Slashdot Mirror


Russian Troll Factory Paid US Activists To Fund Protests During Election (theguardian.com)

bestweasel writes: The Guardian reports on another story about Russian meddling, but interestingly, this one comes from a respected Russian news source, the RBC. From the report: "Russian trolls posing as Americans made payments to genuine activists in the U.S. to help fund protest movements on socially divisive issues. On Tuesday, the newspaper RBC published a major investigation into the work of a so-called Russian 'troll factory' since 2015, including during the period of the U.S. election campaign, disclosures that are likely to put further spotlight on alleged Russian meddling in the election. RBC said it had identified 118 accounts or groups in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter that were linked to the troll factory, all of which had been blocked in August and September this year as part of the U.S. investigation into Russian electoral meddling. Perhaps the most alarming element of the article was the claim that employees of the troll factory had contacted about 100 real U.S.-based activists to help with the organization of protests and events. RBC claimed the activists were contacted by Facebook group administrators hiding their Russian origin and were offered financial help to pay for transport or printing costs. About $80,000 was spent during a two-year period, according to the report."

9 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. The key is not getting caught by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    folks really hate phony protestors. What made all this work so well is that Russia didn't get caught during the election. If they had Hilary would probably be president, especially if we got it as an October surprise instead of Comey reopening the investigation just long enough to help throw the election Trump's way.

    Not that Hilary is a spring chicken herself but it took a fundamental breakdown over just about everything to make a guy who used to be a Simpson's joke our actual president.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The key is not getting caught by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      May I point out that Hillary was also for Black Lives Matter and Blacktivist, the two groups being paid to protest?

      Here's how it works. You pay someone to participate in a protest and then have them do something that's really ugly and angers people.

      For example, one paid Russian protester, a guy named "Jack Posobiec", would go to leftist rallies and hold up "Rape Melania" signs. Now this guy is an alt-right supporter of Trump, but he's not recognizable, so people think, "Man, those leftists are really horrible. Look, there's a "Rape Melania" sign."

      Then, it gets the front-page treatment on Infowars, Breitbart, DailyStormer, and eventually ends up on Fox News. Total outlay for the sign is maybe a buck. Trump gets elected, and get this: "Jack Posobiec" becomes a "journalist" with White House credentials. So, not only does he get a little money on the front-end, but he gets rewarded by Trump on the back-end. Oh, and Posobiec was also one of the leading "Pizzagate" conspiracy theorists, which we now know was also a Russian op.

      Here are the details:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      https://www.salon.com/2017/08/...

      https://www.deathandtaxesmag.c...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The key is not getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it acceptable to refer to President Trump as the "orange moron" yet it was totally unacceptable to refer to President Obama's skin color as though it mattered, or had anything to do with anything?

      How about because Obama's skin color was his natural skin color and he has little personal control over that? I suppose technically he could have had it bleached or he could have darkened somewhat through tanning, but it doesn't appear he did either of those (just some regular sun exposure). It's possible he may have used some makeup for appearances, which wouldn't be that uncommon or unusual, but he wasn't trying to fool anyone.

      Trump's skin color, on the other hand... Well, he also has little control over his natural skin color, but he certainly tries. Clearly he wants to look tanned, so he uses self-tanner. And he does it really, really badly. Badly enough that, from someone as obsessed with image as he is, it looks like appallingly bad personal derangement. Much like his "hair" and his ridiculous ties. And those shoulder pads... I remember for a little while during the election I was trying to figure out why his arms always looked so strange, sort of sunken into his body, then I realized that it's because he's wearing shoulder pads that are way too big. I mean, I know almost nothing about clothes and fashion, and even I can see this. Trump has sold or currently sells his own lines of men's clothing, so you would think that he would either recognize this, or at least get fashion advice from someone who does. I could be missing something though, it could be part of an attempt to disguise his weight and funny looking arms are just a tradeoff.

      If you look at pictures of Obama, he mostly just seems to wear suits that fit, wear normal ties, doesn't seem to do outrageous things with his hair or his skin etc. Obama generally seems like he's pulling it off pretty effortlessly, while Trump looks like he's trying too hard and simultaneously failing at it. To be fair, Obama has the advantage of relative youth over Trump and he's also not bald like Trump, so he doesn't have to try as hard. Also, with Obama's hair, he only has one option for how to cut his hair and still look "presidential" (i.e. not _too_ black, although it's not like the racists don't notice anyway).

      Also, there's the wives. Both men have attractive wives (you might not know it from all the howling about how ugly she is from a certain portion of the population who pathologically can't find a black woman attractive, but she's quite attractive by most objective racially unbiased standards). Although I don't think that Obama thinks of his wife as an ornament, they look good together. It's always possible that they're just putting on a show as a happily married couple, but they've done an amazing job of faking if so. They complement each other. Meanwhile, Melania is obviously a trophy wife. She was a professional model/escort. Yes, definitely an escort despite what her lawsuit claimed, bearing in mind that while the term escort is often a euphemism for prostitute, it doesn't actually have to mean paid sex. The actual definition is basically a woman paid to be arm candy for men at events. Considering that she and Donald met at exactly such an event, introduced by her manager who was, in fact, in the business of hiring out models for parties, and who went into business with Trump providing models for events intended to sell real estate, it seems like the term is likely to fit. She's also blatantly obviously a trophy wife as a model, married to a rich man 25 years older than her, and with his history with women and his history of public statements about women. Anyway Trump has made the classic mistake of rich mean acquiring a trophy wife who think that it will make themselves look good. And that's forgetting that standing next to a much younger, much more attractive woman, who also knows how to dress impeccably and who is frankly constantly posing for the camera in public, just makes him look like more of a slob.

    3. Re: The key is not getting caught by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      black supremacists.... who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?

      People who understand what it means.

      "Black lives matter" is saying that there is a specific problem with black people's lives being valued less than others, e.g. the way some cops have reacted inappropriately with deadly force.

      "All lives matter" was is a rebuttal, saying that there is no particularly bad problem with black people being treated differently, and that the cops who kill unarmed black people are justified in doing so. To oppose it does not suggest you don't think that all lives matter, or that you are a black supremacist, it just means you understand why people are saying it, i.e. to undermine BLM.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re: The key is not getting caught by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who understand what it means.

      ...or imagine so.

      For the general populace, to violently oppose "All lives matter" exactly suggests you think not all lives matter (or not all matter equally). No matter what you think, or imagine that means means, the general public gets your message, conveyed through violence, as "Black lives matter, others don't."

      The correct reaction from BLM would be reaching out and asking ALM to join them: "We're fighting for the same cause. Your message is compatible with ours. Join our protest." Accept, embrace, include. You protest more general cause, we protest a specific instance of it, but we're united in the same fight. Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie and the counter-protesters lose face. And if they choose to play along, hey, a message of peace, love, unity, equality reaches the nation, your movement only benefits. Play their game, because it set you up in a win-win scenario. Just pick the challenge.

      But noooo. You know better. You always assume the worst. They MUST be Evil, and Evil deserves Fist to the Face.

      You chose to pick one specific interpretation of "All lives matter", specifically assuming ill intent, putting in the mouth of ALM protesters words they didn't say, Then you assaulted them. And completely regardless of what they actually meant, and what you meant, everyone outside got your message as "Black lives matter, others don't."

      The only people who chose to read this according to your interpretation from moment one are already Hillary's stalwart supporters and that doesn't mean shit. The undecided Joe Average saw this as a solid confirmation of their lingering suspicion of BLM being supremacists, and decided "Trump is a better choice."

      We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like - and to everyone "in the middle"/"undecided" it looked exactly like in my prior post. It was a horrible PR move that likely cost Hillary the victory, and put BLM under scrutiny about racist tendencies. The tiny moral victory of several bruises on the trolls' faces, at cost of losing the whole war - losing the elections.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re: The key is not getting caught by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole point of calling it "all lives matter" instead of "shut up and stop complaining about cops murdering black people" is to trick people. Their movement is not compatible with BLM, they are explicitly opposed to the goals of BLM because they think that black people are more dangerous and it's their own fault when they get shot during a routine traffic stop.

      Don't fall for their trick. Citizen's United aren't a coalition of ordinary citizens. People's Choice aren't really the people's choice. National socialism isn't really socialism. Look past the name.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before the Election

    Dec. 10, 2015
    Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

    Late 2015
    British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

    March 19, 2016
    Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

    March 21
    During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

    March 28
    Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could "greatly benefit the Putin Government." His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

    April 27
    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

    June
    At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

    June 9
    Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected attorney named Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya's efforts to reverse a law passed in 2012 sanctioning Russians suspected of human rights violations at some point drew the attention of the FBI. The meeting was not initially reported to the government by Kushner as required when he took a position with the administration (Times, July 8, 2017). After the meeting was originally reported, Trump, Jr. admitted that the pretext for the conversation was that he believed Veselnitskaya to have information incriminating Hillary Clinton (Times, July 9, 2017).

    June 15
    A hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

    July
    At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

    July 7
    Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

    July 11 or 12
    Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

    July 18
    At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

    Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's "Lock her up!" chant. "If I, a guy who knows this business, if I

  3. Re:Slashdot moderation is best moderation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > (Clinton Uranium deal investigated by the FBI,

    No. And shame on you for lying about it.

    It was not the "clinton uranium deal" that was investigated. It was a bunch of russians doing kickbacks and money laundering, going as far back as 2004. As for Clinton's involvement, this is what the article says:

    Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation,

    The millions went to a company that also worked with the clinton foundation, but note that the article explicitly avoids saying the millions were passed through to the foundation rather than being spent elsewhere, like aforementioned kickbacks to russians.

    Furthermore, whenever the Uranium One deal is mentiond, everybody should remember this key fact: Russia was never given an export license, thus the uranium could never leave the US (and in fact barely any of it even left the ground because importing uranium from abroad is cheaper than mining it here). Here's the official statement from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency:

    Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

    > and Comey wrote the Hillary conclusion months before interviewing Hillary.)

    Another half-truth that is a full lie. Interviewing her was basically a formality, especially if you believe the narrative that she's a master manipulator. The FBI investigation began no later than August the year before, 9 months before Comey began drafting the statement. All of the evidence gathered by then was already exculpatory that the writing was already on the wall.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html
    A person familiar with the matter pushed back on the notion that Comey had already reached a conclusion that affected the investigation.
    The person said back in spring 2016, agents and Justice Department officials were talking about how the investigation would end and there was a belief that the evidence was going in a direction to not support bringing charges. This individual said by April 2016 the FBI had reviewed most of the evidence and didn't find evidence suggesting that Clinton had violated federal law. The person said the FBI wanted to interview her but didn't believe it was going to change the outcome.
    The source also said Comey was not involved in the day-to-day steps of the investigation, so even if he reached a conclusion it wouldn't have affected the result of the investigation.
    A second person familiar with the matter told CNN that Comey had not already made up his mind, and that it did not influence the investigation. The second source says the FBI had already reviewed much of the evidence by spring and it was becoming more clear that it was not likely to support bringing charges.

    > If we can't abide the truth, then we're no different from the media talking heads.

    You are different from the media talking heads. You are an unabashedly hyperpartisan liar, they are just poorly informed. You, on the other hand, know the whole truth because it takes exceptional discipline to write out all the parts that don't support your ideology of idiocy.

  4. Re:Here's a joke for you by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hillary was asked if Harvey Weinstein's behavior reminded her of her husband. She said "close but no cigar".

    I'll let myself out now.