Real Fake News. Again. Still.

[Dill]

Article in yesterday's WaPo: Mueller says discovery materials in case against Russian firm were used in a cyber-disinformation campaign.

This is about a current case against Internet Research Agency and Concord Management and Consulting, one of the St. Petersburg troll farms active during the 2016 election and indicted last February.

According to Mueller, "more than 1,000 nonsensitive files turned over to the defense team for an indicted Russian company were leaked by hackers in a cyber-disinformation campaign that appeared to be aimed at discretiting the government's investigations of 'Russian interference in the US political system.'"

Apparently, the information provided during discovery was also processed to appear as if the Special Counsel's database of files had been hacked and Mueller had no more evidence of Russian interference than provided through an online portal accessible through a Twitter account, "@HackingRedstone," and registered to a Russian IP.   The disinformation was presented as the COMPLETE file of evidence against hackers and colluders, to convey the impression the inquiry itself was a "nothingburger," no "there there" as our Trump defenders and supporters like to say.

This would then fuel divisions within the US as right-wing media and Trump supporters ciruclated the disinformation as more proof the Russia investigation was a "witch hunt" and a conspiracy to deny legitimacy to the voter's choice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2019, 11:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Article in yesterday's WaPo: Mueller says discovery materials in case against Russian firm were used in a cyber-disinformation campaign.

This is about a current case against Internet Research Agency and Concord Management and Consulting, one of the St. Petersburg troll farms active during the 2016 election and indicted last February.

According to Mueller, "more than 1,000 nonsensitive files turned over to the defense team for an indicted Russian company were leaked by hackers in a cyber-disinformation campaign that appeared to be aimed at discretiting the government's investigations of 'Russian interference in the US political system.'"

Apparently, the information provided during discovery was also processed to appear as if the Special Counsel's database of files had been hacked and Mueller had no more evidence of Russian interference than provided through an online portal accessible through a Twitter account, "@HackingRedstone," and registered to a Russian IP.   The disinformation was presented as the COMPLETE file of evidence against hackers and colluders, to convey the impression the inquiry itself was a "nothingburger," no "there there" as our Trump defenders and supporters like to say.

This would then fuel divisions within the US as right-wing media and Trump supporters ciruclated the disinformation as more proof the Russia investigation was a "witch hunt" and a conspiracy to deny legitimacy to the voter's choice.

Can it not be true that the Mueller investigation has no evidence of Russian collusion and that Russia attempted to aid Trump's campaign on their own?  

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Can it not be true that the Mueller investigation has no evidence of Russian collusion and that Russia attempted to aid Trump's campaign on their own?  

In another possible world, certainly.

In this one, no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2019, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: In another possible world, certainly.

In this one, no.

I'm assuming then that you have objective proof for such a firm declaration? 

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm assuming then that you have objective proof for such a firm declaration? 

If you mean collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, then open source "proof," sure, regarding the degree of collusion already reported in MSM. Including circumstantial evidence.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2019, 12:55 PM)Dill Wrote: If you mean collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, then open source "proof," sure, regarding the degree of collusion already reported in MSM. Including circumstantial evidence.

In all seriousness, that is all we have for certain out in the public. We have to make extrapolations based on the information we currently have in order for it to link to collusion between Russia and anyone in the campaign. This isn't to say it didn't happen, or that Mueller doesn't have something firmer. This is just to say that we, as the public, don't have the information.

[GMDino]

Along the lines of if the Russian thing reaches DJT's inner circle:  Does anyone think it will hurt him when he claims to not know anything that ever happened within his campaign while still trying to maintain that he is in completely control of everything and knows more than everyone else?

I mean it worked for Reagan, but he wasn't trying to get elected again.

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, that is all we have for certain out in the public. We have to make extrapolations based on the information we currently have in order for it to link to collusion between Russia and anyone in the campaign. This isn't to say it didn't happen, or that Mueller doesn't have something firmer. This is just to say that we, as the public, don't have the information.

An email to Trump jr. promising "dirt" about Hillary ("I love it!), leading to a meeting with someone under direction of the FSB; that is not "extrapolation" but an attempt to collude.  

Beyond this, "all we have for certain" already supports some solid "extrapolation."  The number and frequency of contacts between Russian officials and operatives and members of the Trump campaign does not appear to be random--and not all of it was simply initiated by the Russians. Then add across the board forgetting or outright denial of contact. Add meetings between "unofficial" Trump representatives (like Devos brother, forget his name) arranged by foreign third parties to avoid US intel. And remember that while collusion can be witting or unwitting, unwitting does not deliberately avoid our own surveillance.

You are right to be cautious, wait for Mueller to tell us what is finally behind all the denial and obstruction, I just add that this is certainly not a witch hunt. Mueller is determing the degree, not the "whether," of collusion at this point.

[Dill]

Still wondering what people think of the thread topic.  To repeat:

The/a Russian disinformation campaign is still ongoing. It is processing information from the Special Counsel's investigation acquired through legal discovery, claiming it has hacked ALL the evidence available, which amounts to little more than is already in the news.

The goal is apparently to provide fodder for social media and forums like this--more "proof" the Russia inquiry is a witch hunt.

I.e., the strategy is to use the ongoing "witch hunt" conspiracy theory, driven by the president himself, to exacerbate existing divisions and further undermine trust in the FBI and the Special Counsel's investigation.

Anything troubling about that? Or is this report itself "fake news" purveyed by Washington insiders to make us think Russians, not Mueller, are the real threat to democracy.

[BmorePat87]

Another clarification to this conversation is that the Mueller campaign could have proof of collusion but no proof of a crime being committed. Collusion itself isn't necessarily a crime. The Mueller campaign is likely seeking to find evidence of criminal conspiracy, which goes beyond simply engaging with Russians.

Campaign officials asking Roger Stone to find out what Wikileaks has regarding leaked emails is not a crime, but asking him to get the emails or coordinate with them to leak the emails is a crime.

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 02:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  Another clarification to this conversation is that the Mueller campaign could have proof of collusion but no proof of a crime being committed. Collusion itself isn't necessarily a crime. The Mueller campaign is likely seeking to find evidence of criminal conspiracy, which goes beyond simply engaging with Russians.

Campaign officials asking Roger Stone to find out what Wikileaks has regarding leaked emails is not a crime, but asking him to get the emails or coordinate with them to leak the emails is a crime.

Good points.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-31-2019, 02:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Another clarification to this conversation is that the Mueller campaign could have proof of collusion but no proof of a crime being committed. Collusion itself isn't necessarily a crime. The Mueller campaign is likely seeking to find evidence of criminal conspiracy, which goes beyond simply engaging with Russians.

Campaign officials asking Roger Stone to find out what Wikileaks has regarding leaked emails is not a crime, but asking him to get the emails or coordinate with them to leak the emails is a crime.

What about asking Russia live on TV to hack a political opponent?

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2019, 04:35 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What about asking Russia live on TV to hack a political opponent?

"That was a joke". 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2019, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, that is all we have for certain out in the public. We have to make extrapolations based on the information we currently have in order for it to link to collusion between Russia and anyone in the campaign. This isn't to say it didn't happen, or that Mueller doesn't have something firmer. This is just to say that we, as the public, don't have the information.

This, my friends, is a true non-partisan.  Kindly take notes, Dill.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-31-2019, 06:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "That was a joke". 

What about standing next to the russian president and live on tv lying to the world saying Russia didnt do it?

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2019, 09:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What about standing next to the russian president and live on tv lying to the world saying Russia didnt do it?

How do you know he lied? He could have been mistaken.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2019, 10:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How do you know he lied? He could have been mistaken.

Could just be locker room talk.

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 10:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How do you know he lied? He could have been mistaken.

There is a more chilling possibility--he really does believe Putin.

[Stonyhands]

(01-31-2019, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: An email to Trump jr. promising "dirt" about Hillary ("I love it!), leading to a meeting with someone under direction of the FSB; that is not "extrapolation" but an attempt to collude.  

Are you referring to this meeting?


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/leak-senate-intel-obtains-information-clearing-donald-trump-in-don-jr-s-set-up-meeting-with-russian-attorney/

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 01:45 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: Are you referring to this meeting?  


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/leak-senate-intel-obtains-information-clearing-donald-trump-in-don-jr-s-set-up-meeting-with-russian-attorney/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

I believe that is what people like to call a "Fake" news site.