WaPo ‘Gaslighting’ Brought to Light By N.Y.U. Research

FOR SOME REASON, it was okay for Hillary Clinton to accuse Russian bots for her 2016 presidential election loss to the very popular Donald Trump, but not okay for the evermore popular 45th president to blame election fraud for his alleged loss four years later. Aren’t these situations similar? Yes, but there was actually some evidence for the latter, but not the former. Hillary’s loss was documented as very real last month in, of all places, The Washington Post. 

It was barely noticeable, being below below-the-fold, buried in a little blog, The Cybersecurity 202. The research came from an equally ‘woke’ entity, New York University, and its Center for Social Media and Politics. It is entitled “Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior,” and is here.

Recall Hillary had accused Russia of hacking, causing her wrongful loss.They were able to take over Twitter and engineer a campaign so successful against her, they were able to overturn her preordained victory on election day. Why they would want to do that was never really explained beyond some nonsense about being afraid of her, but not Trump. Not only did Hillary foment the Big Lie after her loss, mainstream media advanced the narrative, and the Deep State began a so-far futile quest to march her victorious opponent to the gulags, sans evidence, due process, trial, or meaningful opportunity for any defense. 

N.Y.U. research used longitudinal survey data from U.S.respondents linked to their Twitter feeds. It then quantified the relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and attitudes and voting behavior in the 2016 election. It concluded, “[F]irst, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.” In other words, de minimus.

It appears the new research has been viewed by as many few eyes as the bots were.

Forget About Russia. Black Lives Matter Doesn’t Need Help in Interfering in Our Elections.

Even back in 2015, there was speculation that George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (O.S.F.) funded Black Lives Matter (B.L.M.). B.L.M. just never seemed like an organic grass roots movement. The director of the U.S. programs at O.S.F., Ken Zimmerman, vehemently denied it at the time, though. But by 2016, documents were published online that showed the O.S.F. board approved $650,000 for B.L.M. two months earlier.

Celebrity Cyber-Sleuthery in the Age of Neo-McCarthyism — Part Two

In Part One, we looked at an example of evidence being produced that the Russians hacked our election/political system, concluding that, while they probably did, we may never know to a legal certainty.

In Part Two, I examine what can — and, more importantly, what cannot — be deduced from publicly available information and how that informs what our national response should be.

Mountains & Molehills & Mueller, Oh My!

The New York Times attempted to fill in some of the interstitial blanks in the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative in a fairly detailed article, “Tracing Guccifer 2.0’s Many Tentacles in the 2016 Election.”

It’s an interesting read.
________
According to the NYT, in the midsummer of 2016, WikiLeaks solicited purloined DNC files from putative Romanian hacker, Guccifer 2.0 who “many experts” suspected was an avatar for an elite military cyber-unit in Moscow.

WikiLeaks urged Guccifer 2.0’s prompt response before the upcoming DNC convention, noting a WikiLeaks publication would have the most impact. Implicit in the article was the singular goal of dividing Hillary and Bernie supporters.

The NYT concedes “intercepts” show the leaks had to have come from American, British, or Dutch intelligence sources (not Russian). All three eventually “got into the Russian networks,” but the Brits were the ones who originally warned the NSA they were seeing the DNC’s communications on lines “controlled” by Russian military intelligence, the GRU.

When Robert S. Mueller III issued indictments against 12 Russian officials immediately prior to President Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the article suggests, he presented good evidence of their conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. The Russians apparently “made contact with Americans who held sway both in Republican circles and with Mr. Trump.” What is noticeably absent in these specific indictments, however, is evidence that Trump, his campaign, or administration knew that Guccifer 2.0 was “a creation of Russian spies.”

Indeed, Roger J. Stone, Jr. who exchanged messages with Guccifer 2.0 has stated he thought he was communicating with a Romanian hacker because that’s what he purported to be.

Interestingly, the indictment mentions a lobbyist as well as a unnamed congressional candidate who sought the leaked materials. Lee Stranahan, currently a co-host on Russian Sputnik radio, but at the time at Breitbart News, allegedly conferred with Guccifer 2.0 on the timing of a planned leak.

The GRU, the NYT points out, has a history of hacking emails from the State Department, the White House, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They quote a Russian “specialist” who claimed no one would need forensic data or any real insight to know Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian machination.

The DNC knew of the breach, but did nothing to contain it. The worst of the hack apparently occurred after they knew of the original breach. Among items obtained were opposition research and vulnerabilities of Democrat candidates. Materials were sent out in Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico, and North Carolina.

Guccifer 2.0’s Twitter account sent out a generic Florida voter turnout model to someone the indictment referred to as “a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump,” apparently informal advisor Roger Stone, in September 2016. Guccifer 2.0 then retweeted a Roger Stone article entitled “How the Election Can Be Rigged Against Donald Trump” in March 2017.

Stone has since claimed he concluded that the DNC had not been hacked at all, but rather, that the material was stolen by an insider.

It’s all very interesting, but difficult to see where’s the beef. That Russians spy is a statement of obvious fact. That Americans need to safeguard their classified secrets is, too.

That candidates of both parties seek out opposition research shouldn’t surprise us. That other countries have an interest in our elections shouldn’t, either.

That those governments have a preference among our candidates and may try to influence voters accordingly should be expected. That our own government would try to overturn our election results, however, should not be expected nor tolerated.

Rebuilding Carpenter, Gorsuch-Style

 

Among the anxiously awaited decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States this term was Carpenter v. United States. Although it was a narrow ruling, it was a small victory of sorts for privacy advocates.

Did the FBI “Collude” With Russia?

Image: Pixabay

It’s absurd on the face of it, but while we’re on the warpath with Russia, we may as well get some answers as to why the FBI, in its infinite wisdom, failed to notify many victims targeted by Russian cyberattacks.

Sexual Harassment = Big Bucks in Washington, D.C.

 

Image: Pixabay

After the disclosure of a secret slush fund to pay off victims of alleged sexual abuse by members of Congress in settlements, should anyone be surprised at how much big money there is in big abuse in Washington, D.C.?

The old grey lady herself,  The New York Times, reported in living black and white on the despicable act of attorney Lisa Bloom the week before the presidential election, though the story surfaced much earlier in Politico.

If She Didn’t Know, Hillary Clinton Was Once Again “Extremely Careless” or at Least, Incompetent.

Image: Pixabay

Donna Brazile is on a book tour and has a lot to say about Hillary Clinton and the campaign she ran.

So Barack, Hillary, and Debbie Are “Hacks.” Who Knew?

“Three titanic egos – Barack, Hillary, and Debbie – had stripped the party to a shell for their own purposes.”

Donna Brazile, from her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.

Who Enforces the Law With Law Enforcement?

 

 

 

In light of a recent revelation that the FBI had offered to continue to pay for opposition research which had been initiated by the Clinton campaign/DNC against Donald Trump at a critical juncture in the presidential election, one has to wonder who’s really tasked to ensure federal law enforcement, to wit, the FBI, complies with its own directives and the law of the land.

Because this is an FBI obviously out of control.