a fundamentally flawed system, after all, it was the only way your precious orange turnip could win.

So do tell us, why Baseball should award more points for a homerun in Miami than in Tampa? Why a football touchdown to the East is worth more than one to the West?

That's the Electoral College sham for you.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Trondheim]

Yes, comrade, I agree! We are needink to get rid of dirty, rotten, electoral college so our candidate is winnink!

/sarc with Russian accent

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think it was 'designed' as you claim?

Nothing about the current electoral system was out into format law, not appoitionment, not selection, nothing.

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then four million Puerto Ricans move to Wyoming and the Dakotas, and vote in a government for the people.

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

American history supports a revolution against a failed government.

#ReadtheDeclarationofIndependence.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Hillary won by less than 3 million votes: she won the popular vote by exactly 2,868,691 votes. It was close to it, but when trying state facts it's important to actually get them right rather than exaggerate. And greater than 100% of that amount came from a single state: California. She won California with 8,753,788 votes, while Trump only managed to get 4,483,810. That's a difference of 4,269,978 votes -- almost as many as he got himself in that state and that's 1,401,287 votes more than she won the national popular vote by!

So, no, the Electoral College did not ignore the will of the American people. The Electoral College ignored one dominant state. That's literally the exact reason that it exists.

California is a state run by Democrats to get Democrats elected, regardless of what it means to the population of the state. A state that will run around $1.5 - $2 billion (with a B) in deficit spending this year -- the year following record federal tax income (and presumably record California state tax income). A state whose debt is already greater than $130 billion (and it's about double that if you include localities within California!), even though it has the GDP of a large nation as it stands as an economic power house.

In case you're interested, Trump won Texas with 4,685,047 votes, while Hillary picked up 3,877,868 -- a difference of 807,179. That means that if you dropped California and Texas, then Trump still won the electoral vote and the popular vote. Frankly, it's an irrelevant point because it's an imaginary scenario, but it's far more interesting than crying about the Electoral College.

As a more interesting fact, Hillary also carried New Hampshire by fewer voters than the number of voters than voted illegally. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration: voters in New Hampshire can register and vote on the same day even without any proof of New Hampshire residency (it's a pretty dumb system to be honest) and 5,313 people took advantage of it while Hillary won by 2,736 votes. Scarily, the governor's race was decided by only 1,017 votes (and a Democrat won that too). Technically, some subset of that number would have been legitimate New Hampshire voters who are just too stupid and lazy to register to vote, but the fact that the number of "unknown" voters outnumbered the number of votes required to win the state for both the Presidential and Governor races (combined even!) is frightening.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who voted for Bernie in the Democratic primaries tactically to push Hillary to the left, I really, really hope not. Not because I think his "Free everything for everyone policies", as you call them, are a bad idea in principle, just that he doesn't seem to be competent enough policy-wise to design ones that would actually work. For example, his focus on free college which is just as much a hand-out to the middle/upper-middle class as the mortgage interest deduction or his "single-payer healthcare bill" without bothering to figure out the details (done right, it should be cheaper; the details should make it look better).

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a strange assertion. The basic explanation for why the Democrats have an increasing imbalance between the popular vote and their Electoral College results is usually pinned on increasing urbanization and urban centers pretty much always voting heavily Democratic. I just did a search (here's one projection) and it looks like the biggest change is +2-3 Electoral College votes for Texas... but I've seen a lot of claims that by 2024 demographic changes will make Texas a swing state. Realistically, it's probably far to early to tell how the two parties will align themselves in 2024 to make that claim.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Swave An deBwoner]

Yeah, and the baseball team used Apple Watches to steal signs from the opposition:

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/09/05/report-major-league-baseball-determines-red-sox-illegally-used-technology-to-steal-signs-from-the-yankees

But wait, maybe they were using some 400 pound hacker sitting on his bed in his parent's basement. It could be. We don't know.

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how all these "governments of the people" end up in bankruptcy, totalitarianism, and civil war.. One might almost get the notion that socialist governments don't work very well.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Crazy Taco]

Realistically, it's probably far to early to tell how the two parties will align themselves in 2024 to make that claim.

I think the main point is that as the left continues to concentrate themselves more and more in a few very large urban areas, the electoral college will likely skew against them. Remember, every state gets two senators (and two electoral votes) regardless of size, so continued left wing migration into Silicon Valley, the Northwest and the Northeast does not help them to win national elections. To win, you generally have to have a national coalition of states, and they are getting more and more regional, at least at the moment.

But I do agree with you it's way too early to make any predictions of victory in 2024, because regardless of the map advantages, in the end it still usually comes down to the candidate, and candidates on either side can blow it.

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how bankruptcy, totalitarianism and civil war are so common throughout history, so one might almost get the idea that human society isn't necessarily stable, no matter what the trappings.

Seriously, though, the US has fomented civil war in countries across the world, its imperialist agenda has driven millions into poverty, and the number of petty tyrants taking American baksheesh is frightening.

But, hey, explain the American Civil War, why don't you?

Re: Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Hillary won by less than 3 million votes: she won the popular vote by exactly 2,868,691 votes. It was close to it, but when trying state facts it's important to actually get them right rather than exaggerate.

Rounding happens, if you want to act like you care, go putz over Trump for once.

And greater than 100% of that amount came from a single state: California. She won California with 8,753,788 votes, while Trump only managed to get 4,483,810. That's a difference of 4,269,978 votes -- almost as many as he got himself in that state and that's 1,401,287 votes more than she won the national popular vote by!

Leading a wise man to ask, why did Trump crater so hard in California? Is it just because Republicans have been dropping since 2008?

So, no, the Electoral College did not ignore the will of the American people. The Electoral College ignored one dominant state. That's literally the exact reason that it exists.

No, it isn't. Stop lying. The reason it exists is because the Founding Fathers were not so secretly aghast at the idea of a national vote.

California is a state run by Democrats to get Democrats elected, regardless of what it means to the population of the state.

You seem to be confusing California and Democratrs with the Republican run states which disenfranchise voters, shut down medical clinics and ruin their own schools.

A state that will run around $1.5 - $2 billion (with a B) in deficit spending this year -- the year following record federal tax income (and presumably record California state tax income). A state whose debt is already greater than $130 billion (and it's about double that if you include localities within California!), even though it has the GDP of a large nation as it stands as an economic power house.

Debt of 130 billion? That's only slightly more than the deficit between the 280+ billion they sent to the federal coffers and the 180+ billion they got back. Red states enjoy California welfare.

In case you're interested, Trump won Texas with 4,685,047 votes, while Hillary picked up 3,877,868 -- a difference of 807,179. That means that if you dropped California and Texas, then Trump still won the electoral vote and the popular vote.

And moving three counties changes the electoral vote.

Frankly, it's an irrelevant point because it's an imaginary scenario, but it's far more interesting than crying about the Electoral College.

It isn't at all interesting, it is lame and tedious.

As a more interesting fact, Hillary also carried New Hampshire by fewer voters than the number of voters than voted illegally. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration: voters in New Hampshire can register and vote on the same day even without any proof of New Hampshire residency (it's a pretty dumb system to be honest) and 5,313 people took advantage of it while Hillary won by 2,736 votes. Scarily, the governor's race was decided by only 1,017 votes (and a Democrat won that too). Technically, some subset of that number would have been legitimate New Hampshire voters who are just too stupid and lazy to register to vote, but the fact that the number of "unknown" voters outnumbered the number of votes required to win the state for both the Presidential and Governor races (combined even!) is frightening.

Sorry, Kris Kobach was lying again.

There is probably some subset of illegal voters in this country. Remember the woman in north Carolina who voted Trump for her dead mother? But your evidence is not just thin, it is downright fraudulent.

If you don't believe me, go challenge those voters.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ironic, coming from a commie who wants mob rule vote.

Re:Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again...

[david_thornley]

Read the appropriate Federalist paper (58 or 68, I don't remember). It says that the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent people like Trump from being elected President. That's the best source document I've got for why it was designed, although I've seen convincing arguments that it was to give slave states more say in who became President.

Need to inform users who "liked" any propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

What they need to do is inform users who "liked" or shared anything that was Russian propaganda.

Re:Need to inform users who "liked" any propaganda

[budgenator]

What they need to do is inform users who "liked" or shared anything that was Russian propaganda.

Nobody should care if it's propaganda, what's important is if it's true.

Re:Need to inform users who "liked" any propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how surrounded you are by propaganda, you really should have begun to figure out by now how it works.

Read a book. Pretty much any book will do, so long as it gets you away from "news" for a day or so.

media matters and david brock

[Anonymous Coward]

media matters and david brock spent 1,000,000$ correcting the record on social media in a feeble attempt to sway perception of Hillary. does anyone believe a 50k ad buy or 100k made a difference if its true?

Yeah - let's see the ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee this will turn into a giant nothing burger and the DNC will have to "pivot" again to the next story about why the election was stolen by the russkies.

Re:Yeah - let's see the ads

[bobbied]

I guarantee this will turn into a giant nothing burger and the DNC will have to "pivot" again to the next story about why the election was stolen by the russkies.

I think that narrative is coming apart at the seams right now so they will have to drop it. It looks like this laser like focus on this might result in a couple of the popular democrats getting burned. There is mounting evidence that the intelligence services where improperly used by the past administration to target their political opponents, which if true, would make Watergate look like a circus side show...

Now we hear that the russkies purchased Facebook ads? Unless it can be proven they coordinated this with the Trump campaign, what difference at this point does it make? Even if they DO prove coordination, what difference will it make unless Trump himself is proven to know about it? What's the likelihood of that? (Snowballs chance)

Re:Yeah - let's see the ads

[Anonymous Coward]

euh no. The wiretaps were started before Trump was even president. He was just a dumb a** that picked terrible people to help him get elected.

You're also ignoring the several cases of laundry money related to Trump properties around the world... and guess where those "investors" are from... ding ding ding... Russia. You're also ignoring his children and in-laws bragging about how they don't need loans from the US anymore because they got all their loans from where? ding ding ding... Russia

Five bucks, NONE will be democrats!

[p51d007]

Even though one senator, Claire McCaskill (D) Missouri, had several meetings with Russians, dinners and what not. Hey, BOTH political parties are two sides of the SAME COIN. They protect each other. If you don't play the game, they will do whatever it takes, to make sure you are on the outside looking in! Explain why, a congress/senator can go to DC, maintain a home in their "home" state (which they never visit), have a house in one of the most expensive areas of the nation, on a salary that pays less than $200,000.00 per year and in a few short years, they are on the millionaires list! Their salary is "chump change" compared to what they get from fund raising, kickbacks, bribes and what not.

Re:Five bucks, NONE will be democrats!

[Shotgun]

Even closer than that, one of Hillary's closest advisors, John Pedesta, had intimate ties with Russia. If the issue is election manipulation, why is he not being looked at? And how did Hillary go from being so broke upon leaving the White House that they had to try stealing the china, to being a multimillionaire a few years later?

 

Much ado about nothing

[voislav98]

So the Facebook report states that $100,000 worth of ads were bought over a 2 year period from accounts suspected to have been operated from Russia. Also these ads were:

- without specific geographic targeting (only 25% we so targeted)
- without targeting specific candidates
- vaguely meant to spread division in the society (what does that even mean?)

Somehow this got blown into "Russia was subverting democracy in the US". It's OK for Sheldon Adelson, Koch brothers and such to throw millions in on their PACs and hold auditions for GOP candidates, that's just free speech, no subversion of democracy there. But here we have the flimsiest of evidences that somebody (could have been from anywhere, even US) paid somebody from Russia $100,000 to do some vague anti-LGBT, racist, anti-immigration campaign not specifically targeted at any candidate or Americans, suddenly this requires a massive investigation. Has everybody lost their minds?

Re:Much ado about nothing

[aicrules]

The Russian story line has reached a dead end every single direction it goes. They won't just admit that it was a fabricated narrative to try to torpedo Trump. They keep coming up with new things and all the foaming mouth never-trumpers get into a fevered pitch about it until it's revealed to be nothing of substance. That's happened with every single part of the Russian narrative from the Dossier to now.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[bobbied]

Yep, they have lost their ever loving minds over there on the left...

But hey, it's just the shoe on the other foot, the party out of power makes as much trouble as they can for the part in power. Politics as usual.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russian story line has reached a dead end every single direction it goes.

I'm ambivalent about the Russian ads, per se - freedom of speech and all that.

But corruption is a big deal. And there's a lot that Putin could (already has?) offer Trump in exchange for some favors from Trump in his capacity as POTUS. So I have no problem at all putting Trump and his administration under a microscope and keeping them there. And if any corruption is found either now or in the future, well, come down on them like a ton of bricks!

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone in charge of the Russia investigation is a Republican. From the committee chairs in Congress, to Comey before he was fired, to special council Mueller, to the Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. As for the Steele dossier.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

Personally I think this is far worse than what we are being told. This is about active treason and espionage, more than obstruction of justice or money laundering.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you honestly suggesting the entire Russian troll army concept is fabricated? There seems to be an awful lot of evidence, some posted before the election. This is separate from the question of whether the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian interference, but the claim that Russia did not seek to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections is absurd.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Crazy Taco]

It's OK for Sheldon Adelson, Koch brothers and such to throw millions in on their PACs and hold auditions for GOP candidates, that's just free speech, no subversion of democracy there.

Not to mention the untold amounts of money that Hungarian George Soros has dumped into all kinds of election groups. He spent a LOT more than $100,000. But yeah, no subversion there either. Let's get the microscope out and do a super thorough search of the Russian flee and ignore all the elephants running around...

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Billly Gates]

I bet if this were Hillary Clinton your post would be IMPEACH NOW! But it is ok because Trump has an R next to his name.

Re: Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian flea, comrade, Russian flea.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The right knows that Soros has spent several quadrillion dollars funding both sides of every conflict since the war of 1812! He's actually a demilich from another dimension entirely, which is how he manages to give $50,000 per month to every antifa (99% of the world population) while also funding every right wing "free speech" protest as a false flag!

- Almost every right winger in their constant spiral into literal madness.

Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[tomhath]

Hillary and her supporters spent an estimated $1.2 Billion, roughly twice what Trump spent. And she lost. And she blames the Ruskies for her loss. Seriously?

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time that woman speak I thank God we dodged that bullet! I mean I knew she was corrupt, and a nasty person, but I had no idea how deluded she is. Best quote: "What kind of a genius loses $1 Billion?" She said of Trump. You could not write better comedy.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Archangel Michael]

She has blamed a lot of people, probably most of America at this point.

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[bobbied]

I know right? That 100K of russkie money must have been very well spent..

Face it you guys, Hillary was such a bad candidate she lost to a novice, braggart, loud mouth real estate developer from Queens even after out spending him 2 to 1 along with that hum dinger of an October surprise "Access Hollywood" tape thing.

It should have been a blow out... Except that she and her campaign drank their own KoolAid, didn't bother to put in the effort to win, so she lost by the skin of her teeth...

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes also lost to someone with some of the highest negatively ratings in recent memory... however the problem with a close election is the math means that just about any plausible reason she lost is actually a valid excuse. Weather, Bernie, not visiting key states..... If the question is reframed as to why didn't Hillary win by 10 points then you can actually have an intelligent discussion except at that point the answer is way tooooo obvious.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

She spent $1,200,000,000. The Russians spent $100,000. They spent less than one percent of one percent of what she spent. How in the world does anybody think that such a minuscule amount had anything to do with the election outcome?

The only people this can help are Hillary, who needs someone to blame for her own failure to connect with the American people, and Mark Zuckerberg, who, as corporations (like Uber and Restoration Hardware) are beginning to discover that online advertising is demonstrably worthless, needs something in the news saying that even a tiny ad campaign on Facebook can move mountains. The more dangerous Russians advertising on Facebook appear, the more powerful Facebook advertising appears, and the more likely companies are to buy ads there. It would be nice if stories like this one came with a statement of how much Hillary spent on advertising, to balance out the story and show that advertising is worth far less than the advertising companies (like Facebook) want you to think.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like we are getting the benefit of Russian trolls here, and Slashdot doesn't even get to profit from them like Facebook did.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[ScentCone]

Hillary and her supporters spent an estimated $1.2 Billion [nypost.com], roughly twice what Trump spent. And she lost. And she blames the Ruskies for her loss. Seriously?

While it IS important to point that out for perspective, it's still missing the point. On top of her personally being a terrible candidate and thoroughly unlikable, dishonest person ... she's only one piece of the real landscape. In the last few years, her part has lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the state governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, by association the Supreme Court, and the millions of two-time Obama voters who left in disgust when Hillary was what the party said was their best representative. Sure, a less sociopathically robotic harpy of a candidate might have actually beat the populist opponent in that one race, but the party's endless parade of identity politics and message of entitlement, porous borders, vilifying people who start businesses, open and sneering contempt for everyone in fly-over country, and all the rest is the real issue, and that's what's cost the Democrats more or less all of their political juice. And parts of that party are screaming that their main problem is they haven't lurched hard enough into far left sensibilities and policies. Still not getting it. She wasn't the problem (though she was A problem), she was a symptom of the problem the Democrats have been inflicting upon themselves for quite a while.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[gatfirls]

What does that have to do with the price of ducks in peking?

I am pretty sure Hillary is not leading the investigation into the possibility of direct Russian influence in the election. I am also pretty sure knowing about foreign influence and/or involvement in our elections should be a pretty clear cut bipartisan *American* issue we should know about regardless of which pony you pick in the race.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary and her supporters spent an estimated $1.2 Billion, roughly twice what Trump spent. And she lost. And she blames the Ruskies for her loss. Seriously?

I can't seem to find the words "Hillary Clinton" or "blame" in this article. I think maybe you're the obsessed one...

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There's a 23.6% chance this comment was by a Russian paid astroturfer. Which, of course, is what this is all about.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

she lost to a novice, braggart, loud mouth real estate developer from Queens even after out spending him 2 to 1 along with that hum dinger of an October surprise "Access Hollywood" tape thing.

Actually this say a lot more about America than it does about Clinton.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a 23.6% chance this comment was by a Russian paid astroturfer. Which, of course, is what this is all about.

God, you dense fucking idiots. This is the only argument Democrats have anymore and it DOESN"T WORK EXCEPT FOR OTHER IDIOTIC LEMMING DEMOCRATS!

"Everybody who disagrees with what I say is a evil Russian plant! Shut up and stop asking why it was okay for Hillary and Podesta to take millions from them! It doesn't count when Democrats are in bed with Russia, but it's the worst crime in the world when their enemies do it."

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

It took decades to repair the damage from the last Red Scare, and here's your local retards to start it right back up again.

EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH MY HYPOCRITICAL IDIOCY IS A RUSSIAN PLANT!! DUUURRRR!!!!!!

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary outspent the Russians 12000 to 1, which mathematically means there's a 283200.00% chance that you are in fact a paid astroturfer for the DNC. You can easily prove you are not, of course, by linking to a timestamped image of your NRA membership card, which any red blooded American would have. Math doesn't lie however, and I urge all slashdotters to take note of this and stay vigilant against the insidious communist threat creeping into our internet, and their paid mouthpieces spreading poison against our great Christian allies, the Russians.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

You math, no good good.
That's what Russia spent on Facebook Ads alone. You're comparing completely different things. You would have to compare it to how much Hillary spent on Facebook ads to even be remotely relevant.

Re: Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this says more about the DNC hubris.

Re: Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer analysis shows there's a 87.6% chance this comment was by a Russian paid astroturfer. Which, of course, is what this is all about.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a 100% your a whiny Hillary support that lose.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally, you're terrible at math by being a right winger. I'm certain you're unaware of the well documented fact that Trump gave himself multiple "loans" that he repaid from his donations, totalling over $2billion. Even my hardcore right wing Trump supporter uncle knows this, and he doesn't know much.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican gerrymandering is a real bitch ain't it? When you can't win elections, just redraw the districts! Without gerrymandering, scientists have shown that Republicans would only hold about 0.5% of their seats in all but the Southern states that rely WHOLLY on the rest of the country subsidizing them to survive. That's why we don't want them running things, they literally can't even take care of themselves.

Re:Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B

[ScentCone]

So that's also why the Democrats do the same, only worse? Monolithic Democrat state legislatures are responsible for some of the most gratuitous gerrymandering in the country. But since you like to cherrypick your outrage, it's safe to say you won't bother looking. Let alone comment on Democrat strongholds that have little problems like more votes being cast than there are registered voters to cast them. But sure, you just carry on, and blame the fact that Hillary Clinton couldn't trouble herself to even set foot in Wisconsin during the campaign on ... what? The congressional districts there? I suppose that's also why she lost Michigan? You need to get a clue.

The Russians hacked our election

[Anonymous Coward]

and any real patriotic American supports getting to the bottom of it.

Re:The Russians hacked our election

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaah, such a cute little SJW (pats AC on head).

Now go get the wet wipes. It's time to change your diaper.

Slashdot is now just full of libtard propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

MUH RUSSIAN ADS
That's all that this shithole of a website is now. No wonder /. gets 1/20th of comments that it used to. Everyone abandoned it. Especially after it was purchased by some libtard idiot who constantly shitposts about MUH HILLARY and MUH RUSSIANS.

It's illegal to sell ads to foreigners now?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that constitutional?

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" - telling a publisher they mustn't run ads paid for by foreigners sounds to me like "abridging their freedom" big time.

Re:It's illegal to sell ads to foreigners now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government hasn't cared about the Constitution since they decided the Commerce Clause allowed them to regulate anything anyone did, anywhere.

Re:It's illegal to sell ads to foreigners now?

[manu0601]

Yes, this sentence is quite weird. What is that law that prevent selling ads to foreigners? Can it even be compatible with the various trade agreements US signed in the last decades?

Re:It's illegal to sell ads to foreigners now?

[will_die]

In the USA foreigners can purchase ads and are free to discuss political ideas. Facebook chief security person even says that the ads they are bringing up here are legal except for possible a few of them.
The ads purchased by forgeigner have to be idea based, cannot support a specific person and a few other limitations. It is these same laws that allow illegal immigrants to speak at political conventions without the law makers hosting them going to jail.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo...

Wow... for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Zuckerberg: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/2...

First, let me say this. I care deeply about the democratic process and protecting its integrity. Facebook's mission is all about giving people a voice and bringing people closer together. Those are deeply democratic values and we're proud of them. I don't want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy. That's not what we stand for. ... So today I want to share the steps we're taking to protect election integrity and make sure that Facebook is a force for good in democracy.

Elliot Carver -

The Carver Media Group Network has the ability to reach every person in every village in every nation. But do not fear me, for tonight I offer you my declaration of principles: A promise to the men and women of this planet, my brothers and sisters whom I so humbly serve, I promise to report the news without fear or favor, I promise to be a force for good in this world, Fighting injustice, crushing intolerance, battling inhumanity, - Striking a blow for freedom...

Re:Wow... for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you'll see is Zuckerberg delivering his speeches from an inactive volcano lair, stroking a pet cat.

Spending lots of money on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where just spending a lot of money on something that seems less important then some make it out to be.

Huh?

[gatfirls]

How do you know the content of the ads?

Also: "anti-LGBT, racist, anti-immigration campaign not specifically targeted at any candidate". Ummm I think only one candidate in the election held those positions. I could be wrong though.

As a European...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a European all I can say from someone sitting on the outside is that in your rigged two party system one of the candidates (the "blue" puppet) was so fucking awful that the slightly less awful candidate (the "red" puppet) romped home.

American politics is worse than anything I've seen from any so called banana republic. An utterly fixed system where you get to choose between two tightly controlled establishment puppets. No choice. No democracy. It's like being given the choice between being punched in the face or kicked i the balls.

But now the "blue" puppets support apparatus are crying like 3 year olds about some "Russian interference". Boo hoo.. "big boys did it and ran away".

Just face facts. Your "blue" puppet "candidate" was just fucking god awful ! Stop crying and get one with life. Stop trying to make excuses. Russia didn't win the election. The election was "lost" because of your fucking awful puppet !

If "Russia" put up posters all over town saying "stab yourself in the face now" do yo uthink that would make any difference to what I did today.

Fucking morons the lot of 'em.

Re:As a European...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Trump was a "tightly controlled establishment puppet" you weren't watching. He scared the crap out of the party leadership. But he convinced people to vote for him so he got the nomination.

 

Re:As a European...

[Crazy Taco]

As a European all I can say from someone sitting on the outside is that in your rigged two party system one of the candidates (the "blue" puppet) was so fucking awful that the slightly less awful candidate (the "red" puppet) romped home.

There's some truth to that. They both had the highest negatives in history... it was definitely all about who was "less bad".

American politics is worse than anything I've seen from any so called banana republic. An utterly fixed system where you get to choose between two tightly controlled establishment puppets. No choice. No democracy. It's like being given the choice between being punched in the face or kicked i the balls.

And you just lost whatever sense you were making before. Trump an establishment puppet? Are you kidding me? The establishment in both parties absolutely hates him. On the Republican side we had 17 candidates to pick from in the primary, and ALL of the Republican establishment candidates lost big. In the end, it came down to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who were by far the most establishment-hated candidates that I've ever seen run in a primary.

If you want to rephrase your charge of "tightly controlled establishment puppets" to refer only to the Democrats, then I'll give you that, because after the DNC email hacks we found out that they did, in fact, rig the primary contest to make sure Hilary won and Bernie lost (though the fact that he got as far as he did, even in the face of their treachery, shows they don't have as much control as they thought). But yeah, end result on the Democrat side was that their establishment got the candidate they wanted, and when taken to court about it, they argued that as a party they have no legal requirement to select their candidates in any particular way, and that it would be perfectly legal for them to go back to using old boys clubs in the back room with cigars to pick the candidate. A tacit admission that they can rig the process as much as they want. But only one party rigged it, not both.

Just face facts. Your "blue" puppet "candidate" was just fucking god awful ! Stop crying and get one with life. Stop trying to make excuses. Russia didn't win the election. The election was "lost" because of your fucking awful puppet !

And now you are back to making sense again. We all know that's why she lost, and the funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason you won't find in her new book, "What Happened."

Re:As a European...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never forget that Bernie endorsed Hillary -after- it came out that things had been rigged against him. Zero integrity.

You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

That's a very slanted version of what happened. I suppose you went to wikileaks to examine the mishandled classified material yourself?

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[bobbied]

Actually, no. I'm going on what James Comey said his investigators found. She technically broke the law, multiple times.

Remember, the *only* part of Comey's statement I disagree with is his conclusion that no prosecutor would take the case and charge Clinton with felony counts for her gross negligence with handling classified information because he didn't find intent. Everything else he said was spot on. She broke the law, Comey clearly said as much, intent is NOT part of the statute, but gross negligence IS. Comey was wrong on that point.

Go listen to his statement on this if you don't believe me, then go read the statute. Draw your own conclusions. I'm simply disagreeing with Comey's conclusion and application of the statute, not his facts about what Clinton did or didn't do.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys seem pretty obsessed with someone who isn't in the spotlight anymore. This whole chain of comments has nothing to do with the article.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but Comey broke protocol by short-circuiting the process at that point. It wasn't his role to make that decision, it was up to the DOJ.

There are so many corrupt actors in charge that I don't think it's possible to clean up without a complete collapse of the system.

Re: You don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish what you're saying to be true. Unfortunately, the old hag keeps blabbing about who's at fault for her not being POTUS. Everybody is sick of her smug face, but she can't just go away.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

It was a bunch of CC: BCC: ACC: XCC: email chains full of people that lame management types love so much. There wasn't anything to indicate that anything was classified even though it was.

The elites in the country treat secrets like this all the time and that's why the GOP knew if they shoved the investigation in that direction they'd have new material for their campaign.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

I was hoping he had read them so I could tell him I was reporting him to the government for illegally downloading classified information.
I'd ask a lot of hillary haters the same question and actually even in the heat of the campaign I wasn't able to find a single one of them who bothered to check even if they had hundreds of related posts in their history.

It's a stupid man's world and we just live here.

Re: You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

She's a million times better than trump but it makes my blood boil every time I hear her talking like she deserved the presidency. She had the audacity to accuse bernie of not supporting her.
What a cunt..Every time she opens her mouth she's just paving the way for an eventual kid rock presidency.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[david_thornley]

Ah, someone who hasn't looked into the facts.

As far as I could tell, nobody has faced criminal prosecution for inadvertent mishandling of classified material. The penalties were all administrative in nature. If you can come up with a counterexample, I'd be fascinated. I couldn't find one. I've been told that intent is not part of the statute, but it's been the criterion for prosecution on felony charges.

If you or I had done what she did, we might be fired, we might lose our clearance temporarily or indefinitely, but we wouldn't be prosecuted.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[david_thornley]

The Attorney General, being a political appointee, had said she'd defer to FBI recommendations on whether to prosecute. Otherwise, you deplorables would be complaining that she didn't prosecute for political reasons.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe "hillary haters" are smart enough not to be baited into admitting a felony to a pro-clinton dumbass?
Think about this: if all the anti-Killary people you talked to are smart, what does it say about their viewpoint, and yours? Who is in the wrong here?

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[bobbied]

Again go listen to Comey and you will find you are incorrect... There WHERE indications that parts of the messages being sent/received where classified.

Comey mentioned "portion marking" which where still in the copied text. This is a readily identifiable marking, consisting of text characters which is common in classified materials. They mark the "portion" of text in documents where different parts of the document have different classification levels. Clinton sent and received E-mails with both classified information AND portion marking.

Now if you want to argue that SHE didn't actually add that text to the E-mails, but merely forwarded text she was sent, fine, however, she WAS trained to recognize classified markings (including portion marks) as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better. Also, some of what she herself generated was classified at birth, by nature of what she was saying, and even though didn't carry any markings, AGAIN she SHOULD have known it's classification level, having received training on this as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better.

Now I know that Hillary has denied all wrong doing here, multiple times. However, unfortunately for her, her categorical denials have repeatedly been shown to be untrue. "It was for personal use only", "I never sent or received classified", "I never sent or received anything MARKED classified" are all things she's said about this as more and more facts came to light. She changed her story. That makes her either stupid enough to not really know what she was doing (which I don't believe for a second), a Liar (Which again, I'm not inclined to believe of her in this case), or flat out negligent and uncaring about her handling of classified information (and business communications outside of established channels) (Which I DO think is true).

Hillary's problem was she didn't care enough to follow the rules, then because she wasn't paying attention gets caught in multiple untrue versions of events trying to explain away what happened. She was negligent and didn't exercise proper care, not because she made a mistake, but because she didn't care. This, when handling classified, is illegal.

\

It was exactly this attitude that lost the election for her by the way. She was the heir apparent to the presidency and for all intents and purposes her winning was a foregone conclusion, both by the media and her campaign staff. She didn't care enough to even be concerned or make any adjustments to her campaign, instead drank her own pollsters Kool-Aid.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[bobbied]

So.. You are saying two things I don't agree with.

1. You don't need an example of someone being prosecuted for breaking a law to prosecute them for breaking a law. If that where true, then NOBODY could ever be prosecuted for breaking ANY law. So I owe you no example of such a prosecution. All I need provide you is the law, and she broke the law, Comey said so. His argument to let her skate is NOT part of the law, intent was NOT part of this law, only negligence is.

2. Hillary's "mistake" was carelessness, not inadvertent. "Inadvertent" implies someone who is trying, but suffered a laps in judgment for some instance. One would assume a thoughtful and caring person wouldn't recognize their "inadvertent" mistakes and take steps to both report them (as required) and attempt to not make them again. Hillary didn't report her mistakes, didn't attempt to not make them, she was careless OR she was simply clueless even after having received training on how to handle classified (which makes here stupid, which I don't believe for a second).

So you cannot have it your way here. Hillary was either uncaring and negligent or she is too stupid to understand the document she signed and the training she got when she received her security clearance. One is illegal the other makes here stupid. Take your pick...

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

Wikileaks must have sent me to a fake version of her emails so that I would sound stupid on slashdot. How is it you know and care so much about what comey said and you never saw the documents? (sucker)

Everyone in washington treats secrets this way. I promise you. I never made any claims that hillary wasn't uncaring and negligent. That's exactly what she is. The disappointing thing is that anyone is surprised at all. Being angry about clinton doesn't show that you're wise to what's really going on... it shows that you don't know what's been normal for people like her for a long time.

We can agree that hillary is a pompous super-bureaucrat who felt like we owed her a presidency. I wish she'd shut the fuck up because every stupid thing trump does is now almost as much her fault as it is his and every time she opens her mouth to cry about it she's helping more morons get into some high public office. She literally can't shut the fuck up to save the world.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[bobbied]

Oh please... I listened to Comey's testimony before congress and his 45 min statement he made when he let Hillary skate before he later re-opened the investigation... Surely you recall all that? Everything I'm claiming as fact here Comey said himself.

So.. Do you not trust Comey here? Are his statements untrue in your view? She broke the law, Comey said so. He then let her off the hook...

Also, WikiLeaks isn't a suitable source of evidence for much of anything. Where I don't know if what they publish is true or not, from a legal prospective it's content is useless as any kind of evidence. Why does it's content matter? I'm not quoting it.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

Comey let her off the hook because top level politicians mishandle secrets as often as they wipe their own asses and he knew it. If he'd pulled the trigger on it then getting rid of any American politician you don't like would be as easy as ordering your intelligence service to grep their wad of stolen mailspools against random strings from their wad of stolen classified documents until something came up.

The most important question is: Why do you still care?
A year later we're on the brink of nuclear war and the alternative to Hillary has proved a total disaster. You should be embarrassed by now. Even if in some alternative timeline where Hillary is some criminal mastermind who stole the election and personally helped bill rape a different woman every Saturday. Somehow most Americans in that timeline are better off.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[bobbied]

LOL.. So it's bash Trump now that Hillary's history..

To use your logic...(and quote Hillary) "What difference at this point does it make?" Hillary lost, Trump won... Why do you still want to argue that fact?

(QED)

Re:You don't know what you're talking about

[i286NiNJA]

I started bashing Trump as soon as it was obvious that ignoring him wasn't going to make him go away. It's too bad because if nobody cried about him when he was a longshot he wouldn't be president right now. When you're a young blue haired rich girl who has to write 1000 words about something by Friday or your weekend is ruined, Trump is just too hard to ignore. Lots of blame to go around.

It may seem pointless to keep griping but it's important to keep up general levels of public discontent so that the Republicans get rid of him smoothly when they decide it's time. It'll only be a bigger clusterfuck if Trump has a base to rile up. I won't be looking forward to 2 years of Pence but he's competent enough to not get in the way while Mattis tries to un-fuck the situation in North Korea.

How to win elections

[AHuxley]

Have something to say that will get US citizens out to vote for your candidate.
Give speeches in more of the fly over states.
Dont just give the same boring, short speeches in select parts of the elite east and west coasts.
Visit and talk to real people in the fly over states. Take time to listen to real US citizens and talk to them.
A few very simple steps win US elections.
A political party has to find a candidate that has the energy to give a charismatic speech anywhere in the USA on topics people can relate to in their own states.
Find a real candidate who can win in more of the very different parts of the USA.

Re:How to win elections

[nnet]

dey tuk er jerbs!

Hillary Clinton broke 2 laws... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

She's a former attorney - she knows "ignorance" is no excuse especially as a secretary of state illegally having classified info. she wasn't cleared for by the DOD - period.

APK

P.S.=> That's a fact & it is EXACTLY how I would've put her away, for a LONG time... apk

Re: Hillary Clinton broke 2 laws... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former attorney, she would know that ignorance is often an excuse.

Why only the Russian ads?

[Solandri]

If we're trying to reduce the influence of ads bought by foreigners on U.S. elections, shouldn't Facebook be turning over all ads purchased by foreign entities during the election cycle?

Or is the goal here to arrive at a predetermined conclusion - that Russia tried to influence the election?

Re:Why only the Russian ads?

[Ulfilas2000]

Hold on now you are making sense. I am sure someone with points who wants to keep stupid winning will come along and downvote this...

Everyone should see

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole world should be allowed to see these adds. Hillary had one billion 200 million dollars in campaign adds and 100 thousand dollars in adds is a big deal. If these adds had much of an effect all the candidates should use them for their campaigns.

ever think this was Zuck's 2020 run

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, he is now the savior of the political system. All hail Mark Z...2020!

Mod Parent Back Up Please

[Crazy Taco]

How is the parent comment a -1? Apparently Liberals are suppressing speech they disagree with again...

unfettered gree^H^H^H^Hcapitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

make greed great.

Facebook Thinks You're A Moron

[Anonymous Coward]

One Simple Chart Proves That Facebook Thinks You're A Moron.

Ad buys that 'MAY' have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run 'potentially politically related' ads:

$50,000

Ad revenue that Facebook generated in the U.S. over the same time period between 3Q 2015 and 2Q 2017:

$26,826,000,000

Facebook needs to be regulated by the government..

[Anonymous Coward]

... since they refuse to self regulate. Better yet, shut them down as a public hazard.

I said that months before the Russian ads were public knowledge.

Zuck thinks it is bad PR to show the public. Well it is worse to hide them.

We need a non-profit open source version of FaceBodge to move the FB addicts over to where their identities will be safe.

Shut the damn thing down. It is a menace like giving free guns away a block from a school.

Re: Slashdot is now just full of libtard propagand

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, it's only Putin's trolls keeping it alive.

No need for any legal steps?

[houghi]

So basically they just said: here is the data. To me this should be illegal to do. Get a judge in there with a court order. Otherwise it should be seen as a serious breach in anything that concerns privacy.
Yes, I will speak up for those that I am against. My enemies should have the same rights as me.

But then we are talking about Facebook and the US where privacy means nothing.

APK broke his ass hole twice taking moose dick

[Anonymous Coward]

APK broke his asshole twice taking moose dick

As a moose dick sucker APK knows about cocks

[Anonymous Coward]

As a current moose dick sucker APK knows about sucking massive amount moose cock as often as possible

Completely ignores new false news industry

[Anonymous Coward]

this article completely ignores the fake ad industry that grew up around last years presidential election.
CNN artical Macedonia
Even if we discovered that russians were behind the fake news, finding malicious intent is nearly impossible.

Show The People

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharing the ads with the public clearly labeled as purchased by Russia / Russians would probably do more good and allow those who thought they were being patriotic to know they were duped.

aparently the snowflakes

[Anonymous Coward]

are upset that nobody will let them slide in their lame attempts at covering their support for a traitor.

Re:aparently the snowflakes

[david_thornley]

Yeah, you deplorables are like that. Covering up your support for a traitor with lame accusations against liberals.