hanimmal
Well-Known Member
It is almost hard to believe that they are not always in the same room.
Hunter-Gazi: Giuliani and Russian propaganda scam to help Trump get re-eelcted.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Is that the going rate these days?
Shit I will need to up the number of dollars that the Russian military 'donated' to the Trump campaign on just Facebook in the 2016 election.
9 billion interactions @24cents a pop, would be about $2.16 billion of 'free' advertising that a foreign nation donated to Trump.
No wonder poor Parscale went nuts. He might have actually thought that his ad campaign for Trump was so epic, and thought he could legitimately recreate 2016. When there is not a chance in hell Trump could spend this much money to trick Americans when there are public disclosure laws in election spending.
This has been such a good lesson for our country on why our founding fathers were so set against foreign nations becoming involved with our elections.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Bill Barr broke Trump trolls ability to claim any credibility with these guys pushing Trump's cons.
Also as they have also proven, unless they sworn in under oath, Trump's talking heads are perfectly willing to lie to the American people.
They are all lying for Trump, why would you continue to be so gullible?
Lastly as you are ignoring, that dude was involved with Hunter Biden in 2017 right? What exactly was Biden going to do for them while not in political office?
Because you said so? What exactly would he be hanging his kid out to dry with? Getting a job in the last couple years of his dad holding office? By working to build a business while he dad was retired from public life?
This is so stupid. But I give you credit for working for that money. It must suck to push this narrative for such a turd like Trump when you know everyone knows how full of shit you are.
Because he was a future candidate.
Anyway, theres lots of lively discussion on the other thread you're trying to have a discussion all on your own about here, you should shill over there because it's starting to look silly here.
Btw crying Russia is literally what got all the latest evidence from Bobulinski to the authorities.
Have a great week buddy!
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Joe Biden was trading on what public office? None, because he was a retired politician that went almost 50 years without cashing in on his political power.
Oh because he was a 'future' candidate. In 2017? After he had retired, 2 years before he got back in to run against Trump.
Yeah I am not buying your false narrative. And you have fun in your troll thread, I have links to it in every post I make so don't worry.
Your trying to troll me is cute though, because you thinking I look 'silly' is not something that even registers with my self worth.
Oh, and your 'evidence' that this is not 'Russia' because some dude that got airtime on Tucker Carlson is not really saying jack shit.
But what is even more telling is that you think that it matters anymore, Guiliani was pushing Russian propaganda for years, flying to talk to Ukrainian puppets of Putin, even getting warned by the American Intel agencies that Giuliani was working with Russian spies.
It doesn't matter is some emails are real, they are completely hackable, and there has been many cases of the Russian military hacking Americans, so it makes sense that they would plant some emails that may very well be real. That doesn't mean that they matter in anyway shape or form, because they don't, they have nothing to do with the Democratic nominee for POTUS outside of his kids name being on them.
Keep trying though. With how little Trump has going for him, it's going to be a long week of selling this turd I am sure.
I have abetter question for you.
How do you think Trump is going to pay back $400 million he owes to foreign nations?
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
Fox News reporter debunks latest conservative effort to smear Biden
Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich combed through all of the texts and emails released by Tony Bobulinski
www.salon.com
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
You have a great week too.
I look forward to a credible source about this story that hasn't completely debunked it btw.
That is cute, here is another of Trump's champions talking about their views of not being under oath:
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
so Trump's DOJ sat on this story since 2017??? LOL.
have you heard more about the Nov 2 deadline to release un-redacted criminal charges from Mueller?? that's what i really want to see.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I forgot all about that, thank you for reminding me of it.
The last one was awesome, all of Trump's lies about not knowing about the Russian militaries attack on our nation and his not coordinating with them was shown to be a lie. I can't wait for the rest of those redactions to be removed.
From the last one:
The Hunter-Ghazi garbage might be from Chinese trolls this time (like Epoch Times) instead of Russia, but these trolls all are reading from the same playbook if it is.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
Can Stone be charged under a legitimate DOJ with any other charges? i know the double jeopardy stuff but did they keep any on the back burner knowing trump would pardon/commute Stone? god i hope so. he's a smug m'fer that needs to be in prison
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I haven't seen any charges about working with foreigners to sway an American election, so I am assuming there are lots of charges out there to be made once a legitimate AG is sworn in.
It looks like nothing has really changed, we won't find out about the charges until after Trump is out of office, or a flood hits him and his cronies and he has to start pardoning everyone if he loses I am guessing.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-new-york-campaign-finance-indictments-campaign-contributions-6af818044ddee85c364dae870950db24
NEW YORK (AP) — A change-of-plea hearing is set for Thursday for a man charged with conspiring with associates of Rudy Giuliani, one of President Donald Trump’s lawyers, to make illegal campaign contributions.
The hearing for David Correia, scheduled to occur by video, was announced in a filing Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.
If it occurs as planned, Correia would become the first conviction among four men charged last year with using straw donors to make illegal contributions to politicians they thought could aid their political and business interests.
William Harrington, an attorney for Correia, declined comment. A spokesperson for prosecutors declined to comment.
In September, an updated indictment charged Correia and co-defendant Lev Parnas with defrauding investors in a business called Fraud Guarantee. A superseding indictment also charged him with additional campaign finance violations.
MORE STORIES:
- – GOP candidate's campaign donations went illegally over limit
- – Ohio files complaint on ex-House speaker's campaign spending
- – Judge: Energy company can continue donations to lawmakers
The indictment said Correia misled investors about the strength of the company and a business model and in some cases used the invested money for personal expenses.
Two other men who have pleaded not guilty in the case, Parnas and Igor Fruman, worked with Giuliani to try to get Ukrainian officials to investigate the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden while Parnas and Fruman allegedly made sizable illegal campaign contributions to U.S. candidates. Giuliani has said he knew nothing about the donations.
The Ukrainian quest was a focus of Trump’s impeachment proceedings earlier this year. The president’s efforts to press Ukraine for an investigation of the Bidens led the House to impeach Trump, though he was acquitted by the Senate.
Correia is an American-born businessman who owns a home with his wife in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Last month, one of his lawyers asked to leave the case and said Correia hadn’t paid him.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
So I was looking around and saw the thing about Trump's tweet saying everything in the Russian investigation should be released. Something I forgot about, but it is funny how stupid Trump is and how stupid he makes everyone look around him.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/10/16/judge-orders-that-trump-be-asked-about-declassification-tweets-in-mueller-info-fight/
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
smart people don't bankrupt a business where the business model is the house always wins.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-media-misinformation-50d958ff5d534179bad07bcf607590cc
CHICAGO (AP) — Long before Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced her as his running mate, Kamala Harris was the target of widespread online misinformation.
Social media posts included racist claims that she was ineligible to serve in the White House or that she was lying about her Black and Indian heritage. Her mother is from India and her father from Jamaica.
Since being named to the presidential ticket, Harris has been at the center of online misinformation campaigns far more often — four times as much — than the white men who campaigned for the same job, according to a report from media intelligence firm Zignal Labs shared exclusively with The Associated Press.
“The narratives related to Kamala Harris zeroed in much more on her personal identity, especially as a woman of color,” said Jennifer Granston, head of insights at Zignal Labs.
The firm identified more than 1 million mentions since June on Twitter of Harris with hashtags or terms associated with misinformation about her. The mentions include fact checks that rebuffed the falsehoods, but those made up only a small portion of that conversation.
Nearly 300,000 of those mentions were about Harris’ eligibility to serve as president, according to Zignal’s findings. The AP identified that false claim circulating online in January 2019, when Harris announced she was running for president.
The untrue assertion got a huge boost again, however, in August when President Donald Trump elevated it from his presidential podium.
Harris’ birth certificate shows she was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, making her eligible to serve as either vice president or president. Social media chatter around Harris’ eligibility declined after being “eclipsed” by fact checks from news organizations that debunked it, Granston added.
There’s been a huge uptick in social media conversation around the vice presidential candidates this year, compared to the 2016 campaign. From July to October, Harris and Republican Vice President Mike Pence have been mentioned almost 48 million times combined on Twitter, compared to only 12 million total mentions of Pence or Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee four years ago.
Misinformation accounted for less than 1% of Twitter talk when Pence and Kaine were running in 2016. The same goes for Pence this year, with most of the misleading claims around him centered on the idea that he supports gay conversion therapy, which Pence has repeatedly denied.
But misinformation around Harris has been more prevalent, making up more than 4% of the conversation on Twitter, Zignal Labs found.
That’s largely been driven by sexist or racist narratives that have swirled online around Harris, who is the first Black and Indian woman running for vice president, said Nina Jankowicz, a disinformation fellow at the nonpartisan Wilson Center.
Some of those social media posts push the idea that Harris, a California senator, used her romantic relationships to advance her career. That narrative gained popularity with hashtags like #HeelsUpHarris, which is used regularly by conservative influencers who have millions of followers. Zignal Labs found nearly 350,000 mentions on Twitter of hashtags or terms related to that narrative.
And Jankowicz has identified dozens of memes circulating on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram that superimpose photos of Harris onto images of sex workers or use sexist slurs to describe her. Her preliminary research shows that during the Oct. 7 vice presidential debate, hashtags using sexual or violent terms for Harris skyrocketed on fringe social media platforms like Parler by 631% and 4chan by 1,078%.
“Time and time again when we see these narratives being used against women in public life, it’s meant to take women who are powerful and respected and knock them down a few pegs,” Jankowicz said.
CHICAGO (AP) — Long before Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced her as his running mate, Kamala Harris was the target of widespread online misinformation.
Social media posts included racist claims that she was ineligible to serve in the White House or that she was lying about her Black and Indian heritage. Her mother is from India and her father from Jamaica.
Since being named to the presidential ticket, Harris has been at the center of online misinformation campaigns far more often — four times as much — than the white men who campaigned for the same job, according to a report from media intelligence firm Zignal Labs shared exclusively with The Associated Press.
“The narratives related to Kamala Harris zeroed in much more on her personal identity, especially as a woman of color,” said Jennifer Granston, head of insights at Zignal Labs.
The firm identified more than 1 million mentions since June on Twitter of Harris with hashtags or terms associated with misinformation about her. The mentions include fact checks that rebuffed the falsehoods, but those made up only a small portion of that conversation.
Nearly 300,000 of those mentions were about Harris’ eligibility to serve as president, according to Zignal’s findings. The AP identified that false claim circulating online in January 2019, when Harris announced she was running for president.
The untrue assertion got a huge boost again, however, in August when President Donald Trump elevated it from his presidential podium.
Harris’ birth certificate shows she was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, making her eligible to serve as either vice president or president. Social media chatter around Harris’ eligibility declined after being “eclipsed” by fact checks from news organizations that debunked it, Granston added.
There’s been a huge uptick in social media conversation around the vice presidential candidates this year, compared to the 2016 campaign. From July to October, Harris and Republican Vice President Mike Pence have been mentioned almost 48 million times combined on Twitter, compared to only 12 million total mentions of Pence or Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee four years ago.
Misinformation accounted for less than 1% of Twitter talk when Pence and Kaine were running in 2016. The same goes for Pence this year, with most of the misleading claims around him centered on the idea that he supports gay conversion therapy, which Pence has repeatedly denied.
But misinformation around Harris has been more prevalent, making up more than 4% of the conversation on Twitter, Zignal Labs found.
That’s largely been driven by sexist or racist narratives that have swirled online around Harris, who is the first Black and Indian woman running for vice president, said Nina Jankowicz, a disinformation fellow at the nonpartisan Wilson Center.
Some of those social media posts push the idea that Harris, a California senator, used her romantic relationships to advance her career. That narrative gained popularity with hashtags like #HeelsUpHarris, which is used regularly by conservative influencers who have millions of followers. Zignal Labs found nearly 350,000 mentions on Twitter of hashtags or terms related to that narrative.
And Jankowicz has identified dozens of memes circulating on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram that superimpose photos of Harris onto images of sex workers or use sexist slurs to describe her. Her preliminary research shows that during the Oct. 7 vice presidential debate, hashtags using sexual or violent terms for Harris skyrocketed on fringe social media platforms like Parler by 631% and 4chan by 1,078%.
“Time and time again when we see these narratives being used against women in public life, it’s meant to take women who are powerful and respected and knock them down a few pegs,” Jankowicz said.
Rurumo
Well-Known Member
The only people who believe these ridiculous ham-fisted stunts coordinated by the Trump Org, Fox News, and the Russian state are the "true believers" who would vote for him anyway. Does anyone with a partially functioning brain think that Tucker Carlson sent a box full of "evidence" that will totally discredit Biden through UPS mere days before the election? Everyone complicit in these cringeworthy attempts to sway public sentiment should be held accountable for their actions.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-intercept-resigns/
Iconoclastic journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday afternoon, signaling an abrupt and acrimonious end to his time at the publication he co-founded in 2014 with journalists Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.
Greenwald, who shared the 2014 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Public Service for his reporting on National Security Agency domestic surveillance that was uncovered by contractor Edward Snowden, said his departure was related to a piece that he planned to write about former vice president Joe Biden.
In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”
The Intercept strongly countered those claims, with Editor in Chief Betsy Reed telling The Washington Post in email that “it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence.”
The Intercept, which is published by nonprofit First Look Media, called it “a preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency.”
“A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims,” the statement continued.
Greenwald said that when the editors refused to let him publish the article elsewhere, he proposed that they “air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would,” he wrote. “But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.”
He made numerous other claims in his lengthy departure note, which the Intercept said it would address in time. “For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair,” the statement reads. “While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s — the Trump campaign’s — dubious claims and launder them as journalism.”
Greenwald has emerged in recent years as a harsh critic of the mainstream media, and has become a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, especially on Tucker Carlson’s nightly show. In particular, Greenwald accused media companies of boarding the “Russiagate train” by hyping up stories about collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russian government actors.
Greenwald said he would publish the Biden piece on his own Substack online platform later on Thursday, and would plan to continue publishing on the channel. He also said he had been “exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet” for months.
“Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice,” he wrote. “I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.”
The Intercept said it had no doubt that Greenwald would “launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon.”
“In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks,” the Intercept statement reads. “We get it. But facts are facts and The Intercept record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.”
Iconoclastic journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday afternoon, signaling an abrupt and acrimonious end to his time at the publication he co-founded in 2014 with journalists Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.
Greenwald, who shared the 2014 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Public Service for his reporting on National Security Agency domestic surveillance that was uncovered by contractor Edward Snowden, said his departure was related to a piece that he planned to write about former vice president Joe Biden.
In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”
The Intercept strongly countered those claims, with Editor in Chief Betsy Reed telling The Washington Post in email that “it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence.”
The Intercept, which is published by nonprofit First Look Media, called it “a preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency.”
“A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims,” the statement continued.
Greenwald said that when the editors refused to let him publish the article elsewhere, he proposed that they “air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would,” he wrote. “But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.”
He made numerous other claims in his lengthy departure note, which the Intercept said it would address in time. “For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair,” the statement reads. “While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s — the Trump campaign’s — dubious claims and launder them as journalism.”
Greenwald has emerged in recent years as a harsh critic of the mainstream media, and has become a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, especially on Tucker Carlson’s nightly show. In particular, Greenwald accused media companies of boarding the “Russiagate train” by hyping up stories about collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russian government actors.
Greenwald said he would publish the Biden piece on his own Substack online platform later on Thursday, and would plan to continue publishing on the channel. He also said he had been “exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet” for months.
“Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice,” he wrote. “I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.”
The Intercept said it had no doubt that Greenwald would “launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon.”
“In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks,” the Intercept statement reads. “We get it. But facts are facts and The Intercept record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.”
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
He must be so frustrated that this "clever scheme" isn't working. It worked last time. Are some Americans getting smarter?