Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Babbylonian]

I wonder if Mueller helping state AGs go after his partners in crime was an unintended consequence of the Arpaio pardon which Trump failed to consider.

They knew that the pardon was a potential weapon to be used against a prosecution, and they knew the current occupant of the Oval Office has literally no conscience, so I'm sure finding state charges was always a priority.

 

[Aber]

I DO dismiss newspaper reports using such vague language. They're all unsubstantiated and speculative as far as I'm concerned.

Do you also dismiss statements attributed to a "White House spokesman"?

 

[Octavo]

Trump is of course willing to outright lie in public. He does it often. Other Presidents have done it too, but, yes, Trump does it more, although so far about trivial things.

Well that's something at least.

There is still no persuasive evidence that Trump lied when he said he had no business or financial ties to Russia. Inking a letter of intent with respect to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy project does not rise to the level of a "tie" to Russia if the project never came remotely close to fruition.

I see. By that logic a fiancee has no "ties" to his beloved either.

Trevor Noah simply isn't funny. I don't think it has anything to do with his politics either. I thought Jon Stewart was pretty darn funny, and I disliked his politics too.

I'm sure that you believe that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

 

[Belz...]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

It's not fake news when the people involve admit that there was collusion, CE. You just _want_ it to be fake news because it fits your biases.

 

[NoahFence]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

I hope you people are mentally fit enough to deal with this not being "fake news".

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's not fake news when the people involve admit that there was collusion, CE. You just _want_ it to be fake news because it fits your biases.

The hilarious thing to watch is that the "it" has moved from stealing elections to talking to some Russians, and you still cling to this nonsense. Killary goes on book tour I heard, $1,200 a seat. That's a steal for a few minutes able to pretend to be in an alternate universe where she rightfully is President, innit?

 

[The_Animus]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

"Trumps excellent handling of hurricane Harvey"

"Acosta's stupidity..."

"the CNN stoog"

"trump derangement syndrome"

"but but Hillary's email"

These are just some of the gems.

This reads like it was written by an 9/11 truther. I'm not sure it's hilariously biased enough. Please do better next time

 

[Belz...]

The hilarious thing to watch is that the "it" has moved from stealing elections to talking to some Russians, and you still cling to this nonsense.

Nothing's moved, and it was never about stealing the elections, just influencing them. But I know those subtleties are confusing to you.

Killary goes on book tour I heard, $1,200 a seat. That's a steal for a few minutes able to pretend to be in an alternate universe where she rightfully is President, innit?

So your defense is "but Hillary!!"?

And speaking of hilarious things to believe, your continued use of "killary" suggests that you believe that she's some sort of murderer.

 

[C_Felix]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

I had no idea the Russia collusion story was dead.

And your link with new information about the Russia collusion just proves that it was never dead. If it were dead, there'd be no new news.

 

[Cabbage]

The hilarious thing to watch is that the "it" has moved from stealing elections to talking to some Russians, and you still cling to this nonsense.

January: "There was no collusion"



July: "It was only attempted collusion"



August: "Collusion is not illegal"

 

[NoahFence]

The hilarious thing to watch is that the "it" has moved from stealing elections to talking to some Russians, and you still cling to this nonsense. Killary goes on book tour I heard, $1,200 a seat. That's a steal for a few minutes able to pretend to be in an alternate universe where she rightfully is President, innit?

"It" hasn't moved. Thats still happening and its still being investigated. Maybe you should take a nap and we'll wake you when it's actually over?

 

[Octavo]

"It" hasn't moved. Thats still happening and its still being investigated. Maybe you should take a nap and we'll wake you when it's actually over?

No offense NoahFence but how will we stay informed on the latest russian propaganda if CE stops posting? I have quite learned to enjoy my daily dose of RT - almost like a 2 minute hate. Lets not further detract from the joy of the forum by chasing away the characters

 

[varwoche]

The hilarious thing to watch is that the "it" has moved from stealing elections to talking to some Russians, and you still cling to this nonsense. Killary goes on book tour I heard, $1,200 a seat. That's a steal for a few minutes able to pretend to be in an alternate universe where she rightfully is President, innit?

When one finds one's self posting rank absurdities while defending corrupt authoritarians, pull "Killary" from the bag of tricks.

Highly unimpressive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The background information in the article you originally referenced is also verifiable, of course.

Of course. And I haven't expressed any skepticism about those verifiable events.

But the meat of that article isn't the events that are already well established. The meat of that article is that investigators are 'keenly focused on' Trump's role, and that whether Trump made a knowingly false statement os 'now of interest to prosecutors'. The only new information in that article is unnamed and references fairly weak descriptions for those sources "people familiar with the matter" and "a person familiar with".

My take is this: a reputable news organization has cited unnamed sources. Because the news organization is reputable and the claims are not utterly implausible, I tend to think that the claims are more likely true than not. It would be better if there were named sources, but that's not how these things go often.

So, probably the claims in the NBC article are true, far as I'm concerned. It could turn out that this isn't the case, of course. If so, NBC's reputation would suffer most likely.

I do not think that a credible, established news organization would interview a nobody in the street and pretend that he's a source familiar with the investigation. You don't really think so either.

Actually, I'm not so convinced as you. Lots of moderately reputable news outlets have been making a habit of linking to blogs created by people who don't have any evidence. There's been a host of false information presented by previously respectable organizations this year. And there's been an awful lot of sensationalism relying on speculation and "if X is true then it could mean Y" allegations, even though there's no support for X being true.

My confidence in the media is at an all time low. Not nearly as low as my confidence in the government, but still, pretty low.

 

[jimbob]

No offense NoahFence but how will we stay informed on the latest russian propaganda if CE stops posting? I have quite learned to enjoy my daily dose of RT - almost like a 2 minute hate. Lets not further detract from the joy of the forum by chasing away the characters

Let me help you

http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org

Hamilton 68TRACKING RUSSIAN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS ON TWITTER

"These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils…by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union…"
- Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Publius", Federalist 68, March 14, 1788

This dashboard displays data about Russian propaganda efforts on Twitter in near-real time. Our analysts use the dashboard and other sources to discover Russian propaganda themes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you also dismiss statements attributed to a "White House spokesman"?

Frequently.

The degree of skepticism I have tends to vary based on how well-defined the unnamed source is. I don't believe that most journalists would fabricate information, but I do think that in today's climate, there is a tendency to exaggerate the credibility of some claims, as well as a tendency to cherry pick information to find that which best supports the story that will garner the most attention. It's not exactly false, mind you... just misleading. I mean, someone 'familiar with the matter' actually did say those things... it's just that there's no particular reason to think that the someone in question actually knows anything. Especially when the 'someone' being referenced isn't providing factual information, but is passing on what that 'someone' believes that someone else thinks or believes about a topic, or when that 'someone' is opining on what some unverified supposition might mean if that supposition were true.

So yeah, I have a fair bit of skepticism regarding statements by a generic "White House Spokesperson"... but I also concede that there's a limited pool of people in that group, and that journalist isn't going to completely make stuff up... so there's a very slightly higher chance that it might be true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

CNN tries to resurrect Russia collusion fake news. Gets crushed on social media

Okay now. Responding to crappy journalism with crappier journalism isn't really the solution here.

 

[varwoche]

Of course. And I haven't expressed any skepticism about those verifiable events.

But the meat of that article isn't the events that are already well established. The meat of that article is that investigators are 'keenly focused on' Trump's role, and that whether Trump made a knowingly false statement os 'now of interest to prosecutors'. The only new information in that article is unnamed and references fairly weak descriptions for those sources "people familiar with the matter" and "a person familiar with".


Actually, I'm not so convinced as you. Lots of moderately reputable news outlets have been making a habit of linking to blogs created by people who don't have any evidence. There's been a host of false information presented by previously respectable organizations this year. And there's been an awful lot of sensationalism relying on speculation and "if X is true then it could mean Y" allegations, even though there's no support for X being true.

My confidence in the media is at an all time low. Not nearly as low as my confidence in the government, but still, pretty low.

Evidence?

I hope you don't ignore this request as you've ignored my prior requests.

I urge you to add "for instance..." to your repertoire.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me help you

http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org

As mentioned previously, their methodology is... interesting. In particular:

The list includes samples from three different networks:

• A network derived from openly pro-Russian users.
• A network derived from users who tweeted as part of a disinformation campaign linked to openly attributed Russian media.
• A network of accounts that engage in automated behavior (bots) on behalf of other accounts reflecting Russian messaging priorities.

The list includes the following types of users:

• Accounts likely controlled by Russian government influence operations.
• Accounts for “patriotic” pro-Russia users that are loosely connected or unconnected to the Russian government, but which amplify themes promoted by Russian government media.
• Accounts for users who have been influenced by the first two groups and who are extremely active in amplifying Russian media themes. These users may or may not understand themselves to be part of a pro-Russian social network.

So basically... anyone who they deem "extremely active" in "amplifying" Russian "media themes" are getting grouped into either Openly Pro-Russian users or users who re-tweeted as part of a disinformation campaign... even if they don't realize that they've been influenced?

Let's set aside for a moment that they don't define what constitutes "extremely active", "amplifying", or "media themes" that they're considering, and just focus on the flaws in assigning people that they have decided have been influenced by Russian social networks as being actively engaged in disinformation or as Pro-Russian.

Let's turn this internally for a moment. That pretty much means that if they were applying their 'methodology' to ISF... anyone who posts stuff that is in anyway not critical of Russia is likely to end up being tracked as part of their dashboard of 'Russian Influence Operations'.