DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

 

Read the Guardian link above to get the basic idea of what happened. (And watch the linked interview with one of the whistleblowers for more context.) Then watch the Channel 4 undercover video below to see how truly awful and wide-ranging this is.

 

 

The quick summary of the CA undercover video is basically the CEO and other officials describing how they use the data to target adds, they then talk about how they could dig up dirt on a candidat's opponent, possibly entrapping him. They've used beautiful women before to get in bed with a candidate. Or they could use a wealthy business man who would make the opposition candidate an offer he couldn't refuse, essentially blackmailing the opposition. They brag about their influence in Zimbabwe and how they are moving into Brazil.

Edited March 20, 2018 by ZRod

[Moiraine]

TLDR: They used Facebook data illegally - including personal stuff. FB found out and didn't do much about it. They told them to delete it and didn't pursue further.

 

That's the gist I got from the interview of the data analyst.

 

They paired this data with voter registration that's publicly available.

 

Essentially they built model(s) using FB data (illegally) as the predictor variables and publicly available voting info as the response.

 

So they could find out that 70% of people who like Fruit of the Loom products vote Democrat - then built an ad targetting other Fruit of the Loom lovers with a Republican burning Fruit of the Loom undies. Stuff like that. I made that up.

 

 

I'll say it again - people have the power of their vote, but psychological tools work on people.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Moiraine

[schriznoeder]

9 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The quick summary of the CA undercover video is basically the CEO and other officials describing how they use the data to target adds, they then talk about how they could dig up dirt on a candidates opponent, possibly entrapping him. They've used beautiful women before to get in bed with a candidate. Or they could use a wealthy business man who would make the opposition candidate an offer he couldn't refuse, essentially blackmailing the opposition.

 

And the followup footage is airing at some point today. Get your popcorn ready... 

 

 

[schriznoeder]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

TLDR: They used Facebook data illegally - including personal stuff. FB found out and didn't do much about it. They told them to delete it and didn't pursue further.

 

That's the gist I got from the interview of the data analyst.

 

They paired this data with voter registration that's publicly available.

 

Essentially they built model(s) using FB data (illegally) as the predictor variables and publicly available voting info as the response.

 

That's probably why Facebook execs were on Cambridge Analytica's doorstep last night.

 

 

[TGHusker]

4 hours ago, ZRod said:

The quick summary of the CA undercover video is basically the CEO and other officials describing how they use the data to target adds, they then talk about how they could dig up dirt on a candidat's opponent, possibly entrapping him. They've used beautiful women before to get in bed with a candidate. Or they could use a wealthy business man who would make the opposition candidate an offer he couldn't refuse, essentially blackmailing the opposition. They brag about their influence in Zimbabwe and how they are moving into Brazil.

The bold:  Maybe there is something to the Russian golden showers after all

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The bold:  Maybe there is something to the Russian golden showers after all

 

 

Nothing I've learned has led me to believe that part is made up. That doesn't mean I'm close to believing it's true either, but Trump hates Obama and he's an idiot. It would be in his nature to have people pee on Obama's bed.

 

Another thought - the story is ridiculous. If they were going to make s#!t up would they make up something that ridiculous?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Moiraine

[TGHusker]

Good article summing up why this could end up worse than Watergate.  I already think it is worse the WG because of who was involved.

Wt WG we had a simple crime - burglary.  With is bad but it was an isolated event- one office.  It was made much worse by the coverup - thus we follow that road to the resignation of a president. This article points out that the republicans back then along wt the dems were serious about impeachment.  Not so much now.

With Russia gate  we don't have simple burglary happening.  We have an attempted system wide hijacking of our voting system- an attack on the core of democracy. We have a foreign govt involved in this crime, coming to the aid of one candidate and spreading propaganda through various sources including facebook with the help of well placed agents (trumps campaign people among them).  We probably will see obstruction charges, money laundry charges and more coming from the investigation.

But on top of that - Trump will fight at every opportunity both legally and in the media. At least Nixon had to sense to know that the game was over and he resigned - in doing so he spared the country of a lot of emotional turmoil.   Trump has no such loyalties to the country - his only loyalty is to himself.  If he has to drag the country and his family through hell to keep his false image in tack, he will do so.   If this happens, then I will blame the repubs for not doing the needful. 

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-this-is-going-to-be-worse-than-watergate

Quote

 

Something changed last weekend, did it not?

The firing of Andrew McCabe. The statement by Trump lawyer John Dowd to The Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff that Robert Mueller should end his probe soon. Donald Trump’s tweetstorm just after that, his first tweets mentioning Mueller by name along with promises by aides that more attacks are on the way. The amped-up speculation that Trump will fire Jeff Sessions and replace him with someone who hasn’t recused himself so that someone can fire Mueller.

 

Quote

 

Where are we headed? If Trump fires Sessions and brings in whomever, and that person does fire Mueller, we will be in the midst of a major constitutional crisis. The standard line is “the worst since Watergate.” But this one is looking like it could be far worse than Watergate. Why?

Because in 1973, we had a Republican Party with some independent-minded lawmakers in it. Here is The New York Times article covering the Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973. The third paragraph states: “Senior members of both parties in the House of Representatives were reported to be seriously discussing impeachment of the president because of his refusal to obey an order by the United States Court of Appeals that he turn over to the courts tape recordings of conversations about the Watergate case, and because of Mr. Nixon’s dismissal of Mr. [Archibald] Cox.”

 

 

Quote

Take note: seriously discussing impeachment.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by TGHusker

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Good article summing up why this could end up worse than Watergate.  I already think it is worse the WG because of who was involved.

Wt WG we had a simple crime - burglary.  With is bad but it was an isolated event- one office.  It was made much worse by the coverup - thus we follow that road to the resignation of a president. This article points out that the republicans back then along wt the dems were serious about impeachment.  Not so much now.

With Russia gate  we don't have simple burglary happening.  We have an attempted system wide hijacking of our voting system- an attack on the core of democracy. We have a foreign govt involved in this crime, coming to the aid of one candidate and spreading propaganda through various sources including facebook with the help of well placed agents (trumps campaign people among them).  We probably will see obstruction charges, money laundry charges and more coming from the investigation.

But on top of that - Trump will fight at every opportunity both legally and in the media. At least Nixon had to sense to know that the game was over and he resigned - in doing so he spared the country of a lot of emotional turmoil.   Trump has no such loyalties to the country - his only loyalty is to himself.  If he has to drag the country and his family through hell to keep his false image in tack, he will do so.   If this happens, then I will blame the repubs for not doing the needful. 

 

 

I agree with this.

 

With Nixon, the corruption was pretty much isolated within a few people and a single crime....that exposed really the attitude within his administration.  

 

Now, we have potentially a wholesale corruption of our election system and an administration that obviously is perfectly fine with it....and will do whatever it can to not allow it to be found.

[Danny Bateman]

Republicans will look the other way because it means staying in power and accomplishing their policies. And rich people are fine with not enforcing rules on other rich people if it means rich people stay rich.

 

Kind of entrenched sources of power vs. everyone else. 

I'm ready to do my part this year. We need to do something about the Republicans running the show. From there, we can begin actually enforcing some type of rules for the wealthy people think they're above them.

[TGHusker]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I agree with this.

 

With Nixon, the corruption was pretty much isolated within a few people and a single crime....that exposed really the attitude within his administration.  

 

Now, we have potentially a wholesale corruption of our election system and an administration that obviously is perfectly fine with it....and will do whatever it can to not allow it to be found.

Yep - you got the right.  And we also have a political culture that will allow Trump to get by with it also at this time.  Back in Nixon's time, there was enough anti-establishment sentiment and distrust of top govt officials due to Vietnam to not allow a politician to get by with what he did and the congress as a whole was aware of this.  Today, we got everything from alt right, religions right to nationalist and some just plain republicans who will just 'stand by their man' because he talks the talk & he agrees with their agenda.  They are willing to enable him in spite of its damage to our national character. 

 

Let me add - for this reason alone, it may well be worth voting Dem this midterms - even if it doesn't agree with your overall policy strategy.  We can overcome temporary strategy errors but it takes a long time to overcome system wide ingrained corruption and that is what we will have wt 8 years of trump and 8 years of this same type of republican majority.

Edited March 20, 2018 by TGHusker
last paragraph

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Yep - you got the right.  And we also have a political culture that will allow Trump to get by with it also at this time.  Back in Nixon's time, there was enough anti-establishment sentiment and distrust of top govt officials due to Vietnam to not allow a politician to get by with what he did and the congress as a whole was aware of this.  Today, we got everything from alt right, religions right to nationalist and some just plain republicans who will just 'stand by their man' because he talks the talk & he agrees with their agenda.  They are willing to enable him in spite of its damage to our national character. 

 

Let me add - for this reason alone, it may well be worth voting Dem this midterms - even if it doesn't agree with your overall policy strategy.  We can overcome temporary strategy errors but it takes a long time to overcome system wide ingrained corruption and that is what we will have wt 8 years of trump and 8 years of this same type of republican majority.

 

Living n western Nebraska, it’s not going to mean squat. But, I plan on voting Democrat when I can to send a message....as small as it might be. 

[funhusker]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Living n western Nebraska, it’s not going to mean squat. But, I plan on voting Democrat when I can to send a message....as small as it might be. 

Maybe not as hopeless as you think.

 

I was at a funeral this past October in Kearney, and shared a table at the lunch with several western NE ranchers.  We no more than had the napkins on our laps before they started talking about what a dope Trump and his administration has become.  Granted, this was a small group; but not a group that I would expect to share my beliefs.  (Actually on second thought I would expect them to share my thoughts on Trump because they are thoughtful, intelligent, and kind people. Political party shouldn't matter as far as this sh%tshow is concerned.)

 

 

edit: before I get blasted, I'm aware Kearney isn't "western" NE; that was where the funeral was.  These were Cherry county boys.)

Edited March 20, 2018 by funhusker

[Moiraine]

13 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I'm aware Kearney isn't "western" NE

 

 

It's western NE. It all kinda blends together out there. Valentine, Kearney, Alliance, Colorado, same difference.

 

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It's western NE. It all kinda blends together out there. Valentine, Kearney, Alliance, Colorado, same difference.

 

Ummmm......no

[Moiraine]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummmm......no