28
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2023 04:02 pm
@vikorr,
It's very wierd when a person downvotes mathematics.

Unable to cope with reality...

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2023 02:26 pm
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/freedom-speech-fears-conway-hall-cancels-no-nato-event-after-intimidation

Freedom of speech fears as Conway Hall cancels No to Nato event after ‘intimidation’

SPEAKERS due to address a No to Nato — No to War rally on February 25 have warned that freedom of speech is under threat after the iconic Conway Hall venue was pressed into cancelling the booking.
The event, which was to be addressed by MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, former MPs Chris Williamson and George Galloway and a range of journalists and campaigners, is now seeking a replacement venue.
A letter from the London venue, the home of Britain’s last surviving ethical society, posted by rally organisers on Facebook describes an “unprecedented” backlash against their hosting the event and “an onslaught of increasingly intimidating emails and social media posts … regretfully we have taken the decision that Conway Hall can no longer host your event as we are now unable to ensure the safety of our building and our staff on and offline. As well, the online detractors were actively seeking to contact our funders, partners and hirers.”
Mr Williamson said the hall was the second venue to have succumbed to an “anti-democratic cancel culture” silencing opposition to Nato. He accused “erstwhile liberals” of being complicit in a state crackdown on anti-Establishment views.

“They’ve transmogrified from free speech advocates to supporters of authoritarianism,” he charged.

Conway Hall tweeted only that it had “reviewed this booking, which was a third-party hire of our venue and not part of our programme, and informed the organisers that it will no longer be taking place at Conway Hall,” asking that further enquiries be directed to the event organisers.

____________

Sad.

vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2023 06:38 pm
@Lash,
It is certainly an indicator of rising extremism of the populace, rather than government facism - but rising extremism can be abused by politicians to increase the amount of facism within the political system.

Rising extremism is a major concern for freedom in the Western world - because, as the author of the article points out, it works against free speech and democracy, and assists the rhetoric of actual fascists (ie. it assists 'we have to introduce this legislation to: keep people safe / ensure no one is insulted / stop X etc + allows politicians to craft their message to the extremists alla Trump's claim that the election loss was fraud, which plays into the extremist nature of political divides in the US).

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2023 01:23 pm
Barr Pressed Durham to Find Flaws in the Russia Investigation. It Didn’t Go Well.

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

Interviews by The Times with more than a dozen current and former officials have revealed an array of previously unreported episodes that show how the Durham inquiry became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes as it went unsuccessfully down one path after another even as Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr promoted a misleading narrative of its progress.

• Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it.

• Mr. Durham used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide to George Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media. Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued.

• There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known. The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)

Now, as Mr. Durham works on a final report, the interviews by The Times provide new details of how he and Mr. Barr sought to recast the scrutiny of the 2016 Trump campaign’s myriad if murky links to Russia as unjustified and itself a crime.

Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and Ms. Dannehy declined to comment. The current and former officials who discussed the investigation all spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal, political and intelligence sensitivities surrounding the topic.

A year into the Durham inquiry, Mr. Barr declared that the attempt “to get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016 “cannot be, and it will not be, a tit-for-tat exercise. We are not going to lower the standards just to achieve a result.”

But Robert Luskin, a criminal defense lawyer and former Justice Department prosecutor who represented two witnesses Mr. Durham interviewed, said that he had a hard time squaring Mr. Durham’s prior reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter with his end-of-career conduct as Mr. Barr’s special counsel.

“This stuff has my head spinning,” Mr. Luskin said. “When did these guys drink the Kool-Aid, and who served it to them?”

An Odd Couple

A month after Mr. Barr was confirmed as attorney general in February 2019, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ended the Russia investigation and turned in his report without charging any Trump associates with engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow over its covert operation to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.

Mr. Trump would repeatedly portray the Mueller report as having found “no collusion with Russia.” The reality was more complex. In fact, the report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” and it established both how Moscow had worked to help Mr. Trump win and how his campaign had expected to benefit from the foreign interference.

That spring, Mr. Barr assigned Mr. Durham to scour the origins of the Russia investigation for wrongdoing, telling Fox News that he wanted to know if “officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale” in deciding to pursue the investigation. “A lot of the answers have been inadequate, and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together,” he added.

While attorneys general overseeing politically sensitive inquiries tend to keep their distance from the investigators, Mr. Durham visited Mr. Barr in his office for at times weekly updates and consultations about his day-to-day work. They also sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together, people familiar with their work said.

In some ways, they were an odd match. Taciturn and media-averse, the goateed Mr. Durham had spent more than three decades as a prosecutor before Mr. Trump appointed him the U.S. attorney for Connecticut. Administrations of both parties had assigned him to investigate potential official wrongdoing, like allegations of corrupt ties between mafia informants and F.B.I. agents, and the C.I.A.’s torture of terrorism detainees and destruction of evidence.

By contrast, the vocal and domineering Mr. Barr has never prosecuted a case and is known for using his law enforcement platform to opine on culture-war issues and politics. He had effectively auditioned to be Mr. Trump’s attorney general by asserting to a New York Times reporter that there was more basis to investigate Mrs. Clinton than Mr. Trump’s “so-called ‘collusion’” with Russia, and by writing a memo suggesting a way to shield Mr. Trump from scrutiny for obstruction of justice.

But the two shared a worldview: They are both Catholic conservatives and Republicans, born two months apart in 1950. As a career federal prosecutor, Mr. Durham already revered the office of the attorney general, people who know him say. And as he was drawn into Mr. Barr’s personal orbit, Mr. Durham came to embrace that particular attorney general’s intense feelings about the Russia investigation.

‘The Thinnest of Suspicions’

The week before Mr. Horowitz released the report, he and aides came to Mr. Durham’s offices — nondescript suites on two floors of a building in northeast Washington — to go over it.

Mr. Durham lobbied Mr. Horowitz to drop his finding that the diplomat’s tip had been sufficient for the F.B.I. to open its “full” counterintelligence investigation, arguing that it was enough at most for a “preliminary” inquiry, according to officials. But Mr. Horowitz did not change his mind.

That weekend, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided to weigh in publicly to shape the narrative on their terms.

Minutes before the inspector general’s report went online, Mr. Barr issued a statement contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s major finding, declaring that the F.B.I. opened the investigation “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient.” He would later tell Fox News that the investigation began “without any basis,” as if the diplomat’s tip never happened.

Mr. Trump also weighed in, telling reporters that the details of the inspector general’s report were “far worse than anything I would have even imagined,” adding: “I look forward to the Durham report, which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. It’s got its own information, which is this information plus, plus, plus.”

And the Justice Department sent reporters a statement from Mr. Durham that clashed with both Justice Department principles about not discussing ongoing investigations and his personal reputation as particularly tight-lipped. He said he disagreed with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions about the Russia investigation’s origins, citing his own access to more information and “evidence collected to date.”

But as Mr. Durham’s inquiry proceeded, he never presented any evidence contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s factual findings about the basis on which F.B.I. officials opened the investigation.

By summer 2020, it was clear that the hunt for evidence supporting Mr. Barr’s hunch about intelligence abuses had failed. But he waited until after the 2020 election to publicly concede that there had turned out to be no sign of “foreign government activity” and that the C.I.A. had “stayed in its lane” after all.

An Awkward Tip

On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

But in October 2019, a garbled echo became public. The Times reported that Mr. Durham’s administrative review of the Russia inquiry had evolved to include a criminal investigation, while saying it was not clear what the suspected crime was. Citing their own sources, many other news outlets confirmed the development.

The news reports, however, were all framed around the erroneous assumption that the criminal investigation must mean Mr. Durham had found evidence of potential crimes by officials involved in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Barr, who weighed in publicly about the Durham inquiry at regular intervals in ways that advanced a pro-Trump narrative, chose in this instance not to clarify what was really happening.

By the spring and summer of 2020, with Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign in full swing, the Durham investigation’s “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election” began to erode Mr. Barr’s relationship with Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr wrote in his memoir.

Mr. Trump was stoking a belief among his supporters that Mr. Durham might charge former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. That proved too much for Mr. Barr, who in May 2020 clarified that “our concern of potential criminality is focused on others.”

Even so, in August, Mr. Trump lashed out in a Fox interview, asserting that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, along with top F.B.I. and intelligence officials, had been caught in “the single biggest political crime in the history of our country” and the only thing stopping charges would be if Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham wanted to be “politically correct.”

Against that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.

Mr. Durham also developed an indirect method to impute political bias to law enforcement officials: comparing the Justice Department’s aggressive response to suspicions of links between Mr. Trump and Russia with its more cautious and skeptical reaction to various Clinton-related suspicions.

He examined an investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s finances in which the F.B.I.’s repeated requests for a subpoena were denied. He also scrutinized how the F.B.I. gave Mrs. Clinton a “defensive briefing” about suspicions that a foreign government might be trying to influence her campaign through donations, but did not inform Mr. Trump about suspicions that Russia might be conspiring with people associated with his campaign.

Dubious Intelligence

During the Russia investigation, the F.B.I. used claims from what turned out to be a dubious source, the Steele dossier — opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign — in its botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide.

The Durham investigation did something with parallels to that incident.

In Mr. Durham’s case, the dubious sources were memos, whose credibility the intelligence community doubted, written by Russian intelligence analysts and discussing purported conversations involving American victims of Russian hacking, according to people familiar with the matter.

The memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.

Mr. Durham wanted to use the memos, which included descriptions of Americans discussing a purported plan by Mrs. Clinton to attack Mr. Trump by linking him to Russia’s hacking and releasing in 2016 of Democratic emails, to pursue the theory that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump. And in doing so, Mr. Durham sought to use the memos as justification to get access to the private communications of an American citizen.

One purported hacking victim identified in the memos was Leonard Benardo, the executive vice president of the Open Society Foundations, a pro-democracy organization whose Hungarian-born founder, Mr. Soros, has been vilified by the far right.

In 2017, The Washington Post reported that the Russian memos included a claim that Mr. Benardo and a Democratic member of Congress, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, had discussed how Loretta E. Lynch, the Obama-era attorney general, had supposedly promised to keep the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails from going too far.

But Mr. Benardo and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said they had never even met, let alone communicated about Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mr. Durham set out to prove that the memos described real conversations, according to people familiar with the matter. He sent a prosecutor on his team, Andrew DeFilippis, to ask Judge Beryl A. Howell, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, for an order allowing them to seize information about Mr. Benardo’s emails.

But Judge Howell decided that the Russian memo was too weak a basis to intrude on Mr. Benardo’s privacy, they said. Mr. Durham then personally appeared before her and urged her to reconsider, but she again ruled against him.

Rather than dropping the idea, Mr. Durham sidestepped Judge Howell’s ruling by invoking grand-jury power to demand documents and testimony directly from Mr. Soros’s foundation and Mr. Benardo about his emails, the people said. (It is unclear whether Mr. Durham served them with a subpoena or instead threatened to do so if they did not cooperate.)

Rather than fighting in court, the foundation and Mr. Benardo quietly complied, according to people familiar with the matter. But for Mr. Durham, the result appears to have been another dead end.

In a statement provided to The Times by Mr. Soros’s foundation, Mr. Benardo reiterated that he never met or corresponded with Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and said that “if such documentation exists, it’s of course made up.”

Internal Strife

As the focus of the Durham investigation shifted, cracks formed inside the team. Mr. Durham’s deputy, Ms. Dannehy, a longtime close colleague, increasingly argued with him in front of other prosecutors and F.B.I. agents about legal ethics.

Ms. Dannehy had independent standing as a respected prosecutor. In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned her to investigate whether to charge senior Bush administration officials with crimes related to a scandal over the firing of U.S. attorneys; she decided in 2010 that no charges were warranted.

Now, Ms. Dannehy complained to Mr. Durham about how Mr. Barr kept hinting darkly in public about the direction of their investigation. In April 2020, for example, he suggested to Fox News that officials could be prosecuted, saying that “the evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here.”

Ms. Dannehy urged Mr. Durham to ask the attorney general to adhere to Justice Department policy and not discuss the investigation publicly. But Mr. Durham proved unwilling to challenge him.

The strains grew when Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to go after Mr. Benardo’s emails. Ms. Dannehy opposed that tactic and told colleagues that Mr. Durham had taken that step without telling her.

By summer 2020, with Election Day approaching, Mr. Barr pressed Mr. Durham to draft a potential interim report centered on the Clinton campaign and F.B.I. gullibility or willful blindness.

On Sept. 10, 2020, Ms. Dannehy discovered that other members of the team had written a draft report that Mr. Durham had not told her about, according to people briefed on their ensuing argument.

Ms. Dannehy erupted, according to people familiar with the matter. She told Mr. Durham that no report should be issued before the investigation was complete and especially not just before an election — and denounced the draft for taking disputed information at face value. She sent colleagues a memo detailing those concerns and resigned.

Two people close to Mr. Barr said he had pressed for the draft to evaluate what a report on preliminary findings would look like and what evidence would need to be declassified. But they insisted that he intended any release to come during the summer or after the Nov. 3 election — not soon before Election Day.

In any case, in late September 2020, about two weeks after Ms. Dannehy quit, someone leaked to a Fox Business personality that Mr. Durham would not issue any interim report, disappointing Trump supporters hoping for a pre-Election Day bombshell.

Stymied by the decision not to issue an interim Durham report, John Ratcliffe, Mr. Trump’s national intelligence director, tried another way to inject some of the same information into the campaign.

Over the objections of Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Ratcliffe declassified nearly 1,000 pages of intelligence material before the election for Mr. Durham to use. Notably, in that fight, Mr. Barr sided with Ms. Haspel on one matter that is said to be particularly sensitive and that remained classified, according to two people familiar with the dispute.

Mr. Ratcliffe also disclosed in a letter to a senator that “Russian intelligence analysis” claimed that on July 26, 2016, Mrs. Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal tying Mr. Trump to Russia.

The letter acknowledged that officials did “not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” But it did not mention that there were many reasons that suspicions about the Trump campaign were arising in that period — like the diplomat’s tip, Mr. Trump’s flattery of President Vladimir V. Putin, his hiring of advisers with links to Russia, his financial ties to Russia and his call for Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.

The disclosure infuriated Dutch intelligence officials, who had provided the memos under strictest confidence.

‘Fanning the Flames’

Late in the summer of 2021, Mr. Durham prepared to indict Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who had represented Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I. about Russia’s hacking of their emails. Two prosecutors on Mr. Durham’s team — Anthony Scarpelli and Neeraj N. Patel — objected, according to people familiar with the matter.

Five years earlier, Mr. Sussmann had relayed a tip to the bureau about odd internet data that a group of data scientists contended could reflect hidden communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank of Russia. The F.B.I., which by then had already launched its Russia investigation, briefly looked at the allegation but dismissed it.

Mr. Durham accused Mr. Sussmann of lying to an F.B.I. official by saying he was not conveying the tip for a client; the prosecutor maintained Mr. Sussmann was there in part for the Clinton campaign.

Mr. Scarpelli and Mr. Patel argued to Mr. Durham that the evidence was too thin to charge Mr. Sussmann and that such a case would not normally be prosecuted, people familiar with the matter said. Given the intense scrutiny it would receive, they also warned that an acquittal would undermine public faith in their investigation and federal law enforcement.

When Mr. Durham did not change course, Mr. Scarpelli quit in protest, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Patel left soon after to take a different job. Both declined to comment.

The charge against Mr. Sussmann was narrow, but the Durham team used it to make public large amounts of information insinuating what Mr. Durham never charged: that Clinton campaign associates conspired to gin up an F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Trump based on a knowingly false allegation.

Trial testimony, however, showed that while Mrs. Clinton and her campaign manager hoped Mr. Sussmann would persuade reporters to write articles about Alfa Bank, they did not want him to take the information to the F.B.I. And prosecutors presented no evidence that he or campaign officials had believed the data scientists’ complex theory was false.

After Mr. Sussmann’s acquittal, Mr. Barr, by then out of office for more than a year, suggested that using the courts to advance a politically charged narrative was a goal in itself. Mr. Durham “accomplished something far more important” than a conviction, Mr. Barr told Fox News, asserting that the case had “crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it.”

And he predicted that a subsequent trial, concerning a Russia analyst who was a researcher for the Steele dossier, would also “get the story out” and “further amplify these themes and the role the F.B.I. leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and inexplicable.”

That case involved Igor Danchenko, who had told the F.B.I. that the dossier exaggerated the credibility of gossip and speculation. Mr. Durham charged him with lying about two sources. He was acquitted, too.

The two failed cases are likely to be Mr. Durham’s last courtroom acts as a prosecutor. Bringing demonstrably weak cases stood in contrast to how he once talked about his prosecutorial philosophy.

James Farmer, a retired prosecutor who worked with Mr. Durham on several major investigations, recalled him as a neutral actor who said that if there were nothing to charge, they would not strain to prosecute. “That’s what I heard, time and again,” Mr. Farmer said.

Delivering the closing arguments in the Danchenko trial, Mr. Durham defended his investigation to the jury, denying that his appointment by Mr. Barr had been tainted by politics.

He asserted that Mr. Mueller had concluded “there’s no evidence of collusion here or conspiracy” — a formulation that echoed Mr. Trump’s distortion of the Russia investigation’s complex findings — and added: “Is it the wrong question to ask, well, then how did this get started? Respectfully, that’s not the case.”

The judge interrupted him: “You should finish up, Mr. Durham.”

nyt
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2023 01:08 pm
More primary document evidence for those who want to know the truth.
The RussiaGate crap was designed by a consortium of CIA FBI DHS DNC to unseat a president.

Primary docs connected to Taibbi’s explanatory tweets on Twitter.

16. Twitter immediately recognized these Hamilton-driven news stories posed a major ethical problem, potentially implicating them.
“Real people need to know they’ve been unilaterally labeled Russian stooges without evidence or recourse,” Roth wrote.
__________

Just as I thought.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2023 01:57 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
The RussiaGate crap was designed by a consortium of CIA FBI DHS DNC to unseat a president.

How you are linking Hamilton to 'RussiaGate'?

How it functions does not enable it to tie Trump to Russia.

https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/
Quote:
Securing Democracy From Autocratic Interference

We develop comprehensive strategies for government, private sector, and civil society to defend against, deter, and raise the costs on foreign state actors’ efforts to undermine democracy and democratic institutions. The Alliance works to publicly document and expose these actors’ ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States, in Europe, and around the world.

And the Hamilton List:
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/hamilton-dashboard/
Quote:
Hamilton 2.0 displays outputs from sources that we can directly attribute to the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian governments or their various news and information channels. These channels and accounts often engage with topics, hashtags, URLs, and people that are in no way affiliated with the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian governments. It would therefore be INCORRECT to, without further analysis, label anyone or anything that appears on the dashboard as being connected to state-backed propaganda.

Anyone who thinks foreign States don't try to interfere in their adversaries elections where there is an opportunity thinks the world plays nice. The West has been doing it for ages in other countries, so it really should be no surprise that the reverse would also be occurring in this new age of social media and artificial intelligence.

But nothing about how it works suggests it can be used as a foundation for 'RussiaGate' (ie to tie Trump to Russia). Happy to be wrong if you have something to show otherwise.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2023 03:10 pm
@hightor,
I only give a modicum of agreement if were talking about The "oat Keepers" Q Anon, and quite a few more Hitler worshipping biker clubs.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2023 03:59 am
@farmerman,
I have a response, but I'm still working on it. It's difficult to gauge the actual weight of the hate patrol, and we need to know.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 09:20 am
Our food is poisoned, our water is poisoned, our healthcare is unresponsive to illness and disease, but sells pills to shut us up. We are forced by the government to pay for healthcare insurance, but can’t afford additional costs to actually go to the doctor and wander through an expensive maze of funding and solving medical issues. Our lawmakers act as though it takes 50 years to solve basic problems. A political party kills a people’s grassroots presidential campaign, destined to put a stop to all this.

Covid wasn’t mismanaged, it worked as it was planned.

This is why.

https://youtu.be/iK5V89fU61Y
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 10:00 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Fitts "worked with anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to promote unfounded claims about the pandemic and to oppose lockdown measures put in place to slow the spread of the virus" and recorded a lengthy interview as part of the 'Planet Lockdown' film which The Washington Post reports parroted "false claims about the pandemic".
Wikipedia
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 10:11 am
@Lash,
Some of your statements I can't take an issue with, our health care doesn't work as well as it should for a country like ours with our resources. I also think you're right about medication vs solving underlying medical problems, I live it, so I know a little of what you're talking about.

However, I disagree on the degree you go and misrepresenting with your vague hint to 2016. However, I am not sure if I want to go into a rehashing of it. Pretty sure I don't.

Not going to your link, also not getting into your COVID thing. Think what you like.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:37 am
Know it, don’t know it.

No matter to me. I’m just offering a warning that may help some people navigate what’s coming.

We will have rolling ‘pandemics’ and grid interruptions and forced changes in currency from now on.

FYI.
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:45 am
@revelette1,
Remember, the OP has basically stated that they post links on this thread to create a repository of current ideas so that some future reader might be able to see the kinds of issues that were being discussed and the sorts of propaganda and misinformation that were being spread at this time. Notice how many of these articles and videos follow a similar pattern where a few believable points are laid out to establish some degree of reliability – yes, late stage capitalism isn't working particularly well for most people...duh – but before long there are hints of conspiracies at work, and dubious claims are made by misguided people, some of them outright charlatans, others with some experience in other areas trotted out as "experts" in a field they know nothing about!.

But that's not important. None of it has to be "true". It needs only to have been written, posted, or uttered by someone whose thoughts the OP wishes to preserve. When an intruder cracks the skull of a politician's husband, the OP selects all the misinformation and uninformed speculation available about the incident and dumps it here. And even when shown to be nothing but disgusting lies the OP needn't accept any responsibility whatsoever – they're just recording what's out there, what people are saying. The OP is actually providing a pretty good compendium of misapprehensions, red herrings, and lies. If you hear a story and think it sounds fishy and you find it here you'll know your intuitions were correct. It's mostly garbage.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:58 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
We will have rolling ‘pandemics’
You are indeed right, especially if the inverted commata are omitted.

The question is certainly not whether a new pandemic will strike humanity, but when.
And this group of viruses is by no means the only one: countless other pathogens are circulating among animals that could make the jump to humans at any time: Zoonoses.

H5N1 is an example.
The virus mainly affects birds, which is why it is also called bird flu. The infection is often fatal for birds. And even mammals are not immune to the virus. In Spain, minks were infected with the virus in October, possibly infecting each other. This is considered an alarm signal, the virus could adapt to new hosts.

The virus is also repeatedly detected in humans. The WHO counted 865 cases in the past twenty years. 456 people who had been infected with bird flu died - mainly younger ones.

The great pandemic has not yet occurred because the virus is not so easily transmitted from person to person. But assuming H5N1 were to succeed in mixing with conventional flu viruses, a kind of super pathogen could emerge that would be as contagious as conventional flu and at the same time as deadly as bird flu.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 02:59 pm
@revelette1,
I had a similar reaction - both that some things Lash says I agree with, and enough other posts I find so poorly considered that I have no confidence at all that the video is worth an hour of my time

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:40 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
The US still torturing Zimbabwe, with a history lesson

And rightly so. The US Air Force should use Zimbabwe for target practice.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:41 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Israel sucks balls.

What about them do you find most upsetting?

Is it the fact that they refuse to let themselves be murdered?


Lash wrote:
I despise much more what they do to Palestinian people than to stones.

The only thing that Israel "does" to Palestinians, is defend themselves when Palestinians try to murder them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:42 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Pfizer booster linked to strokes in older Americans
https://youtu.be/9_40mrbyGr4

You should learn how to post YouTube videos properly.

I've been wondering, if it can cause clotting strokes, did it trigger my heart attack?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:43 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Recently declassified primary documents showing US involvement with Ukrainian Nazis toward war with Russia.

The only Nazis in Ukraine are the Russian invaders.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2023 11:44 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
From the April 2022 article:
"In 2014, then Senator John McCain visited Ukraine...Canada has also offered its assistance in the training of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis...the US government revoked a ban on funding Neo-Nazis from its 2016 year-end spending bill."

Again, the only Nazis in Ukraine are the invading Russians.
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/05/2023 at 05:11:31