oh that gaslighting continues, there is no fuckin way that’s her.
2 Likes
That lady is too short and confident, also there’s no “filler” in her smile lines.
2 Likes
The US is so full of “fake news” and “online outrage culture”, that the Russian Hackers no longer feel the need to create it themselves. They are just amplifying it.
The Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency may be among those trying to circumvent protections put in place by companies including Facebook Inc.and Twitter Inc. to find and remove fake content that hackers created to sow division among the American electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Instead of creating content themselves, we see them amplifying content,” said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at FireEye Inc.“Then it’s not necessarily inauthentic, and that creates an opportunity for them to hide behind somebody else.”
Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users.
While covert efforts to amplify divisive content originated by others isn’t a new technique, hackers and trolls seem to be embracing it heavily in advance of the next U.S. presidential election.
Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.
Update: I want to point out that this isn’t new for the Russians, in fact Americans know this marketing technique all to well. It’s called “astroturfing”. It’s a tactic used all over the world to make a cultural movement look “grass roots”, hence the name “astroturfing”. John Oliver does a really good job explaining it in the segment below. FYI, they curse in this video.
3 Likes
I’ve herald of “quid pro quo” but not “quid pro bono”.
KEY POINTS
- Recent court filings are shedding new light on a mysterious $125,000 payment to lawyers for Paul Manafort, paid by a firm that has not been identified until now.
- The firm is called Multi Media Services Corporation, and its silent owner is Tony Fabrizio, a longtime Manafort associate and the chief pollster on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
- The route this money traveled, from its origin as a donation made to a pro-Trump political group, to its final destination in the bank account of Manafort’s attorney, offers a window into relationships Manafort built over decades.
4 Likes
Wow! – Hats off to CNBC for this bombshell investigative report. 
My favorite paragraph that speaks volumes on Manafort’s character:
Manafort’s lawyers deny that he lied. They told the court that he was merely confused or misremembered during each of the three interviews where he told the government three different stories about where the money came from.
Looks like “misremembered” has now become the Trumpian four-syllable version of “lied.”
Reading between the lines of CNBC’s remarkably detailed and thorough reporting, it sounds like this secret payment (laundered from a Trump super PAC to Manafort’s lawyer) may well have been just one of many such illegal payments made to various private bank accounts in the Trump swamp. It’s time for an audit of the other $24 million of dark money that was in this PAC (and all Trump’s other PACs for that matter).
It’s not surprising that the person who headed the PAC and is at the center of this money laundering scheme, Laurence Gay, was also on Trump’s Inaugural Committee. He managed the donations made by Trump supporters to receive tickets – one of the many financial functions of the committee that has come under scrutiny for possible influence peddling, misappropriation of funds, etc. (Bloomberg)
5 Likes
A newly released snippet of a deposition with the ex-British spy behind the Trump-Russia dossier describes some of the steps he took to verify information he collected for it in 2016, including pulling from a user-generated citizen journalism initiative by CNN, iReport, which no longer operates.
Christopher Steele admitted during a lawsuit deposition that he used internet searches and unverified information to support details he had gathered about a web company mentioned in the dossier, according to select pages of his deposition transcript that a federal court unsealed this week.
But Steele limited his answers about how he verified information about the web companies who claimed they were defamed. He would not explain, for instance, what else he did or sources he used to verify information in the dossier about Webzilla, its parent company XBT and their Russian founder Aleksej Gubarev, who were named in the dossier. He did not have to describe during the deposition all the steps he took to collect or check the information because of terms set by the court.
But
The dossier’s intent was to gather research for private clients, and not to validate the information at the same level of scrutiny as journalists, Steele said in his deposition.
The deposition took place in London over the summer after a legal fight over whether Steele would have to answer questions. The questions attorneys were allowed to ask and that Steele would have to answer, ultimately, were very limited.
Steele answered questions for hours in a somewhat tortured process, with three sets of lawyers wrangling over American and British laws.
The most salacious claims in the dossier are still unverified. But many of the allegations that form the bulk of the memos have held up over time. Those include the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the claim that there were contacts between Trump’s team and Russia.
This notably includes Steele’s claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw an effort to interfere in the 2016 election. It also includes allegations of secret contacts between Trump’s team and the Russians during the campaign.
Steele gathered this stunning information months before US intelligence agencies and Robert Mueller’s office of special counsel publicly described the Russian meddling in the election.
3 Likes
Thanks for posting this and for including the second half of the article which again reported that much of what is in the dossier has now been verified, even though it was at first widely doubted.
The article also makes clear that, although Steele began his research on this particular part of the dossier with ordinary web searches (which any good investigator would do), he then followed up those searches with additional investigations that he is not allowed to reveal at this time.
And finally, just like the so many other parts of the dossier, this part is also being borne out by independent investigations.
So I don’t really see a bombshell here at all despite what the headline implies. Unfortunately Fox and Breitbart will promote just the headline and omit the additional background that @anon95374541 shared.
Post Script: Today Trump tweeted (in his usual apoplectic voice) that he was indignant that it was John McCain who apparently facilitated the public release of the dossier. First, I don’t see how McCain, respected as he is on both the right and the left, could ever be vilified as a bad source of information. Second, and most importantly, if someone flags down a police car, yelling that the bank is being robbed, what the heck difference does it make who is raising the alarm? – the important thing to focus on is that the bank is being robbed.
All of this reminds me of the meme below – it’s a repost, but so timely I can’t resist including it again.
5 Likes
Here’s an engaging portrait of New Zealand’s Prime Minister and how she is setting an example to the world of the way a true leader responds to a national tragedy.
The calm and compassion shown by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in response to the killing of 50 Muslims by a suspected white supremacist has burnished the credentials of a leader whose youth and celebrity had given critics’ doubts.
In the hours after the carnage in Christchurch on Friday left New Zealanders reeling, the 38-year-old Ardern struck all the right notes.
She promptly labeled the worst peacetime mass killing in New Zealand as terrorism, and set about reassuring a nation that has been largely unscathed by the violence and fears that have afflicted other countries in the past two decades.
A day after the attack, Ardern led a multi-party group to visit grieving families and Muslim community members.
Wearing a black head scarf, she hugged relatives and let them set the pace and agenda as she listened and offered comfort. …
4 Likes
Yup. Fox News broke this story Saturday and like clockwork, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is on twitter promoting it without any background or nuance. She riled up the Chief and his base over this total nothing-burger of a story. Sanders is not competent at her job. This made her boss look so bad. Imagine Jennifer Palmieri or Dan Pfeiffer tweeting shit like this? You can’t can you? Why because they were real communication professionals.
The President’s comments this morning were so deplorable. Trump’s comments are always his special brand of delusion, narcissism and bigotry but this weekend Sanders started that twitter fire. Hands down she has to be the weakest link of the whole administration and that’s saying really something.
Sorry this turned into a mini rant… it’s been one hell of a week.
4 Likes
He is…Sanders is, and the whole Fox connected lot of them are…
Unreal that McCain would be someone to defile…
The heat is getting turned on at the WH and they have to do some fancy tweeting to denounce the Steele Dossier, McCain, Mueller and FBI.
Unconscionable behavior…
and a LOT of people are noticing…George Conway
4 Likes
Thank you for the kind thoughts and the link @Keaton_James. We all are very proud of our PM, and yes she has taken a very supportive and empathetic role in this, and indeed right across in the board, on issues here, and she has a sound approval rating.
Here is a tweet from the world wide Muslim community.
Apart from around 250,000 firearm owners, we all here in NZ are hoping for a quick amendment to the fire arm regulations banning the possession in civilian hands of semi-automatic firearms. The current regulations which require a person to first hold a firearm licence under which they may then acquire numerous firearms is obviously not sufficient. And it has been known that that is the case for a number of years now. Recommendations were made to the previous government regarding strengthening the regulations - but only the 7 easiest options were adopted.
It is imperative that the previous recommendation of banning semi-automatics - as was adopted in Australia after their Port Arthur mass shooting in which 38 people were slain - is quickly adopted. The gun lobby - as you see practised in your country by the NRA time and time again - wants to give thoughts and prayers, and then “consideration” ie delaying tactics so that the obvious need for change will recede. Redemption is not only the process of being sorry, it also involves taking steps to ensure such wrong never happens again.
By the way - in NZ owning a firearm (of any description) is not a right of citizenship.
4 Likes
I believe that the House Judiciary Committee headed by Rep Adam Schiff is trying to call out the injustice of what we see nationally and internationally, The hope is to get our Government people (DHS) to act and be responsible for it. Because this White Nationalistic ferver crosses the line in so many ways, the HJC want to point the finger towards those who may condone it…or do very little.
Thanks for having a conscious, and shedding more light on the matter.
The House Judiciary Committee is planning on hosting a hearing in the coming weeks addressing the rise of white nationalism in the U.S. and the hate crime and hate speech surrounding the movement, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the committee’s schedule.
…
Though plans are still being finalized, the committee expects to bring in officials from within the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for questioning on the rise of white nationalism in the U.S and the efforts the agencies are currently adopting to combat it. One lawmaker said the goal is to “have a hearing in early April.”
A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Addressing the rise of white nationalism and related movements has been a tricky proposition for government officials in the past. When the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland issued a warning in 2009 about the rise of right-wing extremism, the political backlash was so intense that then Secretary Janet Napolitano had to issue a formal apology. During the last few years, Republican committee chairs resisted calls to hold hearings on the rise of white supremacy even as Congress pass ceremonial votes condemning it.
I am reminded of the RFK funeral where Ted Kennedy spoke of his brother in this way…“Who saw wrong, and tried to right it…” Looking up that quote lead me to the full Eulogy…and here’s another pertinent passage.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
4 Likes
Well, there’s this new picture of Mueller leaving church with his wife today…while we wait for news of the report.
We know he’s had dinner at the same DC restaurant as a MSNBC Reporter, who took his seat, after he left…not knowing he’d been there.
#LookingAtTeaLeavesNow #ThankYouMrMueller
3 Likes
And from our-tweeter-in-chief 
3 Likes
3:09 p.m.
The Justice Department has told Congress to expect a summary of Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia investigation within the hour.
That’s according to two people familiar with the Justice Department’s plans. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the plans.
4 Likes
4 Likes
My hot take, an investigation into why the Republican President fired the Republican FBI Director, lead by the Republican former head of the FBI leaves obstruction of justice charges up to the Republican AG and Republican DAG, who decided they won’t charge the Republican President.
Trump said this was all a partisan witch hunt, he just never mentioned which party.
5 Likes
CNN and other outlets are trying to hold out some glimmer of hope that the President will be held accountable by leading with headlines that emphasize Mueller did not exonerate the President on obstruction of justice. The sad truth is that Barr, appointed by Trump, made it clear in the letter that he believes Trump did not commit an obstruction of justice crime – case closed.
To me, this is beyond depressing. I have hope that President will be held accountable for the other crimes I’m certain he has committed such as tax evasion, money laundering, insurance fraud, charity fraud, etc., but right now I’m so depressed I’m just going to take a few days off from the news cycle and recuperate.
I worked hard to help flip the House and I’ll work even harder to ensure that Trump and his ilk are banished from the White House forever. Onward to 2020! 
5 Likes
Without knowing what is in The Mueller Report as far as evidence goes, it is still very hard to comprehend how Barr did exonerate the President.
The report as Mueller framed it was for Congress to take action (impeach ultimately, despite the fact it is not a winnable action), since from Mueller’s vantage point, there was not an ability to indict a sitting president.
True to form, Barr stuck with the President and absolved him of any more Mueller scrutiny.
Dems will have to fight like crazy but keep an aggressive eye on unseating T in 2020.
> What to Make of Bill Barr’s Letter - Lawfare
Excerpt
The second section of the letter is both more complicated and less salutary for the president—and, again, readers must await the underlying document for a full accounting. In sharp contrast to the president’s tweet, Barr quotes Mueller as writing: “[W]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” As Barr puts it, Mueller actually “did not draw a conclusion” at all as to whether Trump committed obstruction of justice in his interactions with the investigation. He refrained in view of the “‘difficult issues’ of law and fact” involved in that determination.
Mueller, writes Barr, did not make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on the subject. Instead, for each act with a potentially obstructive nexus, “the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.”
This is, as a preliminary matter, a striking decision on Mueller’s part. It almost certainly flows from the difficult questions that arise when one tries to imagine how one would apply the obstruction of justice statutes to presidential acts that are, on their face, authorized by Article II of the Constitution—questions we have addressed at great length on this site.
…
While Mueller left the question of criminality unaddressed, Barr himself did not. Barr opines that Mueller’s “decision to describe the facts of his obstruction inquiry without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime”—though it is not clear why Barr felt this to be the case. Barr includes his own determination, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s, that Mueller’s evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
In justifying this view, Barr notes Mueller’s determination that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian electoral interference” and argues that the lack of evidence of an underlying crime, though not dispositive, “bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” The report does not identify any actions that, in Barr’s and Rosenstein’s view, “constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,” each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the crime of obstruction of justice under Justice Department guidelines.
Notably, Barr says that his and Rosenstein’s assessment was made independently of constitutional questions about the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. Though Barr does not make reference to any concerns over the interaction between presidential authority and possible obstruction offenses, it is worth keeping in mind his memorandum on the subject from June 2018, in which he argued that conduct authorized by Article II definitionally cannot constitute obstruction.
Finally, Barr indicates that more material from Mueller’s report is forthcoming, writing that his office is at work identifying information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)—which protects material obtained before a grand jury from public disclosure—and “information that could impact other ongoing matters.” After that, Barr writes, he “will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released.”
So the good news is that there is more information on the way—though it is unclear how much more or when it will appear. Democratic members of Congress, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are already calling for the report to be released in its entirety. Pelosi and Schumer released a joint statement indicating skepticism of what they call “Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry,” and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler indicated that his committee will call on Barr to testify. Chairman of the Senate intelligence committee Richard Burr, for his part, thanked the attorney general for his letter and called for the release of “as much of the report as possible
5 Likes