29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 13 Jan, 2023 03:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The UK nor England are on the globe??
Mame
 
  3  
Fri 13 Jan, 2023 04:19 pm
@Lash,
He said they don't REPRESENT the globe. Read it again.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 13 Jan, 2023 10:37 pm
@Lash,
What Mame said.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 04:40 am
So sorry. LOL. Really, if this is what you’re reduced to, Walter, perhaps you should find another hobby.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 05:01 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Really, if this is what you’re reduced to, Walter, perhaps you should find another hobby.
Geography actually isn't my hobby, but as a former navy navigation officer I still do know a bit about it.
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 05:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
No. You failed the basic preliminary questions.
You did qualify however for the job of US news writer. The FBI will complete your application.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 09:09 am
Ah. Clean air.

https://jacobin.com/2023/01/hillary-clinton-russian-bots-2016-presidential-election-trump

It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election

BY
LUKE SAVAGE

A new study of Russia-based Twitter posts by New York University researchers buries the liberal canard that Russian bots played any significant role in swinging the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

Amid the generalized media crack-up that surrounded the 2016 presidential election, the bogeyman of “Russian bots” quickly became a load-bearing concept. A Russia-based social media campaign, or so it was said, had saturated sites like Twitter with fake accounts and, in doing so, helped to swing the election for Donald Trump. Becoming axiomatic in liberal circles, this story soon took on a life of its own. It’s since played a prominent role in mainstream media narratives of the 2016 election, been the subject of highly publicized congressional hearings, and also loomed large in the wider global discourse about “fake news.”

That the Russian government preferred Trump to Hillary Clinton and that Russia-connected actors engaged in digital skulduggery related to the election are not really in dispute. Much of the mainstream discussion around Russian bots, however, has been premised on unexamined assumptions about the scale and effectiveness of these efforts. Powerful states including the United States, after all, regularly engage in the likes of online propaganda and sock-puppeting campaigns. Whether they have a more than negligible impact on real world events, electoral and otherwise, is another question.

It’s notable, then, that a new analysis published by the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University finds no evidence whatsoever that Russia-based Twitter disinformation had any meaningful impact on voter behavior in 2016. In place of the terrifying bot army menace that’s periodically been invoked, the researchers instead detail an enterprise with minimal reach or influence, and one overwhelmingly concentrated among partisan Republicans already inclined to vote for Trump.

They estimate that as many as thirty-two million US Twitter users may have been “exposed” to tweets from Russia-aligned accounts over the eight-month period preceding the 2016 election.” In numerical terms that may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t when you factor in the sheer volume of posts and information encountered by social media users on a daily basis. As the report puts it:

While, on average, respondents were exposed to roughly 4 posts from Russian foreign influence accounts per day in the last month of the election campaign, they were exposed to an average of 106 posts on average per day from national news media and 35 posts per day from US politicians. In other words, respondents were exposed to 25 times more posts from national news media and 9 times as many posts from politicians than those from Russian foreign influence accounts.

Sheer exposure, of course, doesn’t even necessarily amount to influence. Like advertising, politically motivated content can functionally be background noise if it fails to reach particular audiences or in turn doesn’t have an impact on those that it does. In both respects, the study is quite unequivocal: not only were Russian Twitter efforts dwarfed by posts from media and politicians, but actual exposure to them was highly concentrated within a subset of partisan conservatives:

Results . . . show that the amount of exposure depends substantially on users’ self-identified partisanship: those who identify as “Strong Republicans” were exposed to roughly nine times as many posts from Russian foreign influence accounts than were those who identify as Democrats or Independents.
Even then, in fact, it was unlikely to produce changes in attitude or behavior. As the researchers conclude:

We did not detect any meaningful relationships between exposure to posts from Russian foreign influence accounts and changes in respondents’ attitudes on the issues, political polarization, or voting behavior.

While there are, as the study’s authors hasten to note, some limits to the analysis (it’s confined to Twitter posts as opposed to other kinds of media content or posts on other networks) it nonetheless offers persuasive evidence that the “Russian bots” narrative of the 2016 election has greatly overstated the impact of Russia-based social media efforts on the outcome. The result has been an account of 2016 sometimes quite unmoored from reality, wherein what was in practice a relatively impotent operation has elicited a torrent of angst-ridden and often frenzied media coverage.

If the Russian bots story gained momentum without having much of an empirical foundation, one reason is that it offered traumatized liberals a tidy and straightforward explanation for an outcome they had spent the preceding year believing was impossible. Sinister as the idea might be, a foreign campaign of digital sorcery was always going to be a neater culprit than the litany of institutional and political failures that actually enabled Donald Trump to become president.

In a different kind of world, November 2016 might have inspired some actual introspection on the part of those implicated in said failures. Instead, it became an occasion for hyperbolic and often flimsy partisan narratives that rather conveniently avoided asking the necessary questions — and in turn let the triangulating ideology of Clintonite liberalism off the hook.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 09:22 am
What lost the election was an archaic, intrinsically corrupt system that does not always give the presidncy to the winner of the popular vote.

Russian tried to interfere in the election but Trump was too stupid to collude.

Not as stupid as his supporters who keep posting nonsense about the election.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 09:41 am
Quote:
A Russia-based social media campaign, or so it was said, had saturated sites like Twitter with fake accounts and, in doing so, helped to swing the election for Donald Trump.

Well, that's a relief! Whatever other effects the Russian troll farms might have amplified, they didn't affect the vote so, hey, no harm done, nothing to see here...
Quote:

Results . . . show that the amount of exposure depends substantially on users’ self-identified partisanship: those who identify as “Strong Republicans” were exposed to roughly nine times as many posts from Russian foreign influence accounts than were those who identify as Democrats or Independents.

And this is the demographic least likely to have changed their vote because they'd already made up their minds to oppose Hillary.

Does anyone really think that these kinds of ads would persuade a thoughtful Democrat to support Trump?

There was justifiable outrage at the level of Russian meddling. As there should be when the USA attempts to undermine trust in the electoral process in other countries.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 12:35 pm
RussiaGate was a hoax.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 02:51 pm
https://beckernews.com/george-soros-revealed-as-player-behind-twitter-operation-to-shut-down-hunter-biden-laptop-story-48271/

George Soros Revealed as Player Behind Twitter Operation to Shut Down Hunter Biden Laptop Story

First Draft News, a now-defunct nonprofit that left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations funded, played a key role in Twitter’s preparation to shut down the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, according to internal documents published by author Michael Shellenberger as part of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files.”

The Aspen Institute hosted a September 2020 training exercise for members of the media and social media leaders regarding the handling of hypothetical data leaks which were similar to the Hunter Biden laptop report that broke in October, according to Shellenberger. Claire Wardle, former executive director and co-founder of First Draft News, appeared to be an attendee of the exercise, according to an email published by Shellenberger.

The address that apparently belonged to Wardle was one of multiple recipients in an email to top national security reporters, Facebook’s head of security policy and others, according to Shellenberger. The Open Society Foundations, which left-wing megadonor Soros chairs, once funded First Draft News. The organization shut down in June.
————————

More disgusting facts and links to primary docs at the link.
hightor
 
  1  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 03:31 pm
Quote:
More disgusting facts and links to primary docs at the link.

Yeah, no doubt:
Quote:
Overall, we rate Becker News far-right biased and questionable based on the use of poor sources, the promotion of right-wing propaganda and conspiracies, and frequent publication of misleading and false information.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 04:38 pm
Just because you hide from reality doesn’t mean you’ve changed it

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/06/09/fbi_chief_comey_misled_congresss_gang_of_8_over_russiagate_lisa_page_memo_reveals_836434.html

FBI Chief Comey Misled Congress’s 'Gang of 8' Over Russiagate, Lisa Page Memo Reveals

Above, Lisa Page, as an FBI lawyer in 2017, wrote "talking points" for Director James Comey ahead of a briefing to Congress -- a memo now exposed for its deceptions. Her lawyer at right, Amy Jeffress, is the wife of the judge for the trial of recently acquitted ex-Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The FBI deceived the House, Senate and the Justice Department about the substance and strength of evidence undergirding its counterintelligence investigation of President Trump, according to a recently declassified document and other material.

A seven-page internal FBI memo dated March 8, 2017, shows that "talking points" prepared for then-FBI Director James Comey for his meeting the next day with the congressional leadership were riddled with half-truths, outright falsehoods, and critical omissions. Both the Senate and the House opened investigations and held hearings based in part on the misrepresentations made in those FBI briefings, one of which was held in the Senate that morning and the other in the House later that afternoon. RealClearInvestigations reached out to every member of the leadership, sometimes known as the "Gang of Eight." Some declined to comment, while others did not respond to queries.

The talking points were prepared by Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer who later resigned from the bureau amid accusations of anti-Trump bias, and were used by Comey in his meeting with Hill leaders. They described reports the FBI received in 2016 from "a former FBI CHS," or confidential human source, about former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page) allegedly conspiring with the Kremlin to hack the election.

Quoting from the reports, Comey told congressional leaders that the unidentified informant told the FBI that Manafort "initially 'managed' the relationship between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign, using Carter Page as an intermediary." He also told them that "Page was reported to have had 'secret meetings' in early July 2016 with a named individual in Russia's presidential administration during which they discussed Russia's release of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in exchange for alterations to the GOP platform regarding U.S. policy towards Ukraine."

But previous FBI interviews with Carter Page and other key sources indicated that none of that was true – and the FBI knew it at the time of the congressional briefings.

The Lisa Page memo anticipated concerns about the quality of information Comey was relaying to Congress and suggested he preempt any concerns with another untruth. The memo advised Comey to tell lawmakers that "some" of the reporting "has been corroborated," and to point out that the informant's "reporting in this matter is derived primarily from a Russian-based source," which made it sound more credible.

By this point, however, the FBI knew that the main source feeding unsubstantiated rumors to the informant, Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to dig up dirt on Trump, was American-based.

The FBI first interviewed that source – a Russian national named Igor Danchenko who was living in the U.S. and had worked at the Brookings Institution – in January 2017. Danchenko had told them that the anti-Trump dirt he funneled to Steele was dubious hearsay passed along over drinks with his high school buddies and an old girlfriend named Olga Galkina, who had made up the accusations about Carter Page and Manafort that the FBI relayed to Congress.

Danchenko is now under criminal indictment in Special Counsel John Durham's ongoing investigation for lying about the sourcing for his information. The source to whom he attributed spurious charges against Trump – including his being compromised by a sex tape held by the Kremlin – was a fabrication, according to the indictment. He never spoke with the person as he claimed. Another source turned out to be a longtime Hillary Clinton campaign adviser.

The FBI did not tell the Gang of Eight that Danchenko was working for Steele and did not really have any sources inside the Kremlin, according to the script prepared for Comey, which was recently declassified as part of pre-trial discovery in Special Counsel John Durham's probe. The FBI also concealed Steele's identity and the fact he was working for the Clinton campaign.

Crowning' Deception

Adding to the deception, Comey referred to the unnamed informant by the codename "CROWN," making it appear as if Steele's dossier was a product of British intelligence, although Steele had not worked for the British government for several years and was reporting entirely in a private capacity. According to the talking-points memo, Comey also withheld from Congress the fact that Steele had been fired by the FBI for leaking information to the media. Instead of sharing that critical information about his reliability and credibility – to say nothing of his political and financial motivations – Comey hid the truth about his star informant from the nation's top lawmakers.

"If asked about CROWN/Steele" during the briefing, the memo anticipated, Comey was to tell lawmakers only that "CROWN, a former FBI CHS, is a former friendly foreign intelligence service employee who reported for about three years, and some of whose reporting has been corroborated."

Meanwhile, FBI headquarters officials were duping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in similar fashion in order to continue to obtain warrants to spy on Carter Page. They led judges on the secret surveillance court to believe Danchenko was "Russian-based" – and therefore presumably more credible.

The official in charge of vetting the Steele dossier at the time – and interviewing him and his primary source Danchenko to corroborate their allegations – was FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten. By March 2017, Auten knew the "Russian-based" claim was untrue, and yet he let case agents slip it into two FISA renewal requests targeting Page.

Auten seemed to become concerned about the falsehood only when the Senate Judiciary Committee asked to see the Page spy warrants. He then reviewed the FISA applications in advance of Comey briefing the panel on March 15 and raised concerns with then-FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who was assisting with redactions to the documents before sharing them with Congress. Auten wondered in text messages whether a correction should be reported to the court. But no amendment was ever made.

Years later, in a closed-door 2020 hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee investigators finally caught up with Auten and asked him about it.

"The FISA applications all say that he's Russian-based," then-chief Senate Judiciary Committee investigative counsel Zach Somers pressed Auten. "Do you think that should have been corrected with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?"

Auten said he raised the issue with Clinesmith, who was convicted last year by Durham on charges related to falsifying evidence in the FISA application process. "And what response did you get back?" Somers asked. "I did not get a response back," Auten replied.

Fraud and More Fraud

And so the "Russian-based" fraud lived on through the FISA renewals, which also swore to the court that Danchenko was "truthful and cooperative." (Attempts to reach Auten for comment were unsuccessful. The FBI declined comment.)

The five-year statute of limitations for criminal liability related to the invalid FISA applications expires at the end of this month. It has already expired regarding false statement offenses that may have been committed during the March 2017 Gang of Eight briefings.

However, legal experts say Durham could bypass the statute by filing conspiracy charges. Some former FBI attorneys and prosecutors believe the special counsel is building a "conspiracy to defraud the government" case against former FBI officials and others.

Around the same time, the FBI similarly misled high-ranking officials at the Justice Department.

In a March 6, 2017 briefing on the Russiagate probe to acting Attorney General Dana Boente, Comey's deputy Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok suggested that Steele's material came from the British government rather than the Clinton campaign by referring to it as "CROWN source reporting," according to handwritten notes taken during the meeting.

Strzok falsely suggested to Boente that the probable cause for his opening the Russiagate investigation, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, included Trump asking Russia during a July 2016 public campaign appearance to find Clinton's 30,000 missing State Department emails she had deleted from a private server. The electronic communication Strzok personally wrote to officially open the investigation made no mention of this incident. What's more, Trump made the sarcastic remark after the date when Strzok stated the FBI determined probable cause.

Strzok, who did not respond to requests for comment, spread the same false claim in his book. He recently admitted in a Georgetown University forum he got that detail wrong, while blaming a faulty memory. Strzok was fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller after the Justice inspector general alerted Mueller to virulently anti-Trump texts he had exchanged with Lisa Page, with whom he was having an illicit affair.

During the high-level briefing, Strzok and McCabe shaded other facts to make it seem as if the case against Trump and his advisers were stronger than it was in order to convince the attorney general they had justifiable cause to continue their "sensitive" political investigations. For instance, they told Boente that the secret FISA monitoring of Page's phone and emails was "fruitful," when in fact collections failed to corroborate the dossier allegations against Page.

The next month, Boente approved and signed the third application to surveil the Trump adviser. Carter Page was never charged with a crime. But the year-long surveillance, which didn't end until Sept. 22, 2017, allowed FBI headquarters to potentially monitor the Trump presidency through what is known as "incidental collections" of emails, texts and phone and Skype conversations.

On March 20, 2017, Comey went to Capitol Hill and publicly announced for the first time the existence of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump and his campaign.

"The FBI, as part of our counter-intelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts," Comey testified.

The unusual public disclosure of an active investigation opened the floodgates to media hysteria about possible Trump "collusion" with Russia and triggered years of congressional hearings and investigations that dragged Trump figures into countless hours of depositions under subpoena.

Two months later, Mueller took over where fired Comey left off and breathed new life into the counterintelligence and criminal investigations. In the end, Mueller found no evidence Trump or any Trump official or associate conspired with any Russians to interfere in the election or conduct other espionage. The case, like the Clinton campaign-funded dossier that inspired it, was a bust.

Tellingly, Lisa Page also personally briefed Mueller about the FBI's investigation when the special counsel took over the case in May 2017. She boasted that Mueller was so impressed with her "overview" that he hired her on the spot. "I want her on my team," she said Mueller told her immediate boss McCabe.

Page did not return requests for comment through her Washington attorney

____________

Links to additional information and primary documents at the link








0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sat 14 Jan, 2023 04:44 pm
I understand after years of universally coordinated propaganda from media and spy agencies, in addition to Trump’s own bombastic behavior, you were convinced of the story being driven into your head.

Being confronted with the fact that it was all a horrible lie will be hard to absorb. And it’s scary. And it’s the tip of the iceberg.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 03:40 am
@Lash,
Quote:
George Soros Revealed as Player Behind Twitter Operation to Shut Down Hunter Biden Laptop Story

The Exercise which he ran was not a live 'Operation' like the above headline suggests - the Exercise was a fake situations (as all Exercises are). Nor is this event even a story, particularly not as it is (quite falsely) protraited:

- It occurred the month before the Hunter Biden matter (but the article somehow attempts to link it to the Hunter Biden matter).

- such things take signficant time to organise (invites alone would usually need to be done 1 month in advance to allow for schedule, travel, venue, logistics, equipment, catering and accomodation issues), so planning took place even further before Hunter Biden's laptop became an issue.

- the government openly stated it was worried about foreign influence during the election (so it should have had pre-emptive planning in place, which includes exercises)

- governments run training exercises for large scale or significant issues, and encourage certain sectors to run training exercises (eg. Active Armed Offender Exercises in schools/malls/universities/stadiums etc, Rail disaster Exercises with Rail control/emergency services/health providers etc, Chemical Tanker spill exercises with local government/traffic control/police/fire departments etc, Waterway spill exercises etc)

The article is a non-issue, and to describe as disgusting the planning & running of an exercise against foreign influence in an election - is quite idiotic.
vikorr
 
  1  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 04:31 am
@vikorr,
Point being - an Exercise is an Exercise, and they serve a valid purpose - and what is done with an actual story still remains each media and social media's responsibility, and each of them would still have a responsibility to:

- ensure the veracity of their information
- ensure they aren't acting on behalf of a foreign state to unduly influence an election

My view is it would have been irresponsible to act otherwise, particularly given the otherwise highly suspicious circumstances (a Presidental candidates on 'accidentally' leaves his laptop with a back street repair shop, with a person who 'somehow' happens to be an ardent Trump supporter, who then 'discovers' it belongs to Hunter Biden, and then decides to <possibly illegally> go through the contents of the laptop, who sees national level security information but keeps digging anyway....no nothing suspicious here at all)

The outrage is misplaced. Any other course of action, until verified, was irresponsible.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 11:26 am
One thing we all know—but only I admit—is the state news media is no longer comprised of ethical seasoned journalists, but with lackey employees of multibillionaires who order up puff pieces, hit pieces, suppression, and lies.

It’s a post truth world.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 12:04 pm
Quote:
—but only I admit—

Does this person really think they're that special?

Quote:
...but with lackey employees of multibillionaires who order up puff pieces, hit pieces, suppression, and lies.

Oh, FFS, everyone's aware of that, it's always been the case, the media moguls just have more money now. It's why we have media "silos". That's why it's best to debunk an article by analyzing the claims made and exposing the contradictions in the piece itself without relying on puff pieces and hatchet jobs.
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 12:32 pm
@hightor,
Yet you post so many hack jobs.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Sun 15 Jan, 2023 01:09 pm
Most people realize that when you know an article is biased you adjust the way you interpret it. The way a story is told – what's left out, who the intended audience is, word choice – tells you as much as the content of the story itself. Even the hack jobs posted by the OP can be carefully gleaned for useful snippets of information.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 12:34:20