Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote:I suppose this goes here.

Leaked footage of Megyn Kelly's Putin interview shows how she dropped the ball.

When Kelly’s show finally aired, she took the mendacious Jones apart in such a textbook manner you had to wonder what all the shouting had been about. The Jones pattern, she said at the segment’s top, is making “reckless accusations followed by equivocations and excuses” when questioned. The two best examples of this are his promotion of the “Pizzagate“ lies about a satanic child porn ring and his wild allegation that Chobani was “importing Migrant Rapists,” as Infowars hyped its report on Twitter. In both cases, lawsuits have forced Jones to retract and apologize for airing these dishonest stories, and yet in conversation with Kelly he still hedges and quibbles like a con artist in an effort to have his conspiracy pizza and keep his yogurt, too. Likewise with the pathetic claims about the Sandy Hook killings. He’s still throwing the see-through drapery of devil’s advocacy to blur the fact that on most subjects he’s talking out of his tinfoil hat.

Short of waterboarding him, I don’t know what more Kelly could have done to expose Jones’ dark methods. She was needlessly defensive in her presentation, acknowledging that some people thought the segment shouldn’t have been broadcast because it would increase Jones’ profile. But as she pointed out, Jones isn’t going away, and his audience is growing. What’s more, Jones “has the ear of our president,” and spurious things Infowars says have a way of getting repeated by his phone-pal President Donald Trump, who has saluted the Infowars host in the past. She didn’t take Jones down, but really, who could have in a newsmagazine segment? But she did do a credible job of exposing his lies. Give her a B+.

Then why all the pre-show uproar? Isn’t the press supposed to throw the disinfectant of light on the darkness? How, exactly, can you examine a newsworthy subject—and like it or not, somebody the president talks to and cites is newsworthy—without giving him some sort of a platform? There’s an unspoken assumption that instead of reporting on the politically deformed—people like Sen. Joe McCarthy, George Lincoln Rockwell, Gov. George Wallace, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Alex Jones, and others—the press should quarantine such figures from readers' and viewers’ eyes lest their contagion spread.

pr0ner wrote:Perhaps people should have actually waited for the segment to air before going bonkers on social media?

Isgrimnur wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Perhaps people should have actually waited for the segment to air before going bonkers on social media?

Have you been on the Internet?

Blackhawk wrote:Very few people seriously suggest that they significantly changed the result.

It is the fact that they a foreign government hostile to our interest successfully tampered on a massive scale that is the problem. That those who benefited most from it are hand-waving it as unimportant is disturbing.

Obama's transformation from starry-eyed idealist to cold-blooded realist is glaringly apparent in his attempt to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office. Unlike the Russian hacker story, which is being fueled by circumstantial evidence, a US Senate inquiry published in June 2016 actually found that the US government supported a group that had tried to unseat Netanyahu in the 2015 Israeli elections, to the tune of nearly $350,000.

‪Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly an autocrat who talks like a democrat. Yet Barack Obama's soaring rhetoric is similarly contradicted by the findings of this report, which harshly criticized the State Department for having failed to prevent funds from being used, albeit legally and indirectly, to influence an allied country’s internal political process.

‪How can one explain the Obama State Department's support of OneVoice, a group of young grassroots activists in Israel and the Palestinian Territories that was openly and actively anti-Likud and anti-Netanyahu?

‪Again, let Occam's razor be our guide. There's no tangible evidence to suggest that the 44th President of the United States is obsessed with weakening Israel and demonizing the Jewish state on the international stage.

‪No, the most probable explanation for funding a politically active group in a politically sensitive environment, with taxpayer dollars, against the leader of the US's closest Middle East ally is that such meddling in the internal affairs of friends and foes alike has worked like gangbusters for Russia.

‪Barack Obama, ever the student of history, took a page from Vladimir Putin's chapter on realpolitik that is quickly turning Russia into an indispensable nation. It turns out that while Obama never tires of signaling his own personal virtue, underneath the radiant smile and winning personality beats the heart of an astute, calculating political operator. The die was cast once Netanyahu accepted House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress and speak out against Obama's signature foreign policy initiative, the Iran nuclear deal.

‪It's interesting to ponder how different the balance of power in the Middle East might be today had Barack Obama channeled his inner Machiavelli at the outset of his presidency, instead of being content to be adored as the nice, compassionate, liberal former lecturer on constitutional law.

pr0ner wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Perhaps people should have actually waited for the segment to air before going bonkers on social media?

Have you been on the Internet?

Nope.

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:

YellowKing wrote:A house divided against itself cannot stand. The Russians understood this and exploited it brilliantly. The sad thing is, nobody's learned. Instead of Russian interference uniting both parties against a common enemy, the GOP went into full "head in the sand" mode.

To paraphrase another common quote: "This is the way America ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Perhaps if one party wasn't using the interference to make the other party appear to be the common enemy. The left was perfectly happy to bury any interference until they unexpectedly lost. Now that is all they want to talk about and even then only if it serves them.

Rip, as soon as the hacking attempts became public if Hillary had won you'd be linking every single voter fraud article out there and screaming how the election was stolen.

It was a win - win for the Russians.

and there would be no Russia investigation.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:There were reports that NBC heavily re-edited the interview last week. I didn't watch the interview either, but some of Kelly's counterpoints came through over-voiced narration rather than to Jones himself during the interview. I wouldn't be surprised if much of that was added at the behest of NBC due to the backlash.

Kurth wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:There were reports that NBC heavily re-edited the interview last week. I didn't watch the interview either, but some of Kelly's counterpoints came through over-voiced narration rather than to Jones himself during the interview. I wouldn't be surprised if much of that was added at the behest of NBC due to the backlash.

That may be the case. The rebuttal she inserts via voice over that "Of course, there is no evidence" supporting the Sandy Hook hoaxers certainly comes to mind. That said, the uproar over her doing the interview was bullshit.

In my mind, it's very similar to the new battle cries denouncing the "both sides-ism" of the New York Times and other media outlets. My understanding of the arguments of those that don't want the media to engage in "both sides-ism" is that they believe journalists are doing a disservice to the public by covering stories/viewpoints that are not worthy of coverage. I sympathize with that to some degree but think it's misguided. It's all well and good to decry "both sides-ism" and wish for the media to stop covering stories unworthy of the public's attention, but I think it's a slippery slope that can lead down a very dangerous path depending on who's making the judgment call about what is and what is not worthy of coverage. I'll take "both sides-ism" over "one side-ism" any day.

The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.
In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.

Captain Caveman wrote:Oh man. Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say

The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.
In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.

I wonder if more instances like these will start to come out.

LordMortis wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Oh man. Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say

The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.
In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.

I wonder if more instances like these will start to come out.

Rip assures me that any evidence of hacking the election other than circumstantial evidence would be found by now, therefore you must stop digging.

Rip wrote:Not new information, just stuff they haven't told you up till now.

Holman wrote:Major reporting from the Washington Post today on the Russian election attack and Obama's response.

It's a long piece and I haven't finished it, but the takeaway seems to be that:

1) the CIA intercepted definite confirmation that the goal was to help Trump win;
2) the Obama administration fought back more aggressively than we knew, but not aggressively enough;
3) top Republicans in Congress actually took steps to hamper Obama's response.

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:

YellowKing wrote:A house divided against itself cannot stand. The Russians understood this and exploited it brilliantly. The sad thing is, nobody's learned. Instead of Russian interference uniting both parties against a common enemy, the GOP went into full "head in the sand" mode.

To paraphrase another common quote: "This is the way America ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Perhaps if one party wasn't using the interference to make the other party appear to be the common enemy. The left was perfectly happy to bury any interference until they unexpectedly lost. Now that is all they want to talk about and even then only if it serves them.

Rip, as soon as the hacking attempts became public if Hillary had won you'd be linking every single voter fraud article out there and screaming how the election was stolen.

It was a win - win for the Russians.

and there would be no Russia investigation.

With GOP majorities in the house and Senate? Dream on Mr BENGHAZI!

There would be even more investigations seeking to undermine a Clinton presidency than there are regarding the Trump administration.

Holman wrote:Trump called Russian hacking a Democratic hoax just earlier this week.

Tonight he admits it happened just so he can hit Obama:

So... is he asking us to blame Obama for him being president?

Holman wrote:Trump called Russian hacking a Democratic hoax just earlier this week.

Tonight he admits it happened just so he can hit Obama:

So... is he asking us to blame Obama for him being president?

In early September, Johnson , Comey and Monaco arrived on Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs for a meeting with 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties.

The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

Appearing on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday morning, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, struck a combative tone, saying: “It's the Obama administration that was responsible for doing absolutely nothing from August to January with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into our election. They did absolutely nothing. They're responsible for this.”

Smoove_B wrote:Yeah, they're really doubling-down on blaming Obama for this.

Appearing on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday morning, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, struck a combative tone, saying: “It's the Obama administration that was responsible for doing absolutely nothing from August to January with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into our election. They did absolutely nothing. They're responsible for this.”

So to be clear, we went from: "This is all fake news" to "There's no proof" to "There's proof but nothing really happened" to "Maybe something happened" to "It's Obama's fault". How the F do you do that?

Kraken wrote:The implication is that Obama didn't want to upset the electorate when it looked like a safe Democratic win. Remember, Putin was more about de-legitimizing Clinton and shaking our faith in the system than about actually electing Trump, so calling out the Russians during campaign season would have only played into his hands.

It is not an entirely specious argument, even if Trump is incapable of articulating it.

Max Peck wrote:

Kraken wrote:The implication is that Obama didn't want to upset the electorate when it looked like a safe Democratic win. Remember, Putin was more about de-legitimizing Clinton and shaking our faith in the system than about actually electing Trump, so calling out the Russians during campaign season would have only played into his hands.

It is not an entirely specious argument, even if Trump is incapable of articulating it.

According to the WaPo reporting, the administration made the case to Congressional leadership to go public in September, but the GOP opposed it (with McConnell presaging Trump's position by casting doubt on the IC's conclusions). Obama's sin was his unwillingness to act unilaterally (which could easily have been spun as a partisan action), not an unwillingness to act at all.

Captain Caveman wrote:
So it was brought up a bunch of times and Clinton tried to make it an issue but the media mostly didn't seem to take the it all that seriously, or at least considered it not as interesting a story to tell as some others.

em2nought wrote:
Obama has always been the reason that Trump is President, I thought everybody knew that. Oh, and also because y'all didn't nominate Sanders like you should have.

POLITICO Magazine reports that the Russian government is hoping to sow the same strains of discontent among U.S. service members and veterans through social media. One of the engagement tactics for Facebook is simple: an attractive woman sends a friend request.

This targeting is looking for one main response: “Friend request accepted.”

The targeted social media users will then get pro-Russia propaganda on their news feeds. Serena Moring, an ex-military contractor, told POLITICO Magazine she noticed U.S. soldiers responding positively to an unverified story of a Russian military service member dying during a fight against ISIS in Syria.

Most of the U.S. troops responded favorably to the story, even though it wasn’t proven to be true. From the story:

“All of the response from the military guys was like, ‘That is awesome. That’s an epic way to die,’” recounted Moring, 39. “It was a very soldier-to-soldier bond that was created through social media.”

Moring said she has become further alarmed as friends of hers in the military, including military intelligence, have become avowed admirers of Putin, and that she now expends considerable effort arguing about Russia on Instagram and Facebook channels geared to military audiences.

Moliere wrote:Russia meddling in our elections? Bomb them!

Film director Rob Reiner and Atlantic senior editor David Frum are teaming up to promote a group that aims to widely share information about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election and its ongoing threat to US institutions.

The Committee to Investigate Russia's website, InvestigateRussia.org, launched on Tuesday and includes a video featuring actor Morgan Freeman.

Reiner and Frum, who are both members of the group's advisory board, told CNN that they felt compelled to act on the news of Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election.

"It occurred to me that, you know, we've heard this cliche our whole lives. When our country is attacked, politics stops at the water's edge. This is the first time that that didn't happen," Reiner told CNN's Alisyn Camerota and John Berman on CNN's "New Day" Tuesday morning.

He continued: "So I started reaching out to people who are patriots and not necessarily my political stripe to say we're all together in this. Our country is attacked. Democracy is on the brink -- if we're going to survive, we need to come together as Americans and understand what happened."

Frum was a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. Reiner is a lifelong liberal who backed Hillary Clinton during both of her failed White House bids and hosted a fundraiser for her at his Los Angeles home in 2015.

Other members on the advisory board include James Clapper, a former Director of National Intelligence; Charlie Sykes, a conservative commentator; Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The federal government on Friday told election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems last year, although in most cases the systems were not breached.

The AP contacted every state election office on Friday. While not all of them responded immediately, those that said they were targeted were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The government did not say who was behind the hacking attempts or provide details about what had been sought. But election officials in three states said Friday the attempts could be linked to Russia.

Smoove_B wrote: And then there's this.