Basically in the most recent set of emails posted to Wikileaks, the Russian news outlet Sputnik (established by a Russian government controlled news agency) found what they thought was a smoking gun. They found an email from Blumenthal to Podesta that they thought was Blumenthal admitting that the Benghazi investigation was legit and the State Department negligent.
Except turns out it wasn't Blumenthal's words, it was a Newsweek journalist's words. It was an article copy/pasted and emailed. The point of the article though was Republicans using Benghazi investigations as political weapons, not an admission of guilt.
When Sputnik realized this they pulled the article (Eichenwald didn't say how long it was up which I think is important).
So just an example of Russian controlled news trying to spread disinformation about the US elections, no big surprise at this point I guess.
Except it gets weirder. At the rally in PA today...
Quote:
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment).
So what, does Trump have people monitoring Russian websites for story ideas? Did Trump researchers (does he even have researchers?) just happen to find this at the exact same time?
Despite everything I still find it hard to believe that the Russian government is actively feeding Trump stuff with Trump's knowledge.
But it's hard to think of an alternate explanation. At best Trump is actively passing on Russian disinformation to the public as truth.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Basically in the most recent set of emails posted to Wikileaks, the Russian news outlet Sputnik (established by a Russian government controlled news agency) found what they thought was a smoking gun. They found an email from Blumenthal to Podesta that they thought was Blumenthal admitting that the Benghazi investigation was legit and the State Department negligent.
Except turns out it wasn't Blumenthal's words, it was a Newsweek journalist's words. It was an article copy/pasted and emailed. The point of the article though was Republicans using Benghazi investigations as political weapons, not an admission of guilt.
When Sputnik realized this they pulled the article (Eichenwald didn't say how long it was up which I think is important).
So just an example of Russian controlled news trying to spread disinformation about the US elections, no big surprise at this point I guess.
Except it gets weirder. At the rally in PA today...
So what, does Trump have people monitoring Russian websites for story ideas? Did Trump researchers (does he even have researchers?) just happen to find this at the exact same time?
Despite everything I still find it hard to believe that the Russian government is actively feeding Trump stuff with Trump's knowledge.
But it's hard to think of an alternate explanation. At best Trump is actively passing on Russian disinformation to the public as truth.
Putin DM'd him.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Meanwhile, earlier in the debate, someone right in this thread criticized her for smiling and looking smug. Scowling isn't appealing, smiling is smug.
Trump, meanwhile, stalked her around the stage like a creepy drunk guy in a dark subway station. But that wasn't a problem.
Hillary has to smile, but not too much. She has to speak up, but not too loudly so as to not seem like she's "shrieking." She has to look presentable, but not too obsessed with her looks. She must speak eloquently and intelligently but not seem condescending. She must prove that she's warm and approachable and grandmotherly, but not appear weak and overly feminine.
Trump has to just not drop the N-word on stage.
The grading for this election is on a curve unlike anything I've ever seen.
Similar to the Biden/Palin debate, their debate was graded on a curve
Both Hillary and Biden are at a situation where they knew they were ahead in the polls and their debate opponent has caused so much self inflicted wounds on themselves that Hillary/Biden just needed to appear like the competent and normal candidate at the debate
In the case with Biden, he really had to walk that fine line to not appear brash or bully like in response to Palin's comments and really had to choose his words carefully. Any sort of "colourful" reactions on Biden could've shifted the focus away from Palin's nutjob-ness to himself and possibly turn the tide of the election. Biden did well and won the debate but Palin "won" too as she didnt cause any trainwrecks like everyone predicted there'd be.
Hillary needed to do the same thing here where she needs to walk that same fine line too and not shift any negative attention towards herself
"Whenever someone takes a big deep breath through their nose they're about to go on the attack," said Brown. "Cops are trained to look for this when people maybe just about to attack physically but guess what -- it's the same when they're attacking with their words."
She said it's a deeply unconscious gesture and points to when Trump did it during the debate.
"It came immediately before a direct attack on Hillary," said Brown.
In most cases, Denver7 found her statement to be true.
So now Trump was heard reciting fake Wikileaks related information at his rally last night, disinformation provided solely by the Russian propaganda site "Sputnik.''
Last edited by Red Ice Player; 10-11-2016 at 02:13 AM.
So now Trump was heard reciting fake Wikleaks related information at his rally last night, disinformation provided solely by the Russian propaganda site "Sputnik.''
Unreal. I really hope they confront him with this at the final debate. It'll be hilarious watching him try to weasel his way out of this one.
Unreal. I really hope they confront him with this at the final debate. It'll be hilarious watching him try to weasel his way out of this one.
He won't care, this is like him getting letters from the NFL, or seeing video of Money being offloaded in Iran, or the dancing MUSLIMS in NYC, on 9/12.
He flat out lies and he flat out doesn't care, because neither do his followers.
I kind of hate seeing CNN do things like that. It seems like a Fox News thing to do. Get a bright, sensible professor on one side, and some crazy lady they must have found yelling nonsense on the street for the other side.
I've always thought of CNN to do a fairly good job at staying centrist and unbiased, and I think that is a good thing. I guess that Trump is such an obvious, wrong choice, that they see it ok to go full on anti-Trump. But I'm just not sure that cheap tricks and mockery are the best way to go about that. It only makes the other side defensive and dig in harder and it's probably not good for the reputation of CNN in the long run.
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Basically in the most recent set of emails posted to Wikileaks, the Russian news outlet Sputnik (established by a Russian government controlled news agency) found what they thought was a smoking gun. They found an email from Blumenthal to Podesta that they thought was Blumenthal admitting that the Benghazi investigation was legit and the State Department negligent.
Except turns out it wasn't Blumenthal's words, it was a Newsweek journalist's words. It was an article copy/pasted and emailed. The point of the article though was Republicans using Benghazi investigations as political weapons, not an admission of guilt.
When Sputnik realized this they pulled the article (Eichenwald didn't say how long it was up which I think is important).
So just an example of Russian controlled news trying to spread disinformation about the US elections, no big surprise at this point I guess.
Except it gets weirder. At the rally in PA today...
So what, does Trump have people monitoring Russian websites for story ideas? Did Trump researchers (does he even have researchers?) just happen to find this at the exact same time?
Despite everything I still find it hard to believe that the Russian government is actively feeding Trump stuff with Trump's knowledge.
But it's hard to think of an alternate explanation. At best Trump is actively passing on Russian disinformation to the public as truth.
Is there a simpler explanation for this. I think we are getting all alt=right conspiracy with this Russia is trying to rig the elections. Isn't the simpler explanation is that a Trump staffer going through the WikiLeaks information made the same mistake as the Russians and attributed it to Blumenthal. Or even intentionally attributed it to Blumenthal because its close enough to the truth.
My problem with the whole Russia is trying to influence the election is that the easiest way to do that seems to be to target the electronic voting machines. So if there is a sophisticated Russian effort to undermine the election I don't think it looks like this.
Isnt the whole Russian conspiracy looking for the most complicated answer to a simple problem.
I kind of hate seeing CNN do things like that. It seems like a Fox News thing to do. Get a bright, sensible professor on one side, and some crazy lady they must have found yelling nonsense on the street for the other side.
I've always thought of CNN to do a fairly good job at staying centrist and unbiased, and I think that is a good thing. I guess that Trump is such an obvious, wrong choice, that they see it ok to go full on anti-Trump. But I'm just not sure that cheap tricks and mockery are the best way to go about that. It only makes the other side defensive and dig in harder and it's probably not good for the reputation of CNN in the long run.
How is she some crazy lady off of the street though? She has more valid credentials politically than the other random law professor they brought in for the Democrat side...
Quote:
During a brief interview with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin, Vicki Sciolaro, chairwoman of the 3rd Congressional District for the Kansas Republican Party
Brooke Baldwin was great, she was making all of the facial expressions and body language of how anyone with any common sense felt listening to that unhinged lunatic.
I think she was thinking, "where in the hell did the producers find this lunatic to put on my show"
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 14m14 minutes ago
Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win - I will teach them!
Republican on republican civil war. Just what everyone who wants a functioning country has been looking for. It is time they purge the nuts from their party.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
