Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The Russiagate conspiracy theory  (Read 1120277 times)

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2850 on: February 22, 2018, 02:22:32 PM »
Oh, one more video I'm sure you will all love:
"bare grasp of english language" -- He is vastly underestimating Russian education. (E.g. commenter "vierotchka" on Peter Sinclair's blog had perfect english. Her communication skills were so superior that she drove an elderly American commenter nuts.)

But he has a point: The danger of troll paranoia. I have myself "accused" genuine American commenters of being Russian trolls... This is of course what they want: Disrupt serious conversation.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2851 on: February 22, 2018, 02:46:31 PM »
The point of the Russian trolls is not to convince everyone. They plant seed ideas into vulnerable populations. Once vulnerable local populations assimilate the idea, the idea spreads and evolves under the protection of free speech. Well crafted ideas in vulnerable populationd spread  like virus.

Using Stein and Sanders followers was an obvious play. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Greens and Sanders voters helped amplify the message against Hillary Clinton, and  that obviously favored Trump.

Not that I disagree with them on that. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and the patriot  act. Voting for her was as inmoral as voting for he-who-must-not-be-named.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

zheega

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2852 on: February 22, 2018, 03:15:38 PM »
Quote
The point of the Russian trolls is not to convince everyone. They plant seed ideas into vulnerable populations. Once vulnerable local populations assimilate the idea, the idea spreads and evolves under the protection of free speech. Well crafted ideas in vulnerable populationd spread  like virus.

Ah, yes. A $1mio Russian operation managed to dupe the "vulnerable" US voters. So what is the solution to this? "Protecting" the population from certain information in the future? And how would the government enforce this? And what if the Republicans somehow managed to get control of the government - do you really trust them with anti-1st Amendment powers? I wouldn't!

Just to remind you, Trump + Clinton spent over $2 billion targeting the same people that the Russians targeted. Even if the Russians were incredibly effective with their "Jesus loves Trump and hates Hillary" memes and got a 10x better return on investment, that is still less than Clinton spent in a few days!!

Quote
Using Stein and Sanders followers was an obvious play. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Greens and Sanders voters helped amplify the message against Hillary Clinton, and  that obviously favored Trump.

How were they "using" Stein and Sanders followers? Looking at exit polls, around ~90% of Sanders primary voters voted for Hillary and around ~10% voted for everyone else combined. For comparison, in 2008 around ~20% of Clinton voters voted for John McCain (and another ~5% voted 3rd party). Was the "Russian operation" even better in 2008 and was it helping Obama? If there was no "Russian operation" in 2008, then it seems their "using of Sanders followers" backfired spectacularly in 2016.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2853 on: February 22, 2018, 03:48:51 PM »
Quote
Ah, yes. A $1mio Russian operation managed to dupe the "vulnerable" US voters.

Yep, very easily. All you need is a powerful message applied to people already primed to receive the message. Once the idea is accepted it spreads on its own, like an infectious disease.

Quote
So what is the solution to this?

The solution is already in place. It needs to be illegal for foreign countries, corporations or individuals to perform propaganda campaigns or political donations,  specially in light of Citizens United.

Once the propaganda sets in, the law can't do anything about it because it is protected by free speech.
Quote
Just to remind you, Trump + Clinton spent over $2 billion targeting the same people that the Russians targeted. Even if the Russians were incredibly effective with their "Jesus loves Trump and hates Hillary" memes and got a 10x better return on investment, that is still less than Clinton spent in a few days!!


And? Maybe if Trump won by a landslide you could argue that foreign influences had no meaningful effect. Given that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin that argument becomes very weak.

For all we know Russian influence was the tipping point.

Quote
How were they "using" Stein and Sanders followers?

Providing memes, dirt (fake or real), and systematic online support like retweets, likes and upvotes.  This helped cement anti-clinton ideas in preparation for the general elections.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2854 on: February 22, 2018, 03:59:10 PM »
Quote
Ah, yes. A $1mio Russian operation managed to dupe the "vulnerable" US voters.

Yep, very easily. All you need is a powerful message applied to people already primed to receive the message. Once the idea is accepted it spreads on its own, like an infectious disease.

1 million per month. Incl. more than a dozen stealth operatives on the ground. They wouldn't have done that if it wasn't promising effective.

Archimid gave the classical example of this vulnerability. Either-or thinking, false equivalences. This is very easy to play.
Quote
Voting for her was as inmoral as voting for he-who-must-not-be-named.

The Russians are far less stupid and naive than the general American population. That is Russia's greatest resource. The KGB has decaces of experience of mind-infection.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 04:05:41 PM by Martin Gisser »

zheega

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2855 on: February 22, 2018, 04:14:25 PM »
Quote
Yep, very easily. All you need is a powerful message applied to people already primed to receive the message. Once the idea is accepted it spreads on its own, like an infectious disease.

And how do you measure what impact the $1mio Russian operation had? And how do you compare it to everything else?

Quote
The solution is already in place. It needs to be illegal for foreign countries, corporations or individuals to perform propaganda campaigns or political donations,  specially in light of Citizens United.

Repealing CU wouldn't solve this in any way. There is no law (except in countries like Saudi Arabia and China for example) that would prevent people posting memes to Twitter and Facebook. You would have to repeal the 1st Amendment for such a law to be constitutional. And would you really trust enforcement of such a law to Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump?

Quote
And? Maybe if Trump won by a landslide you could argue that foreign influences had no meaningful effect. Given that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin that argument becomes very weak.

First, how do you measure how much "foreign influence" helped? Also, if you are against foreign influence - CAP (Center For American Progress) was one of the biggest Clinton backers in 2015/2016 (their representatives received significant air time on CNN and MSNBC), yet CAP receives $1mio every year from United Arab Emirates. Is that foreign influence from UAE and how do you measure it?

Remember, we are not talking about election interference here - if Russians hacked the voting machines, then it would be incredibly easy to find out how they influenced the election. But how many votes does a Facebook meme get you?

Quote
Providing memes, dirt (fake or real), and systematic online support like retweets, likes and upvotes.  This helped cement anti-clinton ideas in preparation for the general elections.

Yes, they did provide memes. But why didn't it work? Why did ~90% Sanders primary supporters vote for Clinton ANYWAY, while in 2008 only ~80% of Clinton primary supporters voted for Obama? Wouldn't it be the other way around if the Russian propaganda worked? Or did the Russian propaganda even backfire, since 2016 seems to be a stand-out year (in a positive way) for how many primary voters of Sanders (her only real primary opponent) voted for Clinton in the general election?

And why did this "amazing Russian propaganda" give more exposure to Tweets of Joy Ann Reid (who HATES TRUMP and doesn't like Sanders) from MSNBC than Sanders or Jill Stein?


If you don't believe me - here is the raw info: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-more-200-000-deleted-russian-troll-tweets-n844731

RT @JoyAnnReid: 267
RT @realDonaldTrump: 578
RT @SenSanders: 27

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2856 on: February 22, 2018, 04:39:36 PM »
I can't take Russiagate seriously. If YouTube, Twitter, Google etc websites were made to get their house in order, most of the problem would disappear.

Meanwhile, realpolitik continues to cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
You can argue about good guys and bad guys forever but the proxy war is Syria has cost :-

From Wikipedia
Quote
On 20 August 2014, a new U.N. study concluded that at least 191,369 people have died in the Syrian conflict.[600] The UN thereafter stopped collecting statistics, but a study by the Syrian Centre for Policy Research released in February 2016 estimated the death toll to be 470,000, with 1.9m wounded (reaching a total of 11.5% of the entire population either wounded or killed).

Money, arms, and assistance in many forms has come from Iran, Saudi Arabia, ably assisted by Russia, the USA, the UK et al. It makes me want to puke.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2857 on: February 22, 2018, 04:54:05 PM »
And how do you measure what impact the $1mio Russian operation had?
E.g:
1)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/19/16504510/ten-gop-twitter-russia
Quote
the account amassed at least 136,000 followers. Its tweets often racked up thousands of retweets, sometimes even from top Trump campaign staffers.
(my emph.)

2)
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/20/media/internet-research-agency-unwitting-trump-supporters/index.html



Quote
And why did this "amazing Russian propaganda" give more exposure to Tweets of Joy Ann Reid (who HATES TRUMP and doesn't like Sanders) from MSNBC than Sanders or Jill Stein?
To trigger Trump voters: She is female, black, and not stupid. I.e. worse than Hillary, who is white.
The trolls also amplified Black Lives Matter.
Plus, the standard tactic of plausible deniability. Nice example right here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

----------------------------
zheega, I herewith declare you a Russian asset, if not troll, and will ignore your comments.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 05:02:59 PM by Martin Gisser »

zheega

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2858 on: February 22, 2018, 04:57:42 PM »
Quote
Money, arms, and assistance in many forms has come from Iran, Saudi Arabia, ably assisted by Russia, the USA, the UK et al. It makes me want to puke.

Syria has changed quite a lot. In the past it was just a proxy-war. US backed Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and various other extremist militias, sometimes with funny results - http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

Saudi Arabia backed ISIS. Both US and SA did this to overthrow Assad. Then Russia and Iran came to help Assad against both ISIS and Al Qaeda. Now those proxy forces have mostly lost.

So now the big powers are getting involved directly. It is a big mess.

USA and the Kurds have stated that they will permanently occupy the oil-rich north of Syria (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-tillerson/u-s-signals-open-ended-presence-in-syria-seeks-patience-on-assads-removal-idUSKBN1F62R8). Meanwhile Turkey (ally of US) is attacking the Kurds (ally of US). Israel is bombing Assad forces. Assad is allied with Russia (and some support from Iran) fighting against Al Nusra and ISIS (what is left of them), Israel and US/Kurd forces, while proposing an alliance with the Kurds - saying that US isn't protecting them from Turkey and that Assad will.

Meanwhile, a quiet alliance is being formed between Israel and Saudi Arabia, mainly targeting Syria and Iran.

This might get a lot worse before it gets better.


Quote
the account amassed at least 136,000 followers. Its tweets often racked up thousands of retweets, sometimes even from top Trump campaign staffers.

So how many Trump votes did this account (with 136k followers) get for Trump in November of 2016? What if all of those 136k followers were #MAGA folks already? What if 100k of those followers were from California and not from a swing state?

How many votes did some other pro-Clinton tweet from JK Rowling (UK citizen who has MILLIONS of followers on Twitter) get Clinton in November of 2016?

Quote
To trigger Trump voters: She is female, black, and not stupid. I.e. worse than Hillary, who is white.

To make sure those Twitter accounts would lose #MAGA followers? I can guarantee you that when I receive a #MAGA follower on Twitter because I criticize Chuck Schumer, I lose the same follower 5 minutes later when I retweet Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky.

Quote
zheega, I herewith declare you a Russian asset, if not troll, and will ignore your comments.

You ignored half of my questions in this would-be-debate, claimed that posts on Facebook and Twitter are somehow "election interference", don't want to address questions about the same "election interference" (as defined by you) from UAE that was pro-Clinton and now you just want to quit. Ignoring my comments might be the best solution for you...

Quote
The trolls also amplified Black Lives Matter.

Oh yes. I see a lot of people now saying "BLM were Russian puppets" because some Twitter and Facebook accounts shared a few of their posts.

I also see a lot of people wanting to start censoring social media. Yet those same people are anti-Trump, but want to give Trump anti-1st Amendment powers.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 05:08:11 PM by zheega »

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2859 on: February 22, 2018, 05:06:55 PM »
Quote
And how do you measure what impact the $1mio Russian operation had? And how do you compare it to everything else?

You don't. It is binary. They either did it or didn't.  How effective they were is irrelevant.

Quote
Repealing CU wouldn't solve this in any way. There is no law (except in countries like Saudi Arabia and China for example) that would prevent people posting memes to Twitter and Facebook.

Not for independent people, but yes to acting on behalf of foreign government sponsored organizations and for people pretending to be american citizens.

Quote
Also, if you are against foreign influence - CAP (Center For American Progress) was one of the biggest Clinton backers in 2015/2016 (their representatives received significant air time on CNN and MSNBC), yet CAP receives $1mio every year from United Arab Emirates.

Was this properly disclosed and used the proper channels or did  they pretend to be American?

Quote
But how many votes does a Facebook meme get you?

That depends on how good the meme is and how receptive people are to it. Quantifying it is impossible with current technology, but thats beside the point. The point is that they did it and it worked.

Quote
. But why didn't it work? Why did ~90% Sanders primary supporters vote for Clinton ANYWAY

The point wasn't to get votes against Clinton and for Trump. That will be highly innefective. Partisans wouldn't vote for another party even if their god told them to. The point was to discourage people from voting at all.

Anyway why do a poster with 3 posts keep asking  to quantify things everyone knows are unquantifiable? 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

zheega

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2860 on: February 22, 2018, 05:17:08 PM »
Quote
You don't. It is binary. They either did it or didn't.  How effective they were is irrelevant.

How do you call something that you can't quantify as "election interference"? Why not call it by its proper name - "unquantifiable attempts at social media propaganda"? Election interference has a proper definition. For example what foreign countries (US) are doing in Honduras or what foreign countries (Russia) are doing in Ukraine IS election interference or worse.

Quote
Not for independent people, but yes to acting on behalf of foreign government sponsored organizations and for people pretending to be american citizens.

1st Amendment applies to all people, even non-US citizens. How would you implement this social media censorship by not violating the 1st Amendment?

Quote
Was this properly disclosed and used the proper channels or did  they pretend to be American?

I've never heard CAP representatives on CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher or anywhere else disclose that they receive funding from foreign dictatorships. Usually they were presented as "Clinton surrogates" and not "CAP employee".

Quote
That depends on how good the meme is and how receptive people are to it. Quantifying it is impossible with current technology, but thats beside the point. The point is that they did it and it worked.

So it is unquantifiable, but you know that it worked?


Quote
The point wasn't to get votes against Clinton and for Trump. That will be highly innefective. Partisans wouldn't vote for another party even if their god told them to. The point was to discourage people from voting at all.

Wouldn't you expect at least a similar % of Sanders primary voters to vote for Trump as the % of Clinton primary voters to vote for McCain in 2008? All the data that we do have (and general election exit polls have a MOE of less than 3%) doesn't show that any "foreign influence" worked. Is there new data that we might get in the future? Yes, then I will be forced to change my view.

Quote
Anyway why do a poster with 3 posts keep asking  to quantify things everyone knows are unquantifiable?

Is there a rule saying new accounts shouldn't try to quantify things and talk about real, provable numbers? Link?

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2861 on: February 22, 2018, 05:34:48 PM »
Quote
I can't take Russiagate seriously. If YouTube, Twitter, Google etc websites were made to get their house in order, most of the problem would disappear.

Yea....you're probably right.  Decomcracy, fair elections, foreign intervention in our elections, money laundering with foreign governments, national security .... not sure what all the brewha  is about.  If someone wants to do all that stuff.....why not just let them? ;)

Quote
Meanwhile, realpolitik continues to cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
You can argue about good guys and bad guys forever but the proxy war is Syria has cost :-

Sounds like a good thread you could start.
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2862 on: February 22, 2018, 06:24:56 PM »

The Russians are far less stupid and naive than the general American population. That is Russia's greatest resource. The KGB has decaces of experience of mind-infection.

Why do you think the KGB was involved? Where is the evidence for that?
Russians yes, working at the Internet Research Agency, a privately held company. Nothing secret there, except for who actually ordered and paid for these activities. Nothing has so far been said about that, except for speculations.
My ideas are:
1.It's quite unlikely that the Kremlin would even think about using a private, and openly working company like the IRA for a campaign to interfere with US elections. That idea is actually quite absurd. How would they e.g. be able to protect and control their dirty little secret?
2. We know that there have been contacts between Cambridge Analytica (the data managers of Trump's campaign, owned by Mercer, with Bannon as a recent CEO), and the Russians at the IRA (sources linked in previous posts in this thread). It would make a lot of sense for those 'alt-right' guys to outsource such activities, and try to keep them secret.
3. There might be a money trail accordingly.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2863 on: February 22, 2018, 06:31:52 PM »

The Russians are far less stupid and naive than the general American population. That is Russia's greatest resource. The KGB has decaces of experience of mind-infection.

Why do you think the KGB was involved? Where is the evidence for that?
When "Putin's cook" is involved with 13 operatives on ground in U.S... (cf. evidence presented by Mueller)

And this: Dutch spies hacked a camera. Have photographic evidence.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

Quote
It would make a lot of sense for those 'alt-right' guys to outsource such activities, and try to keep them secret.
Yes. I'm confident Mueller will soon provide evidence.

----------------------
I'm getting bored with fighting the denial. Need to use my time elsewhere.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2864 on: February 22, 2018, 08:09:28 PM »

Quote
I'm getting bored with fighting the denial. Need to use my time elsewhere.

Not me.  That's what they want....

Keep in mind....Russian trolls can be ANYWHERE.  And they have to be addressed....pointed out...and taken care of.   Does it take "energy"....sure.  But it isn't wasted time...




FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2865 on: February 22, 2018, 09:44:54 PM »
Per Seth Abramson tweet:

Seth Abramson‏Verified account
@SethAbramson 

Quote
"Months ago, I made the case for disbelieving Keith Schiller's Congressional testimony—especially his claim he abandoned his post on Trump's door despite knowing there was an active blackmail threat against his principal. Now we learn the RNC is paying a Schiller op $180,000/year."

RNC, NRA, and others.  Follow the money indeed.....$$$$

 










« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 10:56:33 PM by Buddy »
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2866 on: February 22, 2018, 10:54:58 PM »
Here's a debate on The Intercept website that I think most people here will find interesting, whether pro- or anti-Russiagate. I can't link to the video directly, so you have to go there to watch it.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2867 on: February 22, 2018, 11:09:56 PM »
How do you call something that you can't quantify as "election interference"? Why not call it by its proper name - "unquantifiable attempts at social media propaganda"?

Wow. what great name. It rolls right off the tongue. You should trademark it and sell it to Mueller./s

Quote
1st Amendment applies to all people, even non-US citizens. How would you implement this social media censorship by not violating the 1st Amendment?

Sanctions on countries interfering with elections and if they dont war. We can't have foreign countries dictating our politics

Quote
So it is unquantifiable, but you know that it worked?

He-who-must-not-be-named won the electoral college. Anyone who helped, knowingly or not, shares the blame.

Quote
Wouldn't you expect at least a similar % of Sanders primary voters to vote for Trump as the % of Clinton primary voters to vote for McCain in 2008?

Nope. I would expect Sanders and desillusioned democrats to stay at home on election date. Political party affiliation is stronger than even religious belief.

Quote
Is there a rule saying new accounts shouldn't try to quantify things and talk about real, provable numbers? Link?

Just the rule of thumb that throw away accounts are usually trolls.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2868 on: February 23, 2018, 12:37:25 AM »
How do you call something that you can't quantify as "election interference"? Why not call it by its proper name - "unquantifiable attempts at social media propaganda"?

Wow. what great name. It rolls right off the tongue. You should trademark it and sell it to Mueller./s
social media subversion

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2869 on: February 23, 2018, 01:07:39 AM »
Here's a debate on The Intercept website that I think most people here will find interesting, whether pro- or anti-Russiagate. I can't link to the video directly, so you have to go there to watch it.
Finally a video I can recommend. :)
Glenn Greenwald is not a wide-eyed nutjob like Max Blumenthal and not an evidence-disinterested rabble-rouser like Jimmy Dore. BUT... :)

1) He got his epistemology skewed like a typical highbrow climate denier/lukewarmer
2) He has a little axe to grind (luckily only at one point in this video).

2) is the reason why I avoid him. He has a very good explanation for 1) but still methinks he's overdoing his demand for and standard of proof.

Perhaps I will give a general explanation of 1) later, if nobody else sees it.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2870 on: February 23, 2018, 01:20:26 AM »
Quote
US backed Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and various other extremist militias, sometimes with funny results - http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html
Fursan al Haqq and Suqour Al-Jabal is not Al Nusra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Division_(Syrian_rebel_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Hawks_Brigade

But that's for a different thread

zheega

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2871 on: February 23, 2018, 02:33:57 AM »
Quote
Fursan al Haqq and Suqour Al-Jabal is not Al Nusra

I didn't say they are. Those are other various extremists. Some results of backing those extremists were less funny - https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-backed-moderate-rebels-behead-a-child-near-aleppo

About US helping Al Qaeda in Syria: https://youtu.be/MQDRGrA9I7A?t=3m35s

Quote
He-who-must-not-be-named won the electoral college. Anyone who helped, knowingly or not, shares the blame.

I know Trump won the electoral college. Do you have any data that this social media troll farm actually helped him do that? Other than saying "it is unquantifiable"?

Quote
Nope. I would expect Sanders and desillusioned democrats to stay at home on election date. Political party affiliation is stronger than even religious belief.

So how many did stay home because of a Twitter meme uploaded by Russians? How many stayed home for totally unrelated reasons, like Obamacare premiums going up ~20% 2 weeks before the election? How do we quantify this?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 02:47:43 AM by zheega »

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2872 on: February 23, 2018, 03:20:18 AM »
Quote
Do you have any data that this social media troll farm actually helped him do that

Yeah sure. I have an engram of every person that ever saw a meme from the troll farm. I analyse the changes in the engram that were due to the meme and then I track the consequences of such changes to election day. On election day once they vote I extract  their vote from the engram and run the memes and the vote through an algorithm that tells me with 100% accuracy  how much the meme influenced the voters.   

Jokes aside, it does not matter how influential the campaign was. Think of Lance Armstrong. How influential was illegal doping on his amazing wins? Unquantifiable, yet we know that performance enhancing drugs offer an unfair advantage to athletes. So he was stripped from all his titles.

Is the same here. Advertisment and messeging works. It is effective and some people got it down to a science. There is a huge market for it, a market that wouldnt exists if it didnt work.Russian agents used proven methods of propaganda, on unsuspecting citizens, posing as Americans. The election result was in their favor and contrary to all forecasts.  Was it the russian interference that tipped the balance? Who knows, but it doesn't matter. It happenned.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2873 on: February 23, 2018, 05:24:46 AM »
Quote
Do you have any data that this social media troll farm actually helped him do that

Yeah sure. I have an engram of every person that ever saw a meme from the troll farm. I analyse the changes in the engram that were due to the meme and then I track the consequences of such changes to election day. On election day once they vote I extract  their vote from the engram and run the memes and the vote through an algorithm that tells me with 100% accuracy  how much the meme influenced the voters.   

Jokes aside, it does not matter how influential the campaign was. Think of Lance Armstrong. How influential was illegal doping on his amazing wins? Unquantifiable, yet we know that performance enhancing drugs offer an unfair advantage to athletes. So he was stripped from all his titles.

Is the same here. Advertisment and messeging works. It is effective and some people got it down to a science. There is a huge market for it, a market that wouldnt exists if it didnt work.Russian agents used proven methods of propaganda, on unsuspecting citizens, posing as Americans. The election result was in their favor and contrary to all forecasts.  Was it the russian interference that tipped the balance? Who knows, but it doesn't matter. It happenned.

+1
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2874 on: February 23, 2018, 07:30:39 AM »
The Intercept posted the video of the Greenwald-Risen debate on YouTube as well:



Another pro-contra debate:

The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Susan Anderson

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2875 on: February 23, 2018, 08:21:32 AM »
posted without much comment, except please read the whole thing (or not at all), not just the parts you agree with. Life is just not all that simple, nobody's perfect, not even Bernie. Though I am beginning to think Trump and his crew and enablers are approaching the absolute definition of "evil, be thou my good" in the classic sense. Lots of supporting links at the original, which is here: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-uneasy-dive-into-the-trump-russia-frenzy
Quote
A So-Called Expert’s Uneasy Dive Into the Trump-Russia Frenzy - Adrian Chen

Whenever the Internet Research Agency is in the news, I get a sinking feeling in my stomach. I was one of the first U.S. journalists to report extensively on the St. Petersburg-based “troll farm,” which was named in the indictment that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, issued last Friday. As a result, I am often portrayed as an expert on the Internet Research Agency and Russian online propaganda. In this, I am not alone. The endless unfurling of the Trump-Russia story has occasioned an explosion in the number of experts in “information warfare,” “online influence operations,” “disinformation,” and the like. One reason for this is that the Russians’ efforts tend to be framed as a kind of giant machine, in which talking points generated by the Kremlin are “amplified” through a network of bots, fake Facebook pages, and sympathetic human influencers. The machine, we are told, is so sophisticated that only an expert, well-versed in terms such as “exposure,” “feedback loops,” and “active measures,” can peer into the black box and explain to the layperson how it works.

The thing is, I don’t really want to be an expert on the Internet Research Agency and Russian online propaganda. I agree with my colleague Masha Gessen that the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. In the Times Magazine article that supposedly made me an authority, I detailed some of the Agency’s disturbing activities, including its attempts to spread false reports of a terrorist attack in Louisiana and to smear me as a neo-Nazi sympathizer. But, if I could do it all over again, I would have highlighted just how inept and haphazard those attempts were. That the Agency is now widely seen as a savvy, efficient manipulator of American public opinion is, in no small part, the fault of experts. They may derive their authority from perceived neutrality, but in reality they—we—have interests, just like everyone else. And, when it comes to the Trump-Russia story, those interests are often best served by fuelling the fear of Kremlin meddling. Information-security consultants might see a business opportunity in drawing attention to a problem to which they (for a fee) can offer a solution. Think-tank fellows may seek to burnish their credentials by appearing in news articles—articles written by journalists who, we all know, face many different kinds of pressures to promote sensational claims. (How viral is the headline “Russian Internet Propaganda Not That Big a Deal”?) Even academic researchers, to secure funding, must sometimes chase the latest trends.

But couldn’t I be the sort of expert who tries to downplay the problem, offering a counterweight to others’ opinions? This might be appealing if the issue were being hashed out in obscure scholarly journals, rather than in an atmosphere in which every skeptical utterance about Trump-Russia becomes pro-Trump propaganda. Rob Goldman, Facebook’s vice-president for advertising, learned this lesson the hard way. Late last Friday, he argued on Twitter that, because the majority of the Internet Research Agency’s Facebook ads were purchased after the election, the group’s goal must have been not to elect Donald Trump but “to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us.” Perhaps Goldman hoped that, by portraying the Russians’ machinations as nonpartisan, he could appear to take the problem of online disinformation seriously without offending Trump’s supporters. But Goldman’s caution backfired. Trump triumphantly retweeted him, writing, “The Fake News Media never fails. Hard to ignore this fact from the Vice President of Facebook Ads, Rob Goldman!” In the next few days, Goldman was pilloried by the President’s critics; many pointed out that, according to the Mueller indictment, the Agency’s specific aim was to undermine Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. Goldman later apologized to his company in an internal message.

You can see how wielding my expertise has always felt like a lose-lose proposition. Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat, or I could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies. So, last week, when the Agency once again became the focus of the Trump-Russia story, I ignored the many media requests in my in-box and wrote a couple of short articles instead, including one about a brief telephone conversation I’d had with the alleged executive director of the Agency, Mikhail Burchik. Then, on Monday afternoon, I received an e-mail from a booker for “All In with Chris Hayes,” on MSNBC. They wanted to have me on to talk about Burchik. Figuring, naïvely, that in discussing this one development I’d be able to avoid dealing with knottier questions, I agreed.

The segment began innocuously enough. Hayes asked me about an appearance I had made on the Longform podcast, in 2015, in which I mentioned offhand that many of the accounts I had followed while reporting my Times Magazine story had switched from posting negative information about Obama to positive information about Trump. The Agency, I’d suggested with a laugh, must be pursuing “some kind of really opaque strategy of electing Donald Trump to undermine the U.S.” The fact that I was considering this possibility struck me at the time as a worrying sign that I had internalized the paranoia that defines Russian propaganda itself, which sees in every bad thing that happens to Russia the hidden hand of the United States. Both the Trump campaign and the idea of a Russian troll operation to elect him seemed like a joke back then, and I said as much to Hayes.

The last question was the one I had hoped to avoid. “It seems like, in some ways, it’s a remarkably effective model,” Hayes said, referring to the Agency’s operation. “You don’t have to pull off some enormous thing. You just have to kind of be in people’s consciousness enough, constantly, in this sort of irritant way, with ninety people you’re paying, running an operation that doesn’t cost that much money. It does seem like a good bang for your buck.” I disagreed. I said I didn’t think that what amounted to a social-media marketing campaign—one whose supposed architects had a rudimentary grasp of the English language—could sow so much discord on its own. One could argue that ninety people is about what it would take to run the digital operation of a modern Presidential campaign—to shift votes in a candidate’s favor. But numbers tell only a part of the story. In the indictment, Mueller’s team reveals that the Agency didn’t discover the idea of targeting “purple states” until June, 2016, when a Texas-based conservative activist introduced them to the term. Cambridge Analytica this is not.

The morning after the Hayes interview, I woke up to find that a journalist named Aaron Maté had clipped the video and tweeted it, along with the comment “OMG, a sober/informed Russia take on MSNBC!” (Last April, Maté argued in The Intercept that Rachel Maddow, the network’s most popular host and a strong advocate of the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, was leading her viewers on “a fruitless quest.”) The clip, which I retweeted, spread faster than anything I’d written or said about the Agency since the original article. Within a few minutes, I had been retweeted by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who relentlessly promotes skepticism about Russian influence. (WikiLeaks, of course, played a role of its own in the 2016 election.) After Assange, various right-wing social-media influencers piled on, including Jack Posobiec, a pusher of the Pizzagate conspiracy. Some current and former employees of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, picked the clip up, too. It was also shared by many journalists and liberals who cast it as a welcome bit of reason amid the rising frenzy. Still, I could feel my words slipping away, becoming the foundation for someone else’s shakily constructed argument. The fact that I had been given the rare opportunity to share an opinion on national television seemed pretty much cancelled out by the ways its online audience had put it to use.

But maybe I ought to look at the episode from the point of view of the information-warfare experts. They would see me as involved in an “influence campaign” to propagate my view that Russian influence wasn’t all that influential. According to the standards commonly used by such experts—namely, social-media metrics—my campaign was stunningly successful: my tweet about the Hayes segment garnered seventeen hundred retweets and thirty-nine hundred likes, for a total of more than 1.2 million “impressions”; Maté’s video clip has received more than a hundred and ninety thousand views.

If the metrics testified to my enormous influence, why did I feel so powerless? This question illustrates the problem with treating the spread of information as primarily a numbers game. It removes any agency from the equation, seeming to hand control of Americans’ thoughts and opinions to a roomful of young Russians in St. Petersburg; it ignores people’s tendency to share information that they already agree with; and it sees evidence, in the spread of that information among self-interested groups, of some grand design by a mastermind propagandist. I clicked through the profiles of the hundreds of people sharing my tweet and found a nearly incomprehensible whirl of agendas, egos, grudges, and strategies. I was supposed to be influencing this?

At a certain point, it occurred to me that my reluctance to opine about the Internet Research Agency was a product of the same logic that I was arguing against. I was judging my words and beliefs by how they might appear to the perfect propaganda machine, whether pro-Trump or anti-Russia. My caution gave the machine far more credit than it deserved.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2876 on: February 23, 2018, 09:37:23 AM »
Thanks for an interesting read, Susan. Adrian Chen published another article a few days ago that I find worth reading: An Indicted Russian Picks Up the Phone, and Mocks the Idea That Russia Meddled.

I liked this cartoon (very inventive):

« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 10:50:49 AM by Neven »
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2877 on: February 23, 2018, 11:13:06 AM »
...
Russian agents used proven methods of propaganda, on unsuspecting citizens, posing as Americans. The election result was in their favor and contrary to all forecasts.  Was it the russian interference that tipped the balance? Who knows, but it doesn't matter. It happenned.

Sure, but the main actor working for Trump was Cambridge Analytica. Maybe you should compare what CA did openly in order to sway the vote, what budget they had, how many twitter bots they launched, how many millions of targeted messages on social networks, etc. They had a huge budget. The Russians had a very tiny budget in comparison, and we don't even know who ordered their services. MSM say it was the Kremlin, I do believe that is an uninformed, and so far a completely unfounded claim.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2878 on: February 23, 2018, 02:48:26 PM »
Manifort is in DEEP SHIT.  For his own sake....I hope he has enough on Trump to satisfy Mueller.  Otherwise he is going to sit his ass in jail for a LONG TIME.  And a federal pardon won't do squat for New York AG Schneiderman if he comes after him.

And Gates....he is also up the proverbial creek without a paddle.....OR EVEN A BOAT.

We should be pretty close to Donnie saying he isn't going to sit down and talk with Mueller.  Traitor Don is likely playing this out till he knows what the heck Manifort is going to do....OR Mueller is playing this out to squeeze every last drop of blood out of Manifort that he can to use against Traitor Don.

And did you folks see the outcome of the special election in Kentucky where the Democratic candidate that had lost in the last election.....won the special election in a district that Trump had carried by 49 points (72% to 43%).  The Democratic candidate ended up winning this time by 32% after just barely losing in 2016.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374777-dem-wins-ky-state-house-seat-in-district-trump-won-by-49-points

We'll see how the Republicans think things are going this spring and summer.

The Ides of March is coming Donnie.....



FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2879 on: February 23, 2018, 03:29:58 PM »
A reasoned response from C.H.S of two minds, https://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb18/russia-irony2-18.html "The irony of the Deep State's obsessive focus on "Russian meddling" in the precious bodily fluids of our hallowed democracy is so overwhelming that it's gagging. The irony is a noxious confluence of putrid hypocrisy and a comically abject terror at the prospect that the citizenry may be awakening to the terrible reality that America has lost its soul as well as its democracy. " after that he tells it as he sees it.
Until very recently i thought the idea of wars of seccesion occuring in the USA, as predicted by JMG who iirc expected Trump to win, were ridiculous, now i'm not so certain, you live in a deeply divided country, looking at the same things yet seeing different things.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2880 on: February 23, 2018, 04:15:18 PM »


Why do you think the KGB was involved? Where is the evidence for that?
Russians yes, working at the Internet Research Agency, a privately held company. Nothing secret there, except for who actually ordered and paid for these activities. Nothing has so far been said about that, except for speculations.
My ideas are:
1.It's quite unlikely that the Kremlin would even think about using a private, and openly working company like the IRA for a campaign to interfere with US elections. That idea is actually quite absurd. How would they e.g. be able to protect and control their dirty little secret?
2. We know that there have been contacts between Cambridge Analytica (the data managers of Trump's campaign, owned by Mercer, with Bannon as a recent CEO), and the Russians at the IRA (sources linked in previous posts in this thread). It would make a lot of sense for those 'alt-right' guys to outsource such activities, and try to keep them secret.
3. There might be a money trail accordingly.

Three US security agency heads stated, under potential penalty of perjury, that Putin personally ordered interference in the US election; they each said they had no doubt whatsoever.  I find that highly persuasive, especially in light of supportive circumstantial evidence that arose later.

But I'd wager that not a ruble from the Kremlin treasury was used.  No need to.  It's a kleptocracy, with oligarchs in Putin's back pocket.  He needed only to have a chat with one, telling him how much money to send to what account at the Internet Research Agency, and assuring him that there'd be repayment in klepto-rubles, with abundant interest.

It's inconceivable to me that any oligarch would meddle in a US election without Putin's personal approval.

It seems wildly improbable that Cambridge Analytica would employ the Russian troll farm.  Their whole business model relies on sophisticated analysis of social media users *individually* but in vast numbers.  I can't imagine they'd convey the relevant proprietary information to a shady hacker organization.  They're evil, but not stupid.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2881 on: February 23, 2018, 05:11:52 PM »
But I'd wager that not a ruble from the Kremlin treasury was used.
Yes. But pretty close:

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/did-kremlin-give-money-to-nra/
Quote
A report by McClatchy revealed that the FBI is looking into whether a Russian banker with Kremlin ties funneled money through the NRA during the 2016 election.

Quote
Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA, the sources said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/17/opinions/russian-meddling-guns-opinion-ghitis/index.html
What do the gun violence debate and 2016 election have in common?

--------------
P.S.:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/us/politics/trump-putin-russia-nra-campaign.html
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 05:39:06 PM by Martin Gisser »

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2882 on: February 23, 2018, 05:23:13 PM »
It seems wildly improbable that Cambridge Analytica would employ the Russian troll farm.  Their whole business model relies on sophisticated analysis of social media users *individually* but in vast numbers.  I can't imagine they'd convey the relevant proprietary information to a shady hacker organization.
I'm not that sure.

There is this Alfa Bank -- Trump tower server connection story. Old blogger theory:

https://patribotics.blog/2017/09/22/exclusive-fisa-target-svb-bank-server-sent-cambridge-analytica-data-to-trump/


Maybe Alex Van der Zwaan will give some details:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/mueller-indicted-lawyer-alex-van-der-zwaan-curious-link-steele-dossier-thats-not/
Quote
Mueller-charged lawyer Alex Van der Zwaan has a curious link to the Steele dossier — and that’s not all
[...]
Van der Zwaan’s father-in-law German Khan is a co-founder of Alfa Bank, which fell under FBI investigation for attempting repeatedly to link up to a computer server in Trump Tower during the presidential campaign.

FBI investigators concluded the Trump Organization server appeared to be controlled by the marketing firm Cendyn, which was blasting out emails promoting Trump-branded hotel properties.

Khan and Alfa Bank showed up repeatedly in the dossier produced by former British spy Christopher Steele, who misspelled the bank as “Alpha Bank.”

The billionaire Khan, who showed up in a recent list of Russian oligarchs with ties to Vladimir Putin, has sued Steele for libel.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2883 on: February 23, 2018, 05:47:52 PM »
Gates is pleading guilty today:

Title: "Former Trump aide tells loved ones of plans to plead guilty, cooperate with special counsel"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-aide-richard-gates-poised-plead-guilty-cooperate/story?id=53300996

Extract: "President Donald Trump’s one-time campaign aide Richard Gates has told family and close friends in a letter sent this morning he plans to plead guilty Friday in the special counsel’s criminal case against him, setting up the potential for Gates to become the latest well-informed Trump insider to assist in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential contest, according to sources close to the matter."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2884 on: February 23, 2018, 09:49:08 PM »
Gates has now formally admitted that he conspired with Manafort "in a variety of criminal schemes," (together with lying to Mueller) and I note that in the indictment these criminal schemes allegedly extend into 2016:

Title: "Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates pleads guilty to conspiracy, lying"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-trump-campaign-aide-rick-gates-set-plead-guilty-n849256

Extract: "Former campaign aide Rick Gates pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy and to lying to investigators — while he was negotiating a deal — making him the third associate of President Donald Trump to strike a cooperation agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller.

The agreement, which requires Gates to cooperate on "all matters" prosecutors deem relevant, turns up the pressure on Paul Manafort, a close business associate of Gates who was the chairman of the Trump campaign."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2885 on: February 23, 2018, 11:29:08 PM »
As of Feb 23 2018 in the Russiagate investigation, 5 have plead guilty and 14 more have been charged; and still counting:
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2886 on: February 23, 2018, 11:37:19 PM »
The number of charges against Manafort keep increasing, so unless he can deliver substantial information on Trump's wrong doings (in order to cut a plea deal), Manafort may well spend the rest of his life in prison:

Title: "Mueller probe: Manafort hit with new charges after Gates pleads guilty"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-trump-campaign-aide-rick-gates-set-plead-guilty-n849256

Extract: "Former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort was hit with new charges on Friday — including allegations he secretly recruited and funded a group of former European politicians to lobby in the United States on behalf of Ukraine.

The superseding indictment was filed just a couple of hours after Manafort's business partner, former campaign aide Rick Gates, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to lying to investigators — even while he was negotiating a deal with Mueller."

Edit, see the associated image of the first page of the Feb 23 2018 indictment against Manafort:
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 11:58:46 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Susan Anderson

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2887 on: February 23, 2018, 11:37:56 PM »

I liked this cartoon (very inventive):

Neven, that illustration came with the grand-daddy of opening reveals on the corrupt relationship between Trump and Russia. I am a New Yorker subscriber and for years have regarded it as the most thorough and trustworthy source for international news in the US. Of course there are others at times, but the New Yorker seems to blend quality and entertainment well, and give its investigative reporters full support, its successful model probably partly due to the sickeningly extraordinary wealth of its base in the New York City area. Some of its reporting caters to the staggeringly expensive market in luxury goods, and some cuts to the bone in exposing hypocrisy. They get to the news with better writing and research faster than any other resources. I had to go back through more than a hundred more recent articles to find this one: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

March 6, 2017 Issue, By Evan Osnos, David Remnick, and Joshua Yaffa
Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War: What lay behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—and what lies ahead?

slightly off topic: I too learned a lot from the long-read Hayek article in the Guardian, and am ruminating on the evils of the pervasive theory that the market is more important than people, and we are "not allowed" to organize for the common good. Dangerous indeed! Thatcher's and Reagan's justifier. Oddly, Hayek earned his Nobel with Gunnar Myrdal, a stalwart socialist of sorts. The Nobel Committee has a bad habit of awarding the Peace Prize to try to influence international affairs (Obama on fighting nukes (he actually did before he was president)) and putting opposing economists together for the Economics award.


AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2888 on: February 23, 2018, 11:48:43 PM »
Here is some insights on how prosecutors caught Gates (and allegedly Manafort) conspiring to commit bank fraud in 2016:

Title: "How Manafort's inability to convert a PDF file to Word helped prosecutors"

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/how-manaforts-inability-to-convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

Extract: "In 2016, Manafort allegedly wanted to create a fake profit-and-loss statement for his company, Davis Manafort Partners, in order to inflate his income and qualify for a loan.
"Manafort emailed Gates a .pdf version of the real 2016 DMI P&L, which showed a loss of more than $600,000," the indictment claims. "Gates converted that .pdf into a Word document so that it could be edited, which Gates sent back to Manafort. Manafort altered the Word document by adding more than $3.5 million in income."

Then, according to the indictment, Manafort "sent this falsified P&L to Gates and asked that the Word document be converted back to a .pdf, which Gates did and returned to Manafort."
By sending these documents back and forth by email, Manafort and Gates made it easy for prosecutors to pinpoint exactly who changed the documents and when."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Pettit

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2889 on: February 24, 2018, 12:07:35 AM »
As of Feb 23 2018 in the Russiagate investigation, 5 have plead guilty and 14 more have been charged; and still counting:

IANAL, but doesn't that seem like an awful lot of guilty pleas over a mere hoax? You'd almost think that both Mueller and those pleading guilty know more about what's going on than the rest of us.

The only way Trump looks squeaky clean here is if one believes that he was completely clueless about his campaign manager. Maybe. Maybe. But I'm not buying it. Far more importantly, neither is Mueller.

Two points:

1) This isn't going away anytime soon.
2) Nor should it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2890 on: February 24, 2018, 12:17:27 AM »
As of Feb 23 2018 in the Russiagate investigation, 5 have plead guilty and 14 more have been charged; and still counting:

IANAL, but doesn't that seem like an awful lot of guilty pleas over a mere hoax? You'd almost think that both Mueller and those pleading guilty know more about what's going on than the rest of us.

The only way Trump looks squeaky clean here is if one believes that he was completely clueless about his campaign manager. Maybe. Maybe. But I'm not buying it. Far more importantly, neither is Mueller.

Two points:

1) This isn't going away anytime soon.
2) Nor should it.
Trump completely clueless ? I could buy that one.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2891 on: February 24, 2018, 03:36:51 AM »
It will be interesting to see what happens after Mueller interviews Rohrabacher:

Title: "Pro-Russia GOP Congressman Features Prominently In Trump Aide’s Plea Document"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dana-rohrabacher-russia-robert-mueller_us_5a90675fe4b03b55731bf427

Extract: "Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has been interviewed by congressional investigators but not yet by special counsel Robert Mueller."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2892 on: February 24, 2018, 03:45:34 AM »
As prosecutors agreed not to charge Gates for 'disclosed participation' with obstruction of justice; this clearly indicates that Gates had discussions with Manafort in 2017 that Mueller considers obstruction of justice, which indicates that Manafort has been charged with obstruction of justice in 2017.  Now there is only one man with whom Manafort would have been conspiring with to obstruct justice regarding the Russia investigation, and that is Donald J. Trump.

Title: "Gates Guilty Plea Strengthens Mueller’s Hand Against Manafort"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/gates-guilty-plea-strengthens-mueller-s-hand-against-manafort

Extract: "Gates signed his guilty plea on Friday before walking into court. Prosecutors agreed not to charge him for his “disclosed participation” in other crimes, including money laundering, false statements, personal and corporate tax and offshore account offenses, bank fraud and obstruction of justice."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2893 on: February 24, 2018, 04:34:33 AM »

Why do you think the KGB was involved? Where is the evidence for that?

Three US security agency heads stated, under potential penalty of perjury, that Putin personally ordered interference in the US election; they each said they had no doubt whatsoever.  I find that highly persuasive, especially in light of supportive circumstantial evidence that arose later.

But I'd wager that not a ruble from the Kremlin treasury was used.  No need to.  It's a kleptocracy, with oligarchs in Putin's back pocket.  He needed only to have a chat with one, telling him how much money to send to what account at the Internet Research Agency, and assuring him that there'd be repayment in klepto-rubles, with abundant interest.

It's inconceivable to me that any oligarch would meddle in a US election without Putin's personal approval.

It seems wildly improbable that Cambridge Analytica would employ the Russian troll farm.  Their whole business model relies on sophisticated analysis of social media users *individually* but in vast numbers.  I can't imagine they'd convey the relevant proprietary information to a shady hacker organization.  They're evil, but not stupid.

That is an excellent and reasonable argument, Steve. Thank you.
Let me add something to that :

We know from Mueller's indictment that this operation was financed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an Oligarch close to Putin.
We also know that the Obama administration imposed sanctions in late 2016, and expelled a good number of Russian diplomats, BECAUSE Russia meddled in our elections.
And Congress imposed additional sanction in 2017 on Russia for the same reason (sanctions that Trump refuses to enact).

The Russian Federation was hurt by these sanctions, so if Prigozhin acted without Kremlin approval, wouldn't you think that Mr. Prigozhin would be rotting in a Russian jail right now ? If he was lucky ?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 04:45:03 AM by Rob Dekker »
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2894 on: February 24, 2018, 04:54:49 AM »
What were the findings of the other 14 investigative bodies. Surely they can't all have been forgotten in these tumultuous times? ::)
Terry

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2895 on: February 24, 2018, 11:50:28 AM »
Manafort is history...

Great article in latest edition of The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/

Required reading for American meddling whataboutists, Russiagate lukewarmers, and DNC critics, ... and everybody interested in the evolution of our world from Ronald Reagan onwards.

>>>
Decades before he ran the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort’s pursuit of foreign cash and shady deals laid the groundwork for the corruption of Washington.
[...]

[...]

[...]

Ferdinand Marcos (left), Viktor Yanukovych (center), and Jonas Savimbi (right) are among the many strongmen whom Manafort has advised and assisted.

[...]
Paul Manafort, over the course of his career, was a great normalizer of corruption. The firm he created in the 1980s obliterated traditional concerns about conflicts of interest. It imported the ethos of the permanent campaign into lobbying and, therefore, into the construction of public policy.

And while Manafort is alleged to have laundered cash for his own benefit, his long history of laundering reputations is what truly sets him apart. He helped persuade the American political elite to look past the atrocities and heists of kleptocrats and goons. He took figures who should have never been permitted influence in Washington and softened their image just enough to guide them past the moral barriers to entry. He weakened the capital’s ethical immune system.

Helping elect Donald Trump, in so many ways, represents the culmination of Paul Manafort’s work. The president bears some likeness to the oligarchs Manafort long served: [...]
<<<
(my emph.)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 12:06:00 PM by Martin Gisser »

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2896 on: February 24, 2018, 02:07:33 PM »
What were the findings of the other 14 investigative bodies. Surely they can't all have been forgotten in these tumultuous times? ::)
Terry
One of the three was the head of the National Security Council, and thus representing all the intelligence services collectively.
But, my gosh!, if Coast Guard Intelligence didn't agree, that negates EVERYTHING!!!!  [/sarc]

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2897 on: February 24, 2018, 06:27:44 PM »
Quote
Manafort is history...

Not yet. Remember who we are dealing with. There is a very good chance that Gates has a completely natural looking unexpected death.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25761
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2898 on: February 24, 2018, 06:44:10 PM »
A Seth Abramson thread on Rick Gates’ guilty plea. 
All rolled into one convenient link!  ;)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/967125456666415106.html

Quote
34/ Moreover, the Washington Post noted in mid-2016 that Rick Gates was part of a suspiciously long list of Trump advisors who had *known* Russian connections at the time Trump, er, "hired" them—for free. So Gates has been a Trump-Russia figure all along. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/16/is-trump-being-duped-by-his-pro-russia-advisers/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #2899 on: February 24, 2018, 07:01:57 PM »
Quote
One of the three was the head of the National Security Council, and thus representing all the intelligence services collectively.
But, my gosh!, if Coast Guard Intelligence didn't agree, that negates EVERYTHING!!!!  [/sarc]

Looks like Comrade Terry is saying:  "Don't look at the 3 agencies doing most of the investigative work....let's look at the other 13 to see what they say."

Kind of like.....don't look at the 95% of climate scientists doing work on global warming....we should be looking at what the other 5% are doing.

Here's a clip of Comrade Terry (black knight) I found:



FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."