When will Trump be impeached?

More lies from big trumpy:

"During a meeting about trade with lawmakers at the White House on Tuesday, President Trump took personal credit for General Motors’ decision relocate a plant from South Korea back to the United States.

“GM Korea company announced today that it will cease production and close its Gunsan plant in May 2018 and they’re gonna move back to Detroit,” Trump said. “You don’t hear these things except for the fact that Trump became president, believe me, you wouldn’t be hearing that… and you have many others companies, they all want to be where the action is.”

There’s just one problem — Trump’s relocation announcement was fake news. The president appears to have just made it up.

It’s true that GM is closing a plant in South Korea. On Monday, General Motors released a statement announcing that it is closing its plant in Gunsan as a “necessary but difficult first step in our efforts to restructure our operations in South Korea.”

But the statement doesn’t mention any corresponding plan to relocate operations to the United States. ThinkProgress reached out to General Motors for comment, and a company official said they have no knowledge of any plan to relocate production from South Korea to Michigan."

No wonder rustedrails adores him.

13 russkis indicted with more indictments likely to come.

Here comes the judge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k

What's more likely, you leaving out most of the story or that facebook is the only SNS/conduit/blog the russkis use, as you are now claiming?

Where did I claim facebook was the only outlet?

And that you fail to realize the power of social media?

Actually you are the one that fails to realize the power  of social media and advertising-

The power of 100s of millions of Americans, over $1 billion in campaign spending, and round-the-clock tv, newsprint, radio, and internet coverage such that Russian bots were like a few minnows in a big lake. The effect of THAT social media and advertising is why the election went the way it did.

As for red scare, why don't you ask the Ukraine about that? How about Russian interference in at least 19 European nations? Or murdered oligarchs?

Russia did worse in the 20s and 50s. We still had a Red Scare. And please, some Russian retweeting a LePen meme is not "interference" in any meaningful sense.

little to nothing is being done to prevent it from happening again in 2018.

What can be done? As long as facebook and twitter connects people around the world and allows relatively free speech, there's little that can be done.

As you should know, putin's main target was Hilary.

Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called for a no-fly zone over Syria with us shooting down Russian airplanes as a prelude to yet another mideast invasion.

How awful that she wasn't elected and that we instead worked together with Russia to destroy ISIS and look askance while Assad flattens Al-Qaeda spinoffs and so-called "moderate rebels" who are actually just Hamas-lite.

What's more likely, you leaving out most of the story or that facebook is the only SNS/conduit/blog the russkis use, as you are now claiming?

Where did I claim facebook was the only outlet?

And that you fail to realize the power of social media?

Actually you are the one that fails to realize the power  of social media and advertising-

The power of 100s of millions of Americans, over $1 billion in campaign spending, and round-the-clock tv, newsprint, radio, and internet coverage such that Russian bots were like a few minnows in a big lake. The effect of THAT social media and advertising is why the election went the way it did.

As for red scare, why don't you ask the Ukraine about that? How about Russian interference in at least 19 European nations? Or murdered oligarchs?

Russia did worse in the 20s and 50s. We still had a Red Scare. And please, some Russian retweeting a LePen meme is not "interference" in any meaningful sense.

little to nothing is being done to prevent it from happening again in 2018.

What can be done? As long as facebook and twitter connects people around the world and allows relatively free speech, there's little that can be done.

As you should know, putin's main target was Hilary.

Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called for a no-fly zone over Syria with us shooting down Russian airplanes as a prelude to yet another mideast invasion.

How awful that she wasn't elected and that we instead worked together with Russia to destroy ISIS and look askance while Assad flattens Al-Qaeda spinoffs and so-called "moderate rebels" who are actually just Hamas-lite.

You have got to be kidding.

You mentioned only facebook in the post I quoted.

The thing about the internet that you don't understand is how little money it takes to get your message across and to succeed at selling your product or ideas. Your argument, as it always has been, is completely without merit.

Putin isn't Stalin so that's OK? Nice try with lePen but russia has been up this kind of meddling for years, in eastern Europe, Greece, Italy, Ukraine, Brexit. This is a serious threat, cyberwar, that can't shrugged off, as you and your main man are intent on doing. The sophistication of these efforts also rebuts your it takes a lot of money argument, although russia has obviously invested a lot in getting them up and running. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-impact-of-russian-interference-on-germanys-2017-elections/

Plenty can be done, neville chamberlain We just have to do it, but trump and his base like yourself are standing in the way.

Clinton was not going to start another war; that's what repugs do. trump has expanded US efforts in afghanistan with no timetable--an endless war.

IS was already on the run before trumpy took office. The only ting that has changed is he changed the rules of engagement so civilian casualties have tripled. As far as the russians go, US armed forces just butted heads with their proxy mercenaries and they are supporting assad only because the US isn't. And I guess you're down with a guy that unleashes atrocities on his own people.

Not a single one of your arguments holds water. Stick to kick ball, although I think tetherball is more up your alley.

Mr. D,

I must say that even though we are a different mind set I believe we could have some awesome conversations over beers concerning U.S. foreign policy mishaps in the Middle East and beyond.

Be honest with yourself. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania went to Trump. Those 3 states totaled 77000 +- votes favoring Trump over HRC. Yes, HRC could and should have gone to Michigan and Wisconsin. That is a no brainer. But what you seem to acknowledge is the fact that Russian meddling in the election, as so finely detailed by Robert Mueller today, probably had an impact on how 77000 people voted. Can we KNOW for sure? Obviously no. But any reasonable person has to look at the detail and scope of the Russian campaign against HRC and think...man they went all in on not getting her elected. Look, they helped Bernie AND Trump in order to **** over HRC. And we both know how EASILY the American electorate is manipulated.

The indictements today did a couple things. One? It shows that HRC was up against two campaigns in the 2016 election. A Trump/GOP campaign and a never before seen on American soil campaign led by a foreign advisory (Russia). Amd yet she won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote by 77000 votes. Pretty remarkable if you ask me.

Two. Mueller has guilty pleas from several former Trump campaign staffers and a member of his cabinet. He just spent 20 hours with Steve Bannon. He's about to flip Rick Gates (a very important figure concerning Trumps campaign). And Mueller just laid the foundation, based in incredible detail, on how the Russians meddled in the election.

Archibald Cox, Kenneth Star, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Robert Mueller. One got a president to resign, another got a president impeached, and the other got a conviction. Mueller will get something besides 3 guilty pleas(maybe 3 with Gates) and 13 indictments on Russians meddling in our democracy.

So far I am believing everything coming out of the special counsel. For better or worse. Are you?

P.s. this indictment insinuates that Russian meddling was well underway before the Trump tower meeting in june of 2016. Bannon is talking. Soon Manafort will and Kushner will if/when he is indicted. Tick tock.

But what you seem to acknowledge is the fact that Russian meddling in the election, as so finely detailed by Robert Mueller today, probably had an impact on how 77000 people voted. Can we KNOW for sure? Obviously no.

It had zero effect.

You know what had an effect? Clinton's 'deplorables' comment. Clinton passing out at the 9/11 Memorial ON 9/11 and being tossed into the back of a van like a slab of beef. The Access Hollywood tape. Trump's general antics, larger than life persona, and his domination of the media cycle. Clinton fatigue. Decades of decline in the Rust Belt. Democrats celebrating illegal immigrants. SJW items that hit the news. Anxiety along racial, gender, income, and other lines.

THAT had an effect on the electorate. Not some retweet.

But any reasonable person has to look at the detail and scope of the Russian campaign against HRC and think...man they went all in on not getting her elected.

A budget of a couple million dollars and some cheesy facebook ads that no one remembered is going "All in"?

And we both know how EASILY the American electorate is manipulated

Yup. Believing this Russian angle is a prime example.

One? It shows that HRC was up against two campaigns in the 2016 election. A Trump/GOP campaign and a never before seen on American soil campaign led by a foreign advisory (Russia). Amd yet she won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote by 77000 votes. Pretty remarkable if you ask me.

Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. The Russians spent something 2 million dollars in an election in which spending was over $1 billion.

Hillary was the Chicago Bulls up against a Trump's clown car of a squad. Russia was some fan in the stands taunting Clinton as she missed half her free throws and lost by 1 point.

Two. Mueller has guilty pleas from several former Trump campaign staffers and a member of his cabinet. He just spent 20 hours with Steve Bannon. He's about to flip Rick Gates (a very important figure concerning Trumps campaign).

Manafort is charged with stuff unrelated to the campaign. Flynn's plea might get withdrawn and even then, the charge against him has nothing to do with collusion and is incredibly flimsy. Papadapolous lied about meeting a Russian, a meeting that went nowhere.

Sorry, but when you look at the substance of those guilty pleas and what they're charged with, there's nothing there. All you have is the hope that these guys have some mystery inside dirt (which likely would have leaked by now).

Did you forget the key part- 'unwitting'. Pretty hard to prove a criminal case with the word 'unwitting'.

And Mueller just laid the foundation, based in incredible detail, on how the Russians meddled in the election.

It's not incredible detail. In fact, as the VP of facebook ads has pointed out, when you look at the details, things become more complicated.

Mueller will get something besides 3 guilty pleas(maybe 3 with Gates) and 13 indictments on Russians meddling in our democracy.

Yeah this might be in between Clinton and say a Scooter Libby or Ollie North. That's my best guess.

P.s. this indictment insinuates that Russian meddling was well underway before the Trump tower meeting in june of 2016. Bannon is talking. Soon Manafort will and Kushner will if/when he is indicted. Tick tock.

So Trump and Russia colluded to....have some retweets and facebook ads??? THAT was their master plan?

"Okay Russia, I need you to retweet Don Jr. and give him some likes on facebook. That's how we'll take out Clinton!!!!" 

You are very good at turning something into nothing. Reading your responses has me even questioning the legitimacy of this story. It really does. And shit...you could be right. But you could be wrong. And if you are wrong? Then the President of the US conspired with a foreign power to run attack ads on HRC, organized pro trump/anti HRC rallies in "purple" states, and illegally hacked the DNC and weaponized material stolen from the hack. Crimes were committed. I just don't think you are taking this thing that seriously. I mean the indictments yesterday was a moment EVERY American should have said "**** the Russians for meddling in our democratic process". And yet the presidents first response was NO COLLUSION! Does this guy get it? It ain't about you, Trump. Well, the indictments yesterday weren't about you.

HRC lost the election because of many factors as you pointed out. But to say Russian meddling wasnt one of them is silly. "Lock her up!" Who paid for the cage and actor to play HRC in a rally? Hmmmmm

Where have you read that Flynns guilty plea might be rescinded?

Yesterday's indictments didn't involve the hack job on the DNC or Russians breaking into state voter rolls. It was a 3 pronged attack and yet you chose to highlight FB and Twitter as the only source of Russian meddling. Very sly of you. People unfamiliar with this case read your comments and say...hey hes right! Retweeting a meme isn't that big of a deal!

Mr. D. A SPECIAL COUNSEL was formed to look into Russian meddling. Robert Mueller wouldnt have a job if it only concerned Twitter and FB ads. Jesus Christ man. So far out of the 3 pronged attack one of those prongs has yielded charges. And that prong wasnt even the hack job or breaking into voter rolls.

Keep the spin going tho. I appreciate reading the utter ignorant, and yet highly intelligent, responses I get from you. You're good, man. Very good. You could have a career in PR for Mansanto, Lockheed, NRA, or XE if and when you decide to. These waygook posts are evidence of your ability to spin stories in a way that makes the ardent liberal (me) think twice about my opinions. Kudos to you.

You never answered me though. Will you believe any indictment passed down from Robert Mueller? And please...a simple yes or no would be appreciated. Or are you someone like Trump? "The election is rigged!" "If I lose I won't concede to HRC!" Mr. Trump, you won. "Really?! Oh then it wasn't rigged!!!"

But what you seem to acknowledge is the fact that Russian meddling in the election, as so finely detailed by Robert Mueller today, probably had an impact on how 77000 people voted. Can we KNOW for sure? Obviously no.

It had zero effect.

You know what had an effect? Clinton's 'deplorables' comment. Clinton passing out at the 9/11 Memorial ON 9/11 and being tossed into the back of a van like a slab of beef. The Access Hollywood tape. Trump's general antics, larger than life persona, and his domination of the media cycle. Clinton fatigue. Decades of decline in the Rust Belt. Democrats celebrating illegal immigrants. SJW items that hit the news. Anxiety along racial, gender, income, and other lines.

THAT had an effect on the electorate. Not some retweet.

But any reasonable person has to look at the detail and scope of the Russian campaign against HRC and think...man they went all in on not getting her elected.

A budget of a couple million dollars and some cheesy facebook ads that no one remembered is going "All in"?

And we both know how EASILY the American electorate is manipulated

Yup. Believing this Russian angle is a prime example.

One? It shows that HRC was up against two campaigns in the 2016 election. A Trump/GOP campaign and a never before seen on American soil campaign led by a foreign advisory (Russia). Amd yet she won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote by 77000 votes. Pretty remarkable if you ask me.

Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. The Russians spent something 2 million dollars in an election in which spending was over $1 billion.

Hillary was the Chicago Bulls up against a Trump's clown car of a squad. Russia was some fan in the stands taunting Clinton as she missed half her free throws and lost by 1 point.

Two. Mueller has guilty pleas from several former Trump campaign staffers and a member of his cabinet. He just spent 20 hours with Steve Bannon. He's about to flip Rick Gates (a very important figure concerning Trumps campaign).

Manafort is charged with stuff unrelated to the campaign. Flynn's plea might get withdrawn and even then, the charge against him has nothing to do with collusion and is incredibly flimsy. Papadapolous lied about meeting a Russian, a meeting that went nowhere.

Sorry, but when you look at the substance of those guilty pleas and what they're charged with, there's nothing there. All you have is the hope that these guys have some mystery inside dirt (which likely would have leaked by now).

Did you forget the key part- 'unwitting'. Pretty hard to prove a criminal case with the word 'unwitting'.

And Mueller just laid the foundation, based in incredible detail, on how the Russians meddled in the election.

It's not incredible detail. In fact, as the VP of facebook ads has pointed out, when you look at the details, things become more complicated.

Mueller will get something besides 3 guilty pleas(maybe 3 with Gates) and 13 indictments on Russians meddling in our democracy.

Yeah this might be in between Clinton and say a Scooter Libby or Ollie North. That's my best guess.

P.s. this indictment insinuates that Russian meddling was well underway before the Trump tower meeting in june of 2016. Bannon is talking. Soon Manafort will and Kushner will if/when he is indicted. Tick tock.

So Trump and Russia colluded to....have some retweets and facebook ads??? THAT was their master plan?

"Okay Russia, I need you to retweet Don Jr. and give him some likes on facebook. That's how we'll take out Clinton!!!!" 

One day after a federal grand jury indicted more than a dozen Russians in connection with interfering in the 2016 presidential election, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said Saturday, "As you can see with the F.B.I. indictment, the evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain, whereas in the past it was difficult to attribute."

You continue to ignore the many, many facts regarding the russki disinformation campaign and to stick with your own campaign of disinformation. Although you finally admit that racism played a part in getting trump elected.

Dems are winning elections and gaining ground because the public is no longer falling for the big lies(s) perpetuated by repugs and Goebbels-lite trolls such as yourself.

You continue to ignore the many, many facts regarding the russki disinformation campaign and to stick with your own campaign of disinformation. Although you finally admit that racism played a part in getting trump elected.

Hmm, looks like people in the know say that in fact it is the MSM that is running a disinformation campaign.

Rob Goldman, VP of Facebook Ads-

"Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election.  I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal."

“The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.”


Also, I said racial anxiety- that goes on both sides and does not equate to racism.

You're literally suggesting some version of this conversation took place in the Kremlin, keep in mind that everything suggested here is taken as truth by the left-

Scene 1: The plan is formed:
"We're going to sway the election!"
"How?"
"We're going to buy ads on facebook. I don't know about you, but I spend lots of time looking at facebook ads instead of scrolling past to my friend's cat pictures. Not only that, but people will share these stories on the internet. After all, people change their mind all the time when they argue and discuss things on the internet."
"Is that all?"
"No, we're also going to retweet stuff. After all, when people check twitter, they always go to latest tweets and retweet and respond to unverified people with no likes. They totally don't look at what verified users are saying and then yell at each other. Also, twitter is 2nd only to facebook in terms of places where people change their mind and opinions through interacting with each other."

Scene 2: Logistics of the plan
"So how much are we going to spend on all of this?"
"$1 million per month on our operations. The facebook ads will cost $200k"
"How much will Clinton spend on her campaign operations?"
"Over $1 billion during the course of a year."
"So we're going to be outspent 100:1. I trust our ads are going to catch fire"
"Yup. We have this one ad that has broken English. That's persuasive. But wait, here's the biggie: A meme of Trump and Jesus high-fiving each other."
"Dude, that's gold. It will be the next Willie Horton or 'Daisy'"

Scene 3: Trump is chosen
"Okay, so who are we going to back?"
"Donald Trump."
"Excuse me?"
"Now, I know what you're thinking. It's 2014 and we don't even know he's running. But let me tell you, we invested in one of his casinos a few years ago. He'll run if we tell him too and he'll totally win. Out of all the people we could have bribed, we came to the conclusion that Donald Trump had the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton."
"This is Donald Trump, the reality TV star and buffoon?"
"Exactly. Trust me. Now, I know you think he is a narcissist, possibly senile and illiterate, listens to no one, has no discipline, and betrays his friends and partners regularly, but he's totally our guy and we can count on him to both win and follow orders."
"Wow, sounds like a brilliant plan, with no possibility of going wrong. Let's do it!"

Scene 4: The collusion with Trump's underlings
"Okay, so how are we going to do all of this? How are we going to work with them?"
"You know this guy Paul Manafort? He's not Trump's campaign advisor now, but he will be because I can predict the future."
"Okay, makes sense. Will we actually collude with him?"
"No, but we colluded with him in the past through Ukraine, so he can read our minds and knows what he's supposed to do."
"Got it. Who's next?"
"Michael Flynn. Here's the beauty of how we're going to collude with him to defeat Clinton during the election. We're going to wait until after the election and have him speak with our ambassador."
"That's brilliant! Who's next?"
"This guy named Papadapolous. Here's what we'll do' We'll tell him we want to meet with him, then we won't give him anything of substance."
"Oh that's great. That will really help swing the election."
"I've got something even better- Trump's son. Here's how we'll do it. Out of all the people we could send over, we'll get a lawyer who is banned from entering the United States to contact him. She'll promise dirt on Clinton. Here's the kicker- I'm able to see in the future and can tell that the U.S. State Dept. will grant her a special exemption to enter. Now, they normally use this special exemption for serious illness or bereavement, but she'll get it."
"And how will we collude?"
"Oh we won't. The meeting will end with nothing changing hands."
"Brilliant!"


This is pretty much what you'd have to believe took place. People being able to predict the future. Colluding but not actually giving anything. Using go-betweens that are banned from entering the country.

That and somebody suggesting to a general/Putin that they use DONALD TRUMP as the lynchpin in their plan and having the confidence to do so and that they wouldn't get laughed out of the room, their career ruined, or end up Poloniumed.

It had zero effect.

Russians wanted to hurt the USA by sowing discord so they supported identity politics groups like black lives matter.

That ticked off enough people to get more backing for Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-influence-operation-allegedly-ran-like-a-propaganda-startup-1518872400

The IRA had a monthly budget of more than $1.25 million

Who would spend millions on something that had no zero effect?

Fake rumors stated by Russians that gullible American people believe and repeat:

-"Clinton stole the primary from Sanders."

Well, no she didn't. She got more votes. Then Sanders endorsed her over Trump. And campaigned for her. So, complete lie. But very commonly believed for some reason. (The reason is people are idiots).

-"Clinton called black people super predators."

Another lie. Repeated by Trump even. But watch the original video. Nothing was said about race.

A lot of fake news slander out there spread by psychopaths. But sadly it works. Only when the disadvantage to lying exceeds the benefit will it stop. That's why we need to catch and expose liars. (The real ones not the fake ones.)

Liars call honest people liars (to deflect). Bad people call good people bad. Some people believe the con men. And think they are "woke" when really they are the person being conned.

By the way, how would the VP of Facebook Ads (see a conflict of interest there?) know what percentage of Russian ads came before in vs after if the Russians were concealing the original source? Sounds like he was talking out of his @$$. Good chance of it anyways. You think Facebook wants to admit to running ads which influenced the result of the election. They could get in big trouble for that (backlash at the very least). So better to downplay it.

You continue to ignore the many, many facts regarding the russki disinformation campaign and to stick with your own campaign of disinformation. Although you finally admit that racism played a part in getting trump elected.

Hmm, looks like people in the know say that in fact it is the MSM that is running a disinformation campaign.

Rob Goldman, VP of Facebook Ads-

"Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election.  I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal."

“The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.”


Also, I said racial anxiety- that goes on both sides and does not equate to racism.

You're literally suggesting some version of this conversation took place in the Kremlin, keep in mind that everything suggested here is taken as truth by the left-

Scene 1: The plan is formed:
"We're going to sway the election!"
"How?"
"We're going to buy ads on facebook. I don't know about you, but I spend lots of time looking at facebook ads instead of scrolling past to my friend's cat pictures. Not only that, but people will share these stories on the internet. After all, people change their mind all the time when they argue and discuss things on the internet."
"Is that all?"
"No, we're also going to retweet stuff. After all, when people check twitter, they always go to latest tweets and retweet and respond to unverified people with no likes. They totally don't look at what verified users are saying and then yell at each other. Also, twitter is 2nd only to facebook in terms of places where people change their mind and opinions through interacting with each other."

Scene 2: Logistics of the plan
"So how much are we going to spend on all of this?"
"$1 million per month on our operations. The facebook ads will cost $200k"
"How much will Clinton spend on her campaign operations?"
"Over $1 billion during the course of a year."
"So we're going to be outspent 100:1. I trust our ads are going to catch fire"
"Yup. We have this one ad that has broken English. That's persuasive. But wait, here's the biggie: A meme of Trump and Jesus high-fiving each other."
"Dude, that's gold. It will be the next Willie Horton or 'Daisy'"

Scene 3: Trump is chosen
"Okay, so who are we going to back?"
"Donald Trump."
"Excuse me?"
"Now, I know what you're thinking. It's 2014 and we don't even know he's running. But let me tell you, we invested in one of his casinos a few years ago. He'll run if we tell him too and he'll totally win. Out of all the people we could have bribed, we came to the conclusion that Donald Trump had the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton."
"This is Donald Trump, the reality TV star and buffoon?"
"Exactly. Trust me. Now, I know you think he is a narcissist, possibly senile and illiterate, listens to no one, has no discipline, and betrays his friends and partners regularly, but he's totally our guy and we can count on him to both win and follow orders."
"Wow, sounds like a brilliant plan, with no possibility of going wrong. Let's do it!"

Scene 4: The collusion with Trump's underlings
"Okay, so how are we going to do all of this? How are we going to work with them?"
"You know this guy Paul Manafort? He's not Trump's campaign advisor now, but he will be because I can predict the future."
"Okay, makes sense. Will we actually collude with him?"
"No, but we colluded with him in the past through Ukraine, so he can read our minds and knows what he's supposed to do."
"Got it. Who's next?"
"Michael Flynn. Here's the beauty of how we're going to collude with him to defeat Clinton during the election. We're going to wait until after the election and have him speak with our ambassador."
"That's brilliant! Who's next?"
"This guy named Papadapolous. Here's what we'll do' We'll tell him we want to meet with him, then we won't give him anything of substance."
"Oh that's great. That will really help swing the election."
"I've got something even better- Trump's son. Here's how we'll do it. Out of all the people we could send over, we'll get a lawyer who is banned from entering the United States to contact him. She'll promise dirt on Clinton. Here's the kicker- I'm able to see in the future and can tell that the U.S. State Dept. will grant her a special exemption to enter. Now, they normally use this special exemption for serious illness or bereavement, but she'll get it."
"And how will we collude?"
"Oh we won't. The meeting will end with nothing changing hands."
"Brilliant!"


This is pretty much what you'd have to believe took place. People being able to predict the future. Colluding but not actually giving anything. Using go-betweens that are banned from entering the country.

That and somebody suggesting to a general/Putin that they use DONALD TRUMP as the lynchpin in their plan and having the confidence to do so and that they wouldn't get laughed out of the room, their career ruined, or end up Poloniumed.

Read the indictment.

As for Goldman, some context:

Rob Goldman, vice president of ads at Facebook, took to Twitter on Friday to applaud special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation of Russian trolls on social media. He also sought to clarify what he perceived as misconceptions surrounding Russian meddling in the U.S. political process.

"The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst [sic] Americans," he wrote on the social site.

"It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation," he added.

 The fact that it all benefited Trump, was just an added plus for Russia, according to Goldman.

"I think the Russians believed that Trump would be a more divisive leader," he said.

That is something you've disputed from the get-go, that you're disputing in the post quoted. You're wrong.

As for the election: "not the main goal," but a goal nevertheless.

And let's not overlook McMasters's statement that russki interference was incontrovertible.

Troll on, trumpite. Get your fake news from facebook; defend it with facebook.

But first read the indictment. Maybe someone will post it to your facebook feed.

BTW, as you already stated, the racism was all on your side. It's tough to keep all the lies straight, ain't it?

Mr. D

Found out where you got the news that Flynn might withdraw his guilty plea. Washington examiner, WND, national review, and the daily caller.

All of those stink to high heavens of right wing political leaning and some practice fringe conspiracy theories. Come on man. Do better.

Mr. D

Found out where you got the news that Flynn might withdraw his guilty plea. Washington examiner, WND, national review, and the daily caller.

All of those stink to high heavens of right wing political leaning and some practice fringe conspiracy theories. Come on man. Do better.

National Review. Obviously they lean right, though they have a sizable Never Trump contingent.

Conservative media is useful for learning what directions conservatives might go on, hence why their suggestion that Flynn could withdraw his plea deal is potentially important information.

If National Review says Chuck Schumer is doing something, it should be treated very skeptically. If they say Ted Cruz is about to do something, there's a much better chance it could be true, as they have better contacts with Republicans.

You can't just wholesale dismiss EVERYTHING that comes from conservative sites.

Russians wanted to hurt the USA by sowing discord so they supported identity politics groups like black lives matter.

That ticked off enough people to get more backing for Trump.

BLM was a Russian propaganda op?

Who would spend millions on something that had no zero effect?

You do realize how small $10 million dollars is for a government, right?

Our government throws millions of dollars at stuff that has zero effect all the time.

Fake rumors stated by Russians that gullible American people believe and repeat:

No, those rumors were started by Americans. Russian bots simply retweeted them.

By the way, how would the VP of Facebook Ads (see a conflict of interest there?) know what percentage of Russian ads came before in vs after if the Russians were concealing the original source? Sounds like he was talking out of his @$$. Good chance of it anyways. You think Facebook wants to admit to running ads which influenced the result of the election. They could get in big trouble for that (backlash at the very least). So better to downplay it.

Facebook's entire business model is based on the idea that their advertising works. For them to say that those Russian ads had no effect essentially jeopardizes their business model. Thus, facebook is taking a big risk in saying this. Ideally they'd want to say "Russian ads had a MASSIVE EFFECT!" Why? Because that would tell every company out there in the world to advertise on facebook. Duh. You really don't understand business do you?

How is he talking out of his rear? Facebook has all of that ad data and it was THEIR data which was used in the investigations. As VP, of course he'd be privy to that information.

That is something you've disputed from the get-go, that you're disputing in the post quoted. You're wrong.

As for the election: "not the main goal," but a goal nevertheless.

And let's not overlook McMasters's statement that russki interference was incontrovertible.

Troll on, trumpite. Get your fake news from facebook; defend it with facebook.

But first read the indictment. Maybe someone will post it to your facebook feed.

BTW, as you already stated, the racism was all on your side. It's tough to keep all the lies straight, ain't it?

I said racial anxiety. And that was on both sides. Also, I would characterize some of the anti-white male language as racist.

I said that they were ineffective at changing people's votes and had zero effect. I also question how much of an effect they truly had in dividing people. I think we already were divided. I think if you removed Russians, we would be just as divided. What, you think without Russians everyone would turn into pro-Choice, anti-Gun, SJWs? Please.

The only way it's divided us is in this becoming an issue and the left believing that Russian trolls are responsible for everything. It's seriously reached witch hunt mass hysteria/delusion proportions.

That is something you've disputed from the get-go, that you're disputing in the post quoted. You're wrong.

As for the election: "not the main goal," but a goal nevertheless.

And let's not overlook McMasters's statement that russki interference was incontrovertible.

Troll on, trumpite. Get your fake news from facebook; defend it with facebook.

But first read the indictment. Maybe someone will post it to your facebook feed.

BTW, as you already stated, the racism was all on your side. It's tough to keep all the lies straight, ain't it?

I said racial anxiety. And that was on both sides. Also, I would characterize some of the anti-white male language as racist.

I said that they were ineffective at changing people's votes and had zero effect. I also question how much of an effect they truly had in dividing people. I think we already were divided. I think if you removed Russians, we would be just as divided. What, you think without Russians everyone would turn into pro-Choice, anti-Gun, SJWs? Please.

The only way it's divided us is in this becoming an issue and the left believing that Russian trolls are responsible for everything. It's seriously reached witch hunt mass hysteria/delusion proportions.

Your posts indicate a hysterical deluded individual. Meuller's investigation is not a witch hunt. Read the indictment.

Zero effect? Prove it. As for the money, show us the russki accounts substantiating your claims.

Read the indictment.

And the racism is all on your side.

Your posts indicate a hysterical deluded individual. Meuller's investigation is not a witch hunt. Read the indictment.

I didn't say his investigation was. I said that the division and belief that Russian trolls are behind everything that is the witch hunt.

Zero effect? Prove it. As for the money, show us the russki accounts substantiating your claims.

YOU are the one that has to prove their effect. And that effect can only be proven through some sort of multi-variable research experiment. If you don't control for all the other factors, your claim that Russia influenced the election to any significant degree is meaningless. There's a reason Rosenstein said it didn't- It quite simply can't be proven. To do so would ignore all other variables that might have led to the result.

I'll explain using a sports analogy- It's like blaming the outcome of the game on a bad call by the referee, while ignoring how a player went 10-20 from the free throw line, had 10 turnovers, and the other team was lights out from 3pt. land.

Hillary lost because of the fundamentals of the campaign, NOT Russia.

As for the money, show us the russki accounts substantiating your claims.

The indictment says they spent upwards of $1 million a month. That's minuscule compare to what the campaigns and various PACs were spending.

Steelrails will still be in denial when Trump dies in jail.

Your posts indicate a hysterical deluded individual. Meuller's investigation is not a witch hunt. Read the indictment.

I didn't say his investigation was. I said that the division and belief that Russian trolls are behind everything that is the witch hunt.

Zero effect? Prove it. As for the money, show us the russki accounts substantiating your claims.

YOU are the one that has to prove their effect. And that effect can only be proven through some sort of multi-variable research experiment. If you don't control for all the other factors, your claim that Russia influenced the election to any significant degree is meaningless. There's a reason Rosenstein said it didn't- It quite simply can't be proven. To do so would ignore all other variables that might have led to the result.

I'll explain using a sports analogy- It's like blaming the outcome of the game on a bad call by the referee, while ignoring how a player went 10-20 from the free throw line, had 10 turnovers, and the other team was lights out from 3pt. land.

Hillary lost because of the fundamentals of the campaign, NOT Russia.

As for the money, show us the russki accounts substantiating your claims.

The indictment says they spent upwards of $1 million a month. That's minuscule compare to what the campaigns and various PACs were spending.

"Russian trolls are behind everything." Can you attribute this hysterical claim of yours?

Of course you can't.

As for the spending, that is only the amount they know about. Besides, they weren't funding a national campaign. Your comparison and the way you continue to make it is hysterical.

The Mueller indictment permanently demolishes the idea that the scale of the Russian campaign was not significant enough to have any impact on the American public. We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.

The Russian efforts described in the indictment focused on establishing deep, authenticated, long-term identities for individuals and groups within specific communities. This was underlaid by the establishment of servers and VPNs based in the US to mask the location of the individuals involved. US-based email accounts linked to fake or stolen US identity documents (driver licenses, social security numbers, and more) were used to back the online identities. These identities were also used to launder payments through PayPal and cryptocurrency accounts. All of this deception was designed to make it appear that these activities were being carried out by Americans.

Additionally, the indictment mentions that the IRA had a department whose job was gaming algorithms. This is important because information warfare—the term used in the indictment itself—is not about "fake news" and “bots." It is about creating an information environment and a narrative—specific storytelling vehicles used to achieve goals of subversion and activation, amplified and promoted through a variety of means.

Persuasion and influence via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.

So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked. Social media companies don't want us to know, and they obfuscate and drag their feet rather than disclosing information. The analytical tools to quantify the impact don’t readily exist. But we know what we see, and what we heard—and the narratives pushed by the Russian information operation made it to all of our ears and eyes.

The groups and narratives identified in the indictment were integral parts of the frenzied election circus that built momentum, shaped perceptions, and activated a core base of support for now-President Trump—just as they helped disgust and dismay other groups, making them less likely to vote (or to vote for marginal candidates in protest).

In the indictment, Trump campaign officials are referred to as “unwitting” participants in Russian information warfare. This gives the White House an out—and a chance to finally act against what the Kremlin did. But the evidence presented in the indictment makes it increasingly hard to say Russian efforts to influence the American mind were a failure.

Read the indictment.

BTW, Hilary won the popular vote.

As for the spending, that is only the amount they know about. Besides, they weren't funding a national campaign. Your comparison and the way you continue to make it is hysterical.

That is only the amount YOU know about. There's no basis for you to claim unrevealed magical millions from Russia.

They weren't funding a strictly local campaign. You're still talking a drop in the bucket compared to all of the spending. It's not like Hillary was spending tens of millions in Hawaii or Maryland.

Read the indictment.

I have. What brilliant reveal are you looking at?

We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.

Still a drop in the bucket compared to U.S. domestic political advertising.

Planned Parenthood spent more than Russia.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-2016-election_us_57377096e4b060aa781a7f21

Again, you're making a single-variable fallacy. You're assuming that somehow this Russian advertising (On Facebook), somehow OVERWHELMED such things as Hillary collapsing into the back of a van or people just not liking her voice.

We went around and around before the election. Did anyone here run in with "DID YOU SEE THIS AD ON FACEBOOK?!?!?!" No one said that. That's not what influenced people.

Persuasion and influence via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.

So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked.

No one knows. That undercuts your claim that they did influence things.

From your article:
Headline: "Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It's Now Undeniable"
Article: "4. What impact did it have? We’re only at the beginning of having an answer to this question because we’ve only just begun to ask some of the right questions."

Seems to be contradictory.

Not to mention the writer-

Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) is an expert on information warfare and the narrative architect at New Media Frontier. She advised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government from 2009 to 2013 and former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat in 2014-15.

Unbiased source!