PDA

View Full Version : The Terror of Fake News



Pages : [1] 2

troung
03 Dec 16,, 23:33
Obama was correct we need some entity to vet the news...

Opinion Fake news writers: 'Hillary Clinton, here are your deplorables'
SOCIAL-MEDIA
LibertyWritersNews founders Paris Wade, left, and Ben Goldman work at their apartment in Long Beach on Nov. 14. (Stuart Palley / For the Washington Post)
Paul ThorntonPaul ThorntonContact Reporter

One of the guilty pleasures of editing letters to the editor is occasionally reading novel, colorful insults included in submissions that do not make it into print. Almost all of the time, the rhetorical flourish in these letters cannot make up for the lack of a substantive argument, so they get left out.

That’s not the case for the responses to an article Saturday on the two Los Angeles-area twentysomethings behind the Donald Trump-friendly fake news site LibertyWritersNews. The two letters published Thursday were the softest of the roughly two dozen submissions that expressed nothing but scorn. Sprinkled among the barbs were earnest points about maintaining an informed citizenry.

Ernie Orfila of Spring Valley, Calif., puts the two “journalists” into Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables:
I wonder who raised them; even if they were raised by wolves, the wolves should be ashamed. — Mike Greene, Tustin

Kudos to the real-life journalist who turned over the brain-dead rock to shed light on Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the alt-right, fake news-dispensing site LibertyWritersNews. Like two poorly adjusted adolescents who get their kicks shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, they have found the key to making money without regard to facts, ethics or morals.

Hillary Clinton, here are your deplorables.

Tustin resident Mike Greene encourages the two writers to find a different line of work:

Words fail me. There is so much wrong, on so many levels, with the shamelessness personified by these two young guys. I wonder who raised them; even if they were raised by wolves, the wolves should be ashamed.

That they have no problem with their faces being shown and their names and backgrounds being printed only amplifies just how big a problem this whole fake news thing is.

The most ironic line of the story is buried right in the middle, when one of them utters, “You have to trick people into reading the news.” The stuff they’re putting out isn’t news, and to call it that is beyond ridiculous.

Guys, get an honest job.

Jeffrey Peter Bates of Toluca Lake parodies a fake-news headline:
Submit a Letter to the Editor
Submit a Letter to the Editor

“FAKE NEWS TROLLS RIG ELECTION OUTCOME!” Hopefully The Times will not resort to headlines like this to increase its readership, leaving it instead to fake journalists Paris Wade and Ben Goldman, who are enthusiastically tapping into people’s fears, prejudices and ignorance.

While I applaud their entrepreneurial guile, I abhor the glee with which they practice their “click bait” tactics. They have made it much more difficult for readers to distinguish between reliable and yellow journalism.

And to answer their question about being complicit should one of their readers “take out” a fellow human being: The answer is yes.

Allen F. Dziuk of Carlsbad wonders about LibertyWriters News’ audience:

I worry less about Trump being our president than I do about the voters who put him in the White House.http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-fake-news-readers-20161203-story.html



Reflections on Fake News
12/03/2016 02:45 pm ET
Bruce Fein Constitutional Lawyer and Author
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/reflections-on-fake-news_b_13396578.html
Fake news is an old story.

It has featured in domestic politics and international affairs since the beginning of time.

The British famously defined an ambassador as an "honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country."

A prime mission of the Central Intelligence Agency is to spread false news to influence the outcome of foreign elections. The very first CIA covert action manipulated the 1948 Italian elections. By its own later admissions to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the agency forged documents and letters purported to come from the Communist Party of Italy (PCI) to besmirch its reputation and discredit its leaders; funded anonymous books and magazine articles vividly detailing alleged communist activities in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; and, published pamphlets exposing PCI candidates' sex and personal lives and insinuating they harbored fascist or anti-church sympathies.

The CIA intervened with multiple covert actions costing between $800,000 and $1 million in Chile's 1970 presidential election with the hope of derailing Marxist candidate Salvador Allende. The Senate Select Committee found: "Propaganda placements were achieved through subsidizing right-wing women's and 'civic action' groups."

It would thus be stunning if the Russian or Chinese intelligence services refrained from seeking to influence elections in the United States to their advantage by imitating the C.I.A.'s modus operandi abroad of spreading false news. Intelligence services do not play by Queensbury Rules.

In any event, prohibiting fake news would be problematic. Generally speaking, falsehoods and truths are both protected by the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court explained in United States v. Alvarez (2012) that false statements may not punished unless they cause some demonstrable concrete harm, for example, fraud, defamation, or a miscarriage of justice. The Court in Alvarez invalidated a federal prohibition on lying about receiving military decorations or medals. In reliance on that precedent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus voided an Ohio statute prohibiting malicious falsehoods in political campaigns for the purpose of influencing the outcomes.

Justice Louis Brandeis lectured in Whitney v. California (1927) that the customary remedy for bad speech or demagoguery is more speech or superior arguments, not enforced silence. He largely echoed John Milton's Areopagitica: "Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

Brandeis and Milton were too rosy. Mark Twain was more right than wrong in quipping that, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

But prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.

The entire concept of fake news is troublesome. Candidates for public office routinely make statements divorced from truth. Was it "fake" news for 1968 presidential candidate Richard Nixon to maintain he had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War when he had no such thing? Is it "fake" news when candidates make fanciful promises to create millions of new jobs, cut taxes, balance the budget, and slash government spending which carry the plausibility of King Canute's stopping the tides? The lion's share of campaign speeches typically dwell outside the domain of credibility. Are they all "fake" news? They seek to persuade the audience to believe in a future they know is impossible.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes captured the optimal approach to fake news in his famous dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States (1919):

"[T]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market...That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."

The solution is not perfect. But it is better than all the alternatives.

troung
05 Dec 16,, 16:17
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda
NEWS DESK
THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA
By Adrian Chen , DECEMBER 1, 2016
A report from a group called PropOrNot has accused hundreds of Web sites of spreading Russian propaganda. But its methodology is a mess.
A report from a group called PropOrNot has accused hundreds of Web sites of spreading Russian propaganda. But its methodology is a mess.
PHOTOGRAPH BY DENIS SINYAKOV / AFP / GETTY
In late October, I received an e-mail from “The PropOrNot Team,” which described itself as a “newly-formed independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists and political activists, dedicated to identifying propaganda—particularly Russian propaganda targeting a U.S. audience.” PropOrNot said that it had identified two hundred Web sites that “qualify as Russian propaganda outlets.” The sites’ reach was wide—they are read by at least fifteen million Americans. PropOrNot said that it had “drafted a preliminary report about this for the office of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), and after reviewing our report they urged us to get in touch with you and see about making it a story.”

Reporting on Internet phenomena, one learns to be wary of anonymous collectives freely offering the fruits of their research. I told PropOrNot that I was probably too busy to write a story, but I asked to see the report. In reply, PropOrNot asked me to put the group in touch with “folks at the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, and anyone else who you think would be interested.” Deep in the middle of another project, I never followed up.


PropOrNot managed to connect with the Washington Post on its own. Last week, the Post published a story based in part on PropOrNot’s research. Headlined “Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say,” the report claimed that a number of researchers had uncovered a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign” that spread fake-news articles across the Internet with the aim of hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. It prominently cited the PropOrNot research. The story topped the Post’s most-read list, and was shared widely by prominent journalists and politicians on Twitter. The former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Why isn’t this the biggest story in the world right now?”

Vladimir Putin and the Russian state’s affinity for Trump has been well-reported. During the campaign, countless stories speculated on connections between Trump and Putin and alleged that Russia contributed to Trump’s election using propaganda and subterfuge. Clinton made it a major line of attack. But the Post’s story had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot’s work: the group released a thirty-two-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of two hundred suspect news outlets. The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique.

But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess. “To be honest, it looks like a pretty amateur attempt,” Eliot Higgins, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian fake-news stories on his Web site, Bellingcat, for years, told me. “I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note.”

ADVERTISEMENT


The most striking issue is the overly broad criteria used to identify which outlets spread propaganda. According to PropOrNot’s recounting of its methodology, the third step it uses is to check if a site has a history of “generally echoing the Russian propaganda ‘line’,” which includes praise for Putin, Trump, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Iran, China, and “radical political parties in the US and Europe.” When not praising, Russian propaganda includes criticism of the United States, Barack Obama, Clinton, the European Union, Angela Merkel, nato, Ukraine, “Jewish people,” U.S. allies, the mainstream media, Democrats, and “the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes.”

These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself. Yet PropOrNot claims to be uninterested in differentiating between organizations that are explicit tools of the Russian state and so-called “useful idiots,” which echo Russian propaganda out of sincerely held beliefs. “We focus on behavior, not motivation,” they write.

To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. Indeed, the list of “propaganda outlets” has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report. The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. “It’s so incredibly scattershot,” Higgins told me. “If you’ve ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you’re Russian propaganda.” In a scathing takedown on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.”

By overplaying the influence of Russia’s disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat. “Think about RT and Sputnik’s goals, how they report their success to Putin,” Vasily Gatov, a Russian media analyst and a visiting fellow at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, told me. “Their success is that they have penetrated their agenda, that they have become an issue for the West. And this is exactly what happened.” (Kristine Coratti Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Post, said, “The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers. PropOrNot was one. The Post reviewed its findings, and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews.”)


In a phone interview, a spokesman for PropOrNot brushed off the criticism. “If there’s a pattern of activity over time, especially combined with underlying technical tells, then, yeah, we’re going to highlight it,” he said. He argued that Russian disinformation is an enormous problem that requires direct confrontation. “It’s been clear for a while that Russia is a little braver, more aggressive, more willing to push the boundaries of what was previously acceptable.” He said that, to avoid painting outlets with too broad a brush, the group employs a sophisticated analysis that relies on no single criterion in isolation.

Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. “They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff,” he said. “There’s no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?” I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment: “That takes a lot of work, and we’re an all-volunteer crew.” Instead, he urged me to read the Drudge Report myself, suggesting that its nature would be apparent.

On its Twitter account, PropOrNot, in support of its research, cites an article I wrote for the Times Magazine, in 2015, about an online propaganda operation in Russia. But my investigation was focussed on a concrete organization that directly distributed disinformation. I was able to follow links from Twitter accounts and Web sites to a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda. Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot’s findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking.

Another major issue with PropOrNot is that its members insist on anonymity. If one aims to cut through a disinformation campaign, transparency is paramount. Otherwise you just stoke further paranoia.The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia. The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. “Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?” he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. “Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies.”

I can report that the spokesman was an American man, probably in his thirties or forties, who was well versed in Internet culture and swore enthusiastically. He said that the group numbered about forty people. “I can say we have people who work for major tech companies and people who have worked for the government in different regards, but we’re all acting in a private capacity,” he said. “One thing we’re all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool.” The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. “That was a big wake-up call to us. It’s like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground,” the spokesman said. “My God, if they can do that there, why can’t they do it here?” PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. PropOrNot has claimed total financial and editorial independence.

Given PropOrNot’s shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group’s claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden’s office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October. Two of the group’s members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research. “It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts,” Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden’s office could not validate the group’s findings. Chu advised the group on press strategy and suggested some reporters that it might reach out to. “I told them that if they had findings, some kind of document that they could share with reporters, that would be helpful,” he told me. Chu said that Wyden’s office played no role in creating the report and didn’t endorse the findings. Nonetheless, he added, “There has been bipartisan interest in these kind of Russian efforts, including interference in elections, for some time now, including from Senator Wyden.” This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information “concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election.”


The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump’s stunning election. The story combines two of the most popular technological villains of post-election analysis—fake news and Russian subterfuge—into a single tantalizing package. Like the most effective Russian propaganda, the report weaved together truth and misinformation.

Bogus news stories, which overwhelmingly favored Trump, did flood social media throughout the campaign, and the hack of the Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s e-mail seems likely to have been the work of Russian intelligence services. But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier. Vasily Gatov told me, “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic
.....

tbm3fan
05 Dec 16,, 19:18
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/05/media/fake-news-real-violence-pizzagate/index.html

Love the last paragraph about a Flynn.

Oh, and the person in question is 28, a millennial. Hmm...


Millions of people have read about a crazy conspiracy theory called "Pizzagate." An untold number of them actually believe it. One person apparently took matters into his own hands and showed up to the pizza place that the conspiracy theorists say is at the center of the web with guns.

No one was injured at Comet Ping Pong, the Washington restaurant, on Sunday afternoon, but the armed confrontation showed the offline, real-life consequences of online lies.

While conspiracy theories are nothing new, Internet echo chambers are making the deceptions more powerful and more pernicious. The world wide web provides easy access to the truth -- but makes it equally easy to wall off the facts and soak up fictions instead.

Case in point: While detectives were still scouring the scene of the crime on Sunday afternoon, "Pizzagate" believers were already saying that the incident was a "false flag" operation and a "fake news" story.

Yes, these commenters were asserting that the real-life crime was all just part of the cover-up.

If you're saying to yourself, "How could anyone possibly believe this stuff?," think back to the overheated days before the presidential election.

"Pizzagate" spun up on 4chan, Reddit, Twitter and other web sites in the final days before the election. It was a made-up story incorporating fake leaks from "police sources" and misinterpreted Wikileaks emails.

Believers imagined a pedophilia ring supposedly being run out of the pizza shop that somehow involved Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta, among other Democrats.

It was an anti-Clinton narrative -- just one of many -- spread by online commenters who described themselves as Donald Trump supporters. "Pizzagate" continued to evolve after election day.

The conspiracy theory apparently motivated the suspect, Edgar Maddison Welch, to drive from his home in North Carolina to Washington.

He allegedly walked inside Comet, pointed one of his weapons, and caused a panic. He apparently fired at least one shot before being apprehended.

"During a post-arrest interview," D.C. police said, "the suspect revealed that he came to the establishment to self-investigate 'Pizza Gate' (a fictitious online conspiracy theory)."

James Alefantis, the owner of Comet, said in a statement on Sunday night: "Let me state unequivocally: these stories are completely and entirely false, and there is no basis in fact to any of them. What happened today demonstrates that promoting false and reckless conspiracy theories comes with consequences. I hope that those involved in fanning these flames will take a moment to contemplate what happened here today, and stop promoting these falsehoods right away."

Not all of the obviously untrue anti-Clinton stories that have floated around the Internet were peddled by conspiracy theorists. Some of them, written by spammers with the intent of fooling unsuspecting web users and getting ad revenue from those users' clicks, have become known as "fake news" stories. Facebook and Twitter helped fake headlines go viral during the campaign.

But the term "fake news" -- usually signaling a specific article -- doesn't fully capture an insidious narrative like "Pizzagate." This became a full-fledged conspiracy theory, with multiple spin-off theories.

"These things are preposterous fabrications," CNN media analyst Bill Carter said on "New Day" Monday morning, and "they're not being repudiated by the right people."

Trump's pick for national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, shared a related anti-Clinton theory on Twitter before election day, and his son Michael G. Flynn -- who has an official government transition email address -- has repeatedly defended "Pizzagate," including in one tweet sent after Sunday's incident.

Triple C
05 Dec 16,, 19:57
There's also that crazy story about Podesta spiritual dinner with Abramovic, a respected performance artist, where they are accused of performing Satanic self-mutilation and blood drinking. Um... OK.

JAD_333
06 Dec 16,, 03:04
What about the National Inquirer and all its imitators. They've been around forever and pretty much everyone knew the news stories in them were mostly fake. I think people eventually figure out what sources of news they can trust and what sources they can't, and they will this time.

astralis
06 Dec 16,, 03:23
JAD,


What about the National Inquirer and all its imitators. They've been around forever and pretty much everyone knew the news stories in them were mostly fake. I think people eventually figure out what sources of news they can trust and what sources they can't, and they will this time.

i have my doubts that this will happen organically. party polarization and the isolating effects of the Internet means that people will continue absorbing news that leans with their overall worldview. there's no Big Three television now that people just watch-- they can get "tailored" news, so to speak.

and there's significant power behind that; look at Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus' recent responses to Trump's assertion from fake news that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal immigrants voting.

troung
06 Dec 16,, 04:43
The death of the "big three" is a good thing. Opening up the market place for ideas is great. The crusade against fake news is an attempt by one party and some.legacy news agencies to attempt.to muzzle opposing voices.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-war-on-fake-news-is-all-about-censoring-real-news/

FacebookTwitterGoogleWhatsAppEmailCopy
The war on ‘fake news’ is all about censoring real news
By Karol Markowicz December 4, 2016 | 7:07pm | Updated
The war on ‘fake news’ is all about censoring real news
Barack Obama Photo: Reuters
Scrambling for an explanation for Donald Trump’s victory, many in the media and on the left have settled on the idea that his supporters were consumers of “fake news” — gullible rubes living in an alternate reality made Trump president.

To be sure, there is such a thing as actual fake news: made-up stories built to get Facebook traction before they can be debunked. But that’s not what’s really going on here.

What the left is trying to do is designate anything outside its ideological bubble as suspect on its face.

In October, President Obama complained that we need a “curating function” to deal with the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Who would be doing this “curating” is unclear — but we can guess: “Obviously,” Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View, “it would be better if the market would fix the problem on its own . . . But if they can’t reliably do it — and that seems possible, since algorithms aren’t (yet) fact-checkers — there might be a need for the state to step in.”

In other words, censorship. And whom might the government look to target in this crackdown? In an interview with Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone last week, Obama said again that “The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources.” Uh-oh.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––



Seemingly with a straight face, Obama then told Wenner: “Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone.” Rolling Stone, of course, ran a sensational, and false, story last year about a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity that was thoroughly discredited. The magazine was forced to pay a university administrator it defamed $3 million in damages, and there may be more lawsuits in store. “Good journalism” and Rolling Stone do not go hand in hand.

And then Obama removed all doubt. He blamed Trump’s win in part on “Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

But of course, the fake-news problem goes both ways — and illustrates what’s really on the left’s mind.

Last week, the Guardian ran a column ostensibly written by a liberal man who had fallen down the online rabbit hole of the alt-right and, just like that, found himself becoming a racist.

“I just passively consumed it, because, deep down, I knew I was ashamed of what I was doing,” the author writes. “I’d started to roll my eyes when my friends talked about liberal, progressive things. What was wrong with them? Did they not understand what being a real liberal was? All my friends were just SJWs. They didn’t know that free speech was under threat and that politically correct culture and censorship were the true problem.”

It was the subject, naturally, of praise across the online left. It confirmed their deepest suspicions. It was almost too good to be true.

And it probably was. Godfrey Elwick, a Twitter personality whose bio describes him as a “Genderqueer Muslim atheist who prefers to be called ‘Xir, Xirs Xirself,’” has claimed credit for the hoax. He has been posting what he says is evidence that he wrote it, including time-stamped drafts.

Whether the piece is real or not, it exposes a bigger problem. The point of the column is that if you consume information with which you disagree, you will become brainwashed and eventually someone you don’t recognize. Better not to take that chance! We joke about safe spaces, but the Guardian took seriously the idea that we need to create a safe space for ourselves where no alternative opinions can enter, lest we find that we are unable to digest unapproved thoughts without becoming a monster.

And that’s what the push against “fake news” is really all about. It’s a way to marginalize all nonliberal voices and blur the lines between viral sites pushing questionable content and reliable outlets with which we may just disagree. Obama wants you to think the one major cable network consistently critical of him is brainwashing the population by beaming its talking points into bargoers’ pints.

An echo chamber like the one pushed in the anonymous Guardian piece is much more of a problem in news consumption than inaccurate information. The more “curated” the media becomes, the less likely we are to hear opposing viewpoints and to have ours

JAD_333
06 Dec 16,, 05:20
JAD,



i have my doubts that this will happen organically. party polarization and the isolating effects of the Internet means that people will continue absorbing news that leans with their overall worldview. there's no Big Three television now that people just watch-- they can get "tailored" news, so to speak.

and there's significant power behind that; look at Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus' recent responses to Trump's assertion from fake news that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal immigrants voting.

Asty:

Agree it won't happen quickly, and it will never be complete. But most people will catch on. The Comet pizza place incident will help. Gen Flynn's son had something to do with pushing that story and now he says it still hasn't been proven untrue. Even his dad helped before the election. Will Trump show them the door? He ought to, but he probably won't. The vote thing is more like bad political posturing than fake news.

Harks back to the 1800 campaign when Jefferson'a campaign said about Adams, "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Adams' campaign retaliated by calling Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

And these were among the milder statements. Each side had newspapers putting out exaggerated and often outright false stories about the candidates. But you know all this.

The medium has changed, but the tactics haven't.

tbm3fan
06 Dec 16,, 06:19
I miss Walter...sigh

JAD_333
06 Dec 16,, 07:39
I miss Walter...sigh

And Brinkley...he was the king of subtle disdain.

Albany Rifles
06 Dec 16,, 15:01
Big Like on the two above....

And Michael G. Flynn molests collies. Hey, it hasn't been proven wrong yet so it must be true, right?

JAD_333
07 Dec 16,, 02:40
Well, surprise, surprise. Trump did boot Gen Flynn's son from the transition team, ostensibly for his part in propagating fake news. I read that he tried to resign before the axe fell. Donald apparently was not amused.

troung
08 Dec 16,, 02:21
...



Search

Home Page
Politics
Opinions
Sports
Local
National
World
Business
Tech
Lifestyle
Entertainment
Crosswords
Video
Photography
Washington Post Live
Live Chats
Real Estate
Cars
Jobs
Classifieds
Partners
WP BrandStudio
washingtonpost.com
1996-2016 The Washington Post
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices
The IntersectAnalysis
How the war against fake news backfired
By Abby Ohlheiser December 7 at 3:19 PM

Comet Ping Pong is set to reopen after a North Carolina man discharged an assault-style rifle at the Chevy Chase neighborhood restaurant claiming he was there to investigate a fake news story on the Internet about a child sex ring, police say. (Photo by Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post)
Fake news has become a problem that the media and the tech industries are urgently searching for ways to solve. But in the post-election push to fix the problem, those who most want to find the solution have managed to lose control over what, exactly, the definition of “fake news” is.

Fake news can refer to deliberately fabricated stories, often with the purpose of making money for the creators. (Think of those Macedonian teenagers looking to strike it rich on the gullibility of American audiences reading about politics.) It can also refer to comedy or satirical news, faked for the purposes of entertainment. Both of these types of stories are often shared across social media — and are taken as true by some readers. (The problem of what responsibility platforms such as Facebook have in creating algorithms that promote phony stories predates this election-induced panic, but it is central to the current discussion.)

[Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’]


Fake news can now also refer to the phenomenon of a news source publishing something that is inaccurate but is still believed and shared by readers. This includes sites such as Gateway Pundit, which, in the weeks before the election, regularly published outright false stories that became talking points on the conservative Internet. And as the boundaries between “fake” and “unreliable” have become more permeable, conservatives have begun saying that the mainstream outlets they already don’t trust should be called “fake,” too.


The idea that the mainstream media is to blame for fake news stories gets a lot of promotion in the Donald Trump-supporting Internet. As concerns escalated among the mainstream media and Silicon Valley about the impact of fabricated stories on the election results, some Trump supporters saw the coming crackdown as a gambit to silence conservative voices. So, they borrowed from the old rubber-and-glue children’s rhyme and started relabeling the mainstream media as the real “fake news.”

[This is how Facebook’s fake-news writers make money]

Andrew Torba, the founder of a new social network called Gab, has posted about turning down interview requests from phony news outlets — by which he means CNN and other mainstream news sources. Gab, which was founded as a “free speech” social network, is popular with conservatives and white nationalists who deeply distrust platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and much of the mainstream media. (Pizzagate, the outlandish conspiracy theory about child trafficking in a D.C. pizza restaurant, is a regular trending topic among Gab’s users.)

Infowars’ Alex Jones, a notorious conspiracy theorist who has questioned whether the December 2012 massacre of children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School really happened, now says that the entire worry about “fake news” is really just a strategy to force Americans to accept only the “establishment’s” viewpoint.



Now the urgent campaign to stop the spread of fake news and the response to it have almost rendered the term itself meaningless. For certain conservatives, “fake news” now means “liberal bias,” even as the other side uses it to describe an exaggerated or completely untrue statement from the president-elect.

[Pope Francis may also be worried about fake news]

CONTENT FROM BP
Why oil and gas transportation is safer than ever
Technology protects products, equipment and the people who move them.
This should not be as surprising as it is to those who are just now seeing the term “fake news” applied to themselves. The New York Times’s John Herrman warned us about this a couple of weeks ago. What he describes below has, more or less, now happened.

“Fake news” as shorthand will almost surely be returned upon the media tenfold. The fake news narrative, as widely understood and deployed, has already begun to encompass not just falsified, fabricated stories, but a wider swath of traditional media on Facebook and elsewhere. Fox News? Fake news. Mr. Trump’s misleading claims about Ford keeping jobs in America? Fake news. The entirety of hyperpartisan Facebook? Fake news. This wide formulation of “fake news” will be applied back to the traditional news media, which does not yet understand how threatened its ability is to declare things true, even when they are.

That mistrust of the mainstream media’s veracity extends beyond the Trump-supporting Internet. It’s rooted in suspicions of liberal bias in the media. If you don’t trust the media to tell the truth about the world as you see it, why would you trust it to determine what we call “fake” and what we call “real” news?

[Pizzagate: From rumor, to hashtag, to gunfire in D.C.]


Dustin Siggins, a conservative journalist who has written about his skepticism on the current panic about fake news, told me that for many conservatives, “the mainstream press has lost credibility even when it deserves it.” One reason for that, he said, is that conservatives believe “the mainstream and liberal press goes after us in ways that we find unfair and disingenuous.” The sudden concern about “fake news” in the days after a divisive election in which the successful candidate made an art out of mocking and attacking the mainstream press reads as suspect from this perspective.

Fake news is a real issue, but its turn in the spotlight comes just as the institutions that might be in a position to do something about it are vulnerable. The ability of the mainstream media to stop misinformation is limited by how little many trust it. Pizzagate has been the most extreme example so far of what happens when news can mean anything you want it to.

Intersect newsletter
The corner of the Internet and interesting.
Sign up
A man showed up at a Washington pizza place on Sunday with an assault-style rifle and fired shots. A suspect, 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch of North Carolina, was arrested. Police said Welch told them that he went to the Comet Ping Pong restaurant to “self-investigate” the absurd Pizzagate conspiracy that he read about on the Internet. Pizzagaters claim that Comet Ping Pong is the headquarters of a secret pedophilia ring involving Democrats, specifically the Hillary Clinton campaign.

For many, the gunfire was a cautionary tale of the real-life consequences when fake news is distributed and believed. The Pizzagaters would probably agree that this incident shows the danger of “fake news.” But by “fake news” they mean The Washington Post and similar mainstream outlets, which they believe should be condemned for not covering this conspiracy theory as if it were true.



Fake news has, in a period of weeks, gone from a concern about how we share news online today to a meme — one that allows nearly any source of information to be “fake.” It seems inevitable that the Internet will continue to twist the term “fake news” into new definitions. As those meanings multiply, the usefulness of trying to solve the real problem of deliberately fabricated misinformation online — in other words, actual “fake news” — becomes much harder.

Parihaka
08 Dec 16,, 08:10
Fake news has, in a period of weeks, gone from a concern about how we share news online today to a meme — one that allows nearly any source of information to be “fake.” It seems inevitable that the Internet will continue to twist the term “fake news” into new definitions. As those meanings multiply, the usefulness of trying to solve the real problem of deliberately fabricated misinformation online — in other words, actual “fake news” — becomes much harder.
Yup. Various names such as trolls, @right etc have been applied but effectively we're seeing legacy media being bludgeoned to death as it lays on it's sickbed by the new. No respect these youngsters, literally no respect at all.

DOR
08 Dec 16,, 10:07
All this concern about fake news vindicates those of us who do our own analysis, and as far as possible, from primary sources. So, the next time I post something based on hard, reliable and very widely accepted data, it would be really nice not to hear "the inflation rate is waaaay higher than that," or, "those are just part-time jobs," or, "you didn't include people who stopped looking for work and dropped out of the labor force!"

Thanks.

Double Edge
13 Dec 16,, 13:22
Obama was correct we need some entity to vet the news...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-fake-news-readers-20161203-story.html

No, the answer is already available its called social media. let your president setup his channels online with his speeches and he can twit all he wants. That is how my PM has managed to counter liberal bias. Time was one word or sentence in an hour long speech got twsted beyond all recognition. That doesn't happen any more.

I have a feeling when the two meet they will be exchanging tips including how to deal with the free press in a way that does not cramp their wiggle room.

An entity to vet the news aka ministry of information aka ministry of propaganda, we've seen how that works in other countries. There is a reason you don't have one ; )

troung
16 Dec 16,, 00:34
Facebook Using Unreliable Liberal Fact-Checker To Fight ‘Fake News’
Photo of Peter Hasson
Peter Hasson
Reporter, Associate Editor
1:49 PM 12/15/2016


As part of a new initiative cracking down on fake news announced on Thursday, Facebook will be partnering up with third party “fact-check” organizations that will alert users if a story they are about to read or share is “disputed.” One of the organizations Facebook is partnering up with is Snopes, which The Daily Caller has exposed more than once butchering the truth or seemingly outright lying in service of a liberal narrative.
BARCELONA, SPAIN - FEBRUARY 22: Founder and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg delivers his keynote conference on the opening day of the World Mobile Congress at the Fira Gran Via Complex. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)

“We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we’re approaching this problem carefully. We’ve focused our efforts on the worst of the worst, on the clear hoaxes spread by spammers for their own gain, and on engaging both our community and third party organizations,” Facebook vice president Adam Mosseri said in a press release Thursday.

Are You Worried These Fact Checkers Might Use Their Power To Censor Legitimate News Stories On Facebook?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
NiemanLab notes that Facebook will be relying on four fact-check organizations: ABC News, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and Snopes. (RELATED: Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger)

In July, TheDC caught Snopes lying about the lack of visible American flags at the first day of the Democratic National Convention, claiming an image from the second day of the convention was actually from the first day, in an attempt to debunk a factual story from TheDC. (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)

Just last week, a Snopes “fact-check” of an investigative piece by The Daily Caller News Foundation was riddled with factual errors and omissions, completely butchering the truth. (RELATED: CAUGHT: Snopes Deliberately Omits Key Details To Protect Kerry’s State Dept)

Facebook has been under pressure to censor “fake news” — a term which some liberal journalists have applied to their conservative competitors.

Legitimate conservative news organizations like The Blaze or Independent Journal Review (IJR) have been smeared with the fake news label by liberal journalists. (RELATED: Journalists Struggle To Define ‘Fake News’ Even As They Declare War On It)

Follow Hasson on Twitterhttp://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/facebook-using-unreliable-liberal-fact-checker-to-fight-fake-news/

Parihaka
16 Dec 16,, 09:03
Speaking of fake news, no less than ten international news sites are reporting Donald Trump is appointing Sylvester Stallone as the new director of the NEA. This war is soooo much fun :-)

Doktor
16 Dec 16,, 12:20
Speaking of fake news, no less than ten international news sites are reporting Donald Trump is appointing Sylvester Stallone as the new director of the NEA. This war is soooo much fun :-)

You think it's fake? I think he knows how to rub back


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWxaVI2-gI

Ouroboros
16 Dec 16,, 18:13
As beautiful any attempts to filter "fake news" are and as amusing as some of that news may be, it stands to the people to be able to discern which is which. For any fake news there can be real news and readers and viewers should be able to tell the difference, if not...I pray to god that no one let those people be politicians.
And there will still be governments blocking and censoring some news, so the issue may really be whether or not the actual news can get out compared to whether or not its fake. And to that, I thank Wikileaks and whistleblowers.

Parihaka
16 Dec 16,, 18:39
Amen. Welcome to the board and would you mind popping over to this thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=61571) and introducing yourself please

YellowFever
16 Dec 16,, 19:16
Welcome.

I hope you stick around because we need a smart young 'un around since Benny can no longer be consider one since his daughter was born.

JAD_333
16 Dec 16,, 19:31
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/facebook-using-unreliable-liberal-fact-checker-to-fight-fake-news/
Facebook Using Unreliable Liberal Fact-Checker To Fight ‘Fake News’
Photo of Peter Hasson
Peter Hasson
Reporter, Associate Editor
1:49 PM 12/15/2016

Troung:

Have you checked the credibility of the Daily Caller article? There is an on-going feud between the Caller and Snopes going back to a number of Caller articles that were shown to contain false or inaccurate information. The Caller ultimately decided to turn the tables on Snopes accusing it of doing the same thing. Snopes responded by pointing out errors in the Caller's claims.

tbm3fan
26 Dec 16,, 09:28
Nice one on nuclear war

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/middleeast/israel-pakistan-fake-news-nuclear/index.html


(CNN)A fake news story led to threats of nuclear war between Pakistan and Israel on Christmas Eve.
In an article published by AWDNews on Tuesday December 20, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon was quoted as threatening to destroy Pakistan if it sent troops into Syria.

"We will destroy them with a nuclear attack," the article quoted Yaalon as saying. There is no evidence Yaalon ever said those words.

Pakistan Defense Minister Khawaja Asif responded to the fake news article on his official Twitter as if it were real.

He warned Israel that it was not the only nuclear power.

"Israeli (defense minister) threatens nuclear retaliation presuming (Pakistan) role in Syria against Daesh. Israel forgets Pakistan is a Nuclear State too," Asif wrote late on December 23.

kato
26 Dec 16,, 10:50
we need some entity to vet the news...
We're gonna get one.



German 'call for government unit to fight fake news'
23 December 2016
Europe
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38417757

German officials have proposed creating a special government unit to combat fake news in the run-up to next year's general election, reports say.

A document quoted by the Spiegel news website calls for an "anti-disinformation centre" in Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration.

The US government believes that fake news stories sent via Facebook, Google and Twitter helped Donald Trump to win the November presidential election.

It accuses Russia of election meddling.

A special EU team, called East StratCom, documents what it calls Russian "disinformation". It issues a weekly bulletin highlighting the alleged myths and distortions, as well as a Twitter feed called EU Mythbusters.

Spotlight on minorities

"In view of the [2017] parliamentary election, action must be taken very quickly," the document quoted by Spiegel says.

It calls for an information campaign targeting the Russian- and Turkish-origin minorities in Germany, seen as especially vulnerable to fake news.

Liberal politicians fear that nationalists - among them the Alternative for Germany (AfD) - and pro-Kremlin activists are getting recruits easily on social media.

"Acceptance of a post-fact age would be tantamount to a political surrender," the document warns.

Germany's bitter experiences under the Nazis and communists, however, make any moves towards censorship highly controversial.

Russian influence

Earlier this month German officials warned that Russian hackers could undermine the German election through cyber attacks.

Chancellor Merkel is one of the EU's strongest voices in favour of maintaining sanctions on Russia. EU-US sanctions were imposed after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014.

The Obama administration says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of US Democratic Party computers during the election campaign.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed that accusation on Friday. He suggested that the Democrats were bad losers, who should examine themselves to learn why so many voters opted for the Republicans.


Also, in the ongoing war on Facebook:



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/facebook-fake-news-article-fine-germany-fake-news-article-thomas-oppermann-sdp-chairman-a7484166.html
Harriet Agerholm
@HarrietAgerholm
Tuesday 20 December 2016
8 comments

Germany may fine Facebook up to 500,000 Euros for every fake news article it publishes

Government should take 'tougher stance' against social platforms, says politician

Facebook could face fines of up to 500,000 euros (£420,000) for each fake news story it fails to take down from its site, under new rules suggested by the chairman of Germany’s Social Democrat Party.

The German government will take a “tougher stance” against Facebook and other platforms ahead of the 2017 parliamentary elections, Thomas Oppermann said, adding that legislators would discuss the fake news problem intensively after the Christmas break.

Facebook has come under heavy criticism for its role in spreading news articles containing misinformation in the run-up to the US presidential elections.

“Facebook has not used the opportunity to regulate complaints management itself effectively,” Mr Oppermann told German weekly Der Spiegel, claiming the government had tried and failed to "build bridges" with the company.

He said he wanted to create a legal obligation for “market-dominating” platforms such as Facebook to set up a legal protection centre in the country that would deal with fake news and hate speech year-round.

“If Facebook does not immediately delete the affected report within 24 hours, Facebook will have to pay up to 500,000 euros,” he claimed, adding those who had been badly affected by a false story should be compensated.

But he stressed the complaints staff would not serve as “opinion police” or form a so-called “truth commission”.

While Facebook has said it was unwilling to filter out fake stories through adjusting its algorithm or by employing editors, it has appointed third-party fact checkers including Snopes, The Washington Post and PoltiFact to help deal with the problem. It has also made it easier for users to report stories they think are untrue.

Stories found to be fake by fact checkers will be flagged as “disputed” and will lead to a pop-up warning about accuracy before they can be shared. Disputed stories “may also appear lower in News Feed,” Facebook said.

But critics argue that labelling a fake story, and changing it's position is not enough.

“There has been only talk for too long. Now we in the coalition will take action at the beginning of next year,” Volker Kauder, a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), said in a statement on Friday.

"We plan to impose high penalties that would affect companies like Facebook if they do not meet their responsibilities," Mr Kauder said.

Chancellor Merkel has previously spoken against the polarising power of so-called “filter bubbles” created by search engines and social media sites

Ahead of the US election result she warned that the sites' algorithms have led to a “distortion of our perception”.

Facebook’s insistence that it’s not a news company came as it was revealed that the 20 most-read fake news stories outperformed the 20 most-popular news stories from legitimate news sites.

Doktor
26 Dec 16,, 12:59
Ministry of truth. Oh, God.

surfgun
26 Dec 16,, 14:51
I miss Walter...sigh

Walter was a POS with an anti Military slant during the late 1960's. He was just pretty talented in covering his motives. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned. I will say the same thing when his less masterful protege Dan Rather kicks the bucket!

kato
26 Dec 16,, 16:17
Ministry of truth. Oh, God.
Ignorance is Strength.

tankie
26 Dec 16,, 16:39
Ignorance is Strength.


Hows it going there superman ?

Beware refugees bearing gifts ,,maybe its kryptonite

drhuy
26 Dec 16,, 18:02
so are those leftist government sending people to communist countries to learn how to censor and control information yet?

Doktor
26 Dec 16,, 18:42
Ignorance is Strength.

Got the room ready?

Parihaka
26 Dec 16,, 21:00
Ministry of truth. Oh, God.

Yup

tbm3fan
26 Dec 16,, 23:53
Walter was a POS with an anti Military slant during the late 1960's. He was just pretty talented in covering his motives. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned. I will say the same thing when his less masterful protege Dan Rather kicks the bucket!

Whatever, for one's opinion...

Toby
27 Dec 16,, 00:52
When politicians start talking about fake news, start worrying about your freedom.....what little you have left!

Parihaka
28 Dec 16,, 21:47
I had of course forgotten this absolute pearler from the it-was-bullshit-but-we-were-noble-because-we-were-on-the-right-side-of-history brigade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-rather-still-wrong-after-all-these-years-1445295792

JAD_333
29 Dec 16,, 10:13
I had of course forgotten this absolute pearler from the it-was-bullshit-but-we-were-noble-because-we-were-on-the-right-side-of-history brigade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-rather-still-wrong-after-all-these-years-1445295792


reminds me of former CBS anchorman, Bernard Goldberg, who wrote, in the introduction to his bestselling book, Bias:

"Sadly, Dan doesn't think that any critic who utters the words "liberal bias" can be legitimate, even if that critic worked with Dan himself for two decades. Such a critic cannot possibly be well-meaning. To Dan, such a critic is Spiro Agnew reincarnated, spouting off about those nattering nabobs of negativism. Too bad. A little introspection could go a long way.

I know that no matter how many examples I give of liberal bias, no matter how carefully I try to explain how it happens, some will dismiss my book as the product of bad blood, of a "feud" between Dan Rather and me. How do I know this? Because that is exactly how Tom Brokaw characterized it when I wrote a second Wall Street Journal piece about liberal bias in May 2001.

In it I said that as hard as it may be to believe, I'm convinced that Dan and Tom and Peter "don't even know what liberal bias is." "The problem," I wrote, "is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world."
(Bold added) http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bias-bernard-goldberg/1110890619#productInfoTabs

His book is well worth reading. It's full of examples of how stories were shewed to the liberal viewpoint.

Mihais
29 Dec 16,, 10:29
so are those leftist government sending people to communist countries to learn how to censor and control information yet?

Nope.They have no need for that.Old school commies relied on suppressing access to information.New age sort use information overload and a fine personnel policy.Back then you had no need to be a true believer to work in propaganda related areas.Only do your job and shut up.Now you have to.

Old style communism was assimilated into the collective psyche as a form of widespread corruption.Which still allows individual freedom of thought.At individual level,the most vitriolic and honest critics were those tasked with protecting the system.

Modern types are in many respects more dangerous.They have more means to supress freedom .But what they lack is the old style commie first generation bloodthirst.

FORMBY
30 Dec 16,, 16:55
There's also that crazy story about Podesta spiritual dinner with Abramovic, a respected performance artist, where they are accused of performing Satanic self-mutilation and blood drinking. Um... OK.
... and then that wild story about there being thousands upon thousands of WMD's in Irak. More than one million innocent men women, and children were raped, tortured, and murdered because of that. What's worse is that the ones responsible for that Fake News are still free men. Where is a policeman and a judge when you really need them?

JAD_333
02 Jan 17,, 04:38
... and then that wild story about there being thousands upon thousands of WMD's in Irak. More than one million innocent men women, and children were raped, tortured, and murdered because of that. What's worse is that the ones responsible for that Fake News are still free men. Where is a policeman and a judge when you really need them?

Fake news has a specific definition, It's made up news generated by private media, not inaccurate intelligence reports. It would also be good if you backed up your statement that 1 million "innocent" people met the fates you described. Iraqi government estimates based on body counts & morgue entries says the number is closer to 175,000. This doesn't count coalition troops or deaths in areas controlled by Jihadist groups. US military deaths stand at around 4,500 through 2104. You say it's worse that those responsible are still free. Really? What could be worse than so many people killed.

In all fairness, there are varying scientific reports that say 1 million people have died or 500,000 or 600,000 or 300,000--take your pick--but they use mathematical formulas, such as projections based on random surveys of families claiming lost relatives.

It's good to see you engaging in discussion. Just be careful of your facts.

Monash
03 Jan 17,, 02:16
I've been mulling over ways of dealing with the problem. The central issue would appear to be that 'fake news' constitutes either a civil tort or potentially a breach of criminal law in as far as that applies to consumer rights. Fake news is at heart a deliberately designed 'defective' product and could potentially be covered by the same legislation that protects consumers and legitimate manufacturers/retailers from the unrestrained sale of other defective or dangerous goods. A lot of the sites are apparently foreign based (non-US) and no foreign producer of say automobiles or processed food could get away with selling dangerous or defective products into the US market without getting into a world of civil and criminal hurt - VW for instance has re-learned this lesson recently.

Assuming the websites are based in jurisdictions with US trade agreements there might be mechanisms in place to force compliance action by the country in which the site is domiciled. The problem is who lodges the compliant or otherwise claims damages? I think you might have to put in place legislation allowing the National Press Councils or related peak bodies to initiate actions and claim for damages on behalf of their members. Such legislation would be tricky of course because you would have to have a very finely tuned definition of what constitutes 'fake news' lest satirical news sites like the Onion get caught up in the mix. If you can't initiate action because the jurisdiction concerned will not comply then you may be able to apply for site blocking orders in US courts.

Parihaka
03 Jan 17,, 04:42
Iowahawk deftly destroys the latest fake news

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/12/30/like-a-boss-iowahawk-expertly-dismantles-medias-election-hacking-b-s/

How would you all suggest censuring Wapo, the NYT and the POTUS for generating it?

Monash
03 Jan 17,, 05:12
No I was considering only sites specifically set up to distribute fake news.

For a start 'fake' news would have to be the default setting for the sites concerned not just a random or occasional occurrence i.e. a small percentage of total content not the entirety. Any manufacturer can produce a 'dud' product as part of a normal production run and there was indeed a run of made up 'news' articles a few years back in the US that got a couple of well respected (until then) US journalists into serious trouble so retractions in those instances are a starting point.

In any event the fault has to lie with supposedly factual articles - not opinion pieces. So I could publish a story saying 'Obama is an idiot and traitor' - based on my albeit slanted view of true statements or events and get away with it but not non factual ones saying that he was in Chicago on the December 7th this year addressing a secret conference of Islamic terrorists and has planted an neuc in the white house in order to take out Trump. Fact based versus opinion based.

Some thought would have to go into writing up the legislation to cover freedom of speech issues but it might be doable. In any case I was just trying to work through a potential remedy for the most egregious cases.

DOR
03 Jan 17,, 11:34
Iowahawk deftly destroys the latest fake news

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/12/30/like-a-boss-iowahawk-expertly-dismantles-medias-election-hacking-b-s/

How would you all suggest censuring Wapo, the NYT and the POTUS for generating it?

I like good comedy, too, but not when it is reposted as if it were somehow factual.

Parihaka
03 Jan 17,, 15:48
I like good comedy, too, but not when it is reposted as if it were somehow factual.
Someone else has been using your account. You should change your password immediately (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899)

DOR
03 Jan 17,, 16:11
Someone else has been using your account. You should change your password immediately (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899)


I’m not sure why you posted that link; it isn’t related to the accuracy of the comedy site you posted earlier. Here’s some examples of the comedy on that other site:

“Breaking: State Dept expels 20 Nigerian diplomats after John Podesta fails to receive $1 million wire transfer from nephew of General Okezi”

“Breaking: State Dept expels Ireland, Spain, & Australia over refusal to recognize John Podesta's lottery-winning email notifications”

Doktor
03 Jan 17,, 17:00
Someone is missing his sarcasmometer.

Parihaka
03 Jan 17,, 17:54
Someone is missing his sarcasmometer.

yup

Wooglin
03 Jan 17,, 20:27
Someone is missing his sarcasmometer.

Ever since Trump starting running the left and it's media seem to have been struck with some kind of condition that causes hyper-literalness.

JAD_333
03 Jan 17,, 21:45
No I was considering only sites specifically set up to distribute fake news.

For a start 'fake' news would have to be the default setting for the sites concerned not just a random or occasional occurrence i.e. a small percentage of total content not the entirety. Any manufacturer can produce a 'dud' product as part of a normal production run and there was indeed a run of made up 'news' articles a few years back in the US that got a couple of well respected (until then) US journalists into serious trouble so retractions in those instances are a starting point.

In any event the fault has to lie with supposedly factual articles - not opinion pieces. So I could publish a story saying 'Obama is an idiot and traitor' and get away with it but not one saying that he was in Chicago on the December 7th this year addressing a secret conference of Islamic terrorists and has planted an neuc in the white house in order to take out Trump. Fact based versus opinion based.

Some thought would have to go into writing up the legislation to cover freedom of speech issues but it might be doable. In any case I was just trying to work through a potential remedy for the most egregious cases.


There is freedom of speech, but no freedom to produce unsafe products. Nice try, though.

JAD_333
03 Jan 17,, 21:51
I like good comedy, too, but not when it is reposted as if it were somehow factual.

Apparently you're reading the wrong set of tweets...try this one: https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/814908162503491586

Doktor
03 Jan 17,, 21:58
Apparently you're reading the wrong set of tweets...try this one: https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/814908162503491586

The Nigerian prince one was spot on, TBH.

Monash
04 Jan 17,, 00:44
There is freedom of speech, but no freedom to produce unsafe products. Nice try, though.

Question is will anything be done about it in terms of possible civil/criminal remedies?

Parihaka
04 Jan 17,, 02:49
Apparently you're reading the wrong set of tweets...try this one: https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/814908162503491586

Yup, though my link does provide a lovely sequence for context, something Dor unfortunately didn't get past.

DOR
04 Jan 17,, 06:58
Yup, though my link does provide a lovely sequence for context, something Dor unfortunately didn't get past.

Step 1. Identify fake news.
Step 2. Move on.

JAD_333
04 Jan 17,, 10:27
Question is will anything be done about it in terms of possible civil/criminal remedies?


Aside from libel laws, there's not much we can do without sacrificing freedom of the press. It's up to each of us to find out whether a story is true or false (fake or real), assuming we care to know the truth.

Parihaka
04 Jan 17,, 10:50
Step 1. Identify fake news.It's known as satire

Step 2. Move on.Be my guest.

Wooglin
04 Jan 17,, 13:17
Aside from libel laws, there's not much we can do without sacrificing freedom of the press. It's up to each of us to find out whether a story is true or false (fake or real), assuming we care to know the truth.

Exactly

Doktor
04 Jan 17,, 14:29
What's a fake news?

Is it a fake news quoting Trump saying he won the popular vote?

Is it a fake news quoting the administration saying Russians did it?

Is it a fake news saying there are WMD without any suspicions?

Is it fake news saying that Serbians are guilty for everything bad that happened during the dissolution of Yugoslavia?

The best cure for fake news is to cross-check the "facts" and to ignore those sites who in your view spread disinformation. After a while they will eventually run out of resources. Except for The Guardian/Soros-alike outlets who have their own foundations that keep them running.

tankie
04 Jan 17,, 15:20
How can this be defined , in one breath its normal behaviour then the fkin appeasers on another situation are blaming nazis ( german citizens )for wanting their country back

Breitbart

1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve
At New Year’s Eve celebrations in Dortmund a mob of more than 1,000 men chanted ‘Allahu Akhbar’, launched fireworks at police, and set fire to a historic church.
Already by 7 pm a man was hospitalised with first-degree burns to his face and hands after fireworks were hurled at a group of homeless people outside the city’s main train station. More than two dozen people were injured at festivities in Dortmund, some seriously.

The events of the night were described as “quiet” by police in a statement, and as “normal” by a spokesman for the city government.

Whats it like on a rowdy night then ,,appologist c##t



But at 11:30pm police announced they were adding to their already much larger than usual presence in the city centre for New Year, sending in further reinforcements of officers.

This came after the force reported there being a “large number of young men from North Africa” in town, with federal police officer Volker Stall noting there was an “aggressive mood” towards the public and police.

At midnight, the situation threatened to escalate. A livewire published by the Ruhr Nachrichten reported that a crowd of “at least 1,000 young men” began throwing fireworks into crowds of visitors, which also included families with children. Asked by officers to stop, the mob turned to pelt fireworks at police instead.

Despite the prohibition of lighting pyrotechnics near churches, firemen had to intervene after fireworks were launched at St Reinolds, Germany’s oldest church, setting the roof alight.

Also reported by the Ruhr Nachrichten was that “a group of Syrians sang in celebration of the ceasefire in Syria.” However, a video posted to Twitter by one of the newspaper’s reporters, paired with the caption “Syrians celebrate the truce in their country”, shows a group of men chanting ‘Allahu Akhbar’ around the flag of al-Qaeda and Islamic State collaborators, the ‘Free Syrian Army’.


Follow
Peter Bandermann @RN_Bandermann
#Silvester in #Dortmund: Syrer feiern den Waffenstillstand in ihrem Land.
11:19 PM - 31 Dec 2016

There was uproar in Germany last month when St Reinold’s Church was occupied by identitarians in protest against the Islamisation of Germany. The demonstration was denounced as a “clear provocation by neo-Nazis” by Dortmund pastor Friedrich Stiller.

Dortmund’s ‘Special Commissioner for Tolerance and Democracy’ demanded more taxpayers’ money be put towards “Comeback”, the city’s ‘neo-Nazi deradicalisation programme’ in the wake of the protest. “The money the city gives, 50,000 euros per year, is no longer enough,” Hartmut Anders-Hoepgen, said

hahahahahahahahahahahaha FFS

Doktor
04 Jan 17,, 20:48
42999

I rest my case

JAD_333
04 Jan 17,, 21:28
What's a fake news?

Is it a fake news quoting Trump saying he won the popular vote?

Is it a fake news quoting the administration saying Russians did it?

Is it a fake news saying there are WMD without any suspicions?

Is it fake news saying that Serbians are guilty for everything bad that happened during the dissolution of Yugoslavia?

The best cure for fake news is to cross-check the "facts" and to ignore those sites who in your view spread disinformation. After a while they will eventually run out of resources. Except for The Guardian/Soros-alike outlets who have their own foundations that keep them running.


Dok:

This article has some good examples of fake news. The term confuses people, and lately it's been used to cover any article that omits points of view or cites facts favorable to one side. But, as bad as they might be, biased or slanted reporting and opinion pieces are not what is meant by fake news. You'll see that when you look at the examples in the article, (which you may have already seen)... They're so obviously fake, alarm bells should go off in the mind of any well-adjusted, well-informed person, no matter their political leaning. They're effective click bait pieces because even doubters will check them out.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-fake-news-stories-zuckerberg_us_5829f34ee4b0c4b63b0da2ea

Doktor
04 Jan 17,, 22:20
Dok:

This article has some good examples of fake news. The term confuses people, and lately it's been used to cover any article that omits points of view or cites facts favorable to one side. But, as bad as they might be, biased or slanted reporting and opinion pieces are not what is meant by fake news. You'll see that when you look at the examples in the article, (which you may have already seen)... They're so obviously fake, alarm bells should go off in the mind of any well-adjusted, well-informed person, no matter their political leaning. They're effective click bait pieces because even doubters will check them out.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-fake-news-stories-zuckerberg_us_5829f34ee4b0c4b63b0da2ea

So, what's this (https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censor+fake+news&oq=facebook+censor+fak&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j69i64.5084j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) then?

JAD_333
04 Jan 17,, 22:47
So, what's this (https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censor+fake+news&oq=facebook+censor+fak&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j69i64.5084j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) then?

Looks like page of links to articles. Which one are you interested in?

Doktor
04 Jan 17,, 23:01
All of them say FB is forming a Fake News Police Department.

JAD_333
04 Jan 17,, 23:17
All of them say FB is forming a Fake News Police Department.

They're working on it. Not going to be easy. Lot's of pitfalls.

Doktor
05 Jan 17,, 00:39
They're working on it. Not going to be easy. Lot's of pitfalls.

Hey, it is a club. Our house, our rules. That's the bottomline. Hope they will implement it nicely, but I have some doubts

kato
07 Jan 17,, 22:00
Breitbart has managed to piss off the German government in a really major way this time with the fake news they're spreading (see here (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church)).

Actually only noticed because my - ultraconservative - local newspaper managed to turn it into a half-page article, complete with pondering a bit more indepth the repercussions on given the influence of "these people" on the next US government with Stephen Bannon onboard. There's calls for legal steps from German politicians against Breitbart and comparable fake news sources and their backers, starting from at least court injunctures against them and escalating from there to real measures. Two months ago Breitbart announced plans to expand with offices in Germany to "support the AfD" and in France to support Le Pen, making them legally vulnerable to be grabbed by the balls that way; they already have offices in London.

The above issue is currently widely interpreted in Germany as what's to come for German-US relations with the Trump government. Some less conservative German media also - rather dangerously - already see Trump himself preemptively vindicated by the issue btw - in the sense that anything he's gonna do, he just does because fake news sources give him a wrong picture.

Doktor
07 Jan 17,, 22:19
Am not saying there wasn't this article but:

A) Where is it? No link in the Guardian article and Google search fails me.
B) Breitbart has declined to comment.

kato
07 Jan 17,, 22:32
A) Where is it? No link in the Guardian article and Google search fails me.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/

There's a couple interesting German articles that take it apart pretty much paragraph by paragraph. Each paragraph has a kernel of truth which is then modified, twisted and embellished to create the kind of sentence that neo-fascist rag wants. Exactly the way propaganda is traditionally spun if you want to do it the right way. The KGB would be proud.

Doktor
07 Jan 17,, 22:44
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/

There's a couple interesting German articles that take it apart pretty much paragraph by paragraph. Each paragraph has a kernel of truth which is then modified, twisted and embellished to create the kind of sentence that neo-fascist rag wants. Exactly the way propaganda is traditionally spun if you want to do it the right way. The KGB would be proud.

We are so used to this kind of journalism, we don't even read news anymore without a computer and a pocket calculator. Well, some of us.

P.S. What's with the fireworks throwing at people up there?

kato
07 Jan 17,, 23:31
P.S. What's with the fireworks throwing at people up there?
Tradition for decades. Actually used to be a lot more common.

Injuries tend to be pretty minor, so it's not considered more than a nuisance. Most burns and such coming into emergency services on NYE are self-inflicted accidents. It's also not that special a night regarding number of injuries, at our local hospital it's usually the same number as during evenings of the annual autumn festival or for walpurgis night. The midnight shift - 10 pm to 2 am - on NYE is actually considered a doozy as barely anyone comes in during that time.

Fireworks have also gotten tamer, and more standard-commercially-sourced. 25 years ago my neighbor still used to bring out his blank-firing cannon for NYE. Helped push it up the steep driveway from the garage some years with a couple other guys from the neighborhood, damn thing weighed over 50 kg.

Overall doesn't even make the news most years except for more spectacular stuff. Short recap for NYE 2016:
Drunk woman driving into a group of people in Berlin; fireworks thrown into an ambulance in Duisburg, injuring one; firefighter severely injured by rocket fired directly at him in Augsburg - and continuing work; two people causing a forest fire on a mountain setting a hundred hectares aflame and injuring themselves seriously, with a hundred firefighters and five helicopters deployed; a guy in Nuremburg injuring himself and eight others when a home-built mortar using Czech fireworks exploded; two fingers found in an underpass at a train station by random passerbys and later attributed to a person who lost them when fireworks exploded in his hand. Oh, and Bild ran a pretty small, unnoticed story about a 16-year-old arrested for throwing fireworks at a 4-year-old child. Who wasn't injured.

Doktor
08 Jan 17,, 01:42
Weird stuff. Over here, every year someone loses a finger or experience a serious palm injury.

kato
08 Jan 17,, 03:56
Hospital here is more concerned with drunk people climbing on roofs to see the fireworks better and then falling off, crashing through skylights or similar. Have had some people here killing themselves that way every 2-3 years.

More recent development is that people use pistols to fire flares at other people they're pissed off at - had two cases this year around here, in one some kids were firing at a tram, in the other some mid-aged guy at a group of people. Perps in these cases typically end up either in hospital or in a jail cell. Oddly this flare thing only happens on NYE, despite flares for handguns not being only-available-around-NYE items like other pyrotechnics.

JAD_333
09 Jan 17,, 21:22
Look inside the National Inquirer or one of its tabloid cousins at the supermarket and you won't find a single reputable company with an ad in it. Now the same silent censure is being aimed at some internet news sites, like Breitbart and InfoWars. Will it work?


http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html?ref=opinion


How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News

By PAGAN KENNEDY JAN. 7, 2017

One day in late November, an earth and environmental science professor named Nathan Phillips visited Breitbart News for the first time. Mr. Phillips had heard about the hateful headlines on the site — like “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” — and wondered what kind of companies would support such messages with their ad dollars. When he clicked on the site, he was shocked to discover ads for universities, including one for the graduate school where he’d received his own degree — Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “That was a punch in the stomach,” he said.

Why would an environmental science program want to be promoted on a site that denies the existence of climate change? Mr. Phillips figured — correctly — that Duke officials did not know where their ads were appearing, so he sent a tweet to Duke about its association with the “sexist racist” site. Eventually, after a flurry of communication with the environment department, he received a satisfying resolution — an assurance that its ads would no longer show up on Breitbart.

Mr. Phillips had just engaged in a new form of consumer activism, one that is rewriting the rules of online advertising. In the past month and a half, thousands of activists have started to push companies to take a stand on what you might call “hate news” — a toxic mix of lies, white-supremacist content and bullying that can inspire attacks on Muslims, gay people, women, African-Americans and others.

In mid-November, a Twitter group called Sleeping Giants became the hub of the new movement. The Giants and their followers have communicated with more than 1,000 companies and nonprofit groups whose ads appeared on Breitbart, and about 400 of those organizations have promised to remove the site from future ad buys.

The advertising world is vast. Although the big brands, for PR reasons, may redirect their ad dollars, there are many advertisers who covet...
Nina D 1 day ago

BTW, Breitbart has provided this rebuttal to this article- http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/08/new-york-times-aims-b...It...
More NY Times fake news propaganda. Try reading some Breitbart articles before making stupid, unfounded accusations.

“We’re focused on Breitbart News right now because they’re the biggest fish,” a founder of Sleeping Giants told me. (He requested anonymity because some members of the group work in the digital-media industry.) Eventually, Sleeping Giants would like to broaden its campaign to take on a menagerie of bad actors, but that would require a much bigger army of Giants, and “it has only been a month since we started doing this,” he told me when I talked to him in December. Then he added, “This has been the longest month of my life.”

He said that he noticed something had gone wrong with internet ads in November when, just out of curiosity, he visited Breitbart News. Like Mr. Phillips, he was gobsmacked by what he found there. His version of Breitbart was plastered with the logos of Silicon Valley brands that courted tech-savvy, pro-diversity millennials. “I couldn’t believe that these progressive companies were paying Breitbart News,” he said.

So he created a Twitter account called Sleeping Giants that would allow him and his fellow activists to anonymously interact with advertisers. Then they sent screenshots to companies like Chase, SoFi and Audi to prove that their ads appeared next to offensive content. Within hours, they received their first response, and they realized that they had stumbled across a potentially powerful tactic.

“We are trying to stop racist websites by stopping their ad dollars,” reads the Sleeping Giants profile. “Many companies don’t even know it’s happening. It’s time to tell them.” They say it’s not about taking away Breitbart’s right to free speech, but about giving consumers and advertisers control over where their money goes. The group’s Twitter page offers a simple set of instructions to anyone who wants to follow suit. Step 1: “Go to Breitbart and take a screenshot of an ad next to some of their content.” Step 2: “Tweet the screenshot to the company with a polite, nonoffensive note.”

The activists’ back-and-forth with companies reveals a fog of confusion surrounding online advertising. Many organizations have no idea that their ads may end up next to content they find abhorrent.

You might blame this — in part — on robots. According to the research firm eMarketer, American companies are now spending more than $22 billion a year on “programmatic ads,” the kind of advertising that is bought with little human oversight. Joshua Zeitz, vice president of corporate communications at the ad-tech company AppNexus, explained to me how this automated ad buying works. When you click on a link, “in less than a second, a call goes out, and algorithms and automated software bid in an auction to put their advertisement up on your page,” he said. “So maybe the Nabisco algorithm wants to put an ad up there; so does Macy’s and so does Honda.” The algorithm that places the highest bid wins the chance to appear on your screen.

Programmatic ads can also follow individuals around the internet, based on their browsing history, as happened with Mr. Philips. A single targeted ad could cost just a fraction of a penny, but the pennies add up to a billion-dollar industry.

Even when ad placements are automated, companies still have the power to control whether neo-Nazis or fake news hucksters profit. In fact, it’s actually rather simple for companies to impose ethical policies, according to Mr. Zeitz. Indeed, his own company (which handles programmatic advertising for other organizations) recently decided to get out ahead of the issue by removing Breitbart News from its advertising marketplace. “We’re not banning them because they’re alt-right or conservative. We banned them from our marketplace because they violate our hate speech policy, which prohibits ad serving on sites that incite violence and discrimination against minority groups.” (Breitbart has said that it condemns racism and bigotry “in any form.”)

He pointed out that brand-name companies had already figured out how to keep their ads from flowing onto porn sites, because “you really don’t want your ad for a breakfast cereal next to a hard-core pornographic video,” and so “there are tools in place that allow companies to control where their ads go.” A company can block a specific site like Breitbart News from its ad buy. Or it might pick a “white list” of sites that align with its values.

But to do that, companies would have to forgo the sites designed to deliver exactly what they want — a big audience for little cost. In November, NPR reporters interviewed Jestin Coler about his fake-news empire. Mr. Coler and his team stage-crafted their sites to look like local newspapers and then planted fantastical headlines and fictional stories that attracted more than a million views. Though the news was fake, the ads were real. Mr. Coler wouldn’t tell the reporters exactly how much he made off advertising, but he intimated that his revenues ranged between $10,000 and $30,000 a month.

Such “entrepreneurs” have an outsize influence on our political sphere. BuzzFeed News reported that, during the last three months of the election, hoax stories outperformed real ones on social media. Thanks to people enthusiastically sharing pro-Trump headlines cooked up by clickbait farms, in the bizarro-world of online advertising, the fake can be more profitable than the real.

Ezra Englebardt, an advertising strategist, joined the Sleeping Giants campaign because he believes it creates much-needed transparency in the online advertising world. When lots of people share photos of the ads that they’re seeing on their own screens, it becomes possible to get some sense of where the ad dollars go, he said.

Still, the post-truth reality makes it difficult to measure the scope of the problem. Breitbart’s editor in chief told Bloomberg that despite these bans, his company “continues to experience exceptional growth.” However, public Twitter communications and news accounts prove that advertisers are indeed fleeing the site.

More important, the screenshot activists are forcing companies to pick a side. After pressure from consumers, Kellogg’s became one of the first big brands to announce that it would remove its ads from Breitbart News. In retaliation, Breitbart called for a boycott, and the cereal brand seems to have suffered from the uproar on social media. At the same time, it received lots of good press for taking its stand; in early December, many consumers announced that they would reward the company by making all-Kellogg’s donations to soup kitchens.

I expected that other companies would want to trumpet their own Breitbart departures. It seemed an easy win for corporate P.R. to distance itself from Klan-rally-like riffs like this one — “every tree, every rooftop, every picket fence, every telegraph pole in the South should be festooned with the Confederate battle flag.” (Telegraph poles!?)

But when I reached out to several organizations that seemed to have joined the ban, they didn’t want to talk about it. A bank and a nonprofit group did not respond to my queries. Two companies — 3M and Zappos — declined to talk about the matter. A Patagonia spokeswoman said that her company did not advertise on white-supremacist sites — but she would not comment on the screenshots that activists had sent to Patagonia in early December showing the company’s logo on Breitbart’s Facebook page. Warby Parker was the most forthcoming; a representative pointed me to a statement that thanked a Twitter activist for inspiring its own ban on Breitbart.

In the behavior of some of these companies, you can detect the way our norms have already shifted. In the old normal, it would have cost little to stand up against neo-Nazi slogans. But in the new normal, doing so might involve angering key players in the White House, including the president-elect, Donald J. Trump, who has hired the former editor of Breitbart as his senior adviser. Mr. Trump recently proved the damage he could do to a company by criticizing Lockheed Martin on Twitter; soon after, its stocks prices tumbled.

Still, a new consumer movement is rising, and activists believe that where votes failed, wallets may prevail. This struggle is about much more than ads on Breitbart News — it’s about using corporations as shields to protect vulnerable people from
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Nicholas Reville, a board member of the Participatory Culture Foundation who has worked with the Sleeping Giants, pointed out that businesses benefited from embracing diversity: “You have to be inclusionary if you’re going to try to sell to a very large audience.” And he pointed out that consumer activism might be especially effective because so many people feel they have no other way to express their opposition to Trump-ian values.

The founder of Sleeping Giants agreed. “It’s scary to say it, but maybe companies will have to be the standard-bearers for morals right now,” he said. He added that most corporations embrace policies (on paper at least) that prohibit racist bullying and sexual intimidation. Even if President Trump flouts these rules, corporations may continue to uphold them. “We’ve all seen employee handbooks where they have codes of behavior,” he said. “Maybe that’s all we have to fall back on now.”

Pagan Kennedy is the author of “Inventology: How We Dream Up Things That Change the World” and a contributing opinion writer.

Parihaka
09 Jan 17,, 22:58
Look inside the National Inquirer or one of its tabloid cousins at the supermarket and you won't find a single reputable company with an ad in it. Now the same silent censure is being aimed at some internet news sites, like Breitbart and InfoWars. Will it work?


http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html?ref=opinion

If you go to Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/01/09/washington-post-cries-uncle-stop-using-tainted-term-fake-news/) or it's extreme left equivalent The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/10/world-war-iii-democrats-and-america-vs-trump-and-russia.html) you'll see their advertising revenue is generated almost purely by click-bait.
The New York Time's revenue is generated almost entirely by big brand advertisers, the interwebs companies almost entirely by click-bait. Click-bait doesn't care about politics, only traffic, because that's the fundamental structure of internet advertising.
It's very unlikely big-name advertising brands refusing to advertise or anti-site-campaigns would have any significant impact on either Daily Beast or Breitbart.

JAD_333
10 Jan 17,, 01:11
If you go to Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/01/09/washington-post-cries-uncle-stop-using-tainted-term-fake-news/) or it's extreme left equivalent The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/10/world-war-iii-democrats-and-america-vs-trump-and-russia.html) you'll see their advertising revenue is generated almost purely by click-bait.
The New York Time's revenue is generated almost entirely by big brand advertisers, the interwebs companies almost entirely by click-bait. Click-bait doesn't care about politics, only traffic, because that's the fundamental structure of internet advertising.
It's very unlikely big-name advertising brands refusing to advertise or anti-site-campaigns would have any significant impact on either Daily Beast or Breitbart.


In the article it says that advertisers can prevent their ads from appearing on any site, provided they tell the ad placement folks to avoid it. That includes click bait ads. All placements come from a bidding process. If the pool of advertisers willing to run ads on a particular site shrinks, the bid for space will be lower, and result in less ad revenue for the site. Supply and demand.

GVChamp
10 Jan 17,, 02:31
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/

There's a couple interesting German articles that take it apart pretty much paragraph by paragraph. Each paragraph has a kernel of truth which is then modified, twisted and embellished to create the kind of sentence that neo-fascist rag wants. Exactly the way propaganda is traditionally spun if you want to do it the right way. The KGB would be proud.
Yes, it is a complete bullshit article. My cousin-in-law just shared an article from the NY Times about a study commissioned by the sugar industry in the 60s. Why? Because liberals in the NY Times want to create a narrative that the sugar industry invented the "Fat is Bad" mantra, and not decades of "research" by government-funded "academics." Because if we question the academics, why, WHAT ELSE MIGHT THE PROLES QUESTION?

When do I get to shut down the New York Times?

Parihaka
10 Jan 17,, 06:43
In the article it says that advertisers can prevent their ads from appearing on any site, provided they tell the ad placement folks to avoid it. That includes click bait ads. All placements come from a bidding process. If the pool of advertisers willing to run ads on a particular site shrinks, the bid for space will be lower, and result in less ad revenue for the site. Supply and demand.
Click-bait sites are different, they don't advertise a product, they advertise their site with "you won't believe what she looks like now". "OMG, he found this in his back yard, you WON'T BELIEVE what happened next!"
The advertising revenue is generated from those sites and a margin is passed back to the original site. Every company in the world could ban Breitbart from their list and they would still receive revenue because the click-bait sites aren't breitbart.

zara
10 Jan 17,, 15:51
Heard an interview on the radio where they interviewed the owner of one of the fake news sites. He said they could make up to $10,000 on a fake news story. The example he gave of one that netted 10K was that Morgan Freedman was supporting Trump.

JAD_333
10 Jan 17,, 23:11
Click-bait sites are different, they don't advertise a product, they advertise their site with "you won't believe what she looks like now". "OMG, he found this in his back yard, you WON'T BELIEVE what happened next!"
The advertising revenue is generated from those sites and a margin is passed back to the original site. Every company in the world could ban Breitbart from their list and they would still receive revenue because the click-bait sites aren't breitbart.

I know the difference, but you make a good point. The click bait sites can be Trojan Horses. I checked out all the click bait ads on Breitbart and didn't see any major advertisers listed on those sites. Hardly a scientific study. I noticed that some click bait sites are a rabbit warren of links to more click bait sites. Still never found a major company advertised. Still, I concede your point that it's hard for a company to ensure its ads are inaccessible from Breitbart, etal. However, companies can avoid popping up on Breitbart and click bait sites and thereby deny them all revenue. Remains to be seen if this campaign will produce results.

Parihaka
11 Jan 17,, 04:13
Still never found a major company advertised.

Nor are you likely to. I've never seen a kelloggs add on Breibart, Daily Beast, Drudge Report, Vox, or Hufpo. My point I guess is that modern media isn't reliant on major advertisers, only legacy media like the NYT is. They're barking up the wrong tree, probably more to retain their own revenue stream than to have any effect on new media.

Parihaka
11 Jan 17,, 05:26
It really is toooo easy
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/10/buzzfeed-trump-caught-in-perverted-sex.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.stlXbj18d#.tqaKpwr2B
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
Here's 4chan/POL taking credit for it in early november
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/95568919/#95571329

Toby
11 Jan 17,, 20:29
Even when you get actual real News. Who decides the order and context and whose opinion matters most......

Doktor
11 Jan 17,, 21:28
Even when you get actual real News. Who decides the order and context and whose opinion matters most......

The editor. As long as everything is factual and opinion can be seen as such it's all good.

DOR
03 Feb 17,, 14:25
.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer asserted at Thursday’s press briefing that Iran had attacked a U.S. naval vessel, as part of his argument defending the administration’s bellicose announcement that Iran is “on notice.”

“I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take,” he said. “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions.”

In the real world, Yemen-based Houthi rebels are suspected of having launched an attack on a Saudi frigate.

DOR
03 Feb 17,, 14:28
.
During a Thursday interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, defended President Trump’s travel ban related to seven majority-Muslim countries. At one point, Conway made a reference to two Iraqi refugees whom she described as the masterminds behind “the Bowling Green massacre.”

In the real world, there never was a terrorist attack in Bowling Green Kentucky.

YellowFever
03 Feb 17,, 19:09
Holy cripes.

Now fake news (and the so called real news) is having a conniption fit over an obviously mispoken word that was corrected in a matter of seconds and frothing at the mouth about it.

:40 second mark


https://youtu.be/puJChpu5BzM

Parihaka
03 Feb 17,, 21:19
And of course it turns out Trump hanging up on "Trunbill" turns out to be fake as well.

Parihaka
05 Feb 17,, 12:43
A roundup of some of the fake news generated in the last week by legacy media

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/errors-from-the-press-are-piling-up-in-the-opening-weeks-of-the-trump-administration/

xerxes
05 Feb 17,, 15:43
There are powerful elements within the Iranian government and the revolutionary guards that were never happy about the nuclear deal and they have been trying very hard to torpedo it ever since. With the sudden death of their nemesis Rafsanjani and the results of the US election and an unexpected-ally in the White House (who feels the same way), they are about to get their wish.

As far as Iran's influence over Yemen is concerned, I compare that situation to Mr Trump so-called global business empire. Trump doesn't have much real-estate assets outside the US, what he has are advertising and branding deals with hotels here and there. Yet his egos demands it to be a global business empire so he keeps talking about 'empire'. Inversely, his political opponents also over-blow his businesses into a global 'empire', because it helps them make the case of conflict of interests. Everyone gets something out of this lie.

Iran has a similar situation with Yemen, I think. I am no expert, but feel that Yemen is a place, where the Quds forces like to think they hold sway, as it is another satrap like Iraq. But they don't, due to geographical challenge, an obvious naval blockade and the fact that it is in the Saudi's backyard. Yet it helps their propaganda narrative. Equally, it helps the Saudi and the White House to think that Iran's tentacles are everywhere. Everyone gets something out of this exageration.

Now, i don't know what happened with the boat in Red sea. But if for a second, one thinks that the White House won't hesitate to make up stuff & exagerate to create emotions to help their anti-Iranian narrative, one is a complete and utter fool.

JAD_333
05 Feb 17,, 21:51
This might add a little spice to the sewage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/

JAD_333
05 Feb 17,, 22:00
Another things about fake news I've noticed is that some people keep on swearing by it even after the truth comes out.

tankie
08 Feb 17,, 21:38
this is the latest vid from 6th feb 2017 with bigshots being named , more fake or what ??? if fake some lawsuits will be flying about .

https://youtu.be/KAyYbDi5pZU

Bridgeburner_
11 Feb 17,, 13:46
http://vesselnews.io/fake-newsflow-new-york-times-washington-post-buying-clicks-china-traffic-jumps-half-traffic-two-months/

Very amusing to see the NYT WAPO and the Guardian ALL allegedly buying clicks from Chinese botfarms according to ALEXA stats. They are hurting bad, I'm glad the White House went on the offensive from the get go, they've definitely got more stamina to outlast the media.

kato
11 Feb 17,, 15:01
Might want to use a source though that doesn't copy that trumpist agitprop squawkbox Zero Hedge. Also, might want to look up how Alexa collects statistics on traffic. Because it doesn't. Hint: There's a reason Alexa never uses absolute numbers. Because those would show that its "statistics" are effectively fake.

tbm3fan
11 Feb 17,, 18:53
Might want to use a source though that doesn't copy that trumpist agitprop squawkbox Zero Hedge. Also, might want to look up how Alexa collects statistics on traffic. Because it doesn't. Hint: There's a reason Alexa never uses absolute numbers. Because those would show that its "statistics" are effectively fake.

A monster dunk!

DOR
12 Feb 17,, 11:17
Might want to use a source though that doesn't copy that trumpist agitprop squawkbox Zero Hedge. Also, might want to look up how Alexa collects statistics on traffic. Because it doesn't. Hint: There's a reason Alexa never uses absolute numbers. Because those would show that its "statistics" are effectively fake.

Like.
Especially the description of ZeroHedge!

DOR
13 Feb 17,, 10:24
Feb 13, 2017
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Presidential adviser Stephen Miller peddled discredited theories about voter fraud during a round of TV appearances Sunday that won praise from his boss but brought no new evidence to light.

Miller mischaracterized research about wrongly registered voters and spread a debunked claim that busloads of Democrats came into New Hampshire and voted improperly in the November election. His Sunday morning performance on news shows earned him a "Good job!" on Twitter from President Donald Trump, who alleged days earlier that he lost New Hampshire in November only because "thousands" of people came by bus to vote against him."


Meanwhile, in the real world,

"Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party for the 2008 election, lashed out.

'Miller makes false #magicbus claim, offers no proof,' he tweeted. 'Delusional. There are no bused-in voters.' He also tweeted: 'I will pay $1000 to 1st person proving even 1 out-of-state person took bus from MA 2 any NH polling place last Election Day.'"


http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-13/ap-fact-check-trump-aide-pushes-false-story-of-vote-fraud
Find all AP Fact Checks here: http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

DOR
17 Feb 17,, 12:22
FactChecking Trump’s News Conference
February 16, 2017
President Donald Trump offered his spin on the first weeks of his administration, and made some familiar false claims, during his Feb. 16 press conference.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/factchecking-trumps-news-conference/

Trump Spins Flynn Facts
February 16, 2017
President Donald Trump has been spinning the facts about Michael Flynn’s resignation Feb. 14 as national security advisor.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-spins-flynn-facts/

No Evidence of Busing Voters to N.H.
February 14, 2017
White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller doubled down on President Trump’s unsupported claim that thousands of voters were bused in from Massachusetts to vote illegally in New Hampshire.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-evidence-of-busing-voters-to-n-h/

ISIS Leader Not Captured at U.S. Airport
February 14, 2017
Q: Did President Trump’s immigration executive order help capture a leader of ISIS?
A: No. That claim was made in a fake news article.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/isis-leader-not-captured-at-u-s-airport/

Cruz’s Obamacare Whopper
February 10, 2017
Sen. Ted Cruz claimed that “Obamacare is discouraging people from going to medical school.” Actually, medical school applicants and enrollees are at an all-time high.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/cruzs-obamacare-whopper/


When do we get to call fake news lies?

Parihaka
18 Feb 17,, 21:02
George Taki embarrasses himself.

43344

kato
18 Feb 17,, 21:33
Deleted on Twitter, not fake though. That's how far the google cache goes: "@GeorgeTakei a bunch of trump fanatics retweeted it to their "...

Not really embarassing for him. More showing that where Trumpists walk no other voice shall prevail.

DOR
19 Feb 17,, 00:39
Another things about fake news I've noticed is that some people keep on swearing by it even after the truth comes out.

That's where the "Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy" came from.
Fake news.
SAD.

antimony
19 Feb 17,, 08:01
http://vesselnews.io/fake-newsflow-new-york-times-washington-post-buying-clicks-china-traffic-jumps-half-traffic-two-months/

Very amusing to see the NYT WAPO and the Guardian ALL allegedly buying clicks from Chinese botfarms according to ALEXA stats. They are hurting bad, I'm glad the White House went on the offensive from the get go, they've definitely got more stamina to outlast the media.

See, that is where this pesky 22nd amendment kicks in. Orangeboy, at the very worst, will stay till 2024. I will bet that "media" will last longer than that. As for stamina? Orangeboy did not last three weeks before he had to go on a campaign rally to get recharged. Are we saying we will have 2020 campaign rallies every 3 weeks now?

antimony
19 Feb 17,, 08:03
Feb 13, 2017
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Presidential adviser Stephen Miller peddled discredited theories about voter fraud during a round of TV appearances Sunday that won praise from his boss but brought no new evidence to light.

Miller mischaracterized research about wrongly registered voters and spread a debunked claim that busloads of Democrats came into New Hampshire and voted improperly in the November election. His Sunday morning performance on news shows earned him a "Good job!" on Twitter from President Donald Trump, who alleged days earlier that he lost New Hampshire in November only because "thousands" of people came by bus to vote against him."


Meanwhile, in the real world,

"Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party for the 2008 election, lashed out.

'Miller makes false #magicbus claim, offers no proof,' he tweeted. 'Delusional. There are no bused-in voters.' He also tweeted: 'I will pay $1000 to 1st person proving even 1 out-of-state person took bus from MA 2 any NH polling place last Election Day.'"


http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-13/ap-fact-check-trump-aide-pushes-false-story-of-vote-fraud
Find all AP Fact Checks here: http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

The power of the President and his third rate mooks to spew absolute bullshit are very substantial and will NOT be questioned!!!

Bridgeburner_
22 Feb 17,, 00:31
Ahh, I absolutely love it. Finally the world can see Swedens rape and terror epidemic brought to light. The Donald is clearly blessed by some deity with his prescient tweets.

43355

All the usual suspects quiet after trying to stir up more anti-Trump hysteria about his Sweden comments. You literally cannot make this up

antimony
22 Feb 17,, 01:41
Ahh, I absolutely love it. Finally the world can see Swedens rape and terror epidemic brought to light. The Donald is clearly blessed by some deity with his prescient tweets.

43355

All the usual suspects quiet after trying to stir up more anti-Trump hysteria about his Sweden comments. You literally cannot make this up

The fact that something happened 9 hours ago does not change the fact that nothing happened 2 days back. Trump still lied.

tbm3fan
22 Feb 17,, 01:53
Ahh, I absolutely love it. Finally the world can see Swedens rape and terror epidemic brought to light. The Donald is clearly blessed by some deity with his prescient tweets.

43355

All the usual suspects quiet after trying to stir up more anti-Trump hysteria about his Sweden comments. You literally cannot make this up

As usual there is way more to the story that you left out. Bad

DOR
22 Feb 17,, 11:39
So, did The Trumpet have prior knowledge of the riot in Stockholm?
Maybe ... had it "arranged" so as to lend some support to his so-called news?

Inquiring minds want to know

Wooglin
22 Feb 17,, 22:51
As usual there is way more to the story that you left out. Bad

You were there too? Wow, you really get around.


Normally one would say if you weren't there then shut the ......

Sound familiar?

LOL

DOR
27 Feb 17,, 19:29
“The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.” [sic]
-– DJ Trump, Feb 25, 2017.

As the perspective Menzie Chinn points out, the national debt usually is lower in January than in December, and since 1947, by an average 4.3%.

Just to nail the point to the wall,
“Anything that has happened to the debt has been on autopilot since Obama left,” said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University. “If anything, he is taking credit for something Obama did.”

http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/02/the-media-fails-to-report-the-sun-rose-today

DOR
14 Mar 17,, 11:39
Kellyanne Conway Explains Microwave Oven Surveillance Remarks
http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/13/kellyanne-conway-microwave-spying/

Conway … suggested that the alleged monitoring of activities at Trump’s campaign headquarters at Trump Tower in Manhattan may have involved far more than wiretapping.
“What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other … You can surveil someone through their phones, certainly through their television sets — any number of ways.”
Conway went on to say that the monitoring could be done with “microwaves that turn into cameras,” adding: “We know this is a fact of modern life.”

troung
15 Mar 17,, 18:29
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/324059-maddows-flub-is-a-win-for-trump

JAD_333
15 Mar 17,, 20:03
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/324059-maddows-flub-is-a-win-for-trump

That's the way I read it. Trump looks good; Maddow looks--well--naive, at best.

Parihaka
15 Mar 17,, 20:08
Really the whole story deserves its own thread, but this particular tweet sums it up nicely



Rachel Maddow just reported that Trump (https://twitter.com/Billhic02785574/status/841830696549244928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)paid a higher percentage of income tax (25) than Obama (19) or Bernie (13). Winning ��������

DOR
20 Mar 17,, 20:36
Trump dismisses a poll that doesn’t exist for coming from an inaccurate pollster that wasn’t

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/20/trump-dismisses-a-poll-that-doesnt-exist-for-coming-from-an-inaccurate-pollster-that-wasnt/?utm_term=.581a01b7e736

Twit:
Just heard Fake News CNN is doing polls again despite the fact that their election polls were a WAY OFF disaster. Much higher ratings at Fox


Meanwhile, in the real world … Trump approval rating sinks to new low

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-approval-rating-sinks-low/story?id=46243176

37%.

Parihaka
20 Mar 17,, 20:39
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/) about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”

Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.

Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
Continues (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/)

Parihaka
20 Mar 17,, 20:41
And of course
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-james-comey-no-evidence-trump-wiretapping-claim-video

Which makes virtually every story regarding Trump from the NYT from October 2016 onward fake.

Parihaka
21 Mar 17,, 20:35
here's some of the NYT now-confirmed fake news.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=2
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html
Given the assertive nature of the reporting, it's yet to be seen whether the journalists themselves or their sources in the Obama administration were the inventors of these stories.

kato
22 Mar 17,, 05:46
Umm, the Guardian video is about no evidence for Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him. Nothing to do with Obama's claim that Trump had Russia rig the election for him.

Parihaka
22 Mar 17,, 07:13
Umm, the Guardian video is about no evidence for Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him. Nothing to do with Obama's claim that Trump had Russia rig the election for him.

Hence virtually everything printed by the NYT being faked, as all the stories claimed anonymous officials had wiretapped Trumps campaign, such as the two I linked above.
It really isn't that difficult. The entire basis for the 'Trump/Russians' fake news meme were articles quoting anonymous officials saying surveillance of Trumps campaign had taken place and were the basis of the security establishments fear that Trump was in bed with the Russians. The NYT, WAPO and the Guardian as the three main culprits.
It turns out according to Comey, those October and November stories (I've linked lots more in this thread and the politics thread as well) and the subsequent entire "Trumps in bed with the Russians" meme was faked.
The only questions are who made it up; the media, or the former administration. I'd rather suspect when we know who unmasked Flynn, we'll know who generated that particular fake news propaganda.

tankie
22 Mar 17,, 13:59
/\ like .

snapper
22 Mar 17,, 14:24
Hence virtually everything printed by the NYT being faked, as all the stories claimed anonymous officials had wiretapped Trumps campaign, such as the two I linked above.
It really isn't that difficult. The entire basis for the 'Trump/Russians' fake news meme were articles quoting anonymous officials saying surveillance of Trumps campaign had taken place and were the basis of the security establishments fear that Trump was in bed with the Russians. The NYT, WAPO and the Guardian as the three main culprits.
It turns out according to Comey, those October and November stories (I've linked lots more in this thread and the politics thread as well) and the subsequent entire "Trumps in bed with the Russians" meme was faked.
The only questions are who made it up; the media, or the former administration. I'd rather suspect when we know who unmasked Flynn, we'll know who generated that particular fake news propaganda.

Forgive me but I do not think this can be said to be 'true' or even 'correct'. 17 Intelligence and law enforcement agencies say there was Muscovite interference in the US election; the French and German authorities are saying they are detecting signs of the same now. We KNOW the DCleaks and wikileaks info was hacked by the Muscovites; bots were also used on social media sites to swamp the information space. Many 'fake news' items (such as the Pope endorsed Trump) came from sleepy villages in Macedonia and Albania. These are facts and I take it you do not deny this so far?

The second part of the story is the number of links Trump advisors (and some later appointees) had with Moscow from Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, to Flynn, Sessions and Trump himself. His daughter holidays in Croatia with Putin's Lady friend for Christs sake. We also know that Trump asked Moscow publicly to go after Clinton's emails. We know that some of the these people appear to have advanced knowledge that a new dump of the hacked information was due - as did RT - before it was dumped. We know that senior Republicans were concerned about Trump's Muscovite ties - sufficiently so to take advice and hire Orbis Business Intelligence (in London) to start inquiries - the 'Trump dossier' started off being asked for and funded by Republicans, though after Trump won the nomination it was continued by Democrat funding. We know Trump and his whole team have consistently lied about having any contacts with Moscow during or after the campaign as has Trump himself regarding his contacts. Nearly every meeting alleged in the dossier is now confirmed to have taken place. Carter Page even admits he visited Moscow on the instructions of the campaign. These are not conjectures or theories but facts. To say that someone invented the meme would be incorrect; when it walks like a duck etc you are not entirely unreasonable for supposing it may a duck. If the FBI etc were not checking if there is a link they would surely be failing in their duty. To say that all this evidence and the Trump teams consistent lies on this specific matter is all "pure coincidence" may in theory still be possible - if one has no experience of Muscovite disinformation techniques in particular. Not too long ago all Ukrainian were 'fascists' for defending our own sovereign territory. There are no 'coincidences' in a GRU operation; Girkin (Strelkov) "just happened" to have recently "left" the GRU as a Colonel and ended up as Minister of Defence of some so called Republic in Ukraine was not a 'coincidence'. Neither are the Trump peoples continued denials which are subsequently proved to be false.

This is not about just Trump or just Ukraine; they both parts of the same war whether you like it or not. The Frogs and Krauts are finding out about now - though Merkel I think already understood. Get real, get prepared or get out - as I wrote to my Sisters (who have small people) last month. It is likely to get hotter before it ends.

astralis
22 Mar 17,, 15:04
lol snapper, why bother-- it's clear someone is riding the Trump Train and has no plans of ever getting off. last stop, Moscow.

snapper
22 Mar 17,, 15:07
lol snapper, why bother-- it's clear someone is riding the Trump Train and has no plans of ever getting off. last stop, Moscow.

Because the intellectual war can only be won by truth.

Doktor
22 Mar 17,, 16:06
43537

Mhm..

Parihaka
22 Mar 17,, 21:58
Forgive me but I do not think this can be said to be 'true' or even 'correct'.

lol snapper, why bother-- it's clear someone is riding the Trump Train and has no plans of ever getting off. last stop, Moscow.
And it just gets funnier and funnier :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5z-ia1X4EM


Trump derangement syndrome seems to be in full swing.

Parihaka
22 Mar 17,, 22:35
Forgive me but I do not think this can be said to be 'true' or even 'correct'. 17 Intelligence and law enforcement agencies say there was Muscovite interference in the US election; the French and German authorities are saying they are detecting signs of the same now.
Ohh, and both Michael Morell and James Clapper disagree with you.


Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

His comments were in sharp contrast to those of many Clinton partisans — such as former communications director Jennifer Palmieri — who have stated publicly they believe the Trump campaign cooperated with Russia's efforts to interfere in the election against Clinton.

Play House investigates collusion between Trump and Russia Facebook Twitter Embed
House investigates collusion between Trump and Russia 5:04
Morell said he had learned that the former officer, Christopher Steele, paid his key Russian sources, and interviewed them through intermediaries.

"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site.

"There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."

Related: CIA Concludes Russia Mounted Operation To Help Trump Win

Morell pointed out that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Meet the Press on March 5 that he had seen no evidence of a conspiracy when he left office January 20.

"That's a pretty strong statement by General Clapper," Morell said.

About the dossier, Morell said, "Unless you know the sources, and unless you know how a particular source acquired a particular piece of information, you can't judge the information — you just can't."

The dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I don't think," he said.
But you already know that.

Doktor
22 Mar 17,, 22:59
Wait, NBC is fake news or not? I am lost.

astralis
22 Mar 17,, 23:38
that the Russians were actively interfering with the US election is a known.

that the Russians were actively interfering with the US election to elect Trump is assessed as high probability by US intel.

that Trump associates were taking money from Russian organizations is a known.

and what the FBI is now looking into is whether or not those same associates were working in league with the Russians during the election.

if by "fire" you mean evidence of collusion to the point of an impeachable offense, i agree, we're not there yet.

operative word: yet. the investigation continues. we'll see where it leads. none of this is "Trump derangement syndrome".

the only "Trump derangement syndrome" i see is the person with said name Twittering away at 3 in the morning with a new daily foul accusation or asinine conspiracy theory.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 00:07
that the Russians were actively interfering with the US election is a known.

that the Russians were actively interfering with the US election to elect Trump is assessed as high probability by US intel.

that Trump associates were taking money from Russian organizations is a known.

and what the FBI is now looking into is whether or not those same associates were working in league with the Russians during the election.

if by "fire" you mean evidence of collusion to the point of an impeachable offense, i agree, we're not there yet.

operative word: yet. the investigation continues. we'll see where it leads. none of this is "Trump derangement syndrome".

the only "Trump derangement syndrome" i see is the person with said name Twittering away at 3 in the morning with a new daily foul accusation or asinine conspiracy theory.
And yet we now haves Nunes stating categorically that various members of Trumps transition were surveilled and the information gleaned was widely disseminated, including their names. As you said, the investigation continues. Have we had a definitive statement from the DoJ yet as to whether FISA requests were made for surveillance of Trump, his campaign and or his transition team? I recall Comey specifically asking them to do this two weeks ago.

astralis
23 Mar 17,, 00:49
And yet we now haves Nunes stating categorically that various members of Trumps transition were surveilled and the information gleaned was widely disseminated, including their names.

actually, what Nunes said was that there were intelligence intercepts with -incidentally gathered information- on members of the Trump transition team. that's not "were surveilled", which implies those members were deliberately targeted.


Have we had a definitive statement from the DoJ yet as to whether FISA requests were made for surveillance of Trump, his campaign and or his transition team?

we had a definitive statement from Comey.


With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 01:16
actually, what Nunes said was that there were intelligence intercepts with -incidentally gathered information- on members of the Trump transition team. that's not "were surveilled", which implies those members were deliberately targeted. He confirms the information was deliberately disseminated outside the intel community and that the names were unmasked, both of which which Comey confirmed to Gowdy was a criminal act.
Fun times ahead, given the limited number of people who could request that unmasking and are therefore lead candidates as leakers. Trey Gowdy seems happy to publicly name his seven suspects. (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/20/gowdy-points-to-president-obama-and-6-admin-officials-as-possible-source-of-flynn-leaks-video/)




we had a definitive statement from Comey.
Splendid, then all the claims from the press and the Democrat party around information around FISA requests as a basis for the Trump campaigns collusion with Russia is confirmed as "Fake News".

astralis
23 Mar 17,, 02:24
pari,


He confirms the information was deliberately disseminated outside the intel community and that the names were unmasked, both of which which Comey confirmed to Gowdy was a criminal act.
Fun times ahead, given the limited number of people who could request that unmasking and are therefore lead candidates as leakers.

it's certainly true that the -act- of leaking is illegal. on the other hand, that was precisely the situation that Deep Throat and the Pentagon Papers leaker found themselves in. the question is if Republicans really want to focus their attention on this, because to paraphrase Kasparov, it is akin to having a house on fire and investigating the people that called for the Fire Department.

and if worse skulduggery is found, this will be seen as whistleblowing, not leaking.

this is why while some Republicans are of course using this opportunity to call for an 'investigation of the leaks', most Republicans are trying to just make this all go away, because in the long-term this is not a favorable political calculus.

by the way, regarding the Nunes statement specifically: Nunes himself says that "This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect...This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." the main issue is dissemination WITHIN the intelligence community, not outside...and Nunes says he has no information on the dissemination list.


Splendid, then all the claims from the press and the Democrat party around information around FISA requests as a basis for the Trump campaigns collusion with Russia is confirmed as "Fake News".

you realize that the original champion of this argument was Lindsey Graham, -not- the "press and the Democrat party"?

and this is a direct response to the original Trump tweet. the point being, IF what Trump says is true, THEN...

but of course, no one took what Trump said seriously. well, other than Trump himself-- although you did give it the ol' college try.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 02:48
pari,



it's certainly true that the -act- of leaking is illegal. on the other hand, that was precisely the situation that Deep Throat and the Pentagon Papers leaker found themselves in. the question is if Republicans really want to focus their attention on this, because to paraphrase Kasparov, it is akin to having a house on fire and investigating the people that called for the Fire Department.

Except of course Nunes made it perfectly clear none of the recorded and disseminated information had anything to do with the Russians. Just whatever could be found from Trumps team on whatever subject.
That's not bravely standing up to corruption, that IS corruption.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 02:56
you realize that the original champion of this argument was Lindsey Graham, -not- the "press and the Democrat party"?
Nope, Louise Mensch (https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/), picked up by the NYT, WAPO and the Guardian as I've already linked to. Graham, McCain and the Dems took it up once reported by those propaganda outlets, although special mention goes to McCain for disseminating the 'golden shower' dossier. So, to correct my previous statement
Splendid, then all the claims from the press and the Democrat party (along with Graham and McCain) around information around FISA requests as a basis for the Trump campaigns collusion with Russia is confirmed as "Fake News".

You need to learn to dodge faster.

astralis
23 Mar 17,, 03:01
Except of course Nunes made it perfectly clear none of the recorded and disseminated information had anything to do with the Russians. Just whatever could be found from Trumps team on whatever subject.

again, INCIDENTAL and LEGAL collection, and the reason behind the unmasking is unknown-- so we can't determine if that is illegal or not. same thing with the dissemination.

which is a different issue from -leaking-, a la the Flynn episode.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 03:05
again, INCIDENTAL and LEGAL collection, and the reason behind the unmasking is unknown-- so we can't determine if that is illegal or not. same thing with the dissemination.

which is a different issue from -leaking-, a la the Flynn episode.
And again, the DISSEMINATION was NOT legal.
I'm afraid YELLING doesn't work any better as a tool of argument than strawmen. Try name calling next. ;-)

astralis
23 Mar 17,, 03:21
pari,


And again, the DISSEMINATION was NOT legal.

the severity of that would depend on the intelligence value of the reporting itself. regardless, it would be improper handling of classified data, which is not a particularly severe crime. for instance, Nunes opened himself up to that very charge by making this public.

that's why he's focusing on the unmasking, not the dissemination.

oh, and i don't really need to name-call. i mentioned earlier in my post #129:


and what the FBI is now looking into is whether or not those same associates were working in league with the Russians during the election.

and look what came up tonight. the noose tightens.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html

US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

Washington (CNN)

The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.

The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."

The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.

"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.

One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.

The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.

One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.

Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.

The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.

Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.
US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

Parihaka
23 Mar 17,, 03:48
pari,



the severity of that would depend on the intelligence value of the reporting itself. Nope, the severity of the punishment. A crime is a crime is a crime, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.





and look what came up tonight. the noose tightens.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html

US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

Washington (CNN)

The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.

The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."

The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.

"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.

One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.

The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.

One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.

Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.

The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.

Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.
US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

LOL, the same "officials" who leaked the rest of the intelligence data sans doute. Same old recycled crap as the original stories (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=66679&page=81&p=1022468&viewfull=1#post1022468), presented as though new.

As I pointed out to Snapper and will reiterate for your benefit


Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176), who endorsed Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump a dupe of Russia, cast doubt Wednesday night on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

His comments were in sharp contrast to those of many Clinton partisans — such as former communications director Jennifer Palmieri — who have stated publicly they believe the Trump campaign cooperated with Russia's efforts to interfere in the election against Clinton.

Morell said he had learned that the former officer, Christopher Steele, paid his key Russian sources, and interviewed them through intermediaries.

"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site.

"There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."

Related: CIA Concludes Russia Mounted Operation To Help Trump Win

Morell pointed out that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Meet the Press on March 5 that he had seen no evidence of a conspiracy when he left office January 20.

"That's a pretty strong statement by General Clapper," Morell said

snapper
23 Mar 17,, 20:03
Having now seen Nunes remarks in full I find them quite incredible. Is he not 'leaking' himself? Doing precisely what Trumpians moan about? Moreover is he not chair of committee undertaking an investigation into these matters? Are there not ongoing FBI investigations which he may have compromised by his public announcement? Moreover are not the investigations precisely into Trump and his people's contacts and 'coordination' with Moscow? If so why was he running off to brief Trump rather than his committee when Trump is precisely the one under investigation? This guy is clearly not fit to lead an investigation and I must agree with McCain an independent investigation is now needed.

Doktor
23 Mar 17,, 20:20
Investigators face the suspects more often than you think

snapper
23 Mar 17,, 21:00
Investigators face the suspects more often than you think

Indeed; their story is relevant to any investigation. However they do not brief the suspect on the information gathered before the investigation ends.

Doktor
23 Mar 17,, 22:16
Erm, they actually do.

Just yesterday over here the DA equivalent called one of the parties leader to present them the evidence over an investigation they are running against him and the party he leads over financial issues with their last campaign.

astralis
23 Mar 17,, 23:21
snapper,


Having now seen Nunes remarks in full I find them quite incredible. Is he not 'leaking' himself? Doing precisely what Trumpians moan about? Moreover is he not chair of committee undertaking an investigation into these matters? Are there not ongoing FBI investigations which he may have compromised by his public announcement? Moreover are not the investigations precisely into Trump and his people's contacts and 'coordination' with Moscow? If so why was he running off to brief Trump rather than his committee when Trump is precisely the one under investigation? This guy is clearly not fit to lead an investigation and I must agree with McCain an independent investigation is now needed.

looks like Nunes just realized he just badly undercut the Republican argument that an independent investigation wasn't necessary.

House Intelligence Chair Nunes apologizes for how he handled revelations surrounding Trump and his aides (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-intelligence-chair-nunes-apologizes-for-how-he-handled-revelations-surrounding-trump-and-his-aides/2017/03/23/344b05e2-0fc8-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.a96c789a5ade)

Doktor
24 Mar 17,, 09:14
Something to add?

43543

Parihaka
24 Mar 17,, 09:33
...43544

snapper
24 Mar 17,, 12:53
Seems Nunes, who was on the Trump 'transition team' would not deny that his 'new information' had come from the Administration itself! He still has not told his committee what this 'new information' is or how he came by it. In other words this, like the whole "Obama wiretapped me" tweets, is just another self created smoke screen from Trump and his people. Obscure and confuse and above all get the Moscow connections off the headlines. Why hide if there is there nothing to it? I would have a court order him to reveal all his tax returns which he seems very shy about.

Parihaka
25 Mar 17,, 22:25
A chronology of sorts. Oddly, it's beginning to look as if this isn't fake news, that Obama did spy on the Trump campaign, and did disseminate the information to the media. Quite the banana republic really.
It's the Daily Wire (http://www.dailywire.com/news/14756/12-pieces-proof-msm-knew-obama-spied-trump-and-john-nolte#) and I know you're hardwired to avoid contaminating your computers so I'll post it in full.


What I am about to present to you is what really happened. All the proof is linked below, but what I'm about to do is what I call "Revealing the Matrix," showing you the truth backed by incontrovertible fact and the media's own words. Not my words. Not President Trump's words. The media's words.

We're gunna cut through all the code, all the spin, all the fog, all the lies, and all the Coordinated Narratives used by our media to obscure Truth.

And we will begin with the beguine …


Our national media has known for months that the Obama administration spied on Team Trump. This was not only common knowledge within the media community, it was no secret. In fact, as you'll see below, for two big reasons, the media was overjoyed that this spying had occurred: (1) they got scoops damaging to Trump, and (2) in their provincial and cultish minds, the very fact that the oh-so pure Obama administration felt the need to spy, could only mean Trump was in bed with Putin.

In fact, the media was actually having a big public party using Obama's spying. Hoo-hah here's a scoop! Whee-hee Flynn said this! Woo-woo palace intrigue! Ha-haaah here's what so-and-so said! Tra-la-la here's what so-and-so did!

And then on March 4, in a series of tweets that had the exact same effect as political nukes, Trump himself confirmed what the media had already told us, that the Obama administration had spied on him and his team. Trump's brilliance was focusing on the sleazy and illegal act of the actual spying. And this is when the media realized that all their ha-has and tra-la-las were about to backfire. Their Precious Barry was now at risk, and so the shameless cover up and lying began …

Suddenly, right around 8 a.m. on Saturday, March 4, the conventional wisdom and public knowledge that the Obama administration had spied on Trump, was surrounded by the media's semantic wagons which were manned by lying journalists armed with hair-splitting. I don't want to go through all that again, so you can read why Trump told the 100% truth in the first section of this piece. The bottom line, though, is this …


Trump accused Obama of spying on him.

Obama did spy on Trump.

The media knew Obama spied on Trump.

The media lied and covered up the fact that Obama spied on Trump.

We know this with absolute certainty because the media itself told us so. And here is all the proof you will ever need to make that case … [emphasis mine throughout]

1. Heat Street - November 7, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

So let's stop for a moment to make a couple of things clear. The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which at the time was run by Obama's highly politicized Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. The author of this piece, Louise Mensch, despises Trump, and if you'll look at the publication date, she dropped this supposed bombshell the night before the election, and did so for reasons I should not have to explain.

You are now asking yourselves: Who the hell is Heat Street and how does this prove anything? That's a fair question, let me answer it this way: As you'll see below, this report of the Obama administration asking for and receiving a surveillance warrant to monitor Team Trump is confirmed by a number of other MSM sources.

Moreover, no less than The New York Times re-published this information as recently as last weekend.

2. The Guardian – January 11, 2017


The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

The left-wing Guardian not only reported that the Obama administration sought a surveillance warrant, but that it was specifically requested to "monitor four members of the Trump team." This was the summer request, as reported by Heat Street, that was turned down.

3. The New York Times – January 12, 2017

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.


This is the most important piece of the puzzle, because it explains how the media was getting all of its scoops via leaks via surveillance. Moreover, it explains how the media knew it was getting all these scoops via leaks via surveillance.

If you are not the target of the surveillance, if your name is not on the FISA warrant, if you are "incidentally" picked up in surveillance, in order to protect your privacy as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, the government is required by law to mask or blackout your name in its reports.

Just before running out the door, the Obama administration unilaterally changed the law in a way that allowed surveillance intel to be disseminated throughout all 16 national security agencies "before applying privacy protections" – and this includes surveillance picked up by the NSA, which is "largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws[.]"

Let me explain what happens ...

Hoo-ha, lookie-lookie at what we "incidentally" picked up at Trump Tower. But thanks to Precious Barry, I don't have to black out this "incidental juiciness" before I send it out to 16 whole agencies. Golly gee, now that we can spread this far and wide without masking all the "incidental juiciness," I sure hope it doesn’t end up in the hands of someone Obama appointee who likes all those tweets Jake Tapper sends out kissing the Intelligence Community's ass.

Hey, if anyone has another theory for why the Obama administration would make such a change just as the Trump administration was coming in, I'm all ears.

But you don't. Because there is no other theory. The only reason to authorize the spreading far and wide of these "incidental" names is to better the chances of Trump-related leaks to the hostile media.

Not to get too far off track, but welcome to a banana republic where secret and unlawful surveillance is leaked to the public for partisan purposes.

4. The BBC – January 17, 2017


Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities – in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer – outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr. Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

The left-wing BBC not only backs up the Heat Street reporting but publishes the news that "three of Trump's associates" were part of this surveillance operation.

5. McClatchy - January 18, 2017


The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said. …

A key mission of the six-agency group has been to examine who financed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The London-based transparency group WikiLeaks released the emails last summer and in October.

The working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few Americans who were affiliated with Trump’s campaign or his business empire and of multiple individuals from Russia and other former Soviet nations.

The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

Surveillance warrant.

"Americans associated with Trump[.]"

Even after eight years of Obama, two plus two still equals four.

6. The New York Times - Jan 19, 2017

Print headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides" …

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

The Obama administration is investigating Trump.

The White House is looking at intelligence based on "wiretapped communications."

This is The New York Times, y'all. This is the secular media's Bible, their Gaia, their Sacrament of all that is Right and True, and that Bible laid it all out in the exact same language used by Trump.

7. The Washington Post - February 9, 2017


Headline: "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say"

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

The Washington Post says it loud and says it proud that the month prior to Trump taking office, the Obama administration listened to Flynn's phone calls. It should be added that the report also says that Flynn said nothing unethical or wrong.

Maybe the FISA warrant targeted the Russian ambassador. Nevertheless, once Flynn's name was unmasked, disseminated and publicly leaked, at least two felonies had occurred – and incidental (yeah, right) or not, once all that happened, what the Obama administration did is called SPYING.

Let's also add to the mix the juicy fact that several members of the Obama administration had access to this unmasked information about Flynn.

8. CNN - February 14, 2017

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius cited a single "senior U.S. government official" while reporting that "Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking." …

Last Thursday, The Post cited "nine current and former officials" in a story headlined "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say."

The New York Times quickly matched the story and said there was a transcript of the discussions.

The chronology suggests that some officials in the government sought to alert the public to Flynn's contacts by leaking to the press.


This is CNN, the same network that for three weeks now has smeared Trump as a liar over his claim Obama spied on him – and yet, this very same CNN is seen here celebrating the fact that Mike Flynn was taken down by – read closely now – the Obama administration intercepting Flynn's phone calls, including a possible TRANSCRIPT.

Riddle me this, CNN: How did the Obama administration get a transcript of a phone call from a member of Trump's team, a team that was working out of Trump Tower? I mean, other than a wiretap?

Two more questions: Was Flynn's name on the FISA warrant? And if not, why didn’t the Obama administration mask his name, as required by law?

Either way, what we have here is CNN not only reporting that the Obama administration spied on Team Trump, but GLOATING over the fact that Obama's spying resulted in a scalp.

And then, just three weeks later, CNN would call Trump a liar for believing what? … CNN's reporting!

9. NBC News - February 10, 2017

A U.S. intelligence official briefed on the matter confirmed to NBC News that National Security Advisor Mike Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Flynn took office[.]

The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal. …

Flynn spoke to Kislyak on Dec. 29, the same day the sanctions were announced.

NBC News obviously knew the Obama administration was listening to Team Trump phone calls.

10. The Associated Press - February 13, 2017


Two people familiar with the situation say the Justice Department warned the Trump administration about Michael Flynn's contacts with Russia.

One of the people says the Justice Department told the administration there was a discrepancy between what the White House was saying publicly about Flynn's contacts and the facts of what occurred.

The Associated Press knew the Obama administration had listened to Flynn's calls.

11. ABC News - February 13, 2017

Embattled National Security Adviser Michael Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence Friday to apologize for misleading him about a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, according to a senior White House official.

ABC News knew the Obama administration had listened to Flynn's calls.

12. CBS News - February 10, 2017

Investigators believe that President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia in a phone call with a Russian official, law enforcement sources told CBS News on Friday.

Multiple sources told CBS News’ Jeff Pegues and Pat Milton that the conversation occurred before Mr. Trump took office and, if true, could be a violation of protocol and could be viewed as a violation of the law.

CBS News knew the Obama administrations had listened to Flynn's calls.

––

I could go on and on – so I hope I've made my point and closed my case. The evidence is so overwhelming that by now your eyes are probably glazed over and you mind is screaming Enough already!

SUMMATION:

Way back in January, Heat Street, The Guardian, The BBC, and McClatchy all confirmed that he Obama administration sought and/or received surveillance warrants aimed at Team Trump.

Way back in January, The New York Times reported that the Obama White House was looking at wiretap intelligence related to Trump.

Way back in February, The Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News all gleefully reported on private telephone calls that were surveilled by the Obama administration and then illegally made public to the media.


Then, In March, just weeks after all of this reporting on the awesomeness of Obama-era surveillance warrants and intercepted phone calls …

Despite their own knowledge, despite their own reporting, despite the words they publicly printed and the words they publicly spoke, every single one of these news outlets declared Trump a liar for the sin of what …?

For the sin of believing the same people now smearing him as a liar.

Parihaka
25 Mar 17,, 22:30
The Wall Street Journal weighs in (https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-obama-abuse-raw-intelligence-1490309760?mod=rss_opinion_main)


Then there's Mr. Comey's testimony that the FBI had been investigating Trump staff for eight months. It almost certainly included surveillance; an investigation without surveillance would approach farcical.

Adm. Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee that there are strict controls in place for masking and unmasking the identities of people caught up in the inadvertent collection of information and the distribution of this kind of material. It now appears he either misled the committee or doesn't know what's happening inside his own agency. If Mr. Nunes is right, the rules either weren't followed or were much less stringent than Adm. Rogers let on.

Last, and rather damningly, I believe that Mr. Comey and Adm. Rogers would have to have known that raw transcripts of captured conversations that included members of the Trump team were at the White House. It is inconceivable that people in those positions of power would not know. While this may not be criminal, it is at least a cause for them to be fired.

astralis
26 Mar 17,, 03:13
herp derp derp

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151


Rep. Devin Nunes told reporters Friday he can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were captured in the surveillance that has become a source of controversy since Nunes made it public in two news conferences this week.

"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested from the (intelligence community) about this before he knows for sure," his spokesman, Jack Langer, said earlier.

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 03:33
herp derp derp

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151
Lol, so the position now is just people involved in the transition were wholesale monitored but possibly not Trump himself unless he and Nunes can prove it hah ha ha?

astralis
26 Mar 17,, 04:29
"wholesale monitored", yeah, only no one knows whom, when, or the conditions under which they were incidentally collected on.

such evidence so impressed very wow.

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 05:58
It's just so hard to keep track of Asty.
First it was reported the whole Trump team was being monitored by several agencies, Obama officials were leaking details wholesale, it was reported the White House was monitoring the various intercepts from various agencies and everybody in the Dem camp was going HOORAY, impeachment before he can even swear the oath.

Then....
Trump says he was being wiretapped by the Obama administration and everyone amongst the media and the Democrats goes WTF, what a doofus, we don't have wires any more, ha ha what a retard liar.

Of course as MIT says (https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=nMY8yHaTQi4C&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=the+word+is+no+longer+restricted+to+communicati on+traveling+by+wire&source=bl&ots=DR1XFWAnbh&sig=ZQR-yI_wUbcjHFuE0ITtG58hQP4&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20word%20is%20no%20longer%20restricted%20to% 20communication%20traveling%20by%20wire&f=false)


Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.
But never mind the experts, besides, Saint Obama would never do such a thing despite every socialist rag in the world claiming for the past 3 months that he had in fact done just that, and every Democrat going haha ha, we have you now Mr Trump.

Now of course we're back to 'yes it was done but just incidentally, the names weren't masked accidentally, and it was by magic that various members (including Flynn) were accidentally recorded, left unmasked, and leaked to the press.'

It was all just accidents. Like Comey saying no monitoring of any of the Trump team took place, then the next day saying they'd been investigating the Trump team for six months. How exactly? By reading the newspapers?

Given Occams razor it's all getting rather hard to believe, and much easier to believe that the Obama administration actively monitored Trumps campaign and disseminated information to the various Democrat propaganda outlets, in collusion with various political appointees within the intelligence services. The needle is definitely swinging to 'Banana Republic'.

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 06:04
...
43560

astralis
26 Mar 17,, 06:59
you brought up Nunes.

now Nunes has backed off, said that he didn't have all the documents, can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were actually captured in surveillance, has refused to disclose his sources, AND admitted that from what he saw, the names of Trump aides were blacked out (but that he "could figure them out anyway", which is why he wants an investigation on IF the correct masking procedures have been done).

in short, "i've no evidence any of this happened, but let's just say it did".

similar to what you're doing here.

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 08:09
you brought up Nunes.

now Nunes has backed off, said that he didn't have all the documents, can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were actually captured in surveillance, has refused to disclose his sources, AND admitted that from what he saw, the names of Trump aides were blacked out (but that he "could figure them out anyway", which is why he wants an investigation on IF the correct masking procedures have been done).

in short, "i've no evidence any of this happened, but let's just say it did".

similar to what you're doing here.
And EXACTLY what you, the Democrat party (including McCain + McConnell) and all your socialist rags have been doing to Trump inc. for the last three months.

I really don't think you've realised the implications of Trumps election. Yes he destroyed the Republican party on the way through, but his main accomplishment was the destruction of the Democrat Talking Memos. Every tactic that's been used by the Dems to sideline and denegrate conservatives over the past 30 years will now be returned with interest. Re-branding "fake news" as democrat and purveyed by legacy media is just the first step. Why fight Alinsky rules when you can use them?
And so, back to the beginning of this thread:

Asty, is the news pumped out for the last three months by you and your Democrat party and propaganda organs "Fake News", or has there been wholesale monitoring of Trump Inc?

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 09:57
If indeed "Obama did spy on Trump" then it would be illegal. If there was 'incidental collection' following the issuing of a FISA say so then it is not illegal and not Obama. We know (because Comey said so) there has been an ongoing FBI investigation into Muscovite interference since last July so are you saying this investigation is Obama or illegal? Clearly it is neither. If so many of Trumps team end up being caught speaking to Moscow you have to question why that may be. Nunes has clearly lost the plot; his latest move has been to unilaterally cancel an open hearing this coming Tuesday so anxious is he to get the bottom of the 'leaks' and 'Obama spied on me' BS. Or maybe he is scared to hear more evidence on Trumps collusion to interfere with the election.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 10:33
Wait, I am lazy here, but are they publicly saying they were monitoring foreign diplomats or just members of Trump team?
Which one is it?

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 12:36
Wait, I am lazy here, but are they publicly saying they were monitoring foreign diplomats or just members of Trump team?
Which one is it?
One can only wonder

The Guardian – January 11, 2017 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts)

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation

The New York Times – January 12, 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?platform=hootsuite&_r=0)


In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

The BBC – January 17, 2017 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427)


Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities – in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer – outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr. Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

McClatchy - January 18, 2017 (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html)


The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said. …

A key mission of the six-agency group has been to examine who financed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The London-based transparency group WikiLeaks released the emails last summer and in October.

The working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few Americans who were affiliated with Trump’s campaign or his business empire and of multiple individuals from Russia and other former Soviet nations.

The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

The New York Times - Jan 19, 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=1&mtrref=www.dailywire.com&gwh=9E3C996C0604BB9BEA4E5AD556C67ED9&gwt=pay)


Print headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6QFVLwUsAEz7cI.jpg)" …

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

The Washington Post - February 9, 2017
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.1d0e3f132a59)


Headline: "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say"

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Remember: Flynn's name was meant to be masked, we now know this was from a Russian intercept, yet "some senior U.S. officials" had all seen it and commented.

FBI Director James Comey confirmed Monday (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/comey-obama-white-house-doj-unmasked-flynn/) that former Obama administration officials — including several at the White House — would have had access to classified information about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn that several news organizations published.

CNN - February 14, 2017 (http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/media/michael-flynn-investigative-journalism/)


Washington Post columnist David Ignatius cited a single "senior U.S. government official" while reporting that "Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking." …

Last Thursday, The Post cited "nine current and former officials" in a story headlined "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say."

The New York Times quickly matched the story and said there was a transcript of the discussions.

The chronology suggests that some officials in the government sought to alert the public to Flynn's contacts by leaking to the press.

There's plenty more of course but repetition gets boring.

So which is it: are all these stories fake news, or did the Obama administration wiretap Trump and his team? One is a massive campaign of fake news on behalf of the Democrat party, the other is a whole series of felonies by the Obama administration.

DOR
26 Mar 17,, 14:00
I guess I didn't realize that Flynn's (alledged) violation of the Logan Act should be blamed on the Obama Administration.

Silly me.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 14:25
I guess I didn't realize that Flynn's (alledged) violation of the Logan Act should be blamed on the Obama Administration.

Silly me.

A) They monitored Trump staff?
B) They monitored a foreign embassy?
C) Both

Interesting, I can only imagine the reaction if there are rumors, allegations, let alone a confirmation of a wiretapping on an embassy. Oh, wait...


West European diplomats and experts of international relations declare that these wiretappings violate the Vienna Convention, which prohibits the wiretapping of diplomats.

Ernesto Bellelli, Italian ambassador to Skopje, said that last week, he learned about the wiretapping of diplomats by the leader of Macedonian opposition and according to him, if this is confirmed, then such act is a violation of international conventions.

“As diplomats, we have talked and we’re worried about this. It’s clear that the Vienna Convention prohibits the wiretapping of diplomats, even if this is ordered by courts. The telephone is the tool that we use to do our job and communicate with our countries, therefore even judges cannot order such thing”, declared the Italian ambassador.

Serious reactions about the possible wiretapping of embassies have been expressed by the European Union office in Skopje, British embassy and Swedish embassy.

The British embassy declared that it calls on the government and Macedonian institutions to investigate over the claims on abuse with authority, criminal activities and on the influence exerted by the Macedonian secret service on politics, media and courts.
http://www.balkaneu.com/diplomats-fyr-macedonia-wiretapped-embassies-react/

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 14:40
I guess I didn't realize that Flynn's (alledged) violation of the Logan Act should be blamed on the Obama Administration.

Silly me.
Very silly. I'll ask you the same question, is the news pumped out for the last three months by you and your Democrat party and propaganda organs "Fake News", or has there been wholesale monitoring of Trump Inc?

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 16:03
A) They monitored Trump staff?
B) They monitored a foreign embassy?
C) Both

Interesting, I can only imagine the reaction if there are rumors, allegations, let alone a confirmation of a wiretapping on an embassy. Oh, wait...

Everyone asked has said there is zero evidence of Obama 'ordering' anything. If Bureas and Agencies are doing their legal duty there is nothing illegal in that. Flynn was clearly upto his neck in dirt; retrospectively registering his Turkish payments and suggesting some scheme to kidnap Gulen... A true beacon of moral depravity. If you are concerned that so many Trump associates have Moscow connections so am I and so, quite reasonably, may be the FBI but that does not mean they have been wiretapped or the "Obama spied on Trump"; he did not. The question is how deep in bed Trump is with Putin and anything else is smokescreen.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 16:12
Everyone asked has said there is zero evidence of Obama 'ordering' anything. If Bureas and Agencies are doing their legal duty there is nothing illegal in that. Flynn was clearly upto his neck in dirt; retrospectively registering his Turkish payments and suggesting some scheme to kidnap Gulen... A true beacon of moral depravity. If you are concerned that so many Trump associates have Moscow connections so am I and so, quite reasonably, may be the FBI but that does not mean they have been wiretapped or the "Obama spied on Trump"; he did not. The question is how deep in bed Trump is with Putin and anything else is smokescreen.

No, the question is how these informations popped up. Was it legal or illegal. At least this is what the Westerners thought us so. There is a reason why illegally obtained "evidenece" is no evidence.

Afterwards, if everything was according to the law, they can proceed with the findings. No-brainer actually.

Now we have a situation where you say he did this, she did that, but they are all baseless claims since as far as I am concerned, all this can be made up, since there seems to be no legal procedure followed up. Yes, please do tell me how these technicalities were followed and that Trumpets are all in bed with Moscow.

astralis
26 Mar 17,, 17:11
what i find amusing here is the use of Alex-Jones like insinuation and conspiracy theory to justify a complete lack of evidence.

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 18:08
No, the question is how these informations popped up. Was it legal or illegal. At least this is what the Westerners thought us so. There is a reason why illegally obtained "evidenece" is no evidence.

Afterwards, if everything was according to the law, they can proceed with the findings. No-brainer actually.

Now we have a situation where you say he did this, she did that, but they are all baseless claims since as far as I am concerned, all this can be made up, since there seems to be no legal procedure followed up. Yes, please do tell me how these technicalities were followed and that Trumpets are all in bed with Moscow.

Ok let me go through legal issues (as far as I understand them) slowly. We know that someone or group associated with Muscovy (Roger Stone was in contact with Guccifer2 apparently) hacked the DNC and Podesta. In July last year the hacked material started turning up in Wikileaks and DCleaks. At that time the FBI, as is surely their duty, start an investigation into this interference in the election. All legal so far right? Authorities doing their duties yes? We still cannot be sure IF a FISA court was called but bearing in mind the investigation is looking at Muscovy it would be logical to get permission to listen in on Muscovite's considered of interest to the investigation. Again nothing illegal if this step was taken, for FISA you have to show "probable cause" and although I myself do not like the idea of secret courts it is the legal process in the US and perfectly legal. Right so if we for one moment presume that a FISA ruling was obtained the FBI, NSA, CIA etc can legally monitor those Muscovites suspected as having something to do with the interference; still all legal and no Obama right? So let us assume hypothetically off go the spooks and the Feds and their Geek pals proceeding to gather any info and evidence they can - asking friends and listening in etc etc... Let us hypothetically presume the Muscovite Ambassador is deemed suitable for attention. Well we know they did ask friends; some Europeans had picked up SIGINT and had HUMINT too - even Ukraine volunteered the Manafort info. All still legal and no Obama right? So in our hypothetical presumption this information is being gathered, Muscovites are being listened in on etc and the Trump (Steele) dossier is out there (it was around for some time before being published). Now imagine what may be the surprise of these legally operating Agencies and Bureaus when all the information that starts coming in is regularly inadvertently getting Trump team people in contact with just those Muscovites they are investigating! So if Agent Joe is monitoring the telephone calls of the Muscovite Ambassador no doubt he will be very surprised when Flynn is regularly calling in! He is not allowed to listen to Flynn - that would break the bounds of what a FISA court could allow - but he does know and reports back that oddly Flynn is calling his target. But since he is permitted to listen to the Muscovite Ambassador what if the Ambassador mentions the subjects he discussed with Flynn in reports to someone else? Fine; that's legal. So this whole body of evidence and contacts comes back - they said subsequent SIGINT had verified parts of the dossier remember? - and it's all very embarrassing so a second investigation is started into "coordination" of the Trump campaign with the Muscovite interference; is that not their duty? Is it illegal? Not at all. Still no Obama involved and all legal. And that is just about where we are today. All this "Obama wiretapped me" BS is pure smokescreen; a President cannot order such a thing which would be illegal anyway and this is why it did not happen as confirmed by all involved. Nothing illegal, no Obama and all doing their duty. Not hard.

For some reason Trump and his people - who have consistently falsely denied any contacts with Moscow - is scared of this to the extent that when Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page were all volunteering to testify in an open hearing on Tuesday Nunes unilaterally cancelled it without asking anyone else on his committee. There are rumours that Flynn - against whom there was possibly the strongest case for prosecution - has done a deal with the FBI and may be singing. This may explain why the Tuesday hearing was cancelled if true. Sooner or later one of these idiots will flip; they always do in the end, and then the whole lot blows up and they will turn on each other in an effort to sauve qui peux.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 18:39
Ok let me go through legal issues (as far as I understand them) slowly. We know that someone or group associated with Muscovy (Roger Stone was in contact with Guccifer2 apparently) hacked the DNC and Podesta.
We know? How? How we know if it was the Russians? Who is Mr. Stone?

Can't go through the rest of it since there was NO FISA warrant till October, if any.

Either that or the fake news allegations are true.

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 19:01
We know? How? How we know if it was the Russians? Who is Mr. Stone?

Can't go through the rest of it since there was NO FISA warrant till October, if any.

Either that or the fake news allegations are true.


All 17 US Intelligence and law enforcement agree there was Muscovite interference. Roger Stone is a long time Trumpian and liar who has admitted having contact with Guccifer2 and volunteered to give evidence to the House Intel Committee but who now cannot do so on Tuesday. We do not know IF or WHEN there was a FISA court ruling; one of problems of secret courts being precisely that. It is better to have court hearing know of but held in camera if necessary but that is just my view.

Parihaka
26 Mar 17,, 19:36
what i find amusing here is the use of Alex-Jones like insinuation and conspiracy theory to justify a complete lack of evidence.

It's a really simple question Asty but you're apparently incapable of answering it

is the news pumped out for the last three months by you and your Democrat party and propaganda organs "Fake News", or has there been wholesale monitoring of Trump Inc?

You've made two statements over the last three months:
1: We've been wiretapping Trump Inc.
2: We haven't been wiretapping Trump Inc.

I think you're correct, there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, it just doesn't lie where you'd like to believe.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 21:17
All 17 US Intelligence and law enforcement agree there was Muscovite interference.
Really? I'd like to see those 17 reports and or the joint statement. Why does the Congress holds meeting when there is such an unanimous stance?


Roger Stone is a long time Trumpian and liar who has admitted having contact with Guccifer2 and volunteered to give evidence to the House Intel Committee but who now cannot do so on Tuesday.
You do understand how silly it looks, right? The bolded part.


We do not know IF or WHEN there was a Muscovite interfering; one of problems of secret agencies being precisely that.
Fixed it for you.

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 21:19
is the news pumped out for the last three months by you and your Democrat party and propaganda organs "Fake News", or has there been wholesale monitoring of Trump Inc?

You've made two statements over the last three months:
1: We've been wiretapping Trump Inc.
2: We haven't been wiretapping Trump Inc.

I think you're correct, there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, it just doesn't lie where you'd like to believe.

If you will allow me to answer (as much as I dislike being on the same side of the argument as astralis ordinarily);

There has been NO direct monitoring of "Trump Inc". All concerned deny this and it would be illegal. Nor has Trump produced a single piece of evidence for his claims that "Obama wiretapped me". It is none issue.

"1: We've been wiretapping Trump Inc.
2: We haven't been wiretapping Trump Inc."

First you have to understand who "we" is. It is not Obama. Then you have to understand who this "we" may be have been monitoring; Muscovites who they have "probable cause" to believe were part of the election interference operation. Now if Trump people are getting touch with those people that gets picked up but cannot be recorded. Hope that helps.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 21:48
S,

You must have missed the part where the MSM claimed Trump Inc have met Russian diplomats. Since it's against international conventions to monitor diplomats, who has been monitored? Either that or MSM lied aka fake news.

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 22:01
S,

You must have missed the part where the MSM claimed Trump Inc have met Russian diplomats. Since it's against international conventions to monitor diplomats, who has been monitored? Either that or MSM lied aka fake news.

The media are entitled to follow their own inquiries and look at photos etc... It does not need any detective or spook to 'tip them off' and there is no evidence than any tip off was given. They ask questions much the same the agencies doubtless and seek answers in the ways open to them. I was told that Kislyak being at the GOP nomination do was a pure open source spot by the media (a la Bellingcat). Whether the FBI or others knew he was there I do not know. I would presume they keep some sort of eye on the comings and goings of the Muscovite Embassy staff but am not privy to the details naturally.

Doktor
26 Mar 17,, 22:16
They never apologized, nor printed/published a rebuttal. Besides, AFAIK, the info should be verified before going public. So much from their ethics and their standards.

But fear not, their subscriptions ads are full of "truth", "reliable", "trustworthy"...

snapper
26 Mar 17,, 22:56
You think some parts of the media should apologise? Perhaps. I don't know what about; Sessions confirmed he met with Kislyak so presumably not that? Has Trump apologised? But you scraping the bottom of the barrel. No Obama did not wiretap Trump and yes the IC are investigating his links with Moscow.

DOR
27 Mar 17,, 04:24
S,

You must have missed the part where the MSM claimed Trump Inc have met Russian diplomats. Since it's against international conventions to monitor diplomats, who has been monitored? Either that or MSM lied aka fake news.

"Against international convention" ??
I think you mean "so commonplace no one thinks twice."

Doktor
27 Mar 17,, 08:24
"Against international convention" ??
I think you mean "so commonplace no one thinks twice."

No, it's against Vienna Convention.

DOR
27 Mar 17,, 10:59
No, it's against Vienna Convention.

AND, so commonplace no one thinks twice.

Doktor
27 Mar 17,, 12:30
AND, so commonplace no one thinks twice.

So, it's legal?

Parihaka
28 Mar 17,, 20:16
So, it turns out now Nunes met with "an intelligence official" at the Eisenhower building, said official showed him documents on a secure system that congress doesn't have access to. Best guess, the former administrations folders of collected information on Trump Inc. from various intelligence agencies. Perhaps the basis for this story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0
Or this, which goes into more detail.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/02/obama-aides-told-preserve-evidence-russian-election-hacking/

Hoist by their own petard perhaps?

snapper
28 Mar 17,, 20:57
Odd... "House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) met a source on the “White House grounds” before making his claim last week that Trump transition aides were monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, an aide to Nunes confirmed Monday."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-white-house-monitoring-claim-236541

So this guy went to the White House to get information he still hasn't told anyone else, then dashed back to speak to Ryan, hold a press conference and then go back to the White House to brief what he had been briefed there himself not long before. Nothing odd here.

Parihaka
28 Mar 17,, 22:03
Nothing odd here.

Well I wouldn't sat that. A compendium of Trump surveillance compiled by the previous administration, shown to Nunes in the Eisenhower building on a secure server that Congress can't access? Very odd....

snapper
29 Mar 17,, 03:18
Well I wouldn't sat that. A compendium of Trump surveillance compiled by the previous administration, shown to Nunes in the Eisenhower building on a secure server that Congress can't access? Very odd....

Get a grip. This is the Chairman of a committee investigating the Muscovite interference in the election and any 'coordination' of Trump or his pals with it. Off he goes to get a confidential briefing from in the 'grounds of the white house'. What he saw he seems confused about but it was that important he holds a press conference, ignores the rest of his committee and dashes back to the White House to tell Trump. Still nobody else has seen whatever it was Nunes says he saw; it's as secret as Trumps secret plan to destroy Daesh in a month! Then he cancels a public hearing of the committee at which Sally Yates was to testify allegedly so a private hearing could held - but that did not happen either nor will he tell his fellow committee members what he briefed Trump on. So for the chairman of a committee nothing seems to be getting done while everyone goes chasing the ghost of what Nunes says he saw.

Meanwhile the son in law who it turns out met Kislyak but hey nothing surprising there... Kislyak seems to have been pals with them all but more than that he goes off to meet Sergey Gorkov the Chairman of VEB (VneshEconomBank) which is essentially the FSB bank (Gorkov was appointed personally by Putin) and is under sanctions. This is just getting beyond belief. Clearly an independent investigation is needed and anyone with questions to answer should be suspended until they are cleared or prosecuted - including Trump.

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 07:03
Still nobody else has seen whatever it was Nunes says he saw;
Lol, one minute you're claiming Nunes broke all sorts of laws disclosing wiretapping evidence, the next you're complaining because he hasn't released any of that info to you.

Having now seen Nunes remarks in full I find them quite incredible. Is he not 'leaking' himself? Doing precisely what Trumpians moan about?

As for the rest, I'll let Trey Gowdy answer

“I just love it when Senator Schumer gives Republicans advice on what we ought to do,” Gowdy said. “Devin is doing exactly what the chairman ought to do. When you have a source that has information, you handle that information safely, securely, which is exactly what he did. I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be more interested in authenticity and the reliability of the underlying data and not the means by which it was acquired. Whether it was the White House or Waffle House, what difference does it make if the information is reliable and authentic? It just so happens that Devin had to do it this way. So, we’re not going to take advice from Chuck Schumer on who our chairpeople ought to be.”

YellowFever
29 Mar 17,, 07:57
Ah...good to be back!

Oh by the way, the mainstream media is going ape-shit over this story.....not!

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html





Think Tank: Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data


WASHINGTON —

An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.

The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson told VOA that it stands by its findings, which, they say, "have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

The challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year’s hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.

Alperovitch has said that variants of the same software were used in both hacks.

While questions about CrowdStrike’s findings don’t disprove allegations of Russian involvement, they do add to skepticismvoiced by some cybersecurity experts and commentators about the quality of their technical evidence.

The Russian government has denied covert involvement in the election, but U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian hacks were meant to discredit Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump’s campaign. An FBI and Homeland Security reportalso blamed Russian intelligence services.

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that his agency has an ongoing investigation into the hacks of Democratic campaign computers and into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates. The White House says there was no collusion with Russia, and other U.S. officials have said they’ve found no proof.

Signature malware

VOA News first reported in December that sources close to the Ukraine military and the artillery app’s creator questioned CrowdStrike’s finding that a Russian-linked group it named “Fancy Bear” had hacked the app. CrowdStrike said it found a variant of the same “X-Agent” malware used to attack the Democrats.

CrowdStrike said the hack allowed Ukraine’s enemies to locate its artillery units. As proof of its effectiveness, the report referenced publicly reported data in which IISS had sharply reduced its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets. IISS, based in London, publishes a highly regarded, annual reference called “The Military Balance” that estimates the strength of world armed forces.

“Between July and August 2014, Russian-backed forces launched some of the most-decisive attacks against Ukrainian forces, resulting in significant loss of life, weaponry and territory,” CrowdStrike wrote in its report, explaining that the hack compromised an app used to aim Soviet-era D-30 howitzers.

“Ukrainian artillery forces have lost over 50% of their weapons in the two years of conflict and over 80% of D-30 howitzers, the highest percentage of loss of any other artillery pieces in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the report said, crediting a Russian bloggerwho had cited figures from IISS.

The report prompted skepticism in Ukraine

Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company’s report “delusional” in a Facebook post. CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.

Pavlo Narozhnyy, a technical adviser to Ukraine’s military, told VOA that while it was theoretically possible the howitzer app could have been compromised, any infection would have been spotted. “I personally know hundreds of gunmen in the war zone,” Narozhnyy told VOA in December. “None of them told me of D-30 losses caused by hacking or any other reason.”

VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn’t reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.

In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.

“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”

One of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a “reassessment” and reallocation of units to airborne forces.

"No, we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses," the IISS researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report.

“The vast majority of the reduction actually occurs ... before Crimea/Donbass,” he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

‘Evidence flimsy'

In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses from the ongoing fighting with separatists are “several times smaller than the number reported by [CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause” of Russian hacking.

But Ukraine’s denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike’s report. Its release was widely covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.

In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group—Fancy Bear—and versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.

“The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling,” Alperovitch said in a December 22 story by The Washington Post.

The same day, Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour: “And when you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen.”

Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on an Obama White House cybersecurity commission in 2016. Chabinsky left CrowdStrike last year.

CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA’s written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA’s Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman Ilina Dimitrova defended the company’s conclusions.

“It is indisputable that the [Ukraine artillery] app has been hacked by Fancy Bear malware,” Dimitrova wrote. “We have published the indicators to it, and they have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.

Still, some cybersecurity experts are skeptical that the election and purported Ukraine hacks are connected. Among them is Jeffrey Carr, a cyberwarfare consultant who has lectured at the U.S. Army War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other government agencies.

In a January post on LinkedIn, Carr called CrowdStrike’s evidence in the Ukraine “flimsy.” He told VOA in an interview that CrowdStrike mistakenly assumed that the X-Agent malware employed in the hacks was a reliable fingerprint for Russian actors.

“We now know that’s false,” he said, “and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia."




Jeffrey Carr's articles on the matter:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crowdstrike-needs-address-harm-causedukraine-jeffrey-carr

https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-gru-ukraine-artillery-hack-that-may-never-have-happened-820960bbb02d

snapper
29 Mar 17,, 16:54
Lol, one minute you're claiming Nunes broke all sorts of laws disclosing wiretapping evidence, the next you're complaining because he hasn't released any of that info to you.


As for the rest, I'll let Trey Gowdy answer

“I just love it when Senator Schumer gives Republicans advice on what we ought to do,” Gowdy said. “Devin is doing exactly what the chairman ought to do. When you have a source that has information, you handle that information safely, securely, which is exactly what he did. I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be more interested in authenticity and the reliability of the underlying data and not the means by which it was acquired. Whether it was the White House or Waffle House, what difference does it make if the information is reliable and authentic? It just so happens that Devin had to do it this way. So, we’re not going to take advice from Chuck Schumer on who our chairpeople ought to be.”


First Nunes statements to the press is all his committee members know. If he is indeed referring to FISA sanctioned ongoing investigations he is making public classified information; hardly appropriate material for a press conference but suitable perhaps to share with his committee members which he has still failed to do.

As for Gowdy I suppose it depends what you think Nunes job is... Is it obfuscate and stop any meaningful investigation? In that case he is doing very well; there are no hearing of any kind planned, not even meetings of the committee. If however his job as Chairman of committee is conduct an unbiased and thorough investigation he is clearly failing.

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 19:43
First Nunes statements to the press is all his committee members know. Which is exactly the way it should be until such time as the committee is handed the documents, otherwise he's breaking the law.
Strike one.

If he is indeed referring to FISA sanctioned ongoing investigationsSupposition
he is making public classified information; that is precisely what he hasn't done, much to your chagrin.
Strike 2
hardly appropriate material for a press conference but suitable perhaps to share with his committee members which he has still failed to do.See strike one.


As for Gowdy I suppose it depends what you think Nunes job is... Is it obfuscate and stop any meaningful investigation? In that case he is doing very well; there are no hearing of any kind planned, not even meetings of the committee. If however his job as Chairman of committee is conduct an unbiased and thorough investigation he is clearly failing.
Uh huh, bringing the committees attention to relevant information otherwise unobtainable is obfuscation.
Strike three.
"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be more interested in authenticity and the reliability of the underlying data and not the means by which it was acquired. "

So when did you join the Democrat party?

astralis
29 Mar 17,, 19:46
Nunes suddenly goes (and is authorized to go) to WH grounds to meet with an unidentified (also presumably authorized) staffer, gets intelligence of some sort that has still not been shared with anybody else on his own investigation committee, TELLS THE PERSON HE IS SUPPOSEDLY INVESTIGATING about it, holds a press conference that overstates (by his own later admission) what he presumably saw.

yeah, nothing wrong or partisan about THAT at all.

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 19:50
Ah...good to be back!

Oh by the way, the mainstream media is going ape-shit over this story.....not!

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html





Jeffrey Carr's articles on the matter:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crowdstrike-needs-address-harm-causedukraine-jeffrey-carr

https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-gru-ukraine-artillery-hack-that-may-never-have-happened-820960bbb02d

Yeah I remember at the time everyone outside Demland was going WTF over Crowdstrike's claims but it was just one piece of the puzzle floating in a sea of turds that it didn't get the attention it deserved.
Nevermind,
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 19:52
Nunes suddenly goes (and is authorized to go) to WH grounds to meet with an unidentified (also presumably authorized) staffer, gets intelligence of some sort that has still not been shared with anybody else on his own investigation committee, TELLS THE PERSON HE IS SUPPOSEDLY INVESTIGATING about it, holds a press conference that overstates (by his own later admission) what he presumably saw.

yeah, nothing wrong or partisan about THAT at all.

OH MY GOD!!!! You mean a politician is PARTISAN??? OHMYGOD!!!! :parihakafallsoverinshock:

astralis
29 Mar 17,, 19:57
yet this committee is -supposed- to be nonpartisan, as republicans (excepting Graham and McCain) are swearing up and down the aisle that it is.

if the investigation itself is compromised by partisanship, then it should be shut down in favor of an independent committee.

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 20:09
yet this committee is -supposed- to be nonpartisan, as republicans (excepting Graham and McCain) are swearing up and down the aisle that it is.

if the investigation itself is compromised by partisanship, then it should be shut down in favor of an independent committee.
Why the hell should anyone play by the rules you dictate? Yes, McCain, Graham, Romney etc bought into the "conservatives should be held to a higher standard than democrats" schtick but they loose. All the time.
What's happening now is as I've told you; conservatives are playing by the same rules you do. Want to improve the standard of conservative actions? Improve your own standard of behaviour.

snapper
29 Mar 17,, 20:32
Which is exactly the way it should be until such time as the committee is handed the documents, otherwise he's breaking the law.

Been over a week now and no documents reveal to the committee. Should he not have informed his committee rather than the press or the person who's possible links to the election interference the committee is supposed to be invastigating?


Supposition that is precisely what he hasn't done, much to your chagrin.

Not sure anyone can say since Nunes isn't telling anyone what information allegedly was revealed to him. If it did relate to a FISA sanctioned investigation then clearly he would be revealing classified information.


Uh huh, bringing the committees attention to relevant information otherwise unobtainable is obfuscation.

But he HASN'T told the committee a dickie bird and instead cancelled all hearings and meetings.


"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be more interested in authenticity and the reliability of the underlying data and not the means by which it was acquired."

The data is that Nunes was persuaded by the White House to commit to a publicity stunt to get the fact that the FBI were investigating Trumps collusion with Moscow out of the headlines; make smoke. When Sally Yates was going to give evidence Nunes pulled the hearing and said there would be a closed hearing with Comey - who's office denies having ever received an invitation or invite for him to attend. Look how long has it been since Trump claimed "Obama wiretapped me"? Do you not think if he had ANY evidence of this he would have produced it by now? He has none because nothing of the sort happened or is happening. It was all smoke.


So when did you join the Democrat party?

I am not a US citizen so am not party political in US matters and since I could not vote would never be a member of any US political party even if they permitted it. I will admit to becoming slightly more 'liberal' in the last three years; war teaches humanity. In my view Trump is not a conservative; he is deeply compromised by an enemy of the Western world and a narcissistic self interested lout. When did you sign onto the Moscow apologists payroll?

astralis
29 Mar 17,, 20:57
Why the hell should anyone play by the rules you dictate? Yes, McCain, Graham, Romney etc bought into the "conservatives should be held to a higher standard than democrats" schtick but they loose. All the time.


lol, suddenly the idea of a nonpartisan investigation committee is a rule that "I" dictate, hahahaha.

there's a reason why Republicans are trying so hard to insist that the committee is fair and nonpartisan, precisely because this is what is expected of an investigation committee...and because they don't want public pressure to build for an independent committee. YOU just admitted that the chair of said committee was partisan.

i completely understand the hypocrisy on the matter, but the idea that conservatives act poorly just because of past liberal behavior is pretty funny. the ultimate "thanks, obama!"

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 21:37
Been over a week now and no documents reveal to the committee. Should he not have informed his committee rather than the press or the person who's possible links to the election interference the committee is supposed to be invastigating? Ummm, he DID inform his committee. The Dems angst is he also informed the Trump Admin and the general public.
Strike one.



Not sure anyone can say since Nunes isn't telling anyone what information allegedly was revealed to him.Too many double negatives to bother with
If it did relate to a FISA sanctioned investigation then clearly he would be revealing classified information. Which clearly he hasn't done. Strike two



But he HASN'T told the committee a dickie bird and instead cancelled all hearings and meetings.Well give him time, this has been going on for months with nothing to show for it but Democrat members making weekly statements about Trump being guilty of Russianess.




The data is that Nunes was persuaded by the White House to commit to a publicity stunt to get the fact that the FBI were investigating Trumps collusion with Moscow out of the headlines; make smoke.What data? Your opinion?
When Sally Yates was going to give evidence Nunes pulled the hearing and said there would be a closed hearing with Comey - who's office denies having ever received an invitation or invite for him to attend. Look how long has it been since Trump claimed "Obama wiretapped me"? Do you not think if he had ANY evidence of this he would have produced it by now? He has none because nothing of the sort happened or is happening. It was all smoke. Which takes us neatly back to all those newspaper articles that I've linked to time and time again saying that Trump Inc. was under surveillance by the various intelligence agencies. SO, yet again, to return to what this thread is actually about, were those articles claiming Russian/Trump cooperation based on intelligence agency officials statements Fake or not?

snapper
29 Mar 17,, 22:07
Ummm, he DID inform his committee. The Dems angst is he also informed the Trump Admin and the general public.

Oh you mean he informed the committee BY informing the press? But they have different levels of security clearance. His committee say they he has told them nothing of what revelations he beheld at the White House, nor his source.


Strike one.

What is this all about? Is it relevant?


Too many double negatives to bother withWhich clearly he hasn't done.

Too complicated for you? IF Nunes was referring to an ongoing FISA sanctioned investigation in his press briefing he WAS revealing classified information. Simple enough.


Well give him time, this has been going on for months with nothing to show for it but Democrat members making weekly statements about Trump being guilty of Russianess.

Well actually no! If the Chairman of the committee is going to give a press conference about "new information" and then run off to the White House, which is under investigation by his committee, I would expect him to normally have revealed the details to committee first and certainly not remain silent to them over a week later. That is unacceptable behaviour. I have and do chair committees and if I behaved in that manner would expect to be removed as chair.


What data? Your opinion?Which takes us neatly back to all those newspaper articles that I've linked to time and time again saying that Trump Inc. was under surveillance by the various intelligence agencies. SO, yet again, to return to what this thread is actually about, were those articles claiming Russian/Trump cooperation based on intelligence agency officials statements Fake or not?

Did Obama wiretap Trump? That was the allegation. Is it true or false? Certainly Trump is under investigation by the FBI; Comey said so but is the FBI Obama? Is Trump's allegation true or false?

Parihaka
29 Mar 17,, 23:49
Did Obama wiretap Trump? That was the allegation. Is it true or false? That's what I'm asking you, yes. Were those newspaper reports true or false?

zraver
30 Mar 17,, 04:00
That's what I'm asking you, yes. Were those newspaper reports true or false?

What newspaper reports? When Trump and the NYT/WaPo seem to be in agreement, disregard everything said by the NYT/WaPo. It was a figment of your imagination.

Eve Obama staffers have admitted running ops on Trump, and then acting to spread the fact far and wide.

https://youtu.be/cVGp2FZmVA4

astralis
30 Mar 17,, 04:40
it's such a fact, all of the heads of US intel agencies have come out and said so under oath!

oh wait.

Doktor
30 Mar 17,, 10:23
it's such a fact, all of the heads of US intel agencies have come out and said so under oath!

oh wait.

Where are the transcripts?

astralis
30 Mar 17,, 15:06
not sure if you are being sarcastic, but:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/

Comey = FBI, Rogers = NSA


COMEY: With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.


SCHIFF: Director Rogers, in an effort to explain why there was no evidence supporting the president's claim that Obama had wiretapped him, the president and his spokesman, Sean Spicer, have suggested that British intelligence through its NSA or GCHQ wiretapped Mr. Trump on President Obama's behalf.

Did you ever request that your counterparts in GCHQ should wiretap Mr. Trump on behalf of President Obama?

ROGERS: No sir, nor would I, that would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement that's been in place for decades.

SCHIFF: Have you seen any evidence that anyone else in the Obama administration made such a request?

ROGERS: No sir, and again, my view is the same as Director Comey, I've seen nothing on the NSA side that we engaged in any such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity.

snapper
30 Mar 17,, 19:54
That's what I'm asking you, yes. Were those newspaper reports true or false?

No Obama did not wiretap Trump. The Intelligence and Security organisations however had and continue to investigate Muscovite interference in the election - including (as Comey said) the Trump teams 'coordination' with that interference.


What newspaper reports? When Trump and the NYT/WaPo seem to be in agreement, disregard everything said by the NYT/WaPo. It was a figment of your imagination.

Eve Obama staffers have admitted running ops on Trump, and then acting to spread the fact far and wide.

https://youtu.be/cVGp2FZmVA4

She does not admit "running ops on Trump" merely spreading the evidence around in case the Trump administration tried to cover it up. This does not seem illegal or unnatural to me: We know the investigation started last July and we know that Obama, while still in Office, and Trump, as President elect, were briefed on the results of the investigation so far. The Obama people clearly believed/knew a deeper investigation including into Trumps collusion was coming; they were right as we know. So to leave one file on the desk with all the information for an incoming administration that you knew was going to be under investigation for it's 'coordination' with the interference would be clearly reckless in regard to a matter of national security.

If you guys seriously wish to continue believing this conceited and narcissistic louts claims despite any evidence and ignore the attack on the democratic process committed by an adversary of all the Western world I must seriously start to question your loyalties. Damn glad you are not in Ukraine. We argue lots and Poroshenko is no saint of anti corruption but hell we know who the enemy is and his methods; up with those who collude with or apologise for the enemy we do not put.

Parihaka
30 Mar 17,, 20:11
No Obama did not wiretap Trump. The Intelligence and Security organisations however had and continue to investigate Muscovite interference in the election - including (as Comey said) the Trump teams 'coordination' with that interference.


Fabulous, so after however many pages we're agreed the NYT, WAPO and the Guardian ran a fake news campaign for three months that Trump Inc. was having their phone calls and servers tapped by various American and 5 eyes agencies. Partly this information was generated by anonymous officials prior to the transition and partly by the Democrat party.

Parihaka
30 Mar 17,, 20:12
She does not admit "running ops on Trump" merely spreading the evidence around in case the Trump administration tried to cover it up. .

Question. What evidence and where is it? Could this be part of the fake news campaign we've been discussing above?

Edit to add Transcript of Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon under Barack Obama.


“I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy … that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their … the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

astralis
30 Mar 17,, 23:07
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/30/15126072/devin-nunes-source-white-house


One of the biggest mysteries in the strange case of Rep. Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chair who’s trying — and failing — to substantiate President Trump’s wiretapping claims, may have just have been solved.

In a bombshell report Thursday, the New York Times named the sources who provided Nunes with classified intelligence reports purportedly validating some of Trump’s wiretapping claims — and both of them are Trump administration political appointees working directly in the White House complex.

That means Nunes — the lawmaker charged with leading an investigation into the administration’s unfounded wiretapping allegations — used information he received from the Trump White House itself to publicly try to deflect blame from Trump. It also means Nunes was misleading the American public when he said his sources were whistleblowers, and that he went to the White House compound because it was the only secure place to review classified information. (This is not true: Capitol Hill has secure facilities for just this reason.)

Instead, we now know Nunes’s sources, and they’re far from disinterested parties. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, and Michael Ellis, a White House counsel attorney who, prior to the Trump administration, worked for Nunes. Cohen-Watnick uncovered the raw intelligence, according to the Times, and Ellis briefed Nunes on it directly.

The Times story, sourced to “current American officials,” also reveals new information about the substance of the calls that Nunes was briefed on. According to the newspaper, the intelligence reports were intercepts of foreign officials’ conversations about the Trump team, not taps on Trump or his associates’ phones (it’s standard practice for US intelligence to spy on high-ranking foreigners).

“Officials said the reports consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were trying to develop contacts within Mr. Trump’s family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration,” the Times’s Matthew Rosenberg, Maggie Haberman, and Adam Goldman write.

Put more bluntly: Members of the Trump White House selectively leaked classified intelligence that doesn’t actually support their boss’s claim to a credulous congressman who uncritically parroted the information in a press conference just hours later.

Oh, and one more thing: Nunes is supposed to be leading the House’s investigation into the Trump team’s ties with Russia. Even prior to this new report, he faced growing calls both to recuse himself from the investigation and to step down from his post as head of House Intelligence. House Speaker Paul Ryan had been standing by Nunes, which means Nunes may still be the one seeing the investigation through to the end. If he does, though, one thing seems certain: It will now be extremely hard to take any of his findings seriously.

bfng3569
30 Mar 17,, 23:18
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/30/15126072/devin-nunes-source-white-house

Well hell......

the New York Times is reporting it, so it must be true.........

astralis
30 Mar 17,, 23:23
funny then how Sean Spicer isn't denying it...

Parihaka
30 Mar 17,, 23:29
But the officials’ description of the intelligence is in line with Mr. Nunes’s own characterization of the material, which he has said was not related to the Russia investigations when he disclosed its existence in a hastily arranged news conference. According to Mr. Nunes, he received a phone call from a source the night before, and then rushed to meet the person on the grounds of the White House. He has explained the choice of location by saying he needed access to a secure place where people with security clearances could legally view classified information, though such facilities can also be found in the Capitol building and at other locations across Washington

SNIP

Nunes has acknowledged that the incidental (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html) intelligence gathering on Trump associates last year was not necessarily unlawful. American intelligence agencies typically monitor foreign officials of allied and hostile countries, and they routinely sweep up communications linked to Americans who may be taking part in the conversation or are being spoken about.
The real issue, Mr. Nunes has said, was that he could figure out the identities of Trump associates from reading reports about intercepted communications that were shared among Obama administration officials with top security clearances. He said some Trump associates were also identified by name in the reports. Normally, intelligence agencies mask the identities of American citizens who are incidentally present in intercepted communications.

Evelyn Farkas self-confessed to being one of those "Obama administration officials"

snapper
31 Mar 17,, 00:48
Fabulous, so after however many pages we're agreed the NYT, WAPO and the Guardian ran a fake news campaign for three months that Trump Inc. was having their phone calls and servers tapped by various American and 5 eyes agencies. Partly this information was generated by anonymous officials prior to the transition and partly by the Democrat party.

I can assure that none of the other five eyes partners would touch anything of the sort with a barge pole. I imagine the newspaper reports were picking up hints of the ongoing investigation which transitioned from being at first just into Muscovite interference in the election and later widened into the possibility that the Trump team had colluded in that interference. Obviously I am not part of any US investigation but there are open source prima facie 'circumstances' that warrant investigation if you are in that business. Roger Stone was in touch with Guccifer2 and appeared to know in advance (from his twitter account!), just the same as RT who appeared to have 'pre knowledge' as well, that new files were about to dumped in Wikileaks. Well we know Guccifer2 was run by Moscow, that he/they hacked the DNC - and that the GRU, via a cut out, leaked it to wikileaks. Yevgeny Nikulin, one of the 'Guccifer2' team, was nabbed in Praha showing off his fast cars and lifestyle to his girlfriend (another was nabbed in Spain again). So how come Stone and RT got wind of the timings of the releases before wikileaks posted them? Obviously Occam's razor does not always apply but prima facie case for an investigation there is. And that is just one open source example you can check yourself. There is copious amounts of other open source 'incidental' information; all the contacts intially denied by Trump and his people, all the strange financial 'coincidences'; it is overwhelming. And that is before you get to any classified knowledge... If you REALLY believe all these related events are purely coincidental you've got a screw loose or wish to not to recognise the facts. What about Cohen, Sater's going to Flynn (Cohen being the President's personal lawyer) regarding a Ukrainian peace deal (lease of Crimea etc). This was done in collaboration with Andrii Artemenko, a Deputy in the Ukrainian Rada who Cohen met in Praha at the behest of his (Russian) father in law it is said. Then the questions regarding whether the envelope was left on Flynn's desk or not... it's laughable. Artemenko was expelled by his Party and is under investigation for treason in Ukraine; he is believed to be... in Moscow. What was Trumps lawyer doing? Pure coincidence! Get real, get wise and fight back. But again we are not even touching 'Fancy Bear' (APT28) inprints or SIGINT accumulated by NSA or allies nor HUMINT here in and in Moscow or a myriad of other sources.


“I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy … that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their … the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

If Trump is compromised (or has made a deal as she believes) what happens to those who know when their names get back to Moscow? Heard that Nikolai Gorokhov took a fall from the fourth floor in Moscow a few days ago (22nd March) the day before being due in court regarding Previzon? No? https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/24/lawyer-with-key-evidence-in-russian-corruption-scandals-falls-from-building-before-testifying/#5e9a451b526c Maybe you heard of Denis Voronenkov, the ex Muscovite MP who was shot dead in Kyiv (23rd March)? No? He was due to give evidence against Yanukovych who's whereabouts I assume you know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39364542 It is almost certain that Oleg Erovinkin (found dead in the back of his car last December 25 night) was killed as a result of the Trump dossier being made public. If you think these Checkists play footsie you are mistaken. Doesn't matter to them; they killed millions before in Holodomor and Gulags or just in ditches. You need to be special to get polonium (a la Litvenenko) or dioxin (as Yushchenko in 2004). All coincidences right? Would you trust that if you were down range or were a Muscovite source? There is an explicit duty to look after such people. If the guy in the White House can't be trusted that duty becomes imperative, names cleared out etc, things put where they won't be found, burned even and copies buried; why was Sally Yates not allowed to speak?

I do not blame your lack of understanding of Checkist methodology; "Ukraine is far away country of which we know little" right? No. It the same aggressor has knocked on the US door. It is certain that the President is at least aquiescent - has he done anything about the attack on US democracy? Said one bad word against the Checkist kleptocracy in Moscow? No. On the contrary he has only praised it and denied having anything whatsoever to do with it - which has been proven to a complete lie on multiple fronts. The truth is that he is deeply compromised and cannot be trusted. Remember they hacked to GOP too? What did they get there? Could it be used on Senators and House members? Members of Trumps administration? It must clear to anyone who is not entirely partisan or blind that a full free independent investigation is required and those under suspicion should be suspended from duty until cleared - including Trump. Go find yourselves a British or Kiwi senior judge to run an investigation or something but for God sakes you have been attacked, there is overwhelming evidence that the elected President was helped by the attack and though he denies anything to do with it the overwhelming evidence is that he has benefited financially and his team have been regular contact with the attackers of your election. You think this is coincidence? Not a hope in hell. Only question is what you do about it but that is upto you.


Question. What evidence and where is it? Could this be part of the fake news campaign we've been discussing above?

As I said before we know the investigation started last July. In December they released report saying they all agreed that Moscow has deliberately tried to interfere with the election. In January they said the interference was done specifically to aid Trump. They briefed the findings so far to Obama and Trump. The Obama administration then rushed to analyse and disperse as much of the evidence so far gathered knowing that the future investigation would be in part be regarding Trump Inc's collusion. Hardly surprising since we know the Trump administration IS under investigation for collusion and it is not unreasonable to presume they might try to destroy or suppress any evidence against them as well as jeopardize those in the field.

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 01:15
wellllllllllll, things are getting interesting...wonder why, oh why, he wants immunity all of a sudden. bring out the popcorn!

====

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity
Former national security adviser tells FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees he’s willing to be interviewed in exchange for deal, officials say

By SHANE HARRIS, CAROL E. LEE and JULIAN E. BARNES
Updated March 30, 2017 6:41 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.

Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment.

It wasn’t clear if Mr. Flynn had offered to talk about specific aspects of his time working for Mr. Trump, but the fact that he was seeking immunity suggested Mr. Flynn feels he may be in legal jeopardy following his brief stint as the national security adviser, one official said.

Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after acknowledging that he misled White House officials about the nature of his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential transition.

Mr. Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, have been scrutinized by the FBI, which is examining whether Trump campaign personnel colluded with Russian officials who are alleged to have interfered with the presidential election, according to current and former U.S. officials. Russia has denied the allegations.

Mr. Flynn also was paid tens of thousands of dollars by three Russian companies, including the state-sponsored media network RT, for speeches he made shortly before he became a formal adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, according to documents obtained by a congressional oversight committee.

Democratic lawmakers have requested a copy of the security-clearance form that Mr. Flynn was required to file before joining Mr. Trump in the White House, to see if he disclosed sources of foreign income.

And they have asked the Defense Department to investigate whether Mr. Flynn, a retired Army general, violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting money from RT, which U.S. intelligence officials say is part of a state-funded media apparatus.

—Aruna Viswanatha contributed to this article.

snapper
31 Mar 17,, 01:19
There are rumours that Flynn - against whom there was possibly the strongest case for prosecution - has done a deal with the FBI and may be singing. (#166)

Parihaka
31 Mar 17,, 01:55
They briefed the findings so far to Obama and Trump. The Obama administration then rushed to analyse and disperse as much of the evidence so far gathered knowing that the future investigation would be in part be regarding Trump Inc's collusion. Hardly surprising since we know the Trump administration IS under investigation for collusion and it is not unreasonable to presume they might try to destroy or suppress any evidence against them as well as jeopardize those in the field.

So we're in agreement that the Obama administration collated materials from a number of agencies during the last months of Obama's presidency to undermine trump. Excellent.

snapper
31 Mar 17,, 02:35
So we're in agreement that the Obama administration collated materials from a number of agencies during the last months of Obama's presidency to undermine trump. Excellent.

No we are not. The Obama administration is not the security and intelligence agencies who have their own duties to fulfill.

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 05:41
wellllllllllll, things are getting interesting...wonder why, oh why, he wants immunity all of a sudden. bring out the popcorn!

====

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity
Former national security adviser tells FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees he’s willing to be interviewed in exchange for deal, officials say

By SHANE HARRIS, CAROL E. LEE and JULIAN E. BARNES
Updated March 30, 2017 6:41 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.

Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment.

It wasn’t clear if Mr. Flynn had offered to talk about specific aspects of his time working for Mr. Trump, but the fact that he was seeking immunity suggested Mr. Flynn feels he may be in legal jeopardy following his brief stint as the national security adviser, one official said.

Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after acknowledging that he misled White House officials about the nature of his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential transition.

Mr. Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, have been scrutinized by the FBI, which is examining whether Trump campaign personnel colluded with Russian officials who are alleged to have interfered with the presidential election, according to current and former U.S. officials. Russia has denied the allegations.

Mr. Flynn also was paid tens of thousands of dollars by three Russian companies, including the state-sponsored media network RT, for speeches he made shortly before he became a formal adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, according to documents obtained by a congressional oversight committee.

Democratic lawmakers have requested a copy of the security-clearance form that Mr. Flynn was required to file before joining Mr. Trump in the White House, to see if he disclosed sources of foreign income.

And they have asked the Defense Department to investigate whether Mr. Flynn, a retired Army general, violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting money from RT, which U.S. intelligence officials say is part of a state-funded media apparatus.

—Aruna Viswanatha contributed to this article.



(#166)


Still reading and swallowing every piece of fake news out there, I see....

43600

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 05:48
Man, Flynn's lawyer was just begging to testify in exchange for immunity in the letter, huh?

43601

Doktor
31 Mar 17,, 09:29
(#166)

Which turned out to be false. Again. Like all the other rumors so far.

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 15:17
lol, YF, Flynn's lawyer has already confirmed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-offers-to-cooperate-with-congressional-probe-in-exchange-for-immunity/2017/03/30/bfd48584-159f-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_flynn830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ca31f92ee5c3) that "discussions have already taken place" with BOTH the Senate and House intelligence committees.

gee, i wonder what his lawyer could be talking with those committees about.

-Trump- is tweeting about how Flynn SHOULD get immunity.

so fake...

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 15:48
lol, YF, Flynn's lawyer has already confirmed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-offers-to-cooperate-with-congressional-probe-in-exchange-for-immunity/2017/03/30/bfd48584-159f-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_flynn830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ca31f92ee5c3) that "discussions have already taken place" with BOTH the Senate and House intelligence committees.

gee, i wonder what his lawyer could be talking with those committees about.

-Trump- is tweeting about how Flynn SHOULD get immunity.

so fake...

You tell me what they are talking about.

We have one source of the WSJ that says they are talking about it and we have the assistants for Nunes and Schiff saying nothing was discussed.

Yeah so Trump is actually tweeting about how Flynn should get immunity....which umm....probably means he wants Flynn to testify?

Wooglin
31 Mar 17,, 15:50
lol, YF, Flynn's lawyer has already confirmed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-offers-to-cooperate-with-congressional-probe-in-exchange-for-immunity/2017/03/30/bfd48584-159f-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_flynn830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ca31f92ee5c3) that "discussions have already taken place" with BOTH the Senate and House intelligence committees.

gee, i wonder what his lawyer could be talking with those committees about.

-Trump- is tweeting about how Flynn SHOULD get immunity.

so fake...

Yeah, so fake. And you keep falling for it... willingly it seems.

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 16:36
lol ok. guess Flynn's lawyer putting out a letter saying that Flynn has a story to tell but won't tell it until he has received assurances is all fake news...lol.

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 18:19
No but your posting of the WSJ is.

We do not know what they talked about and we definitely don't know if Flynn asked for immunity as of yet.

On a different note, you getting the popcorn ready because you think Flynn will blow off the lid of the Trump administration is kind of funny.

snapper
31 Mar 17,, 18:58
Seems to me that the WSJ report was pretty accurate.

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 19:11
YF,


We do not know what they talked about and we definitely don't know if Flynn asked for immunity as of yet.

yes, yes, i know you're trying to point out that "officials said" Flynn has asked for immunity does not actually prove that Flynn asked for immunity.

but when Flynn's own lawyer confirms there's conversations between those agencies and Flynn's legal counsel, and then points out that Flynn has a lot of information that can be given away for the right deal...it's not a particularly big stretch, is it. in fact, it's solid enough where multiple news agencies past the WSJ are reporting it. and given how Flynn's lawyers aren't challenging this characterization...


On a different note, you getting the popcorn ready because you think Flynn will blow off the lid of the Trump administration is kind of funny.

actually, i don't necessarily think Flynn will 'blow the lid off' the administration. if Flynn had something truly huge, he wouldn't need to -publicly- beg for immunity. but, obviously there's some pretty serious legal issues which at a minimum surround Flynn, otherwise he wouldn't need to beg for immunity at all.

still, unraveling the thread a bit at a time. the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

in any case, just by its own merits it is worthy of popcorn. the Trump surrogate whom most loudly screamed LOCK HER UP now fears getting locked up, apparently...:-)

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 20:17
The way Demos are frothing at the mouth to nail someone to justify their behavior, I would also ask my lawyer to make sure I don't give anything away before talking to the partisan idiots.

And if Flynn is "publicly begging for immunity', he's going about it in a stupid way.

I mean this is the way to grovel for immunity:

43605

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 20:37
YF,


I would also ask my lawyer to make sure I don't give anything away before talking to the partisan idiots.

the question is why he feels compelled to talk at all and make a deal-- and also publicly announce that he's willing to talk. that's about as interesting as whatever information he has to offer.

Parihaka
31 Mar 17,, 22:13
YF,



the question is why he feels compelled to talk at all and make a deal-- and also publicly announce that he's willing to talk. that's about as interesting as whatever information he has to offer.
Has he been asked to appear before the various investigations?

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 22:21
as far as i'm aware, no.

he's volunteering to come forth with a story, because if the two committees give him "use" immunity, then whatever he says to them cannot be used against him in trial.

unwritten in the Flynn letter but according to the WSJ, he's also tried to get a broader transactional immunity from the FBI and DOJ, but no takers.

in any case the Senate committee has already rejected the offer and the House committee will likely reject it. the feeling being that whatever he has can probably be unearthed by the continuing FBI investigation, so why let him off the hook at all.

that's why i say the reason why Flynn wants to talk is just as interesting, if not more so, than what he actually has.

Parihaka
31 Mar 17,, 22:31
as far as i'm aware, no.

he's volunteering to come forth with a story, because if the two committees give him "use" immunity, then whatever he says to them cannot be used against him in trial.

unwritten in the Flynn letter but according to the WSJ, he's also tried to get a broader transactional immunity from the FBI and DOJ, but no takers.

in any case the Senate committee has already rejected the offer and the House committee will likely reject it. the feeling being that whatever he has can probably be unearthed by the continuing FBI investigation, so why let him off the hook at all.

that's why i say the reason why Flynn wants to talk is just as interesting, if not more so, than what he actually has.
Yeah I agree. my take is he's using his association with the Trump team to try and negate any investigations into his actions over the last few years. Pence did right to sack him.

astralis
31 Mar 17,, 22:35
just wanted to insert some humor here. :-) the Onion predicts the future!

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-staffer-grateful-work-so-many-people-he-coul-55321

NEWS IN BRIEF
2.17.17 Vol 53 Issue 06
Trump Staffer Grateful To Work With So Many People He Could Turn Over To FBI In Exchange For Immunity

WASHINGTON—Fully mindful of the privilege he enjoyed, Trump administration staffer Greg Potreski told reporters Friday that he was grateful to be working with so many individuals he could turn over to the FBI in exchange for immunity. “It’s such an honor to be surrounded by almost countless people who, if it ever came down to it, I could hand over to the authorities in order to escape prosecution,” said Potreski, adding that he never imagined he’d find himself in a workplace that was staffed wall-to-wall with professionals whose comparatively more serious crimes he could expose to save himself. “I’ve held positions in government before, but I’ve never had an experience like this—there’s an opportunity for me to do no jail time in every single office. I learn so much just by talking to these folks.” When asked by reporters, Potreski’s colleagues said they were equally grateful to have someone like him at work.

YellowFever
31 Mar 17,, 23:56
Yeah I agree. my take is he's using his association with the Trump team to try and negate any investigations into his actions over the last few years. Pence did right to sack him.

That's the way I see it.

Only problem is how long will it take for Demos to turn it political and try to hang it around Trump's neck.

Already the social media (including some "reputable" news people) is proclaiming it the beginning of the end of Trump.

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 00:03
That's the way I see it.

Only problem is how long will it take for Demos to turn it political and try to hang it around Trump's neck.

Already the social media (including some "reputable" news people) is proclaiming it the beginning of the end of Trump.

You're going to have to get used to the fact of a permanent war in the US. The Dems control legacy media wholesale, it's about 50/50 in new media but the current crop of alt media is conservative. (Just as a side note I always refer to the right in the US as conservative as the remains of the Republican party are simply neo-cons and Democrats in drag.)

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 01:21
YF,


Only problem is how long will it take for Demos to turn it political and try to hang it around Trump's neck.

uh...in what possible democratic system would the opposition party NOT try to make hay out of something already very explicitly political? were things reversed do you think Republicans would hesitate for even a second?

moreover, let's not even talk about the Russia issue with this: let's just talk about the person involved, Flynn. i think we're all in agreement as to the type of character Flynn has-- we've already established that Flynn lied to his boss and is now in the process of trying to sell out his boss to save his own miserable skin.

what does that say about the boss whom hand-picked him in the first place? you tell me.

YellowFever
01 Apr 17,, 01:46
You're going to have to get used to the fact of a permanent war in the US. The Dems control legacy media wholesale, it's about 50/50 in new media but the current crop of alt media is conservative. (Just as a side note I always refer to the right in the US as conservative as the remains of the Republican party are simply neo-cons and Democrats in drag.)

Oh, I'm used to it and plan on giving just as good as I get. The legacy media is dead in my eyes and judging by recent polls 6 out of 10 people between the ages of 25 to 49 thinks so as well.

The conservatives lost the millenials but that's no big loss because they seem mostly preoccupied with their feelings and tend to bitch and riot after votes...but the important thing is they don't seem to vote in huge block.

I think the conservatives are winning the war with regards to Generation Z as it is the first true generation that has the capability to get unfiltered images. And they're chomping at the bit to get active.,

I think we'll be OK.



YF,



uh...in what possible democratic system would the opposition party NOT try to make hay out of something already very explicitly political? were things reversed do you think Republicans would hesitate for even a second?




Funniest thing I heard today.

The major difference would be if the Republicans were to try to pull this off, the mainstream media would call it what it is...pure bullshit.

But it's the Dems doing it so the mainstream media not only goes along with it but actively participates in it.

Moreover it's a total outsider in the top political office so the ruling class just can't handle it.

Furthermore, you seem to differentiate between the politican assholes and the assholes that reports about them.

As far as I'm concerned the Mathews and the Lemons and the Maddows are just as big lying assholes as the Pelosis and the Mccains and the Nuneses. I don't trust any of those bastards. And neither does half the country. That's why Trump is prez now and the Alt media is thriving.



moreover, let's not even talk about the Russia issue with this: let's just talk about the person involved, Flynn. i think we're all in agreement as to the type of character Flynn has-- we've already established that Flynn lied to his boss and is now in the process of trying to sell out his boss to save his own miserable skin.

what does that say about the boss whom hand-picked him in the first place? you tell me.

Uhh...maybe Trump made a mistake and rectified the situation when he found out what Flynn is really all about?

Gee, what does a bad appointee throughout history says about the president that hired them?

Dude, calm down and let go of your Trump hate.

YellowFever
01 Apr 17,, 01:51
Like I'm going to take anything these mainstream "impartial reporter" assholes say seriously.....


https://youtu.be/_b_rhU0EVWs

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 03:15
YF,


The major difference would be if the Republicans were to try to pull this off, the mainstream media would call it what it is...pure bullshit.

But it's the Dems doing it so the mainstream media not only goes along with it but actively participates in it.

Moreover it's a total outsider in the top political office so the ruling class just can't handle it.

Furthermore, you seem to differentiate between the politican assholes and the assholes that reports about them.

As far as I'm concerned the Mathews and the Lemons and the Maddows are just as big lying assholes as the Pelosis and the Mccains and the Nuneses. I don't trust any of those bastards. And neither does half the country. That's why Trump is prez now and the Alt media is thriving.



lol OK. so we're talking about the Democratic Party acting like any other party, and suddenly you turn this into yet another screed against the media...just after you acknowledged that Flynn asking for immunity is possibly not fake news after all. :-)


Uhh...maybe Trump made a mistake and rectified the situation when he found out what Flynn is really all about?


uhh, questions about Flynn's character and conduct were rife even prior to his selection as NSA. he was fired as head of DIA for a reason, and you're saying that it took THIS situation for Trump to 'find out what Flynn is really all about'?

and BTW, with this whole Flynn situation: may i remind you that DOJ first warned POTUS that Flynn was lying and was opening himself to blackmail as early as Jan 26 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/14/the-timeline-of-michael-flynns-resignation-is-troubling-for-the-trump-white-house). the Post ran with the story on 9 February, which Flynn repeated his lies.

on 10 Feb Trump professes ignorance of the Post's article. on 13 Feb the WH begins by defending Flynn, then by saying his situation was in the air, and then that night Flynn resigns.

so actually, it looks very much like Flynn resigned because his lying became -public-, not because he lied.

oh, and after all that, Trump called him a "wonderful man" whom was "treated very, very unfairly by the media, as I call it, the fake media in many cases" and that those leaks were meant to "cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton".

OK.



Dude, calm down and let go of your Trump hate.

lol, i'm not the one tweeting at 4 in the morning...:-)

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 03:36
So Fox News sets the platform for the right-wing platform


The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday.

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible -- and that person is not in the FBI.

For a private citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

“The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.

The unmasking of Americans whose communications apparently were caught up in surveillance under the Obama administration is a key part of an investigation being led by Nunes, who has come under fire from Democrats for focusing on that aspect.

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities -- the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports. The White House did not tell Nunes about the existence of the intelligence reports, but did help him gain access to the documents at his request, the source said.

The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They’ve been emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on Trump team contacts with Russia.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and other reports raise “serious” concerns about whether there was an “organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes.”

“Dr. Farkas’ admissions alone are devastating,” he said.

Farkas parted ways with the White House in 2015 and defended herself on Twitter, saying she didn’t personally “give anybody anything except advice” on Russia information and wanted Congress to ask for facts.

The communications collected from Trump team associates apparently were picked up during surveillance of foreign targets. But an intelligence source familiar with those targets said they were spied on long before Trump became the GOP presidential nominee in mid-July.

In addition, citizens affiliated with Trump’s team who were unmasked were not associated with any intelligence about Russia or other foreign intelligence, sources confirmed. The initial unmasking led to other surveillance, which led to other private citizens being wrongly unmasked, sources said.

"Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes ... specifically of Trump transition team members ... is highly suspect and questionable,” an intelligence source told Fox News. “Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by one."

Nunes first revealed on March 22 in a press conference that the U.S. intelligence community “incidentally collected” information on Trump’s transition team, putting the information and names into various intelligence reports. His committee had been investigating whether Russia interfered in the U.S. election as well as how names of private citizens from these reports were leaked.

House Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., criticized Nunes for his handling of the investigation, claiming he should never have briefed Trump. Nunes apologized the following day, but said he briefed the president because the information he found was not related to Russia.

The minority members on the House Intelligence Committee were expected to visit a National Security Agency facility on Friday to view the same reports Nunes has seen, an intelligence source told Fox News.

As usual of course, unnamed sources.

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 04:09
Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities -- the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports

mm...this right here seems quite off to me.

if Nunes already asked the intel agencies to see the reports...it doesn't make sense that he would need to protect his sources' identity by going to a specific SCIF. (and why would going to a specific SCIF protect his sources? indeed, getting -access- to the WH grounds means leaving a log trail, which is precisely what reporters have picked up on.

nor does this explain Nunes' behavior after he saw the reports. if he saw something in the reports that would affect the investigation, why did he choose to go to the WH to brief POTUS instead of his own committee members?

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 04:28
mm...this right here seems quite off to me.

if Nunes already asked the intel agencies to see the reports...it doesn't make sense that he would need to protect his sources' identity by going to a specific SCIF. (and why would going to a specific SCIF protect his sources? indeed, getting -access- to the WH grounds means leaving a log trail, which is precisely what reporters have picked up on.I can't remember where I read it to link to but the explanation is that the two named administration officials were simply the ones who escorted him to and gave access to the secure system, not the source(s) of the existence and names of the documents.

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 05:12
the two named administration officials were simply the ones who escorted him to and gave access to the secure system,

extremely unlikely. it makes no sense to use the old executive building SCIF as a "one safe place to see documents" when Congress has numerous SCIFs of its own. (i still do not see how using a specific SCIF "hides" sources.)

nor does it make sense for a senior intel director of the NSC and a WH counsel to act simply as WH escort/SCIF personal security attendant.

snapper
01 Apr 17,, 05:18
So you are saying that these 'White House staffers' (I think the names are revealed) shared classified information with Nunes about ongoing investigations into their Boss so he could give a press Conference about it? And this is somehow making it better? Why did not go straight to Trump? Still Nunes has not said what he says he was shown... not even to his committee which is supposed to be investigating the whole lot. One has to wonder if he was shown anything by the people working directly for Trump. If he was it was almost certainly under investigation and therefore likely to bias any investigation by the security agencies. My bet it is was all a media hoax just to get the news off the fact that the Trump administration is being investigated regarding it's 'coordination' with the Muscovite interference. I would love to hear what Nunes learned but I suspect it is an empty space and that is why he won't tell anyone.

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 06:25
extremely unlikely. it makes no sense to use the old executive building SCIF as a "one safe place to see documents" when Congress has numerous SCIFs of its own. (i still do not see how using a specific SCIF "hides" sources.)

nor does it make sense for a senior intel director of the NSC and a WH counsel to act simply as WH escort/SCIF personal security attendant.

You'd obviously know more than me, all I remember was the original stories talked of it being a secure server specific to the White House that couldn't be accessed by congress. Whether you needed to be on WH grounds to access this server or simply have the right logins from any SCIF is out of my range as I don't have specifics on architecture.

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 06:25
So you are saying that these 'White House staffers' (I think the names are revealed) shared classified information with Nunes about ongoing investigations into their Boss so he could give a press Conference about it? .
No.

YellowFever
01 Apr 17,, 07:24
YF,



lol OK. so we're talking about the Democratic Party acting like any other party, and suddenly you turn this into yet another screed against the media...just after you acknowledged that Flynn asking for immunity is possibly not fake news after all. :-)



No I am saying the Democrat party is much Much MUCH WORSE than the Republican party when it comes to playing dirty.

And the mainstream media is covering for them because 70-90 percent of journalists are lefties.

Let's get this out of the way before we continue and go round and round again because I want you on the record before we go on.

Do you think the mainstream media treats Republican and Democrats the same....yes or no?

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 22:30
YF,


No I am saying the Democrat party is much Much MUCH WORSE than the Republican party when it comes to playing dirty.

yes, i know you think that. but what i was referring to was the original argument that you think Republicans wouldn't have played politics if the Flynn affair happened under a Democrat.

your riposte deflected this onto the media, not the political party.

astralis
01 Apr 17,, 22:46
pari,


You'd obviously know more than me, all I remember was the original stories talked of it being a secure server specific to the White House that couldn't be accessed by congress. Whether you needed to be on WH grounds to access this server or simply have the right logins from any SCIF is out of my range as I don't have specifics on architecture.

i wouldn't be able to speak to the architecture as 1. I've not worked in the WH, and 2. i'm not an IT guy. nor would i want to discuss it, if i knew.

however, i have worked in enough SCIFs and in the national security field long enough to know that a story which involves fairly senior staffers acting solely as escorts makes little sense. and the idea that a congressional investigation that involves the executive branch would require the committee head to go to WH grounds, ask for a WH escort, and use a WH SCIF makes even less sense.

bottom-line, Nunes ruined his own credibility to run a non-partisan investigation with his actions. even if his motives were completely innocent-- and i highly, highly doubt it-- the optics alone screwed the pooch.

at this point, all of DC realizes this, which is why Nunes is awfully quiet nowadays and the Senate investigation committee is trying to demonstrate just how non-partisan it is. because the next alternative is an independent investigative commission.

Parihaka
01 Apr 17,, 23:05
bottom-line, Nunes ruined his own credibility to run a non-partisan investigation with his actions. even if his motives were completely innocent-- and i highly, highly doubt it-- the optics alone screwed the pooch.
It's not nore ever has been non-partisan so I'm not seeing any significant change. Nunes has done enough to smear the previous admin that apart from Schiff masturbating publicly because he believes he can get chairmanship of the HIC (nobody claims sanity in Washington apparently) it's a bit of a stalemate, both sides fielding nothingburgers.
Next and onwards is investigations into who the leakers were/are. Interesting to see Katie Walsh given the short walk.

astralis
02 Apr 17,, 00:17
pari,


t's not nore ever has been non-partisan

to an extent, yes. it's simply impossible to be strictly non-partisan in a democratic system. however, there's still general boundaries, with Nunes' behavior so out of the pale that one couldn't even keep up the pretense.


Next and onwards is investigations into who the leakers were/are.

that was where some of the Republicans (particularly Nunes) would have liked to aim the investigations, yes. however, now that Nunes has been so thoroughly discredited, I doubt that this will be the main focus in the near future for either the House or the Senate investigative committees.

most likely the next step is a wider search into Russian influence on the other candidates-- Marco Rubio has been saying that the Russians tried to hack his campaign apparatus as well. medium-term, much of the oxygen will focus on the FBI investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russians.

Parihaka
02 Apr 17,, 02:21
pari,



to an extent, yes. it's simply impossible to be strictly non-partisan in a democratic system. however, there's still general boundaries, with Nunes' behavior so out of the pale that one couldn't even keep up the pretense.



that was where some of the Republicans (particularly Nunes) would have liked to aim the investigations, yes. however, now that Nunes has been so thoroughly discredited, I doubt that this will be the main focus in the near future for either the House or the Senate investigative committees.

most likely the next step is a wider search into Russian influence on the other candidates-- Marco Rubio has been saying that the Russians tried to hack his campaign apparatus as well. medium-term, much of the oxygen will focus on the FBI investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russians.
THe up until now semingly non existent inquiry that Comey refuses to comment on other than to confirm its existence? The one that's been going on for over eight months but which has most definitely NOT been monitoring Trump or his campaign in any way shape or form? The one that apparently bases all it's enquiries on the golden shower documents and what they (the FBI) have read in the morning papers, given Comey insists they've in no way shape or form been monitoring Trump or his campaign? That one? ;)

astralis
02 Apr 17,, 04:23
pari,

yes, yes, please refer to my post in the other thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=66679&p=1023365&viewfull=1#post1023365).


The one that's been going on for over eight months but which has most definitely NOT been monitoring Trump or his campaign in any way shape or form?

Comey worded his testimony quite carefully. he said there was no wiretapping or electronic surveillance of Trump/his campaign and that the President could not unilaterally order such wiretapping or surveillance.

he said nothing of foreign actors, of course, so it's not too hard to guess where the surveillance actually is.

as for the inquiries, neither you nor i know what the basis of the FBI investigation is, of course. either way, as i said, when the results come out it'll certainly be the centerpiece of the investigative committees-- not the search for the leakers as you surmise.

Parihaka
02 Apr 17,, 04:29
pari,

yes, yes, please refer to my post in the other thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=66679&p=1023365&viewfull=1#post1023365). So for this to be effective, rather than redacting the names and identifiers of wiretapped conversations that include Americans, said Americans are positively identified and search algorithms tasked with searching Trump and Trump associates are run, results forwarded to Comey. Very interesting, thanks Eric.




Comey worded his testimony quite carefully. he said there was no wiretapping or electronic surveillance of Trump/his campaign and that the President could not unilaterally order such wiretapping or surveillance.

he said nothing of foreign actors, of course, so it's not too hard to guess where the surveillance actually is.


The only way it could work of course, given the literally millions of calls made per day, is as I outlined above.