Slashdot Mirror
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 $100,000 -- to Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who is spearheading the government's probe into Russia's actions. Facebook had withheld those details from House and Senate leaders, citing privacy concerns. But the move drew sharp rebukes from the likes of Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has charged in recent days that Facebook may not have done enough to scan its systems for potential Russian influence and to ensure that such foreign purchases -- otherwise illegal under U.S. law -- don't happen again. "After an extensive legal and policy review, today we are announcing that we will also share these ads with congressional investigators," wrote Colin Stretch, the company's general counsel. "We believe it is vitally important that government authorities have the information they need to deliver to the public a full assessment of what happened in the 2016 election."
Is the most trustworthy person. I am sure he would never do anything underhanded.
Didn't the Obama administration do something similar to the Israelis?
How come I never heard any kind of investigation? And by the way, it was to the legitimate government of a sovereign state. An ally of ours if I may add.
Good: can we investigate continued collusion with foreign bodies on the left?
e.g. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia
Can we also investigate e.g. antifa?
Can we also investigate left-leaning media outlets like CNN promoting stories originating from Russia Today etc?
...and we'll probably let you run things for a while again.
- The American People
</story title="US President Election 2016">
What they need to do is inform users who "liked" or shared anything that was Russian propaganda.
media matters and david brock spent 1,000,000$ 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?
Are you condemning FB for behavior that exists only in your speculation?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
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?
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?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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?
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?
How is the parent comment a -1? Apparently Liberals are suppressing speech they disagree with again...
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
There's some truth to that. They both had the highest negatives in history... it was definitely all about who was "less bad".
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.
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."
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
... 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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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...
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.
~X~
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"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.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The only thing bullshit is your statement. You just ignored some critical facts, outlined below in the following comments.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, you deplorables are like that. Covering up your support for a traitor with lame accusations against liberals.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.