Facebook VP of Ads Criticised For Tweeting that Russian-bought Ads Had Not Been Designed to Sway the US Election (bbc.com)

Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Kunedog · 2018-02-20 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stop trying to make excuses for the Democrats' horrible candidate who couldn't win even though the entire establishment was behind her.

Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by newdsfornerds · 2018-02-20 02:16 · Score: 1

Word.

--
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you disagree, but can't trouble yourself to explain why. Meaning, what ... you think that Russians buying a few tens of thousands of dollars of social media ads (compared to the tens of millions Hillary bought) cost her the election? Is that really what you think? Then say so.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by RedK · 2018-02-20 02:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Russians actively prevented the Clinton campaign from going to Wisconssin.
Let's face it, the Clinton campaign was built around the message of "It's all about her and being a woman president". They had no message, didn't bother even bringing their no message to most of America, and basically acted like they were owed the presidency. They got rejected and now are doing what they accused Trump supporters of when Hillary tweeted this :
https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/790612127996403712?lang=en
Are the Democrats a threat to democracy with their #Resist and #NotmyPresident BS ? Bunch of hypocrites.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh StinkyDome, you don't realize something do you? It doesn't matter whether or not they succeeded in doing anything, or even what their intent was, the mere attempt is criminal in itself. An unlawful act by parties who surreptitiously concealed their identities, who acted in the interests of a foreign power, and you pretend that it's not important. Right. Sure. Whatever you say.
But go ahead, report back to your Russian masters that you've uselessly protested in their defense yet again, collect your shiny plastic ruble and your chocolate ration.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:29 · Score: 1

Try a million+ dollars _a month_ in support money to push this misinformation campaign. Please read the WHOLE indictment document.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:31 · Score: 2

Clinton spent much more than that for online trolls with David Brock's various orgs.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by ABEND · 2018-02-20 02:47 · Score: 1

The Russian based internet marketing company's budget was over $1 million per month. They weren't spending that on political advertising in the U.S. That was the budget for all their operations including those that had nothing to do with the U.S. election. The indictment doesn't specify who was paying the marketing company for media related to the U.S. election but it's likely that it was PACs looking for an inexpensive way to get their message out.

--
In all seriousness:
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Even 538, which is hilarious biased in favor of Clinton (they're one of the many sites that predicted her victory as a sure thing) says that there's no evidence Russian meddling had any effect on the election. At most they say Russia may have amplified flaws Clinton already had, but like I said, 538 is hilarious biased in her favor.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Ended up being nothing"? Classified emails sent to her illegal server and then deleted suddenly showed up on the laptop of a pedophile? I wouldn't call that "nothing".
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by hey! · 2018-02-20 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's the thing about 2016 -- it was a very close thing. Just 1/2 of 1% of the turnout in three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) would have flipped those states. That's 78,000 strategically based voters -- not even 1/10 of 1% of the total US votes cast -- and the Electoral College would have gone the other way.
The flaw in nearly every 2016 postmortem analysis I've seen is that they all look for the explanation. It's a situation tailor made for advancing pet theories: an idea that has any truth at all in it can quite plausibly be claimed to have flipped the results.
So you can't rule out Russian meddling by citing Clinton's (unquestioned) weaknesses as a candidate. They could *both* have been decisive.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 03:31 · Score: 1

That's not quite what Nate Silver's article concluded. He said that it's much easier to quantify the effect of a discrete event like Comey's letter to Congress than continuous Russian meddling. He noted that the known spending by Russians to meddle in our election was quite a bit less than what was spent by the Trump and Clinton campaigns. And, as you noted, the Russian meddling used similar themes to how Trump was already attacking Hillary.
He's right about the difficulty in measuring the impact of Russian meddling. Regarding spending, it's an interesting observation, but doesn't quantify the effectiveness of the spending. For example, Hillary wasuch better funded than Trump, yet lost the election. One could easily conclude that Hillary's campaign didn't spend their money as effectively as Trump's campaign. The key point is the impact is difficult to measure because it's hard to separate it from other factors in the polls, whereas the Comey letter can be quantified based on how the polls shifted after it happened. But difficult to measure is not the same as something being negligible. That's the problem with your post, which doesn't really match up with the summary at the end of the article.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 03:40 · Score: 1

Who cares if their internal costs were a million dollars or a billions dollars a month? It's that much more hilarious if they ran a situation that inefficient and still spent most what they actually deployed in the real world AFTER the election, and what they spent during the entire election was an amount so small that Hillary's operation out-spent that amount every day. And, of course, only some portion of what they spent was aimed at her - they spent it on every front, in self-contradictory ads. Which you know. How about YOU read the whole indictment, including the part where they address the actual amount of money spent making things (hardly at all) visible to the public?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 03:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.politico.com/story...
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 03:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

Comey's letter to Congress on Oct 28th most certainly cost Clinton votes and quite possibly the election.
So, you're probably quite pleased that Trump fired him. Regardless, the ONLY reason that the FBI had to act again was because Clinton assured them that her staff had turned over every existing record, storage device, and copy of all such emails. Of course she'd already wiped tens of thousands of them off of her personal non-secure server, literally had mobile devices smashed with hammers after SIM cards were removed, etc. And then her staff - who had to negotiate immunity agreements before they'd even talk - promised the FBI had everything. Including Huma. Who, of course, it turns out had NOT done what she said. She had a huge trove of Clinton's mails, including more classified documents, on her personal laptop at home, shared with her reckless pedo husband.

But why did Comey tell congress about the re-opened investigation? Because some of the Clinton-supporting fans in the FBI had found those emails OVER A MONTH EARLIER and hadn't told him anything. When he finally became aware of the existence of all of that new evidence and the underlying false statements that it represents, his agency had been - for partisan reasons - sitting on that little fact for a month. He knew that if it came out later that his people had been trying to protect her for over a month before the election, he'd be rightly accused of trying to giver her political cover.

Of course you know all of this.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by magzteel · 2018-02-20 03:50 · Score: 1

Trump conspired with Russia, and whatever Fox news claims, its not OK for the President of the United States to conspire with a foreign power to attack the US elections.
This is the new McCarthyism
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-02-20 04:49 · Score: 1

The Russian based internet marketing company's budget was over $1 million per month. They weren't spending that on political advertising in the U.S. That was the budget for all their operations ...
Including paying trolls to flood social media with disinformation, and to amplify the advertising, and to amplify the divisions between US political factions. If you think advertising was/is the most important part of this operation, you haven't thought it through.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by iMadeGhostzilla · 2018-02-20 04:52 · Score: 1

Statistically speaking, this is true. But look at it psychologically: each one of those 78,000 people is not only a unique individual with their own hopes and dreams and sufferings, which ultimately determines their vote -- a vote is always a hope for a better future -- but also they were hard set on one candidate and not the other, Trump in this case. Very few if anyone were on the edge: almost certainly whoever voted for Trump hated Hillary and the other way round. So then consider having a population nearing that of a small town with people very much emotionally invested in their vote. It would take a hell lot to change their minds and there was simply no room for it.
A better statistic might be how many people would have needed to stay home in disgust for Hillary to win, I'm guessing close to double that. But likewise all has been done to at least keep the disgusted voters at home so it would have been difficult to have kept those who did cast their vote in a hope for a better future from not doing so.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-02-20 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. From the conclusion of that article:

"The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all."
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by hey! · 2018-02-20 05:20 · Score: 1

Yes, turnout is where the big swings happen in a country where about 40% of the electorate sit out each election; it's not always the same 40%.
Rural turnout was a big factor in 2016, and this speaks to the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. Clinton, unlike her husband, wasn't good at projecting empathy to voters in rural districts ravaged by economic decline and the opioid crisis. Neither was Trump, but he was much better at projecting their *anger*.
This also shows why Russian meddling may have been quite effective. A lot of it is aimed at spreading disillusionment; it's primary anti-establishment. They favored Sanders in the Democratic primary.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by iMadeGhostzilla · 2018-02-20 05:45 · Score: 1

In a wider sense I agree with you, the race was razor thin and everything mattered, the whole world was really choosing Clinton or Trump, even foreigners posting their valid criticisms of one or the other on Facebook must have had an impact.
In some ways it was like the battle of Midway, the Japanese should have won but by some miracle the Americans did and that took history on a very different course.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Holi · 2018-02-20 06:02 · Score: 1

Would it have been that close if 11 days prior to the election the FBI had not published that letter to Congress?

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by hey! · 2018-02-20 06:04 · Score: 1

By the way I don't have any problem with Russians or anyone else weighing in on our election -- as long as they do it above board. If they can, as Russians, sway American opinions, more power to them. Pretending to be Americans, to the point of stealing American identities is a different matter.
Again let me reiterate, the goal of Russian efforts seem to have been to undermine Americans' faith in their own country. It's quite possible they had no *intent* of swaying the election, what they may have wanted to do is inflame opposition to a Clinton presidency. Russia has a complicated relationship to the west, because Russia is a country run by economic parasites. Those parasite need stable democratic countries as place to store the wealth they've looted from their own country. Russian oligarchs are behind the insane real estate prices in places like New York, London, Vancouver, and Miami.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by iMadeGhostzilla · 2018-02-20 06:28 · Score: 1

I don't disagree. Russia is another nation, and if one nation can take advantage of another to better itself, it will. In fairness that's what Americans also do to Russians and elsewhere. The Russians probably expected Clinton to win like everyone else and were working to create chaos, not that we weren't capable of it on our own. But at the end of the day, Russia is still quite weak and is continuously looking for ways to survive, whereas the US is at the peak of its power. This is why I find the whole Russian thing more like finding an excuse and a scapegoat rather than serious reflection on how to do things better.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by HornWumpus · 2018-02-20 06:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

You can't answer that question because you don't know the dirt that Hillary succeed in hiding.
I bet that keeping those emails on her private server was the right choice, given that she has skated so far.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by hey! · 2018-02-20 06:32 · Score: 1

As a numbers-oriented guy, it pains me to say this, but Clinton relied on the numbers *too* much.
All polls are adjusted by some kind of likely-voter model; all the "margin of error" figures you hear only take into account *random sampling* errors, not systematic ones. As useful as empirical numbers are, you have to keep in mind that they're only good as the assumptions under which they were collected.
This means that when Clinton got word of something happening that wasn't reflected in her internal polling, she should have taken it seriously rather than discounting it. It was incompetent, but in the opposite way that people are numerically incompetent. People usually trust their gut and discount hard data. But it's possible to trust hard data too much too.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by HornWumpus · 2018-02-20 06:56 · Score: 1

It was called: 'Correct the Record'. They never denied it was them.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by vell0cet · 2018-02-20 08:19 · Score: 1

Yes. Clinton was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign. I think Trump is also a terrible candidate and terrible president (not to mention a terrible human being)

Here is the issue that concerns me the most... People on left are banking on collusion with Russia on helping Trump win. Maybe they did. But they're not paying attention to HOW they affected the election. They didn't directly influence the election by meddling with election protocols, systems, etc. They did it by affecting the electorate. There are people out there who believe stupid shit like Pizzagate. If Trump is found guilty and impeached (both of which are long shots), those people will feel disenfranchised because they were still taken in by Russian disinformation. Showing them that what they believed was Russian propoganda will just make dig their heels in harder (see backfire effect).

So what the Russians did was far more effective than simply hacking a voting system and changing votes. They changed voters' minds. And the democrats are busy chasing their hail mary and not addressing the fact that even if the pass is completed, they've still lost the game.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 09:07 · Score: 1

Denied? They were bragging about it for months.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by grcumb · 2018-02-20 11:12 · Score: 1

Even 538, which is hilarious biased in favor of Clinton (they're one of the many sites that predicted her victory as a sure thing) ...
They did not. All you've done here is demonstrate your inability to understand statistical models.
On the day before the election, Fivethirtyeight said there was a roughly 2:1 chance that Hillary would win. That does not mean she's going to get 2/3 of the vote every time. It means that two times out of three, when they run this scenario, Hillary wins. Equally, and just as importantly, The Donald wins one time out of three. If you don't think those are betting odds, then you should never place a bet.
And guess what? The one out of three scenario is the one that happened.

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by penandpaper · 2018-02-20 13:37 · Score: 1

That's 78,000 strategically based voters -- not even 1/10 of 1% of the total US votes cast -- and the Electoral College would have gone the other way. ...So you can't rule out Russian meddling by citing Clinton's (unquestioned) weaknesses as a candidate. They could *both* have been decisive.

Part of the issue is that knowing the strategically relevant districts before the election would be near impossible. Everyone thought Clinton would win. Everyone was basing their opinion on the matter on polls that had systemic problems in properly counting certain demographics. Russian meddling to effect those key strategic districts (only known after the election) and demographics is akin to a shotgun having the exact spread to draw a like A Sunday on La Grande Jatte. Again as you say, Clinton overly relying on those numbers and disregarding any warning signs because she was swept away in the hype surrounding her campaign.
The Russians could have swung a few votes I can accept but I don't think near enough in the strategic districts to swing the election. There were other more dramatic events that would have had much more impact than anything the Russians could do with fake American identities. Such as Comey. Such as not campaigning in those states. Such as having a lot of political baggage in the year of the Outsider (Sanders/Trump).
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by nonBORG · 2018-02-20 14:35 · Score: 1

Sorry you can rule it out, poorly targeted at the wrong time and just too small a budget.
When Rob Goldman says it had no effect, lets just say he is in a better position to know than you (or me.)
Problem is that the media want to claim that there is something there but as we know from Peter Strzok there is no big there there. (quote was for slightly different thing but still.)

Given the amount of meddling the US do in other peoples elections this is nothing and even bothering the Russians about it is a waste of time, they don't care, they wont care. We need to learn from them on that.

There are plenty of people who will painstakingly nit pick over the past and then there are those that get on with the present. Time for the media to wake up and get on with the present.

Last thing is so what, it can never be proven (even if you can accept it is not disproven) so all that can happen is hypothetical discussion to no end.

--
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Millennium · 2018-02-20 14:51 · Score: 1

Ooh, someone's getting all pants-wetting mad here.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Type44Q · 2018-02-20 15:49 · Score: 1

actively
Gotta love it when people are so quick to redefine simple words.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Reverend+Green · 2018-02-20 17:36 · Score: 1

If pants wetting is a problem for you, maybe you should try Depends?
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Millennium · 2018-02-20 23:36 · Score: 1

Pee-Wee Herman called. He wants his retort back.
Seriously, you need to clean up your game. I suggest a shower; I hear your God-Emperor can get you a golden one.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Reverend+Green · 2018-02-21 12:11 · Score: 1

Hillaryist trolls sure do have a lot of weird sexual fantasies about Emperor Trump.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Millennium · 2018-02-21 12:43 · Score: 1

I was just talking about bathroom fixtures. The Guggenheim offered him a solid gold toilet, you know. I just figured he'd gotten interested in plumbing or something -reasonable enough hobby to have- and you know Trump and his love for decorative accents in 24 karats. Seemed a perfect match to me.
Why all this fuss? What, does a golden shower mean something else?
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Reverend+Green · 2018-02-21 12:49 · Score: 1

Hillaryist trolls sure do have a lot of weird, repressedly-sexual fantasies about Emperor Trump's bathroom equipment.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by Millennium · 2018-02-21 14:03 · Score: 1

Man, can't a guy talk about home furnishings anymore without it getting all political? Who pissed on your parade today?
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton by ABEND · 2018-02-22 09:22 · Score: 1

When you write "you haven't thought it through," you just underscore how little you've thought it through. Start with basic facts. The indictment is for fraud, identity theft, and working as an unregistered alien.
Flooding social media with "disinformation" is not a crime. It's not even a crime to use network news to spread propaganda. If these were crimes, you might be forced to read the facts and formulate your own opinion instead of parroting whatever "the box" tells you.

--
In all seriousness:

Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:08 · Score: 1

The special counsel has far more information about what happened [than] I do

This in a generalized form is something a lot of slashdotters need to accept before they post.

Re:Something to bear in mind by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the indictments:
"In or around late June 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the Facebook group "United Muslims of America" to promote a rally called "Support Hillary. Save American Muslims".
"Defendants and their co-conspirators, through another organization-controlled group, organized a rally in New York called
"Trump is NOT my President" held on or about November 12, 2016. Similarly, Defendants and their co-conspirators organized a rally entitled "Charlotte Against Trump" in Charlotte, North Carolina..."
They were trying to help Trump by supporting Progessive causes? Face it, they were just trying to create confusion and unrest - a trap you have fallen right into.
Re:Something to bear in mind by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 02:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The left has this entire narrative either muddled and wrong, or sometimes precisely backwards. And they're hanging onto their inverted interpretation of reality because they simply cannot accept what a horrible choice they made in a candidate, and how their general take on things has cost them a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and indirectly the Supreme Court. To say nothing of the millions of two-time Obama voters they ran off with their unhinged vitriol. Pointing out that their self-perception as the smartest people in the room is in danger because they've turned out to be not only total suckers for the Clinton Machine's manipulations but also shown themselves willing to be led around by the nose by Russian trolls is so painful that all they can do is sputter about how much a racist you probably are for pointing it out.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Something to bear in mind by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

They're too stupid to realize that THEY are the Russian's useful idiots in all of this.
Re:Something to bear in mind by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:33 · Score: 2

You're just using this as a crutch and the DNC Machine is happy for you too since you aren't holding them accountable for losing the most winnable election in a century. All rival countries have been doing this stuff for a long time, it didn't sway anything.
Re: Something to bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:44 · Score: 1

They did most of this AFTER the election. Maybe it's time for you to consider facts before you insult people.
Re:Something to bear in mind by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-20 02:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Also "Trump is not my President" is fake news. Well it is if you're American, I'm not, so it's true when I say it.
Mind you it reminds me of a line from an Ozzy Osbourne song

It's been confirmed that Ozzy Osbourne is not the Antichrist. We reached the Devil at his home in Las Vegas. When asked for a comment, Satan said, "No, he's not my boy. But I love him like a son!"

http://www.dailymotion.com/vid... 3m in
And now we find that "Trump is not my President" is something the Russians were pushing. Because their goal is to delegitimize the US political institutions. Also from Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements - extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
African American racists = BLM. Secessionist movements are like the one in California. The left have been the ones encouraging "ethnic, social and racial conflicts". And having Richard Spencer on the news all the time is supporting "extremist, racist, and sectarian groups" too. If the media ignored him he's be in a room with half a dozen people LARPing. The media have built him up as a boogeyman who has seems to have much more influence than he really does.
White Nationalist events struggle to fill a meeting room in a hotel and even then most of the people there are journalists and FBI agents. The Right Stuff organized an event in New York and ten people turned up. I could get more than that by just saying 'Anyone fancy a pint?' on social media.
President Trump said it best when he said
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri...

President Trump says, "it is more important than ever before to come together as Americans. We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful. It's time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions. We must unite as Americans to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections."
Quite right too. Americans need to reject false, Russian planted narratives that try to divide them based on race and ethnicity and ignore irrelevant fringe loonies like Spencer. And all come together and unite around America's institutions like the Presidency.
Trump will be out of office in two terms. It's not that long to wait.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Something to bear in mind by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 03:35 · Score: 1

Hey, look! The coward automatically loses the non-debate he's engaged in by once again stamping his little feet and dishing out lazy ad hominem without even once addressing the subject matter. Such a cute little fanboy you are.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Something to bear in mind by fredrated · 2018-02-20 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Two terms? My God, I hope you are wrong. Neither America nor the world can take two terms of this narcissistic sociopathic moron.
Re:Something to bear in mind by greythax · 2018-02-20 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think what they underestimated was the fact that the right will vote for anything that screams guns and abortion. Lets take a quick look at the things that we knew about your fantastic candidate at the time he was elected.
Never served in any form of governmental position.
Dodged the draft. No military history.
Long history of indictments and out of court settlements over corruption charges.
Known public association with mobsters.
So many bankruptcies that it was widely known he could not get a line of credit from U.S. banks.
Bragged on tv about selling a property to a "very nice" russian oligarch for 60 million profit. By the way, that house was never even seen by the oligarch in question and was later torn down.
Bragged about meetings with the "very top" of the russian administration on his trip to russia for the mrs. universe contest.
Had a fake university.
Gave press conferences surrounded by his friggin steaks.
Was caught on tape admitting to attempted affair, and bragged about pussygrabbing.
Can you blame us for assuming that the only reason to elect the least presidential human on earth, who's literal only public agenda was screaming "MAGA" and "Build the Wall!', was basically racist backlash to 8 years of a black president?
Re:Something to bear in mind by Quantum+gravity · 2018-02-20 06:09 · Score: 1

Russia was interfering in the US election for several reasons, and it is doing so in many European countries too. Here are some reasons.
1. Fuel discontent
2. Putin doesn't like the Clintons. Bill supported Yeltsin. Putin blames Hillary for starting protests against him 2011 and 2012.
3. To get Trump elected
Re:Something to bear in mind by HornWumpus · 2018-02-20 07:04 · Score: 1

Ds pivot left...two terms for Trump.
It's all setup, but the Ds don't have to be dumb as rocks, despite the long tradition.
One big problem is Hillary sucked all the oxygen from the Ds ecosystem for so long there are no viable candidates. If the Biden from the Onion was running he'd be their best choice, but he's a fictional character.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Something to bear in mind by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-20 09:50 · Score: 1

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Something to bear in mind by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 11:12 · Score: 1

Yes indeed, a cute little fanboy, desperate for interaction. I especially like the way you use "we."

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Something to bear in mind by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-20 11:45 · Score: 1

The interesting thing about Deep Fakes is that even if you had some horrific shit on video involving famous, people are going to argue that it's not real.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Something to bear in mind by aquacrayfish · 2018-02-21 04:37 · Score: 1

And all come together and unite around America's institutions like the Presidency.
Okay, let's make a deal - our President stops attack our institutions (press, federal law enforcement, courts, etc.) and we'll make a serious effort to back the institution of the Presidency.

Rightfully So... by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2018-02-20 02:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

He should have known better than to wade into a political debate. My guess is that he did know better, but wanted to curry favor with the Trump administration.

Re:Rightfully So... by RedK · 2018-02-20 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or you know, man wanted to tell the truth about get the facts out, and now he's being criticized because the truth doesn't align with the agenda one side wants to push.
People are being used as pawns and acting like tools, not even realising how they are being manipulated.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:Rightfully So... by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is telling the truth about when and how an insignificant number of Russian-bought pot-stirring social media ads were purchased "currying favor?"

If he'd remained silent and allowed the left to continue to mischaracterize the situation, THAT would have been an example of currying favor - with the politically liberal monoculture that runs his entire industry.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Rightfully So... by RedK · 2018-02-20 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your post is the definition of irony
If you think so, you're truly living in the post-fact world. The indictment and Rosenstein were clear. The data on the ads was clear. The post by the Facebook VP was clear. Unless you're implying he was lying and that the data is forged.
You are a Russian pawn at this point if you keep pushing for division and hate towards a dully elected President.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:Rightfully So... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 03:12 · Score: 1

Maybe we're talking about different presidents, but Trump ISN'T dull.
Re:Rightfully So... by AmiMoJo · 2018-02-20 04:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

So those Russian guys... Indited for interfering with the US election... In a public statement from Mueller's office... Fake news?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Rightfully So... by RedK · 2018-02-20 05:17 · Score: 1

So those Russian guys... Indited for interfering with the US election... In a public statement from Mueller's office... Fake news?
I suggest you actually read my post, and then read the indictment, and understand what is actually going on before attempting to push the "Russia!" narrative some more. These 13 guys were indicted over the data we were shown by Congress (Facebook Ads and tweets) and were already known information. The indictment isn't even about the Ads and tweets, so much as about the money transfers and identity theft that occurred behind them.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:Rightfully So... by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 05:30 · Score: 1

You are fake news and the Russian pawn they are so desperately seeking out. The public statement from Mueller's office was clear that no American knowingly colluded with them, their activities crossed the entire political spectrum and it had no effect on the outcome of the election.

Discord by randomErr · 2018-02-20 02:12 · Score: 1

The real goal or the Russian ads were not to sway the election. Either way the Russians were going to win. Hillary with the Uranium One deals and Trump with general of the cuff remarks. The ads were about discord. They wanted the Americans to be so angry and distracted so that Putin could get a strong foot hold with Iran and smaller former Russian state nations.

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?

The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by newdsfornerds · 2018-02-20 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

They didn't want Trump. They didn't want Clinton. They wanted discord and wow did they ever get it.

--
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.

Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by ScentCone · 2018-02-20 02:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

They didn't want Trump. They didn't want Clinton. They wanted discord and wow did they ever get it.
More importantly, they were sure (just like the Democrats, all of the media, most of the pollsters, and pretty much every foreign government) that Clinton was going to win. Their modest pot-stirring prior to the election was simply meant to chip away at any wider national support behind her when she took office, making it harder for the US to act cohesively against Russian shenanigans elsewhere in the world. When she lost, the troll operation simply realigned itself towards trying to stir up liberal haters against the incoming Trump administration.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by taskiss · 2018-02-20 02:33 · Score: 1

They didn't get it, we gave it to them.

--
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by RedK · 2018-02-20 02:49 · Score: 1

Sometimes I wonder about the chicken and the egg. Was it progressivism's pathology that came first, or was it actors interested in sowing internal discord in US that actively promote it, such as Russia and Qatar that started it? At least with Russia, it increasingly seems that their expertise lies with exploiting already existing weaknesses, not creating entirely new ones (see - geopolitics of Russia).
Yuri Bezmenov. Was he a crazy old man after all ?

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 03:38 · Score: 1

I think that if the Democrats keep pushing the issue, that will end up getting Trump elected twice.
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by houghi · 2018-02-20 05:30 · Score: 1

I also believe that many people did not vote for Trump, but against established politics. I have seen it in several countries. In Belgium they are called "Protest votes" and can stirr up a storm. Most of the time, due to the multi party system, they will get a few seats in goivernement and will trow a tantrum.
It is a way for other parties to realize something is wrong and adapt their policies. Not as extreme as the protest party wants, but enough to make a difference. The most famous party recently would be the Pirate Party.
Obviously success differs form time to time. Some grow into a serious party, like the green parties in Germany, others will disapear.
You could see it as a sort of political valve. As there was nowhere to let steam go in the minds of enough, they voted knowing they indirectly voted for Trump. So who else should they have voted for?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won by Luckyo · 2018-02-20 05:34 · Score: 1

He had a clear cut motivation to overstate the problem. And history showed that in many cases, he clearly did.

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by plague911 · 2018-02-20 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

You are incorrect. That is not what the indictment said at all. Are you illiterate or intentionally misrepresenting the situation? Sadly both are believable for you Trumpers.

https://www.motherjones.com/po...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/1...

"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by RedK · 2018-02-20 02:22 · Score: 1, Troll

So when someone goes up to you and asks you for something and you say "No", you're being used ?

Really stretching that narrative, careful it doesn't break.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Mother Jones? Why not just read the indictment itself? It says EXACTLY what I said it does: https://www.justice.gov/file/1...

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 02:25 · Score: 1

"Unwitting". What does that word mean to you?

Russians won't go to trial by Kohath · 2018-02-20 02:27 · Score: 4, Informative

I predict the case about the Russians won't go to trial. It's an easy prediction because 97% of Federal charges are plea bargained.

They weren't even charged with "meddling" in the US Election(52 U.S.C. 30121), they were charged with conspiracy to defraud the US (18 U.S.C. 371) and some paperwork fraud. The feds will be eager to avoid a trial on the conspiracy to defraud charge because its weak. The defendants will plead to the paperwork stuff because that's easy to prove.

Facebook likes to pretend to do the right thing while always seeming to find a bunch of new wrong things to do instead. No doubt the next election will have similar ads with funding sources disguised enough to provide Facebook with deniability. The press won't care unless their candidate loses again.

Yes, there was Russian Collusion by Orne · 2018-02-20 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative

First, sorry for this guy getting smacked for going off message. He should have known that Facebook Ad campaigns are serious money makers for FB and Twitter, and the business of "selling influence for cash" is what keeps social media alive. If we admit that a single Russian company of maybe 90 employees can sway a US election, well, then EVERYONE will want to buy more FB ad campaigns so THEY can sway the next election.

Second, it's about time that we admit that the Democrafts colluded with the Russians to sway the election against Trump. It was the DNC that paid Perkins Coie, as a shell company to pay Fusion GPS (ex-CIA opposition researchers), who contracted Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr to complete the "dossier". Nellie Ohr (member of the CIA Open Source Group) worked with Christopher Steele (ex-MI6 Orbis Ltd) to procure information from Russian diplomats to form the "dossier", then fed that information back through her husband Brian Ohr (DOJ) to the FBI. It was the FBI that used the "dossier" to open the FISA 702 Title 1 on Carter Page (former FBI informant against Russia Gazprom), and it was the Clinton-allied team in the FBI that spied on the Trump campaign headquarters. and we're only beginning to find out now how they used that information. That is the group that used Russian mis-information to try to sway the election, broke dozens of laws, and frankly should be in jail already.

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-20 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative

"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

So the Russians didn't tell the 'unwitting individuals' they were Russians. That's not collusion. Collusion would require the Trump Campaign staffers knew they were dealing with Russians. The indictment makes it clear they did not,

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

This is bleeping ridiculous by jbmartin6 · 2018-02-20 02:33 · Score: 3, Informative

First, his statement was correct that many of the ads were bought AFTER the election. Simple logic suggests they were not aimed at affecting the election in those cases. Second, his statement does not contradict the indictment, which note multiple goals for the Russian actors, one of which was simply "sowing discord".

How long until everyone learns to ignore the Internet ignoramus mob?

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.

A whole lot of nothing by Virtucon · 2018-02-20 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

This whole "Russian Interference" paranoia is nothing new. The platforms have changed from Radio Free Europe/Voice of America to NGOs and Social Media. They do it to us, we do it to them and it's extremely cheap to do it because of social media. Take out an ad, program a few bots.. you have a disinformation campaign. The fact that this was overblown into the need for a special prosecutor is that we have a government run by idiots who were raised by TV programs and not by parents. Our new so-called leaders are caught up in endless tirades looking for anything that'll get them that 2 minute soundbite on the news but screw that, there's social media which greatly democratizes anyone's opinion no matter how ridiculous it is. Shit, 90% or more of what news puts out there is now social media generated or comes from so called journalists. Hey podcaster, blogger out there. Journalism, real journalism requires that you investigate, question and then publish not publish and hope it sticks.

Yes, I'm an older American and the way our political system, our FBI, our DOJ, Congress, the WH and especially traditional media, all of it has been thoroughly adolescent and they all need to grow the fuck up. Our peaceful transition of government has now been forever affected because regardless of what party wins or who gets to sit in the WH, the other side will resort to crybaby, seditious tactics to get their way. Instead of being constructive and working on finding common ground we're all about lunatic has-been comedians holding up beheaded effigies for shock value.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

You are correct by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

1. Failed to register as foreign agent
2. Attempted to affect a US election
3. Failed to report to the FEC who paid them to influence the US election

That is why the Russians were indicted, also shows how corrupt Muller is... Because...

Chris Steele did all of the above to a MUCH greater degree. Muller is pointing out $1.2 million total in multiple countries, about $3000 total per swing state in FB ads. Steele dossier was about $13 million, paid by a campaign that failed to report to the FEC, and used a law firm to attempt to hide what they were doing, showing intention to break FEC laws.

Worse is Muller's buddy Comey ALSO paid Steele and failed to report it to the FEC, then used what he called "unverified" information in a FISA court where under oath he testified it was factual.

If Muller were truly interested in looking for Russia Collusion, he has a long list of targets, some of which I have heard audio recordings of them colluding.
State Dept
DOJ
FBI
Comey
Adam Schiff (D) Senate
Mark Warner (D) Senate
Hillary Clinton
Chris Steele

It appears just about everyone in DC other than Trump was colluding with Russia, but Muller is refusing to look at anyone else other than Trump. He is a disgrace.

Done with FB by DogDude · 2018-02-20 02:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Our company has decided not to advertise on Facebook any more. It's not an organization that we want to give money to.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

"meddling"? by cascadingstylesheet · 2018-02-20 02:43 · Score: 1

Seriously, does the relevant law (if there even is one ... law, we don't need no steenking law!) actually say "meddling"?

"And it would have worked, too, if it weren't for you meddling Russian kids!" - Scooby Hillary

Re:"meddling"? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

Seriously, does the relevant law (if there even is one ... law, we don't need no steenking law!) actually say "meddling"?
Of course not. (In fact, they're not even charged with anything that involves the election. The relevant laws would involve foreigners spending money as if they were a political campaign, and they aren't being charged with any of them. Instead the charges involve wire fraud, somehow.) It's part of the slow shrinking of accusations.
If you remember, just after the election, it was that Russia "hacked" the election. Then somehow that became Russia "hacked" social media. Did we say "hacked"? We meant that they colluded with Trump. Did we say colluded? Sorry, we mean they influenced the election with mass trolling campaigns. Did we say mass trolling campaigns? Sorry, we meant they bought a few Facebook ads. Did we say they bought a few Facebook ads? We meant they posted a few posts with election hashtags in them to meddle with the election.
They're slowly deflating the accusations to hope no one notices they've gone from "directly hacked voting machines to change the outcome" to "posted a bunch of memes."

Tweeted? by 110010001000 · 2018-02-20 02:46 · Score: 2

Why is an executive at Facebook using Twitter?

Re:Tweeted? by Virtucon · 2018-02-20 04:48 · Score: 1

"Opposition Research."

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by nospam007 · 2018-02-20 02:46 · Score: 1

"being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant."

And that goes for half the country.

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

"being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant."

And that goes for half the country.

There is a half of the country that is doing exactly what the Russians wanted, and that is be mad at the other half and not be behind the president. That's exactly what they wanted, a weakened president. They just thought it would be Hillary. Doesn't really matter to them as long as the country is divided.

Re:Contradicted the indictment ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 03:03 · Score: 1

the goal of the operation was not to sway politics to one side in particular, but rather to divide

False. Directly from the indictment itself (Introduction section, item #6):

Defendants posted derogatory information
about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included
supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and
disparaging Hillary Clinton. [emphasis added]

That's pretty clear, right? Perhaps you meant:

I need to Stop making stuff up and selectively reading things.

I really do not get why so many people are so desperate to claim that the Russians were not trying to help Trump. The fact that it was their goal doesn't prove Trump or his campaign were directly involved. Of course, it does mean that that possibility should be thoroughly investigated. Maybe that's what you're against? Because you might find out something you don't want to know? That seems very weak-minded to me.

Politically tonedeaf by thunderclees · 2018-02-20 03:04 · Score: 1

What does not often get a lot of discussion is that if you are reliant on someone can be persuaded by an ad on social media maybe there is a problem with your platform?

America was divided... by oh_my_080980980 · 2018-02-20 03:07 · Score: 1

Between the haves and have-nots...might want to remember that when someone taking brides from wall street says they're not bought...

Re:Contradicted the indictment ? by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 03:18 · Score: 1, Troll

They were throwing money at anything that would create discord. Why is that so hard to understand? From funding BlackLivesMatter, to Bernie, to Jill Stein, etc... Stop being a Russian pawn.

UPDATE NEW! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 03:27 · Score: 1

Looks like Muller is indicting a lawyer today. You will never guess what for....

DELETING EMAILS THAT WERE SUBPOENAED!

WTF? I guess deleting a few emails that were subpoenaed is illegal, but you delete 30,000+ subpoenaed emails and not a peep?
DC needs to be burned to the ground if this is how they think it is proper to act.

Re:UPDATE NEW! by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 03:43 · Score: 1

The events he lied about occurred in 2012. Odd the date isn't appearing in any of the headlines about it.

Squirm, Trumpkins, Squirm! by GameboyRMH · 2018-02-20 03:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

LOL your god-emperor is guilty as sin and it's just so hilarious to watch you all squirm as law enforcement slowly but surely closes in on him. The hypocrisy is staggering. Can you imagine if anyone on Team Blue had done anything remotely like Donald Jr's bald-faced influence-peddling in India? Just look at how they flipped their lids at the Clintons' charity foundations.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Squirm, Trumpkins, Squirm! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 04:14 · Score: 1

They just hate liberals. They don't actually care about what Trump says or does. Bitter people unhappy with their lives lashing out on those moving forward and prospering.

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Kohath · 2018-02-20 03:31 · Score: 1

"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.

"Unwitting individuals" are distinctly not conspirators. Attempts to "seek to coordinate political activities" isn't coordinating political activities. Being contacted and answering is not being "a participant".

Re:Americans are stupid. by GameboyRMH · 2018-02-20 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

The rest of the world should care. Putin is willing to use his propaganda capabilities to tear apart any and every Western democracy from the inside if he thinks it could buy him even a tiny morsel of regime survival. Forget Kim Jong-Un, Putin is the #1 threat to free societies across the world right now.

Turns out that Mitt Romney was only wrong about the nature of the threat Russia poses, not the magnitude. It's a threat that needs to be fought with improved education and regulation of advertisements rather than battleships from Romney's pal...but I sure wouldn't complain about some propaganda return-fire aimed at ousting Putin and his cronies.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

The only good Russian by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 04:18 · Score: 1

Is a dead Russian. They were never the US's friends

I apologize by DCFusor · 2018-02-20 04:21 · Score: 2

Because the people in charge of controlling the narrative got to me and what I said wasn't their line: https://phys.org/news/2011-10-...

Please don't send me to gitmo for revealing this has all been a farce.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by greythax · 2018-02-20 04:43 · Score: 1

And would be almost impossible to prove short of a recording or multiple witnesses. However, this is ultimately going to be less about "collusion" (otherwise known as conspiracy) and more about Obstruction of Justice, which the president basically admitted to on national tv.

Re:Contradicted the indictment ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 04:54 · Score: 2

Stop being a Russian pawn.

Once again, you've left off the key phrase.

I should Stop being a Russian pawn.

FTFY. Or, keep ignoring the very clear finding from the indictment: "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton." So they were doing other things, as well? Great. But the fact is, they were for Trump. Sorry if that gives you bad feelings, snowflake. But that's the way it is.

Technically true, but... by Millennium · 2018-02-20 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to the most recent public intelligence, this assertion is technically true as far as it goes. The goal was to call the election's legitimacy into question and undermine the Hillary presidency that basically everyone thought was inevitable. The Russians got half their wish: they did indeed call the legitimacy of the election into question. The Trump victory was an accident: unanticipated, unintended, and frankly undesired (because they spent all this effort to delegitimize an enemy, but wound up delegitimizing an asset instead).

And if you think about it, Trump's collusion with the Russians makes more sense in this light. It is a very poorly kept secret that Trump didn't want to win: he got into the election for the lulz, but didn't want the responsibility. He had no reason to collude with people who wanted him to win, because that wasn't his goal. But undermining a seemingly inevitable Hillary presidency? That's something Trump would be 100% on board for. This brings the goals of Trump and the Russians into alignment, and then collusion makes sense again.

It has another effect, too. If we look at the goals in this way, Trump wasn't a mere colluder, giving aid and comfort to someone who might or might not qualify as an "enemy" depending on legal definitions. These circumstances would make him an active participant in the operations: a centerpiece of the psyops that went along with the hacking and fake news. That means he personally committed acts of war against the US, which is treason whether or not the people helping you count as an "enemy" for legal purposes.

In other words, sure; the fake news and meddling wasn't architected to help Trump win. This is actually worse for Trump than if they had been, because it leads to a more solid argument for a treason charge: one that doesn't let him hide behind technicalities.

Re: Technically true, but... by Millennium · 2018-02-20 06:45 · Score: 1

One, two, Mueller's coming for you...
Re:Technically true, but... by Solandri · 2018-02-20 07:07 · Score: 1

Interesting line of reasoning. Unfortunately, proving it relies on proving this:

It is a very poorly kept secret that Trump didn't want to win: he got into the election for the lulz, but didn't want the responsibility.
Which would actually be harder to prove than any sort of conspiracy, since now you're talking about motivations which resided entirely inside someone's head.
Re:Technically true, but... by doom · 2018-02-20 10:58 · Score: 1

Some of the low digit accounts were auctioned off some time back. The shills are trying harder to not look like shills these days.
What I'm looking forward to out of this mess is the conclusion that we need to start using real, traceable back to meat-space IDs or else any enemy of the United States (Russian, China, Kock Brothers, etc) will be jamming the internet with unreliable garbage.
Another thing that'd be cool is the realization that as-supported sites are a bust, and in fact maybe for profit sites are pretty useless, and we all switch over to the non-profit model.
Re: Technically true, but... by Millennium · 2018-02-20 12:07 · Score: 1

No one to the left of Orrin Hatch would ever mistake me for a leftist. On some issues, I'm probably further right than you. I just happen to also be a decent human being.
Truth be told, I objected to the treason charge before this latest development. Too much fuzziness on the definition of an "enemy", and thus too much chance of Trump slithering away on a technicality. I'd have preferred to see the Espionage Act used to charge him instead: same punishments, less legalese. But this angle on the T-word could very well work.

This is mud by Kludge · 2018-02-20 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

You are obviously trying to conflate very different things.
The indicted Russian agents were acting on the behest and funding of Putin.
Steele was being paid by the Republican and Democratic (US) parties to perform his research. He was being paid, not the other way. That does not require FEC reporting.

How is the weather in St. Petersburg, by the way?

Re:This is mud by Straif · 2018-02-20 07:33 · Score: 2

1) Except for relations between the supposed Oligarch funding the troll farm and Putin (which has relationships with all Russian Oligarchs) there is no actual accusation of Russian Government involvement with this group. As with all things Russian I'm sure Putin had some knowledge of it but he didn't apparently use government resources to run it.
2) Steele never worked for the Republicans or Republican leaning groups. His stint at Fusion started several months after the original Free Beacon contract had ended and about a month or two after the Hillary/DNC contract started.
3) Steele probably is off the hook with the whole foreign agent thing though I do wonder about all the Illegal Immigrations rights groups who actively run ads and organize rallies with admitted foreign nationals during campaign season. Or for that matter the group of British citizens who organized with the Hillary campaign to fly over and do door to door campaigning. If Russians trolling people on Facebook is such a threat to American democracy then why aren't those other people under arrest too? Their involvement was much more direct. It's also easier to find them since they actually posted pictures of themselves partaking in those 'illegal' activities.
Face it, this whole thing was completely oversold by the Dems and the media and now they are reaching for straws looking for someone to charge.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Re:This is mud by aquacrayfish · 2018-02-21 04:31 · Score: 1

Face it, this whole thing was completely oversold by the Dems and the media and now they are reaching for straws looking for someone to charge.
So Mueller is a Democrat now, is that your point? Or is it the person who appointed him, Rosenstein?
Re:This is mud by Straif · 2018-02-21 04:55 · Score: 1

It isn't about Mueller being a Dem or Rep, he's a special council and historically they tend to expand way beyond their actual initial reason for being. They basically keep going until they find something to try and justify their existence. That's why almost all the named indictments from the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with the 2016 election and it's why Ken Starr is best known for catching Clinton committing perjury.
Mueller is just doing his job but the fault lies in the job of special council itself. It's a government job that has effectively no limits put on it so it tends to run wild. The Dems and Media however want to keep this whole thing going to get their 'blue dress' moment. It doesn't matter to them if the initial charges seem to have almost no basis in reality, they are just waiting for something to come out of the run away train of an investigation that they can pin on Trump.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Re:This is mud by Straif · 2018-02-21 05:08 · Score: 1

1) Russian Oligarch story
2) Free Beacon/Fusion/Steel Timelines I'd suggest clicking on some of the "read more" links for better breakdown of each groups involvement.
3) British volunteers working with Hillary campaign.
These were not necessarily my original sources, just ones at the top of the Google results.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Re:This is mud by aquacrayfish · 2018-02-21 05:51 · Score: 1

The council was brought in to look for Russian interference in the election. While elected Democrats might be primary rooting for a collusion charge, I certainly don't have any expectations on that.
To date, we have people charged with (1) lying to investigators about their knowledge/involvement and (2) interference from Russian nationals. Maybe they'll go off track, but so far all charges are pretty darn relevant. And the fact alone that the key players being investigated keep changing their stories means there's more to come.
And as far as the media goes, they're just looking for the next story to sensationalize. Political slant simply comes from what company owns them. Paying attention to any of them is IMHO a waste of time.

Re:He wasn't unwitting by Curunir_wolf · 2018-02-20 06:01 · Score: 1

He hasn't even touched the hacking yet.

You mean "leak"

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:Summary is incorrect, again by Curunir_wolf · 2018-02-20 06:03 · Score: 2

"being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant."

And that goes for half the country.

There is a half of the country that is doing exactly what the Russians wanted, and that is be mad at the other half and not be behind the president. That's exactly what they wanted, a weakened president. They just thought it would be Hillary. Doesn't really matter to them as long as the country is divided.

They are in Moscow laughing their asses off.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Why is this guy tweeting at all by edi_guy · 2018-02-20 06:17 · Score: 2

The narcissism around Twitter and basically all social media is astounding. Every Tom, Dick, and Stacy thinks they are Elon Musk and changing the world because they have 5000 likes from ad-bots. Under what reason would any company let individuals tweet on their behalf about anything ever. And so-called executives, which based on their salary, should know better do it anyway until they eventually pull a 'Goldman.'

Wired summed it up best:

"At its core, Goldman’s mistake was a familiar one for Silicon Valley: An executive really smart at one thing seemed to think he was really smart at another thing. " --Wired 2/19/2018

Re:He wasn't unwitting by Train0987 · 2018-02-20 07:00 · Score: 1

There is ZERO evidence of any hacking. ZERO.

Re:Contradicted the indictment ? by HornWumpus · 2018-02-20 07:07 · Score: 1

What does the word 'included' mean to you? Look it up moron.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:New political consultants by Straif · 2018-02-20 07:45 · Score: 1

The million dollars was the monthly operating cost of the troll farm. The US wasn't even their main target for most of their work. From Facebook and other sources the actual money spend on ads was between 45k and 100k in total. Compare that to about 81 million spent by Trump/Hillary on their online ads.

And just to add insult to injury, most of that was spent after the election and the pre-election ads were run in the wrong places. DC and other completely Dem enclaves got the most attention (places the ads made less than 0 difference) while actual battleground areas just got a couple thousand in ads. Even their most successful rally (since most others only had single digit turnouts) was actually an anti-Trump rally after the election which had all the usual suspects in attendance (with Michael Moore front and center).

It doesn't appear this trolling ever had anything to do with the election, just try to stir stuff up so they picked the easiest places to get people to make a fuss.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Better than Bitcoin by captbollocks · 2018-02-20 08:17 · Score: 1

Judging by how much Americans are chasing each other's and their own tails, I bet the ROI on this ad campaign far exceeded the profit that was made from bitcoin even if you bought them in 2012.

Maybe the FSB or GRU can sell the CIA the compleat idiots guide on how to interfere in a foreign election without spending a fortune like the CIA usually does.

Re: Summary is incorrect, again by Reverend+Green · 2018-02-20 18:01 · Score: 1

Feed the Gulag!

If you don't see retraction as a problem ... by fygment · 2018-02-21 01:26 · Score: 1

... then you have lost sight of reality. This has to be one of the most blatant examples of public censorship. And the forces behind it have clearly revealed their degree of intolerance and ruthlessness. People should be frightened by this. If you are gloating then you are part of the problem. If you are shocked then you then welcome to a reality you should be very afraid of.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

Re:New political consultants by Straif · 2018-02-21 05:19 · Score: 1

Google is your friend.
Not my original source just the 3rd result when searching for "Russian troll farm funding". A very informative article on the Troll farm including interviews with people who worked there. This was an up to 400 person operation with just 13 people indicted on poking their noses into the US election.

Essentially it was just a pro-Putin organization that like to stick their noses into everything but as the article notes:

Most of the operation focused on the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia, not political races in the West

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook VP of Ads Criticised For Tweeting that Russian-bought Ads Had Not Been Designed to Sway the US Election (bbc.com)

125 of 263 comments (clear)