US Congressmen Reveal Thousands of Facebook Ads Bought By Russian Trolls (mercurynews.com) 309
An anonymous reader writes: Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released about 3,400 Facebook ads purchased by Russian agents around the 2016 presidential election on issues from immigration to gun control, a reminder of the complexity of the manipulation that Facebook is trying to contain ahead of the midterm elections. The ads, which span from mid-2015 to mid-2017, illustrate the extent to which Kremlin-aligned forces sought to stoke social, cultural and political unrest on one of the Web's most powerful platforms. With the help of Facebook's targeting tools, Russia's online army reached at least 146 million people on Facebook and Instagram, its photo-sharing service, with ads and other posts, including events promoting protests around the country...
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers would continue probing Russia's online disinformation efforts. In February, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia and the 2016 election, indicted individuals tied to the IRA for trying to interfere in the presidential race. "They sought to harness Americans' very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior," Schiff said in a statement. "The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us...."
The documents released Thursday also reflect that Russian agents continued advertising on Facebook well after the presidential election... They marketed a page called Born Liberal to likely supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the data show, an ad that had more than 49,000 impressions into 2017. Together, the ads affirmed the fears of some lawmakers, including Republicans, that Russian agents have continued to try to influence U.S. politics even after the 2016 election. Russian agents also had created thousands of accounts on Twitter, and in January, the company revealed that it discovered more than 50,000 automated accounts, or bots, with links to Russia.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers would continue probing Russia's online disinformation efforts. In February, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia and the 2016 election, indicted individuals tied to the IRA for trying to interfere in the presidential race. "They sought to harness Americans' very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior," Schiff said in a statement. "The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us...."
The documents released Thursday also reflect that Russian agents continued advertising on Facebook well after the presidential election... They marketed a page called Born Liberal to likely supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the data show, an ad that had more than 49,000 impressions into 2017. Together, the ads affirmed the fears of some lawmakers, including Republicans, that Russian agents have continued to try to influence U.S. politics even after the 2016 election. Russian agents also had created thousands of accounts on Twitter, and in January, the company revealed that it discovered more than 50,000 automated accounts, or bots, with links to Russia.
They were going to target Slashdot users (Score:2, Funny)
but they didn't have any mod points.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In soviet russia slashdot trolls you.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I'd listen someone who uses google+.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
You might say: "But, but, the United State of America is a sovereign state, it's the voters and alone the voters who need to decide". Sure, but there is propaganda bought by the parties themselves, by multinational corporations having no allegiance to any country, and whoever wants to put money into influencing a vote. Don't forget that the US likes to interfere with elections of other countries too, but that's a-ok, right?
Is it perhaps, just the admission that voters are easily swayed by bad propaganda that is hard to admit?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think anyone is denying that voters are easily swayed by bad propaganda. The problem is that social media has amplified the power of propaganda by order of magnitude compared to the past. The Obama election was the first election in US that demonstrated the power of social media over elections. 2016 was the first time a hostile foreign power successfully swayed our presidential election so of course we need to take a hard look at it to protect future elections. We're ok with our own propaganda,
Re: Why is this a problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a process argument. And we know the truth about those.
Re: Why is this a problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why is this a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Political parties in America are a cancer. This is not football and blindly following someone and not caring what they support just to win and smirk and winning and blocking the other guy creates dysfunction and in actuality bet against the country just to see your guy win.
Is there anyone American left who cares about principles like no interference regardless of party? The hoopla about how wrong the electoral college is by Trump before he won vs after he won with a 180 turnaround in his views highlight the narrow and dangerous thinking.
Re: Why is this a problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like last time.
[John]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There isn't even any evidence here that the goal of these ads was to influence voting, elections or politics. The ads were all over the place, basically promoting anything which might have gotten a response from someone, including lots of contradictory things like rallies for opposing candidates and causes. Examples from the article: "pushing arguments for and against immigration, LGBT issues and gun rights". It wasn't exactly just politics, either. For example, there were Pro-Beyoncé vs. Anti-Beyonc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi - Director from a digital ad agency here/marketing jerk.
Our agency dug into some of the released ads. There were three separate parts of this campaign based on the samples of ads we looked at. The first were broad-reaching memes that people of all ages, geographies, and political opinions would like. This was a top of the funnel (pardon the jargon) to bring people in and get more data about them once they liked or interacted with your page - this is a feature of Facebook and many other platforms which
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I could vote this up.
I'm seeing a lot of commentary in various places about how small the ad by is, and half these things don't seem political, etc. Most people are missing the overall strategy entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
And from your analysis, which was the point of the post-election advertisements? Pump up Trump voters and suppress Hillary voters?
Re: (Score:3)
You made it half way there but then tanked the conclusion. Spam and likes is a dumb goal to have, and the Russians certainly do not have that goal. Do you really think Putin is just concerned about how many likes he gets on Facebook? No, the REAL goal is to SOW DIVISION AND DISTRUST in our system of government. These are well-known information warfare tactics -- push people, on both sides, to more and more extreme views to destabilize the country and the government.
You're right, the ads didn't stop at t
Re: (Score:2)
If it was all just blatant political stuff it wouldn't have seemed like real people. Real people post all sorts of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying the actual contents of the ads, as released by Congress, are not accurate? Because that's what it's based on....
Re:Why is this a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me ask you this? If Hillary won and Russia was behind it would you feel the same?
I think it would be hypocritical either way if you care about your country if you're an American. I am a democrat so of course I am beyond furious but would be too if Hillary won and the reverse was true.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia was behind Clinton. We know this because the Dossier was largely Russian propaganda funneled through Steele and Fusion GPS, funded by Clinton Campaign. Democrats don't give a shit about that "Russian Collusion", which is the ONLY verified actual link between Russia and either of the two candidates that DID have influence on the election.
And a year and a half of investigations, special counsels, and a shit tonne of MSM "Russia Trump Collusion", we find out that most of it was actually the US governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Yet 23 indicements and counting from the Mueller investigation and testimony from the CIA says otherwise.
Get off of Foxnews
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a problem if the Russian government wants to influence US elections, as long as it identifies himself. In fact, I'd very much like to hear their take on things.
But that's not what they're doing. They're pretending to be Americans in order to sow discord. They don't really care about what they're saying, it's the effect they're after.
Why is murder a problem? (Score:2)
The goal is to get real and accurate information that people can understand into their hands. When people work off of bad information bad things happen. When that information is specifically crafted to cause bad decisions on a n
divide us (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm bored of saying it but... Yes, it's all Russia's fault.
Reason Trump got elected - Russia.
Reason BREXIT happpened - Russia.
When somebody gets poisoned... you know who did it ? - Russia
Doping scandals - Russia
When you come from that part of the world, the money is 100% motivation. When you grow up not having any, all you can think off is getting it, especially if you're a teen and your parents always were and are broke - something most Americans can't understand.
The political situation in US (and religious in the world) is RIPE for making money on, you just have to have a little bit of imagination and have to be kept down for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TFA didn't link to the WaPo story but rather a summary of it. Here's WaPo with a breakdown of the most popular ads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/10/these-are-the-most-popular-russian-facebook-ads-from-each-month/ [washingtonpost.com]
Lots of BLM, gun rights, and gay rights stuff, but nothing much about the election. Most aren't even incendiary, just piggybacking on slogans already out there. I suspect that you are right about the ad revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of BLM, gun rights, and gay rights stuff, but nothing much about the election. Most aren't even incendiary, just piggybacking on slogans already out there. I suspect that you are right about the ad revenue.
It's not what the ad is, it's who you show it to. You show the ads to people in the opposite camp, not the people who will agree with them. It gets them riled up, and once people are angry they are also stupid, and more likely to reshare some bullshit. Thus, you can promote lies with facts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us...."
I'm bored of saying it but... Yes, it's all Russia's fault.
Reason Trump got elected - Russia.
Reason BREXIT happpened - Russia.
When somebody gets poisoned... you know who did it ? - Russia
Doping scandals - Russia
/sarcasm
Sorry, but... why is that sarcasm? Those things all happened.
It's becoming more clear all the time that Russia probably did get Trump elected. They put a lot of effort into trying to help him win, and he won by a slim margin. Russia seems to have at least been part of the Brexit vote. Russia has been caught poisoning people. Russian athletes were caught doping.
It's kinda like going, "Oh, I see, let's all blame Hitler. Poland gets invaded? - Hitler. Six million Jews murdered? - Hitler. /sarcasm"
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why "russian trolls" may actually be working at the behest of our own political action groups, since they work cheap and money spent in election cycles is measured in the billions.
This may also help explain why these adds seemed to target both sides of an issue. Why would they care if their clients were politically opposed; rather that would only help keep their services in demand.
Lies by omission is the very least one can expect from the sources driving this narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hes still on? I assumed the daily show died a few months after stewart left.
He's still on, and the show is still relevant. I don't know I'd say it's better, but I don't know I'd say it's worse either.
Where are the released data (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is just fluff we all already knew. Show me a link to the actual ads.
Re:Where are the released data (Score:4, Insightful)
A US citizen who encounters too much work by Russian anthropologists has their political views altered.
So the visual "evidence" is kept from the public as its mind altering.
The quality and production standards are just too good to prevent political changes in anyone who looks at the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more worried... (Score:4, Insightful)
... about the writer's use of a four-dot ellipsis. What the heck were you thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
This revelation is so important that a simple three-dot ellipsis just won't cut it!
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know they'll be deploying multiple bangs!!
Oh heck! It's started!
Reason it's a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone here seems to think this is no big deal, and that's a bit odd. The main reason it's a big deal is because it skirts campaign finance laws, which encourages American politicians to court relationships with foreign states who want them elected. If you have a foreign state financing your campaign, that's something the American people really should know. More information and more transparency is better.
The next reason why it's a big deal is that Russia's reason for doing this wasn't about getting Trump elected (they reportedly thought it was impossible) -- it was to weaken the US by stoking more hatred amongst Americans. They're encouraging the far left & right and suppressing the middle group. They've actually succeeded in making you all believe that your "side" winning is more important than working together. Divided you fall.
Re:Reason it's a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a minor deal, though, not a big deal. It's a mere blip in campaign advertising. The total ad buy was for $46K. Compare that to the $81 MILLION buy from Clinton and Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason it's a big deal is because it skirts campaign finance laws,
Which are themselves the problem.
The people squealing about this are the same people who say that you just can't possibly regulate the flow of drugs or humans.
But somehow you are going to regulate bits? And it's OK because the bit pipes cost money?
And that's before even mentioning that political speech is precisely what the first amendment was intended to protect.
Re: (Score:2)
and this is different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Russians bought ads in the US to push an agenda and sow discontent. So what?
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right of Americans to speak, it protects the right of Americans to hear all views and propaganda, including that of foreigners. This is also not new. Russia has been trying to sow discontent and anger (including using race as an issue) in the US since the Russian revolution. Conversely, the US has been trying to manipulate public opinion and political systems abroad for a long time. Voice of America is one of the more benign examples; the US government has brought down entire governments through media manipulation.
The US clearly in the past has stood by the principle that broadcasting and distributing political propaganda internationally is legitimate and protected. Censorship of foreign broadcasts is wrong and harmful for the same reason that censorship of domestic broadcasts is wrong and harmful. And that's a principle we should continue to stand by.
Re: (Score:2)
First it didn't happen.
Then it had no influence.
Now it had some influence, but that's fine because it's not illegal.
Next you will realise it's actually illegal in the US and come up with some other reason that we should ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you misunderstood. Yes, it is illegal. I'm saying it shouldn't be and such restrictions are inconsistent with the First Amendment. In fact, I have consistently said that there should be no restrictions on political speech or campaign contributions, domestic or foreign.
The fact that you're a little slow to pick up on this and need to go through the various stages you list in coming to understand what I have been saying is your problem, not mine.
whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
If ads as incredibly stupid as the few that anybody has actually shown were so amazingly effective as to decide the election, then Russian/Schmussian; every US entity will be running ads just like them next time.
They'd be idiots not to.
In reality of course, the Dems just plain lost (albeit by a small margin, as is normal lately), something they just can't seem to come to grips with.
If this Russian narrative were true, I'd be hiring every single Russian involved. To advertise chewing gum, if nothing else. They are apparently the most awesome and most cost effective advertisers, ever.
Re:whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Carrying 10 more states and 77 more votes isn't really close. It was only a "close" race if you ignore the actual rules and result.
If you don't like the way we elect presidents, then campaign for a change. The system made a lot of sense when implemented (and still makes some sense when you remember that every state is a separate entity and deserves some say in the outcome, not just Florida/California/Texas/New York).
Re: (Score:2)
Carrying 10 more states and 77 more votes isn't really close. It was only a "close" race if you ignore the actual rules and result.
If you don't like the way we elect presidents, then campaign for a change.
I like the system just fine. I was just kind of throwing them a bone, since I can be soft hearted, and they are crying so much, lol
Nothing burger (Score:2)
Evidence that Russian operatives bought and paid for ads on Facebook?
Seriously, buying ads is serious crime? I may prefer that the Russians stayed out of campaign advertising, but finding it hard to get too worked up over this. These Russian-backed groups didn't do anything that countless American-backed groups didn't also do...
Tell me Russians snuck into warehouses and tampered with voting machines and I'll be outraged, tell me mark zuckerberg sold them some online ads, hard to get worked up over that.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are working on behalf of a foreign government, doing so without registering as a foreign agent is a crime. Now since not everyone knows this, the normal enforcement action is a letter informing you that you need to fill out a form and send it in before you continue; but technically it's a felony.
Since the Internet Research Agency is a well-establish psy-ops company, they know very well that they're breaking US law.
Adam Schif is a Russian Troll (Score:2)
Russian Trolls (Score:2)
Have
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MTOkOCK... [ytimg.com]
Propaganda (Score:2)
This is nothing new. Governments propagandize. We do it as well and have for decades. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal now, I guess because the US media that overwhelmingly supported Clinton, first against The Bern and then even more stridently against Trump, got outplayed. Propaganda, in the eyes of the MSM, is their monopoly in the USA.
downloaded a good chunk of the ads (Score:2)
holy crap. I can't guarantee that i haven't been, indirectly or directly, influenced by these. I like to think i look at everything on the internet as fake until it's been verified multiple times by multiple sources, but I am far more worried about how much further back they go than this representative set. I'd be terrified if was facebook right now looking at/for other "faction" ads that might not be represented here. Thus far I've found the alt right, the alt left, BLM, LGBTQ as being targeted (and it se
Results (Score:2)
Re:Wait, no shills? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Putin has a poisonous attitude towards russians not following his script.
It's not disingenuous. It's realistic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You realize that the GP was talking about _actual_ poison right? Very literally real, probably radioactive, poison.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Russians outsource their trolling to the infamous Internet Research Agency, a private company. They use a mixture of ads and fake accounts. The fake accounts pump the ads, making them look more legitimate because "westerners" are engaging with them.
The ads are also an appeal to authority. They make it look like real candidates, institutions and news outlets are pushing the Russian message. They also link people back to sources like RT and Brietbart, giving them added legitimacy too.
The fake accounts pum
Re:Wait, no shills? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even assuming all that were true, isn't it pretty fucking humiliating to admit that a dozen russians with broken english and a 5 figure budget were SO much more effective than the $Billions worth of marketing people on Hillary's side doing the exact same shit (including plenty of foreigners)? It's like if Hitler blamed his defeat on all the little Polish kids throwing rocks at his tanks.
If the Russians are so amazingly brilliant and persuasive that they can swing an election with nothing but a comparatively infinitesimal amount of facebook ads, maybe they *should* be running the world.
Re: Wait, no shills? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. This. The idea that anyone could manipulate an entire population so easily and precisely with such flimsy, shallow methods is the stuff of pulp spy novels. The real powers of persuation are in the mainstream media - mostly TV - and in fictional movies and TV shows. That stuff runs deep and has long-lasting effects. For example, the Pentagon spends $billions in providing support to movie makers in exchange for editorial control to make sure its messages get to the American public. We're all subject to s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, please. The research is out there. The election only depended on 70,000 people in a few districts in three states. The Russians were super brilliant and knew those 70,000 people were all that mattered so they just needed to hit them and not the other 120 million people who voted.
Re: Wait, no shills? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Wait, no shills? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Clinton herself was so detestable that she couldn't beat Junior Senator from Illinois, barely beat a washed up Flaming socialist, and a groping nearly equally detestible businessman from New York.
But please, run her again. Third Time is a Charm!
Re: (Score:2)
The most popular politician in the country is Bernie Sanders, mostly because he talks about issues people care about. He's an angry old socialist Jew, so he's not really all that likable in a conventional way. Also, Trump actually ran a more policy-based campaign than Clinton.
Now, you stated that Clinton is a wonk, but you think that means she has intelligent policies, when instead they are doing horrible things in ways that theoretically sound okay, and sound exactly like the kind of rhetoric Americans
Re: (Score:2)
isn't it pretty fucking humiliating to admit that a dozen russians with broken english and a 5 figure budget were SO much more effective than the $Billions worth of marketing people on Hillary's side
No, not at all.
One one hand, no campaign is aimed at convincing _everyone_ to vote for their candidate. Different people make their voting decisions at different times, and with different reasons. If in the end the 2016 election result was similar to the 2012, but with Florida and (I can't remember which) 2 or 3 other states voting for the Rep candidate, it certainly doe not mean that the non-Russian part of the campaign was irrelevant.
On the other hand, the Republican party had other candidates, not just
Re:Wait, no shills? (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
According to Wikipedia they had over 1000 employees in 2015. It doesn't mention the budget.
"More effective" doesn't make sense b/c same goal (Score:5, Insightful)
> Even assuming all that were true, isn't it pretty fucking humiliating to admit that a dozen russians with broken english and a 5 figure budget were SO much more effective than the $Billions worth of marketing people on Hillary's side doing the exact same shit (including plenty of foreigners)?
That argument also doesn't make sense because the Russian ads were trolling both ways, trying to stir up discord, pitting Americans against each other.
They ran Black Lives Matter ads, ads on both sides of the gun control debate, etc. Nearly half their ads were the same type of things the Hillary campaign was saying. Rather than compete with the United States, Russia would rather compete with the Divided States.
The Russians were trying to make black people mad with #BLM stuff, Hillary was trying to make black mad with #BLM stuff. Russia wanted a bunch of ultra-feminist women angry at men, Hillary wanted a bunch of ultra-feminist women angry at men. There's no "Russians beat Hillary", the Russians were running slightly more extreme versions of the same type of ads Hillary was running half the time.
The Russians know we're stronger when we're united. They don't have to fight against us if they can get us to fight against ourselves.
They want Mexicans coming in waving the Mexican flag chanting "Viva Mexico" while working-class Americans get angry and scared. What the Russians don't want is the United States to be United, proud new Americans working alongside those who have been here longer. They want to divide us - chop us up into black America, women vs men, rich vs poor, etc. None of that involves beating Hillary. A lot of it involves taking a lesson from Hillary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike the US intelligence agencies leaking all starts of anti-Trump stuff that is proven false. Like the Steel dossier? In fact, now that judges are demanding in-redacted files from the FBI, we are starting to see the full scope.
Those stories have received much more exposure than any amount of Facebooks ads could have done.
Obama did more for the Russians than Trump ever could (pulling out of the missile defense program in Poland, the Iran deal, reducing or military.) Trump has undone much of that. If T
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
The fact that a purely factual post (check wiki and the numerous references, read the Intel reports yourself) got modded "troll" makes me think this isn't nothing, it's something Trump supporters are desperate to minimize.
The FBI/CIA are the man, but I don't see things in black and white terms like that.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Don't worry. My post will go from +2 to -1 troll/flame bait within an hour or two :)
Are the Russian's out to get me too by modding me down or is it "the Man!"?
People downmod what they don't agree with. You don't need an international conspiracy to explain that.
Re:Wait, no shills? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right that the two are not the same. Calling them "trolls" is disingenuous. Internet "trolls" are people who screw with others on the Internet for fun, to get a reaction. These people are professionals working on behalf of the Russian government. They're intelligence agents.
We should stop talking about "Russian trolls" and talk in terms of "Russian agents" and "Russian spies". It's more accurate, and gives a better sense of the malice with which they're acting. They're not trolls who are trolling, they're Russian spies engaged in a covert propaganda and influence campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
So what should be the proper term be for the 'reputation management' firms that are employed by our own political factions? I'd also like to know how to properly classify Media Matters, Moveon, the Forval group, Heartland, etc.
Where is the distinction when groups such as these act on the behest of the US government, as a result of the repeal of the Smith Mundt act [wikipedia.org], which restricted propaganda campaigns being conducted on the public? How many 'internet research agencies' of our own are operating with seven
Re: (Score:2)
An indictment is not a conviction. It is just an accusation. And he accused foreign nationals that he reasoned would never show for a trial.
But, one of the accused has turned up for the trial. Mueller's reaction has been to get it postponed, with the judge responding, "WTF!?! Hell, no!"
Isn't that exactly what it means? (Score:2)
That makes sense when you think about it. Would anybody really spend tens of thousands of dollars on Facebook ads for the lulz? OK, maybe 4chan, but it would be something about a pa
Re:Wait, no shills? (Score:4, Informative)
"Who? which democrats? Where is your prosecutable evidence?"
Are you fucking mental???? Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
"After WikiLeaks published Democratic National Committee emails which suggested that DNC staffers and partly Wasserman Schultz herself[90][91][92][93][94] had expressed support for Hillary Clinton in the primary campaigns while criticizing the Bernie Sanders campaign, Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, to become effective as of the close of the nominating convention in Philadelphia. According to reports in The Washington Post, Wasserman Schultz strongly resisted suggestions she resign, requiring a phone call from President Barack Obama to finally force her resignation.[95]"
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"On September 21, 2016, the Daily Mail published an article claiming that Weiner had engaged in sexting with a 15-year-old girl from North Carolina, and devices owned by Weiner were seized as part of an investigation into this incident.[72][73][74] The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop; this prompted FBI Director James Comey to reopen that investigation late into the 2016 US presidential election.[75] Hillary Clinton has cited Comey's decision as one reason why she lost the election to Donald Trump.[76]"
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
Link, and opinion (Score:2)
Just before the election, while many people were making their final decisions about which candidate to choose, FBI Director James Comey influenced the election: Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election. [nytimes.com]
I'm amazed that Comey could be so out of touch with social reality.
Re: Wait, no shills? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you daft? He asked for prosecutable evidence. What the DNC did to Sanders is rightly viewed as morally reprehensible by many, but it was perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:3)
I love when partisans (regardless of affiliation) display poor comprehension of the facts and their consequences.
Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop..."
The article says "pertinent" not "classified". Your claim is not supported by the report.
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
1. The Democrats w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Vlad,
This is a pretty lame attempt to troll us. Lots of far fetched "facts" and tenuous links which can't really be linked together... keep trying.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The funny part is that most Trump supporters are in the "Better dead than red" club but they're perfectly OK with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for a rather tragically definition of funny. Actually a rather Russian definition of funny, come to think of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton bought her support at the DNC. You may not care about that kind of corruption, but more than a couple people do. This is an organization (a private one!) that has the power to choose one of two candidates for POTUS. Sounds like you're an apologist for this type of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:REALLY THOUSANDS !!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Proving that the ads were actually effective in doing so though - in both the Russian and my fast food example - is entirely different matter of course, and far more subjective - especially given that people generally don't like to admit they might have been coerced into a course of action though some form of manipulation.
Re:REALLY THOUSANDS !!! (Score:4, Informative)
We should ignore it because it's hard to prove?
Seems like the safest thing to do is make sure it doesn't happen again. For that we have to understand the problem first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the counter is, hard to prove is proof of collusion by implication. The whole thing is a contrivance to keep the whole "Russians Colluded with Trump", even when it is clear that Trump and Russia weren't linked in any substantial way (however Clinton was, but ignore that, because Trump is evil).
Adam Schiff is either evil or incompetent. After all, he implied that if you're Pro 2nd Amendment, you're under Russian influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
.
Re: (Score:2)
Cohen is providing the hard evidence. Large payments from Russians to Trump's personal lawyer, a guy who specialises in covering stuff up and paying people off...
Re:REALLY THOUSANDS !!! (Score:5, Insightful)
What we do know is that the total buy was $46K for the Russians vs. $81M for Clinton and Trump -- 1,760 times larger.
Yeah, we need to rally the country around the threat of Russian ad buyers, to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
$46k?? Latest numbers I heard were closer to half a billion!
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that wouldn't even cover half a day's payroll for the Internet Research Agency, if that really is the full extent of their ad spend then I'd assume it's because ads are just a very small part of their efforts.
More interesting would be a comparison of how many people Clinton had working on social media. Less than 1000?
With all the data Facebook has (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the magnitude (Score:2)
Regardless of the small magnitude of these ads compared to advertising by the Democrats and Republicans, it is still intriguing to read these ads and the lists of people whom they were intended to target.
It is an interesting look inside the minds of those who would wish to manipulate us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The uncomfortable nature of this issue is that it is very difficult to quantify the impact that Russian propaganda had on the US electorate, and the big question over whether it altered the outcome of the election is probably impossible to answer.
The problem is that the losers already had a narrative that their opponents are these hick idiots. So "hick idiots swayed by idiotic Russian-purchased ads" fits right in with what they already believe. Not to mention spares them from having to deal emotionally with the fact that they lost.
The story doesn't even make any logical sense. Remember, the "hick idiots" were already going to vote for Trump, because they are hick idiots, amiright?
So who exactly did these Russian-purchased ads sway? Idiots who nor