Facebook VP of Ads Criticised For Tweeting that Russian-bought Ads Had Not Been Designed to Sway the US Election (bbc.com) 263
Facebook's vice-president of adverts has been criticised for tweeting that Russian-bought ads had not been designed to sway the US election. From a report: Rob Goldman's tweet was retweeted by President Donald Trump. His view contradicted special counsellor Robert Mueller's recent indictments, in which 13 Russians were charged with meddling in the election via social media and other means. Mr Goldman is reported to have apologised to Facebook staff. In a series of tweets, Mr Goldman said that Russia's misinformation activity had been designed to "divide America" but added that "the majority of the Russian ad spend [on Facebook] happened after the election." However according to the indictment, the ads were only part of Russia's activity on the social-media platform. In the document, Facebook is mentioned 35 times. According to Wired, he sent a message to staff that read: "I wanted to apologise for having tweeted my own view about Russian interference without having it reviewed by anyone internally. The tweets were my own personal view and not Facebook's. I conveyed my view poorly. The special counsel has far more information about what happened [than] I do -- so seeming to contradict his statements was a serious mistake on my part."
Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 nea
Re: (Score:2)
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 be
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 Rus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 rely
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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 elect
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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 [twitter.com]
Are
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:2)
actively
Gotta love it when people are so quick to redefine simple words.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton spent much more than that for online trolls with David Brock's various orgs.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was called: 'Correct the Record'. They never denied it was them.
Re: (Score:2)
Denied? They were bragging about it for months.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:2)
Ooh, someone's getting all pants-wetting mad here.
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:2)
If pants wetting is a problem for you, maybe you should try Depends?
Re: Clinton Lost Because of Clinton (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
"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: (Score:2)
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
Rightfully So... (Score:2, 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... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Rightfully So... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So those Russian guys... Indited for interfering with the US election... In a public statement from Mueller's office... Fake news?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Discord (Score:2)
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.
The Russians Didn't Care Who Won (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Russians Didn't Care Who Won (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't get it, we gave it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
He had a clear cut motivation to overstate the problem. And history showed that in many cases, he clearly did.
Russians won't go to trial (Score:5, 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 [powerlineblog.com](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 (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
This is bleeping ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
How long until everyone learns to ignore the Internet ignoramus mob?
A whole lot of nothing (Score:5, 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.
Done with FB (Score:3, Interesting)
"meddling"? (Score:2)
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
Tweeted? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Opposition Research."
America was divided... (Score:2)
Squirm, Trumpkins, Squirm! (Score:2, 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.
I apologize (Score:3)
Please don't send me to gitmo for revealing this has all been a farce.
Technically true, but... (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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
One, two, Mueller's coming for you...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Technically true, but... (Score:2)
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 v
Why is this guy tweeting at all (Score:3)
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
If you don't see retraction as a problem ... (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (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, Nort
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, 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 (Score:4, 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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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... [dailymotion.com] 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/... [wikipedia.org]
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
Re:Something to bear in mind (Score:4, 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing about Deep Fakes [popbuzz.com] is that even if you had some horrific shit on video involving famous, people are going to argue that it's not real.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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:Summary is incorrect, again (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.motherjones.com/po... [motherjones.com]
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/1... [cnbc.com]
"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: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (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... [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
"Unwitting". What does that word mean to you?
Re: (Score:2)
He hasn't even touched the hacking yet.
You mean "leak"
Re:Summary is incorrect, again (Score:4, 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,
Re: (Score:2)
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: Summary is incorrect, again (Score:2)
Feed the Gulag!
Re: (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.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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".
This is mud (Score:3, 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: (Score:3)
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 en
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 coun
Re: (Score:2)
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 mean
Re: (Score:2)
1) Russian Oligarch story [news.com.au]
2) Free Beacon/Fusion/Steel Timelines [washingtonpost.com] 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 [spectator.org].
These were not necessarily my original sources, just ones at the top of the Google results.
Re: (Score:2)
The events he lied about occurred in 2012. Odd the date isn't appearing in any of the headlines about it.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the word 'included' mean to you? Look it up moron.
Re:Americans are stupid. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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 [news.com.au] 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: