Why does this matter? Are you suggesting Trump was framed. Or are you going with a 4th Amendment technicality, "illegal search and seizure"?
If Joseph Mifsud is a western intelligence asset, then Mifsud was used to play the part of a "Russian agent" to give our FBI, CIA, NSA a pre-text to spy on the Trump campaign and launch a "collusion" investigation. This would be a criminal conspiracy of the highest order and a huge violation of our Constitutional rights. Yet the police state liberals who inhabit these forums don't seem the slightest bit bothered by any of this. Their hatred for Trump is all consuming.
p.s. But it wasn't just Joseph Mifsud, Papadopoulos had a huge number of deep state goons run against him, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, Charles Tawil, Azra Turk, Sergei Millian.
Heh. Not necessarily. Going beyond that, much of the social media stuff was pointedly targeted at specific groups that were viewed as easily influenced, while the articles you pointed at very much weren't. Also, there was a heck of a lot more social media manipulation than just the Facebook ads.
...You're really pushing the disinformation angle, despite most of it having been backed up on investigation.
Is it your intent to play the part of a fool? The post that you were responding to lists several substantial points that you seem intent on ignoring. That's before getting to further discussion.
Emptily asserting that it's disinformation, despite the evidence to the contrary, isn't particularly convincing.
Who is protecting him, exactly?
You can't complain about on-line disinformation campaigns when you support the biggest disinformation campaign of all, Trump-Russia collusion. In the 2018 elections some 70% of Democrats believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many Americans voting based on false beliefs, the police state liberals don't seemed bothered at all. In fact, they encourage false beliefs against people they hate, like Trump.
So what false beliefs did Americans come to widely accept due these other disinformation campaigns?
p.s. Apparently, Joseph Mifsud is hiding out in Italy somewhere, living in an apartment owned by Link University. If Joseph Mifsud really is a Russian agent who "attacked our democracy" why isn't he given the Julian Assange treatment? Mifsud was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 and let go. They don't seem the slightest bit concerned that a "Russian agent" was able to infiltrate deep into the western intelligence apparatus.
The evidence is clear, and multiple intelligence agencies in the US and abroad, whose job it is to discover these things, have agreed: Russia has attempted to interfere with the 2016 US presidential elections. To what extent they succeeded is debatable, but that's not what we're discussing.
This evidence is not clear and you should trust our intelligence agencies in the same way you trust the shepherd boy in Aesop's fable.
I will accept for the sake of argument and for the time being, that Russia threatens the US in all the ways the conventional wisdom says it does.
Now, I have a question for you: *if* Russia is a threat to the US, would this change your opinion about the wisdom of countering a foreign adversary's surreptitious efforts to influence one of our elections?
What does the conventional wisdom say about how Russia threatens us? I just keep hearing the same phrase over and over "hostile foreign power, hostile foreign power, hostile foreign power." We seem to threaten Russia, more than Russia threatens us.
It is likely that many countries attempt to influence our elections either openly or in the shadows. Certainly the US interferes in countries around the world and it is always viewed as a good thing. You would need to give an example of what these "surreptitious efforts" might be.
