US has Interfered in More Elections Than Any Other Nation

DHARNA NOOR: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Dharna Noor, joining you from Baltimore. And welcome to this edition of, "The Ford Report".

This Monday, the House Intelligence Committee held it's hearing on the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. In the opening remarks to this much-awaited hearing, the Democratic Congressman from California, Adam Schiff, set the tone; establishing the case for why Russia is America's adversary, and how they're interfering in American democracy, and democracies across the world. He laid out the case for Russian interference in the election. Let's hear a bit of that.

ADAM SCHIFF: Last summer, at the height of a bitterly contested, and hugely controversial presidential campaign, a foreign adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy, and to influence the outcome for one candidate, and against the other.

That foreign adversary was, of course, Russia; and it acted through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler, Vladimir Putin. In order to help Donald J. Trump become the 45th President of the United States.

The Russian active measures campaign, may have begun as early as 2015, when Russian intelligence services launched a series of spear-phishing attacks designed to penetrate the computers of a broad array of Washington-based Democratic, and Republican Party organizations, think tanks and other entities. This continued at least through the winter of 2016.

While at first the hacking may have been intended solely for the collection of foreign intelligence, in mid-2016 the Russians weaponized the stolen data; and used platforms established by the intel services, such as DC Leaks, and existing third-party channels, like WikiLeaks, to dump the documents.

DHARNA NOOR: With us to discuss all this is Glen Ford. Glen is joining us from Plainfield, New Jersey. He's the co-founder, and Executive Editor, of the Black Agenda Report. And he's also the author of the book, "The Big Lie: An Analysis of the U.S. Media Coverage of the Grenada Invasion."

He's also a regular contributor to The Real News Network. Thank you so much for joining me, Glen.

GLEN FORD: Thanks for having me.

DHARNA NOOR: Glen, can we get your response to that clip from Adam Schiff?

GLEN FORD: Well, my response is that there's no proof of any of that. And even the statement that came from the U.S. intelligence agencies, basically in intel-speak, amounted to saying that -- well, that's a plausible theory, it hangs together -- but there is no proof.

So this, what Mr. Schiff is spouting off, is propaganda, a fantasy that has no basis in provable fact. And if we're going to have hearings that are based on fantasies, I don't know which committee really ought to be holding these hearings. Do we have a committee on fantasy?

DHARNA NOOR: Let's take another look at what Adam Schiff continues to say.

ADAM SCHIFF: Ours is not the first democracy to be attacked by the Russians in this way. Russian intelligence has been similarly interfering in the internal and political affairs of our European, and other allies, for decades. What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious, and risky, action against the most powerful nation on Earth.

That ought to be a warning to us. That if we thought that the Russians would not dare to so blatantly interfere in our affairs, we were wrong. And if we do not do our very best to understand how the Russians accomplished this unprecedented attack on our democracy, and what we need to do to protect ourselves in the future, we will only have ourselves to blame.

The stakes are nothing less than the future of our democracy, and liberal democracy, because we're engaged in a new war of ideas. Not communism versus capitalism, but authoritarianism versus democracy, and representative government.

DHARNA NOOR: What's your response to this? Are these so-called interferences unprecedented? And what do you make of his accusation that Russia is working against democracy with its support for authoritarianism?

GLEN FORD: Well, they're not just unprecedented, they're non-existent, at least as far as the evidence goes. But there is a great precedent in the world for interfering in other people's governments, and other people's right to order their own internal affairs as they see fit. And the biggest example of that interference -- the great interferer -- is the United States of America.

Nobody holds a candle to the United States, when it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Nobody even comes close. And we only get a sense of the scope, and sheer size, and the unique character of U.S. interference in the rest of the world, by taking in the totality of history, and the whole wide range of meddling in other people's rights to self-determination that the United States is guilty of.

The U.S. has absolutely no respect for anybody else's right to self-determination, except its own. It overthrows governments. It overthrew most of the governments of Latin America, and still threatens to do so. It has participated in the overthrow of emerging governments in Africa, and now, basically is an occupier of Africa, through its Africom.

It annexes whole countries, and that begins with the beginnings of the United States, the annexing of all the original people, the original nations of the United States into the United States. And goes on to include, oh, about half or more of Mexico, and all of Puerto Rico and the Philippines. And they damned near took Cuba several times, including at the turn of the 20th Century.

The United States blackmails and coerces nations to form governments that will go along with the United States' wishes. And they use the threat of force to do that. They fund political parties all over the world. They do that covertly, and they do that overtly. And they do it to people, to governments, that are supposed to be their friends.

Most notably, right after World War II, they subverted and tried to guide the course of politics in France and Italy, when communist parties were very strong in those countries. It arms opposition groups -- that is, wages proxy wars. And it's been doing that in the Muslim world for some time, going on 40 years now. Starting with Afghanistan, and most recently with Libya, and with Syria, and with the cumulative loss of millions and millions of lives.

It imposes sanctions at the drop of a hat on countries all over the world. And sanctions are, and are meant to be, interference in the internal affairs of other countries. And it wages ceaseless propaganda wars for the purposes of regime change. And in this regard, it's certainly not just the U.S. government; the U.S. corporate media is not a junior partner, a full partner in these propaganda wars.

And they start off when you hear a government being referred to as a, "regime," rather than a government. That's when you know that the crosshairs are on that government's neck.

DHARNA NOOR: Yeah, the hypocrisy here is kind of dumbfounding. But even, supposing that Russia did interfere with the election, how does that interference compare with say, the interference of the DNC, in the Democratic Primary in 2016?

GLEN FORD: Well, you know, that is an internal U.S. affair, one that Americans should be righteously upset about, instead of being upset at the Russians. And the Russians certainly don't have the capability to create the kind of corruption that WikiLeaks revealed inside the Democratic Party. Where are the Russian operatives creating the corruption itself?

And I think, if we're going to make comparisons, the real comparison is between what the United States does in Russia, and what Russia does here. In terms of what Russia is alleged to have done during the past election, there is no proof of it whatsoever. But the United States has spread money around, offered scholarships, distributed computers -- blatantly interfered in elections in Russia, in 1996, in order to prop up the drunken U.S. stooge Yeltsin, and in two elections, in which Vladimir Putin was involved in the 21st century, in Russia.

Are there any Russians roaming around New York City, or Washington D.C., with millions of dollars, and with all kinds of computers and other incentives for dissident groups in the United States? I'm a dissident, and most of my friends are dissidents, so if there were such incentives being offered by Russians, I think I'd know about it.

They don't exist, and yet, they certainly have existed in abundance -- that is, U.S. monetary incentives for dissidents in Russia.

DHARNA NOOR: And what the Russians are actually being accused of is leaking some official Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. So, why is it that so little is being made of the actual content of the leaked emails in this hearing?

GLEN FORD: It's a great diversion, and you know, Americans are super nationalist people. You know if you just watched American television, and you superimposed the words, German over American, you'd be scared of the United States, and its super nationalism.

And so, Americans can be quickly diverted in their attentions, by pointing out a foreign threat, even if it doesn't exist. It used to be that the Democrats were the least hawkish of the two duopoly parties. But now surveys show that when it comes to the Russians, a majority of Democrats now are treating the Russians as some kind of existential threat. While only a minority of Republicans feel that way.

So, this propaganda coming from the Democratic Party, related of course to the election, has been quite effective.

DHARNA NOOR: Before you go, Glen, I'd like to have us listen to another clip from the hearing. This is from André Carson, a Representative from Indiana.

ANDRÉ CARSON: There's a lot at stake here for Russia. This is big money, big strategic implications. If they can legitimate their annexation of Crimea, what's next? Are we looking at a new Iron Curtain descending across Eastern Europe? You know, most in our country recognize what is at stake in how the United States, as the leader of the free world, is the only check on Russian expansion.

DHARNA NOOR: So, he says, "Are we looking at a new Iron Curtain descending across Eastern Europe?" Speaking of Crimea. What's your response to this, Glen?

GLEN FORD: The Iron Curtain has been erected within the American bubble. It's only visible to Americans. It only reflects the internal developments in American politics. It does not really exist in the real world.

You know, back in 2015, when the Russians intervened in Syria, and did the world a favor by tipping the scales against the American-financed, and trained and armed jihadists, Vladimir Putin was still referring to the United States as, "our partners."

If there is one thing about the current government in Russia that should be obvious, it's that it tries to create less tensions, and open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility, and imperial attitude of the United States. This Iron Curtain has been erected by U.S. administration.

DHARNA NOOR: Glen Ford, Executive Editor of the Black Agenda Report. Thank you so much for joining us again today.

GLEN FORD: Thanks for having me.

DHARNA NOOR: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>

 

"Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand your history." -Arturo Alfonso "Arthur" Schomburg

 

"For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage".

--Dr. John Henrik Clarke

 

"The surest way to kill a race is to kill its religion and ideals. Can anybody doubt that the white race deliberately attempted to do that? This is to kill the souls of a people. And when the spirit is killed, what remains?"

--Frederick Peso, Mascalero Apache

 

"Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie of the rule - it merely substantiates it."

--Steve Biko

Original Post

Powerful nations are always corrupt. It's a  human species problem. Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naive.  For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news)  which idiots ate up + +. Russia is  a criminal-run  state.  Their Mafia is everywhere. The US does it more artfully.  Basically no one who's left Russia wants to go back.

DennisKalita posted:

Powerful nations are always corrupt. It's a  human species problem. Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naive.  For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news)  which idiots ate up + +. Russia is  a criminal-run  state.  Their Mafia is everywhere. The US does it more artfully.  Basically no one who's left Russia wants to go back.

 

"Powerful nations are always corrupt". Yeah, however that is waxing in the abstract as it give the appearance of absolving amerikkka, of doing that what you have accused (with no evidence thus far), Russia of doing.

Naïve? To the contrary. I have reached spoken with Ford on several occasions and have yet to see where he was not ever been able to back up his claims with data that I could not investigate. That speaks to credibility.

Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election? I have a feeling that so many are being persuaded by the repetitious accusations that has been played out by the corporate backed media who are mad because trump won due to a strategy that backfired.  Anyway, if you think that Ford is (wrong) "naïve", this presupposes that you (or your sources) are not naïve (right). I want to be as accurately informed as possible, so what data are you looking at? Your sources. Or are your assertions the substance of intuition?

 "The US does it more artfully"  You are referring the u.s. legacy of criminality?

Russia kills with a gun shot to the heart; America kills by slipping poison in your drink that puts you to sleep by slowing your heart and breathing rate until your heart stops and you die. Yeah, quite the exception.

Raptor posted:
DennisKalita posted:

Powerful nations are always corrupt. It's a  human species problem. Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naive.  For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news)  which idiots ate up + +. Russia is  a criminal-run  state.  Their Mafia is everywhere. The US does it more artfully.  Basically no one who's left Russia wants to go back.

 

"Powerful nations are always corrupt". Yeah, however that is waxing in the abstract as it give the appearance of absolving amerikkka, of doing that what you have accused (with no evidence thus far), Russia of doing.

Naïve? To the contrary. I have reached spoken with Ford on several occasions and have yet to see where he was not ever been able to back up his claims with data that I could not investigate. That speaks to credibility.

Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election? I have a feeling that so many are being persuaded by the repetitious accusations that has been played out by the corporate backed media who are mad because trump won due to a strategy that backfired.  Anyway, if you think that Ford is (wrong) "naïve", this presupposes that you (or your sources) are not naïve (right). I want to be as accurately informed as possible, so what data are you looking at? Your sources. Or are your assertions the substance of intuition?

 "The US does it more artfully"  You are referring the u.s. legacy of criminality?

Russia kills with a gun shot to the heart; America kills by slipping poison in your drink that puts you to sleep by slowing your heart and breathing rate until your heart stops and you die. Yeah, quite the exception.

Cracking me up. Alright, if you want to share Ford’s data, feel free to provide your missing evidence. Where is your data? Is it the same as Trump’s? You, as chief investigator, have failed to present that! Look, tell you the truth, this Mr. Data approach will likely not go anywhere. The old routine of recounting  US'  many sins  does not magically excuse Putin.  Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not. No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer  games. Maybe you need data to tell things apart. So be it. Everything doesn’t look all the same to everyone. Clinton, and certainly Bernie Sanders, are miles and miles apart from Trump. Data is not always academically required in order to know things. Russia  and the US are not remotely the same either. No time to write a paper on all that.  Before the election, you similarly asked me to cite my evidence as to why Trump was far worse than Hillary. I did not provide  charts, stats and diagrams but hope that  the evidence of that is obvious as hell by this time.  That is not an abstraction. Still waiting for evidence on that catastrophe too or is it clear enough by now?  That's what we're dealing with. If anything, Putin helped give us Trump. Not so good.  

f

DennisKalita posted:
Raptor posted:
DennisKalita posted:

Powerful nations are always corrupt. It's a  human species problem. Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naive.  For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news)  which idiots ate up + +. Russia is  a criminal-run  state.  Their Mafia is everywhere. The US does it more artfully.  Basically no one who's left Russia wants to go back.

 

"Powerful nations are always corrupt". Yeah, however that is waxing in the abstract as it give the appearance of absolving amerikkka, of doing that what you have accused (with no evidence thus far), Russia of doing.

Naïve? To the contrary. I have reached spoken with Ford on several occasions and have yet to see where he was not ever been able to back up his claims with data that I could not investigate. That speaks to credibility.

Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election? I have a feeling that so many are being persuaded by the repetitious accusations that has been played out by the corporate backed media who are mad because trump won due to a strategy that backfired.  Anyway, if you think that Ford is (wrong) "naïve", this presupposes that you (or your sources) are not naïve (right). I want to be as accurately informed as possible, so what data are you looking at? Your sources. Or are your assertions the substance of intuition?

 "The US does it more artfully"  You are referring the u.s. legacy of criminality?

Russia kills with a gun shot to the heart; America kills by slipping poison in your drink that puts you to sleep by slowing your heart and breathing rate until your heart stops and you die. Yeah, quite the exception.

Cracking me up. Alright, if you want to share Ford’s data, feel free to provide your missing evidence. Where is your data? Is it the same as Trump’s? You, as chief investigator, have failed to present that! Look, tell you the truth, this Mr. Data approach will likely not go anywhere. The old routine of recounting  US'  many sins  does not magically excuse Putin.  Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not. No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer  games. Maybe you need data to tell things apart. So be it. Everything doesn’t look all the same to everyone. Clinton, and certainly Bernie Sanders, are miles and miles apart from Trump. Data is not always academically required in order to know things. Russia  and the US are not remotely the same either. No time to write a paper on all that.  Before the election, you similarly asked me to cite my evidence as to why Trump was far worse than Hillary. I did not provide  charts, stats and diagrams but hope that  the evidence of that is obvious as hell by this time.  That is not an abstraction. Still waiting for evidence on that catastrophe too or is it clear enough by now?  That's what we're dealing with. If anything, Putin helped give us Trump. Not so good.  

f

Son,

 

When I asked for data about how trump was worse than Hillary, what you provided did not pass the sniff test let alone be seen as evidence. Simply because Trump, prior to being elected has not been apart of any bill or policy any  being made up  or any governmental political process of any kind whatsoever, but Hillary -yes. That's a fact! That was a flop on your behalf from jump. A point I made clear to you several times, but for some reason you just glossed of that it with supposition.

 

Second,

I am asking you because I wanna know what you know such that I may be wrong. Now if you are right, then why answer a question with a question?

You believe, it seems whatever your govt. tells you without evidence being provided and that's a shame. I put a name with a source the I have shared, what name have you put to your claims in this thread, being that you are likely not in the field gathering the research?

 

"Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not. No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer  games"

Has it, evidence, been provided? Of course not, which is why you attempt to obfuscate me with that passing on that "playing lawyer games" retort. Present the evidence and we'll see what I can and can not discern what is legit or not. But lets suppose I can not; what makes you think I don't know people who understand cyber data on that level? YOU DO NOT. Yet you take what they say at face value.

You are correct in that everything does not look to same to everyone, however provide the data and let me be the judge of that for myself. As I've alluded to previously, you may have something that I am missing. Folks have views generally based on the information they receive and should new information come out one should be willing, as hard as it may be for many of us, to change ones viewpoint based on new information. 

I am not asking for an academic explanation. I am asking for (your) evidence. The fingerprint statement, I know for a fact you did not coin. You took and ran without question. Some bias is reasonable/expected, but your bias is beyond the pale at this point.

So lets get in to this a bit:

Have you seen the latest hearing conducted by the senate committee about trying to find out alledged Russian interference with the election. Now there are three witnesses that I am going to speak on. Roy Godson, Eugene Rumor and Clinton Watts.

 

Go check the hearing listen to these dudes then ask yourself an Objective ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question do they have cyber crime evidence that Russia had anything to do with the election. If it is not “no” then you are on another planet of reality. Don’t take my word for it, check the Hearing.

You will find that they, the witnesses, have provided no inside account to the actual evidence provided by the alpha bet boys (cia). Hell they  haven’t even seen the ‘evidence’ yet they are before a committee, making a case that there was Russian interference? Really? That’s how it works? No expertise, as far as I know/researched about them that suggest they are qualified to look at the cyber info and conclude funny business from the Russians. But don’t take my word for it, look them up. I gave you names and you or anyone reading this can watch hearing.

Instead of providing evidence, they, like you, only repeat assertions and allegations –not evidence. Hell, you’d probably fair just as well as them if you were there giving testimony.

Essentially reciting debunked evidence. These 3 Witnesses provided no new information. But this is what I found out about the witnesses. They are all neocons that work for think tanks. Research them and the think tanks they are part of. These dudes are architects for war propaganda.

Lets take a look at one of them:

Roy Godson. President of National Strategic Information Sector. This Tank was founded by Robert Strauss Hupe who believed by Standing up to the ussr a united west can expose them as a clumsy and backward despotism served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barry Goldwater (you know about Goldie?) during his 1964 run for the presidency as well as to Richard Nixon during his successful 1968 campaign..  NYT called him a “Cold War Stalwart”

A little background on that think tank, these are who the witnesses are down with. A Tank founded by a propagandist of the cold war. And if I were a betting man, information from this think tank and others like'm plays a huge role in your views with regard to Russia as of late. Or do you just intuit your information?

So these guys given just what little that I’ve shared that anyone can google, can see that these dudes were brought in to sell a propagandized case for Russia as a villain to perhaps, at the very least entertain war given the background of the witnesses and the think tank they are affiliated with.

This hearing seems to be more about selling the hype than getting to the bottom of this alleged Russian cyber tampering of the election.

Moving on.

Watts:

A robert a. fox fellow at the foreign policy research institutes program on the middle east and senior fellow at the center for cyber and homeland security at George wash. Univ. Another tank that deals with war. Check that tanks history.

 

Go back and check the hearing. Maybe I’ve taken his testimony out of context, though I doubt it but I could be wrong.

Rumor:

Director and senior fellow at the Carnegie endowment for international peace. One the world’s larges, if bot the largest, think tank in the world.

A former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the u.s. national intelligence council.

Is a senior fellow and the director of carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia program.

 

They sit around an come up with justifications to go to war.

Look at the historical pattern with these witnesses and wonder why these progandists for war was called to the hearing. Because it was not about exposing alledged tampering but for setting up prospects for a war: economic cold, or outright.

Seeing clearly that they are neocons of war think tanks, are the ones talking about Russians alledged envolvment in tampering with the election of 2016. Or is that just all coincidence? Again I have provided names of inidividuals, some background info on them and the organizations they are connected with.

And what’s funny about that, these dudes are, get this, REPUBLICANS. Look at articles by the NY post and their support for Clinton. The NY post is the fox news of paper media. Why are they supporting a democrat like Clinton?  Well, Hillary was the neoconservative pawn in this game given the policies she supports and much of her rhetoric on international affairs.  I think I’ve said before about getting caught up in that dem vs. repub false dichotomy trap. 

Roy came to the hearing and gave an obsure misleading case about the history or Russia, no evidence. Only to paint Russia as a danger.

Critical statement maid by Rumor in the hearing:

“….I believe [BELIEVE he say] that Russian intelligence services and their proxies [who are their proxies?] intervened in our election in 2016.” Dig this. “I have NOT SEEN the classified evidence behind the intelligence community assessment published a few weeks ago. Some [like myself] has criticized for not sharing the evidence of Russian intrusion They miss the mark” What? We, I, miss the mark because I and others, want EVIDENCE? Never heard anything so idiotic and erroneous as that. “it is the totality of russia’s efforts in plain sight [with no evidence put in plain sight] to mislead misinform exaggerate that is more convincing than any cyber evidence”.

UUHHHH, what? Lets run some of that back:

“I have NOT SEEN the classified evidence behind the intelligence community assessment published a few weeks ago."...“It is the totality of russia’s efforts in plain sight to mislead, misinform, exaggerate, THAT IS MORE CONVINCING [AA.org community are you reading this?] THAN ANY CYBER EVIDENCE”

...’Da fck outta here with that propaganda!

They even pulled “Bush’s Brain” Dick Cheney out from under the rock to sale y’all on the propaganda. Not at the hearing however. That too is on youtube, check it out.

 Don’t take my word for it go on youtube, type in Senate Intelligence committee hearings on Russian interference in the u.s. election | Time, and listen for yourself. More evidence to substantiate my position. Names of individuals and organizations they are aligned with a vital excerpt of the official documented testimony.

These are the kinds of guys responsible for your 'opinion' on the issue we are debating. Given their background, just the little I shared, should inform you to at the very least reappraise your position and see how it holds up in light of what I just provided.

Cracking you up? Yeah,  but you've been cracked on this one for sometime, only I had no part in it. It was you all by yourself. ...Dude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raptor posted:
DennisKalita posted:
Raptor posted:
DennisKalita posted:

Powerful nations are always corrupt. It's a  human species problem. Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naive.  For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news)  which idiots ate up + +. Russia is  a criminal-run  state.  Their Mafia is everywhere. The US does it more artfully.  Basically no one who's left Russia wants to go back.

 

"Powerful nations are always corrupt". Yeah, however that is waxing in the abstract as it give the appearance of absolving amerikkka, of doing that what you have accused (with no evidence thus far), Russia of doing.

Naïve? To the contrary. I have reached spoken with Ford on several occasions and have yet to see where he was not ever been able to back up his claims with data that I could not investigate. That speaks to credibility.

Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election? I have a feeling that so many are being persuaded by the repetitious accusations that has been played out by the corporate backed media who are mad because trump won due to a strategy that backfired.  Anyway, if you think that Ford is (wrong) "naïve", this presupposes that you (or your sources) are not naïve (right). I want to be as accurately informed as possible, so what data are you looking at? Your sources. Or are your assertions the substance of intuition?

 "The US does it more artfully"  You are referring the u.s. legacy of criminality?

Russia kills with a gun shot to the heart; America kills by slipping poison in your drink that puts you to sleep by slowing your heart and breathing rate until your heart stops and you die. Yeah, quite the exception.

Cracking me up. Alright, if you want to share Ford’s data, feel free to provide your missing evidence. Where is your data? Is it the same as Trump’s? You, as chief investigator, have failed to present that! Look, tell you the truth, this Mr. Data approach will likely not go anywhere. The old routine of recounting  US'  many sins  does not magically excuse Putin.  Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not. No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer  games. Maybe you need data to tell things apart. So be it. Everything doesn’t look all the same to everyone. Clinton, and certainly Bernie Sanders, are miles and miles apart from Trump. Data is not always academically required in order to know things. Russia  and the US are not remotely the same either. No time to write a paper on all that.  Before the election, you similarly asked me to cite my evidence as to why Trump was far worse than Hillary. I did not provide  charts, stats and diagrams but hope that  the evidence of that is obvious as hell by this time.  That is not an abstraction. Still waiting for evidence on that catastrophe too or is it clear enough by now?  That's what we're dealing with. If anything, Putin helped give us Trump. Not so good.  

f

Son,

 

When I asked for data about how trump was worse than Hillary, what you provided did not pass the sniff test let alone be seen as evidence. Simply because Trump, prior to being elected has not been apart of any bill or policy any  being made up  or any governmental political process of any kind whatsoever, but Hillary -yes. That's a fact! That was a flop on your behalf from jump. A point I made clear to you several times, but for some reason you just glossed of that it with supposition.

 

Second,

I am asking you because I wanna know what you know such that I may be wrong. Now if you are right, then why answer a question with a question?

You believe, it seems whatever your govt. tells you without evidence being provided and that's a shame. I put a name with a source the I have shared, what name have you put to your claims in this thread, being that you are likely not in the field gathering the research?

 

"Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not. No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer  games"

Has it, evidence, been provided? Of course not, which is why you attempt to obfuscate me with that passing on that "playing lawyer games" retort. Present the evidence and we'll see what I can and can not discern what is legit or not. But lets suppose I can not; what makes you think I don't know people who understand cyber data on that level? YOU DO NOT. Yet you take what they say at face value.

You are correct in that everything does not look to same to everyone, however provide the data and let me be the judge of that for myself. As I've alluded to previously, you may have something that I am missing. Folks have views generally based on the information they receive and should new information come out one should be willing, as hard as it may be for many of us, to change ones viewpoint based on new information. 

I am not asking for an academic explanation. I am asking for (your) evidence. The fingerprint statement, I know for a fact you did not coin. You took and ran without question. Some bias is reasonable/expected, but your bias is beyond the pale at this point.

So lets get in to this a bit:

Have you seen the latest hearing conducted by the senate committee about trying to find out alledged Russian interference with the election. Now there are three witnesses that I am going to speak on. Roy Godson, Eugene Rumor and Clinton Watts.

 

Go check the hearing listen to these dudes then ask yourself an Objective ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question do they have cyber crime evidence that Russia had anything to do with the election. If it is not “no” then you are on another planet of reality. Don’t take my word for it, check the Hearing.

You will find that they, the witnesses, have provided no inside account to the actual evidence provided by the alpha bet boys (cia). Hell they  haven’t even seen the ‘evidence’ yet they are before a committee, making a case that there was Russian interference? Really? That’s how it works? No expertise, as far as I know/researched about them that suggest they are qualified to look at the cyber info and conclude funny business from the Russians. But don’t take my word for it, look them up. I gave you names and you or anyone reading this can watch hearing.

Instead of providing evidence, they, like you, only repeat assertions and allegations –not evidence. Hell, you’d probably fair just as well as them if you were there giving testimony.

Essentially reciting debunked evidence. These 3 Witnesses provided no new information. But this is what I found out about the witnesses. They are all neocons that work for think tanks. Research them and the think tanks they are part of. These dudes are architects for war propaganda.

Lets take a look at one of them:

Roy Godson. President of National Strategic Information Sector. This Tank was founded by Robert Strauss Hupe who believed by Standing up to the ussr a united west can expose them as a clumsy and backward despotism served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barry Goldwater (you know about Goldie?) during his 1964 run for the presidency as well as to Richard Nixon during his successful 1968 campaign..  NYT called him a “Cold War Stalwart”

A little background on that think tank, these are who the witnesses are down with. A Tank founded by a propagandist of the cold war. And if I were a betting man, information from this think tank and others like'm plays a huge role in your views with regard to Russia as of late. Or do you just intuit your information?

So these guys given just what little that I’ve shared that anyone can google, can see that these dudes were brought in to sell a propagandized case for Russia as a villain to perhaps, at the very least entertain war given the background of the witnesses and the think tank they are affiliated with.

This hearing seems to be more about selling the hype than getting to the bottom of this alleged Russian cyber tampering of the election.

Moving on.

Watts:

A robert a. fox fellow at the foreign policy research institutes program on the middle east and senior fellow at the center for cyber and homeland security at George wash. Univ. Another tank that deals with war. Check that tanks history.

 

Go back and check the hearing. Maybe I’ve taken his testimony out of context, though I doubt it but I could be wrong.

Rumor:

Director and senior fellow at the Carnegie endowment for international peace. One the world’s larges, if bot the largest, think tank in the world.

A former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the u.s. national intelligence council.

Is a senior fellow and the director of carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia program.

 

They sit around an come up with justifications to go to war.

Look at the historical pattern with these witnesses and wonder why these progandists for war was called to the hearing. Because it was not about exposing alledged tampering but for setting up prospects for a war: economic cold, or outright.

Seeing clearly that they are neocons of war think tanks, are the ones talking about Russians alledged envolvment in tampering with the election of 2016. Or is that just all coincidence? Again I have provided names of inidividuals, some background info on them and the organizations they are connected with.

And what’s funny about that, these dudes are, get this, REPUBLICANS. Look at articles by the NY post and their support for Clinton. The NY post is the fox news of paper media. Why are they supporting a democrat like Clinton?  Well, Hillary was the neoconservative pawn in this game given the policies she supports and much of her rhetoric on international affairs.  I think I’ve said before about getting caught up in that dem vs. repub false dichotomy trap. 

Roy came to the hearing and gave an obsure misleading case about the history or Russia, no evidence. Only to paint Russia as a danger.

Critical statement maid by Rumor in the hearing:

“….I believe [BELIEVE he say] that Russian intelligence services and their proxies [who are their proxies?] intervened in our election in 2016.” Dig this. “I have NOT SEEN the classified evidence behind the intelligence community assessment published a few weeks ago. Some [like myself] has criticized for not sharing the evidence of Russian intrusion They miss the mark” What? We, I, miss the mark because I and others, want EVIDENCE? Never heard anything so idiotic and erroneous as that. “it is the totality of russia’s efforts in plain sight [with no evidence put in plain sight] to mislead misinform exaggerate that is more convincing than any cyber evidence”.

UUHHHH, what? Lets run some of that back:

“I have NOT SEEN the classified evidence behind the intelligence community assessment published a few weeks ago."...“It is the totality of russia’s efforts in plain sight to mislead, misinform, exaggerate, THAT IS MORE CONVINCING [AA.org community are you reading this?] THAN ANY CYBER EVIDENCE”

...’Da fck outta here with that propaganda!

They even pulled “Bush’s Brain” Dick Cheney out from under the rock to sale y’all on the propaganda. Not at the hearing however. That too is on youtube, check it out.

 Don’t take my word for it go on youtube, type in Senate Intelligence committee hearings on Russian interference in the u.s. election | Time, and listen for yourself. More evidence to substantiate my position. Names of individuals and organizations they are aligned with a vital excerpt of the official documented testimony.

These are the kinds of guys responsible for your 'opinion' on the issue we are debating. Given their background, just the little I shared, should inform you to at the very least reappraise your position and see how it holds up in light of what I just provided.

Cracking you up? Yeah,  but you've been cracked on this one for sometime, only I had no part in it. It was you all by yourself. ...Dude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why call me "Son"? Another  time it was "Dude".  Not against data but it’s not always needed.  With Bush, Jr., no data was needed for some of us who could tell in a glance that he was lying about WMD to their faces.  With Trump, no data needed for some of us.  His face looks like a compressed carnival. It’s a patchwork of con- man façades. There’s a lack of human feeling and he has that dead fish-eye look of ignorance/arrogance.   With you, too much ego, too little soul. Lack of respect for self/ others means no unity whatever your data.  I sincerely hope you get over it. For real. L8R

DennisKalita posted:
Raptor posted:
DennisKalita posted:
Raptor posted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why call me "Son"? Another  time it was "Dude".  Not against data but it’s not always needed.  With Bush, Jr., no data was needed for some of us who could tell in a glance that he was lying about WMD to their faces.  With Trump, no data needed for some of us.  His face looks like a compressed carnival. It’s a patchwork of con- man façades. There’s a lack of human feeling and he has that dead fish-eye look of ignorance/arrogance.   With you, too much ego, too little soul. Lack of respect for self/ others means no unity whatever your data.  I sincerely hope you get over it. For real. L8R

Interesting how you attempt to deflect from russia to trump.

We are talking about russia's involvement. Of which evidence is required for those who do not accept the mainstreams propaganda and have enough sense to ask for it unlike you it appears. All that other stuff is useless banter; if my so called ego is a problem for you then you shouldn't respond to anything I post, because you seem to be the only one concerned with it.

You talk out of the side of your neck and when called on it wanna psycho-analyze which I've diagnosed as subtle buck dancing.

Nevertheless I backed my position and you did not. That's a fact. Debates, whether you realize it or not, tend to require that each party prove their position. What chat site did you think you were apart of?

You say russia was involved, I say prove it. You have not at this point.

"His face looks like a compressed carnival. It’s a patchwork of con- man façades." Oh yeah, that's proof that russia was involved, just look at his face everybody.

Yeah later indeed.

 

Moving on, because I've put "dude" on ignore/block. I've determined that he's a troll.

KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News Network in Baltimore. I'm Kim Brown.

 On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee held its first hearing, as part of an inquiry as to whether or not there was collusion between Russian officials, and the Trump campaign of 2016, along with the subsequent transition team into the White House. There's been a lot of speculation –- a lot of leaks –- coming from the intelligence community, about whether or not Donald Trump and his associates had extensive contact with Russian officials, and this Senate Intelligence Committee hopes to try to get to the bottom of that.

 But, is this much to do about nothing? Or is there actually smoke, and subsequent fire? Well, to discuss this, we're joined today with Michael Hudson. Michael is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. He's also the author of many books, including, "The Bubble and Beyond, and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents," "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy," and most recently, "J is for Junk Economics: A Survivors Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception." He joins us today from New York.

 Michael, welcome back to The Real News.

 MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here.

 KIM BROWN: Michael, this committee hearing seems to culminate weeks now, of a lot of speculation, not just from the left, or not just from Democrats, rather, about whether or not there was collusion between members of the Trump campaign, and his transition team, and Russians, in order to propel him into the Oval Office.

 Your thoughts about today's opening hearing, and whether or not the premise behind this hearing, is valid in the first place?

 MICHAEL HUDSON: The premise is not valid, and it's fake news, and the one thing that the Senate committee does not want to find, is anything about where these leaks come from. The one thing they do not want to do, is have any discussion of the actual evidence. The evidence itself, is notoriously fake. You remember when the DNC ostensibly hired somebody to find out who got their information.

 They hired a propaganda organization. They handle... a lobbyist. They hired CrowdStrike, which is not only connected to the DNC, but to the pro-war neocon Atlantic Council, which is the lobbyist for pushing for military confrontation with Russia.

 KIM BROWN: Michael, I'm sorry... Not to cut you off -– really quick, but you're saying that this particular firm hired by the Democrats, that they hired this firm to look into the hacking of the DNC over the summer of 2016 -– is that what you're referring to?

 MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes. But that's not what they tried to do. They didn't want them... the one thing they did not want CrowdSource (ED: CrowdStrike) to do was look into the so-called hacking and who got the information. They hired CrowdSource (ED: CrowdStrike) as a propaganda organization, to make accusations against Russia that had no evidence whatsoever. And James Clapper, of The Deep State, himself has said there is no evidence.

 So, CrowdSource (ED: CrowdStrike) was hired because it's part of the neocon establishment, the Atlantic Council, and represents the Ukraine, also... the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine, they hired a propaganda organization. And the FBI said they also went to the FBI, to Mr. Comey, who is a Democrat, and said we don't want the FBI to look into it because if the FBI looks into it, they'll find that probably there wasn't Russian hacking. And so, what happened was that you had the Democrats come out, and say something obviously false on the surface of it, 17 intelligence agencies have all believed that there is Russian hacking.

 The 17 –- this would include the Coast Guard Intelligence and other things. The reality is, there were only three intelligence agencies involved: the National Security Council, the CIA and the FBI. None of these organizations came out with any evidence whatsoever. And in fact, WikiLeaks, who actually got the information, said that it came from a DNC member who didn't hack it, who just copied the information, delivered it to him. And the hint that they told me when I was in London, was that this was... the hacker was the DNC worker who was mysteriously killed, in an unsolved crime two days... a few days later, walking in the park.

 So, what should be asked is: how did WikiLeaks get the information from the DNC? Nobody's asking that. They don't want to look at it, because they want to make the unjustified claim that this was a Russian hacking, and the intelligence professionals all sort of agree that anybody could've done the hacking. There's no evidence of one person or another -– if indeed there was hacking -– neither the FBI, nor the NSC, nor the CIA have every examined the computer to try to find out.

 Only the propaganda lobbyist organization that the DNC hired, for essentially to try to fight Trump, and not only fight Trump, but to fight Trump's attempt to make a rapprochement with Russia. To try to fight against the ISIS, and Al-Nusra that the Obama administration and... was backing, in Syria and in Libya. And the Russians have said... met with the Americans and said, look, let's have a meeting between the Justice Department and the Russia Prosecutor General on cyber-crime. We want an international... treaty against it.

 Well, completely open, the United States refused it, because they said, well, we can't sign any international treaty, because then we would have to obey its rules. And we have no intention whatsoever of obeying any rules of any international treaty, when it comes to cyber-crime.

 In other words, America can do cyber-crime, and hacking of foreign countries, but claims that they're hacking us, when there's no evidence at all. And why is this fake story coming out? It's come out in order to discredit any attempt that President Trump may have to wind down the confrontation with Russia, to try to do what Ronald Reagan did, and disarm the atomic warfare, to stop the build-up of atomic weapons around Russia, and basically to wind back the military-industrial complex.

 The neocons and the military-industrial complex are all sort of a unit, because the military-industrial complex needs an enemy. It needs a, somehow, basis to put all of these weapons it is producing at enormous profits in, and the only place to put them logically, is around Russia and China. And when you put the weapons that close to these countries, you're increasing the risk of war. And Trump wanted to wind that down, and the neocons, the Democratic Party, the Atlantic Council, and the Senate Committee, they're the pro-war, anti-Russian group, so you...

 KIM BROWN: Well, Michael... Michael... Let me ask you about... in your opinion, what is the difference between the so-called Russian reset of the earlier part of the Obama administration, when Barack Obama was sending Hillary Clinton, and then eventually John Kerry, out to negotiate with the Russians, particularly about nuclear treaties in order to draw down the amount of nuclear weapons in each country's respective stockpiles.

 Now, the Russian reset has been largely touted as a failed diplomatic attempt, because of different relationships, the dynamic I suppose, between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. But so, what's the difference between the Obama-Russian reset, and what Donald Trump is attempting to do?

 MICHAEL HUDSON: Just the names attached to them. The Russian reset wasn't a reset at all. It was really a new Cold War. He appointed a virulent anti-Russian as the ambassador to there. Someone who was trying to promote an orange revolution, and local protest movements within Russia...

 KIM BROWN: Ambassador Michael McFaul.

 MICHAEL HUDSON: Michael McFaul. Yeah. Notorious anti-Ru... just the kind of person you would not want to have as a serious ambassador. And when Kerry tried to make some agreements with Russia in Syria, the military immediately worked against them. So, sending Kerry was just sort of a distraction, because it was really very early in Obama's administration, he gave in to the NSA and the CIA and said, "Okay, boys, I'll do whatever you want, you know, just tell me what to do."

 And yeah, he didn't... there was never any intention of dismantling military build-up, but just the opposite. To build up, which is exactly what occurred. And Trump wanted to reverse the new Cold War pressure of the Democrats, the Obama administration, and you'll see what they're trying to do. They say, if you oppose the Atlantic Council and the neocons, we're going to essentially... wreck your career, and that's what the House Committee is doing.

 The attention you should be focusing on is not the Senate investigation, but the House investigation, under Nunes, that's trying to say wait a minute, who leaked all this national security information about Trump? Trump used an obsolete word, saying, "They wiretapped me," and people don't wiretap anymore. When I grew up, we were wiretapped by J. Edgar Hoover. To wiretap politicians to put together the blackmail files.

 But the NSA now is doing computer... they just go right into the server, and they hack, not wiretap. And if they don't do it, they'll ask the British to do it. So they can say, "We didn't do any hacking." We're not saying that the British didn't. The House Committee wants to see who leaked this information on Trump.

 This is like the Russians used to do under Stalin, called "Kompromat". The Secret Police would get blackmail information, and they'd leak it to political enemies. That's what's happening in the United States. The CIA and the NSC and the FBI, now have the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover's blackmail files, and if you don't have real blackmail, you'll make it up. And I think that's what they're doing against Trump. They're making it up, that there's smoke with the Russia connection, and there isn't any smoke that anybody's found.

 Clapper has even acknowledged there's nothing that they've found, so this is purely a propaganda effort to make Trump too politically unable, to make a real reset with Russia. Or, a real wind-down of the military confrontation with Russia, not only directly on its borders, but also in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere in the Near East.

 KIM BROWN: Well, if it's a propaganda mission, whoever is initiating it, is doing a bang-up job, because there's a hell of a lot of smoke floating around in the news about these alleged connections between Russia and the Trump administration and the Trump White House.

 So, we will certainly keep an eye on the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, as well as the House Intelligence Committee hearings when they resume under Congressman Nunes, who has been under fire himself for his very close relationship with the Trump White House. So, there's a lot going on here, Michael, and we appreciate your analysis today.

 We've been speaking with Michael Hudson. He is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, at the University of Missouri, at Kansas City. Michael, thank you again, as always.

 MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here. Thank you for the discussion.

 KIM BROWN: And thanks for watching The Real News Network.

Firm Hired By DNC & Relied On By FBI To Prove Russia Hacking Forced To Withdraw Anti-Russian Report

Reported in January, the FBI based its decision that it was the Russians that hacked into the DNC computers on a report commissioned by the DNC and generated by a company called CrowdStrike (the FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server). The VOA recently caught CrowdStrike creating a bogus and unrelated hacking charge against Russia, and making up the facts to prove its veracity.

To make their determination that the Democrats were hacked by Russia, the FBI relied exclusively on information from private digital forensics company Crowdstrike. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI to look a their servers for the hacking investigation, instead forced them to use the Crowdstrike report paid for by the Party.

At the time a senior FBI law enforcement official told Wired,

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.”

The FBI did substantiate that it relied on data from Crowdstrike in their investigation, but they blamed the Party for not looking at the servers themselves, according to the FBI official who spoke to wired:

The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier,”

Ten weeks after the above report CrowdStrike’s reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been caught lying about a report to make a claim about Russian hacking damaging Ukrainian technology.

The VOA reported:

U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.

In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with pro-Russian separatists. 
 
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never happened.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by “Fancy Bear,” a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike’s claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine’s artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
 

The company who the DNC and FBI relied on not only made up a problem that didn’t exist, but then blamed it on Putin’s Russia. Shouldn’t that call into question the entire premise that it was the Russians who hacked into the DNC?

Even before the Democrats were using the Russian hack story in a lame attempt damage the nascent Trump presidency, they were using the tale as a tool to deflect from the Clinton scandals–before Wikileaks started publishing the Podesta emails. They took a joke made by the future president and turned it into a scandal, and when Wikileaks began publishing the Podesta emails, they simply added it to the Putin charges.

Now I am not suggesting that Putin is a boy scout, he is a despicable tyrant.. Was the report commissioned purely for campaign purposes? Based on the fact that the company has close ties to the Obama team, is friends with Hillary Clinton, and is connected closely to Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk (another friend of the DNC) can we really believe the report was done without  DNC input, or did members of the party the campaign direct Crowdstrike toward the Russians, which the company already has a beef with?  If everything was above board—well why didn’t the DNC allow the government intelligence sources to look at their server?

But most importantly, why is the FBI relying on this report, and why isn’t the House or Senate Committees investigating the Crowdstrike report?

The list of 17 intelligence agencies being used to propagate the Russian hacking lie

What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google

 
Tyler Durden's picture

That’s weird enough, but it gets far stranger. For example:

In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.

Recall that the FBI was denied access to the DNC servers by the DNC itself, and simply agreed to rely on the results provided by CrowdStrike, which as you can see has ties to all sorts of anti-Russia organizations and individuals. I find it absolutely remarkable that James Comey head of the FBI outsourced his job to CrowdStrike.

There remains zero evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. I repeat, there remains zero evidence that Russia hacked the DNC.

As cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr noted:

Jeffrey Carr called the FBI/Department of Homeland Security Report, the only alleged evidence released by intelligence officials, released in late December 2016 a “fatally flawed effort” that provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that the Russian government conducted the hacks, though that’s what it was purported to do.

Absolutely remarkable, but there’s more. As TechCrunch reported back in 2015:

If you need proof that security is a red hot market these days, how about this morning’s announcement that cybersecurity company CrowdStrike landed a $100 million Series C investment round?

The round was led by Google Capital with Rackspace, which happens to be one of the company’s customers also investing. Existing investors Accel and Warburg Pincus also participated. Today’s investment brings the total to-date to $156 million.

Why do I find it interesting that Google was a major investor in CrowdStrike? Well for one, we know that Chairman of Alphabet, Inc. (Google’s parent company), Eric Schmidt, was actively working to help the Hillary campaign. As I highlighted in the 2015 post,Meet “Groundwork” – Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s Stealth Startup Working to Make Hillary Clinton President:

An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

There is also another gap in play: The shrinking distance between Google and the Democratic Party. Former Google executive Stephanie Hannon is the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, and a host of ex-Googlers are currently employed as high-ranking technical staff at the Obama White House. Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party—and his influence does not stem only from his wealth, estimated by Forbes at more than $10 billion.

According to campaign finance disclosures, Clinton’s campaign is the Groundwork’s only political client. Its employees are mostly back-end software developers with experience at blue-chip tech firms like Netflix, Dreamhost, and Google.

Since Democrats seem so obsessed with the saying these days, “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” and there’s plenty of smoke here.

Meet “Groundwork” – Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s Stealth Startup Working to Make Hillary Clinton President

Freedom Rider: When America Interfered in a Russian Election | Black Agenda Report

Freedom Rider: When America Interfered in a Russian Election

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

The U.S. is the unchallenged champion of hijacking, fixing and subverting elections around the world. On every inhabitable continent – from Italy to Iran to Accra to Tegucigalpa -- Washington has stolen people’s rights to elected leaders of their choice. Only two decades ago, Bill Clinton and his operatives were busy stealing Russia’s first post-Soviet elections. But, U.S. corporate media seem to have forgotten such inconvenient facts.

Freedom Rider: When America Interfered in a Russian Election | Black Agenda Report

All of the news is fake when corporate media connive with the powerful to produce their desired ends.”

There is still no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. What substitutes for proof is nothing but an endless loop of corporate media repetition. The Democratic Party has plenty of reason to whip up hysteria in an effort to divert attention from its endless electoral debacles.

What no one mentions is that the United States government has a very long history of interfering in elections around the world. Since World War II American presidents have used electoral dirty tricks, fraud and violence to upend the will of people in Italy, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam and Honduras to name but a few nations. If possible brute force and murder are used to depose elected leaders as in Haiti and Chile.

Amid all the hoopla about Russia’s supposed influence in the election or with Donald Trump directly, there is little mention of a successful American effort to intervene in that country. In 1996 American political consultants and the Bill Clinton administration made certain that Boris Yeltsin remained in the Russian presidency.

There is no need for conjecture in this case. The story was discussed quite openly at the time and included a Time magazine cover story with the guilty parties going on record about their role in subverting democracy.

“In 1996 American political consultants and the Bill Clinton administration made certain that Boris Yeltsin remained in the Russian presidency.”

Polls showed that Yeltsin was in danger of losing to the Communist Party candidate Gennadi Zhuganov. The collapse of the Soviet Union had created an economic and political catastrophe for the Russian people. Oligarchs openly stole public funds while government workers went without pay. Russians lost the safety net they had enjoyed and the disaster resulted in a precipitous decline in life expectancy and birth rates.

The United States didn’t care about the suffering of ordinary Russians. Its only concern was making sure that the once socialist country never turned in that direction again. When Yeltsin looked like a loser the Clinton administration pressed the International Monetary Fund to send quick cash and bolster Yeltsin’s government with a $10 billion loan.

Clinton had an even more direct involvement. Led by a team connected to his adviser Dick Morris, a group of political consultants went to work in Moscow, but kept their existence a secret. One of the conspirators put the case succinctly. "Everyone realized that if the Communists knew about this before the election, they would attack Yeltsin as an American tool.” Of course Yeltsin was an American tool, and that was precisely the desired outcome.

The Time magazine article wasn’t the only corporate media expose of the American power grab. The story was also made into a film called “Spinning Boris.” One would think that this well known and documented account would be brought to attention now, but just the opposite has happened. The tale of Clinton administration conniving has instead been disappeared down the memory hole as if it never took place.

When Yeltsin looked like a loser the Clinton administration pressed the International Monetary Fund to send quick cash and bolster Yeltsin’s government with a $10 billion loan.”

The supposedly free media in this country march in lock step with presidents. After Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton made Russia bashing a national pastime the media followed suit. The reason for the hostility is very simple. Russia is an enormous country spanning Europe and Asia and has huge amounts of energy resources which European countries depend on. Its gas and oil reserves make it a player and therefore a target for sanctions and war by other means.

The American impulse to control or crush the rest of the world is thwarted by an independent Russia. While Americans are fed an endless diet of xenophobia Russia and China continue their New Silk Road economic partnership. Of course this alliance is born of the necessity to protect against American threats but no one reading the New York Times or Washington Post knows anything about it. Nor do they know that Vladimir Putin’s mentor stayed in power because of Bill Clinton’s meddling.

All of the news is fake when corporate media connive with the powerful to produce their desired ends. If they want to make Yeltsin a hero, they make him a hero. If they want his successor to be cast as the villain then he becomes the villain. If the United States wants to play the victim it is turned into the hapless target of Russian espionage. If its history of thwarting the sovereignty of other countries becomes an inconvenient truth, then the truth is disappeared.

It is difficult to know what is true and what is not. But it usually a safe bet to assume that this government and its media hand maidens are covering up criminality of various kinds. The story of the 1996 manipulation of Russian voters is but one example.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 

 

 

"Glen Ford on The Real News Network In its last months in office, the Obama administration facilitated massive leaks of Trump team members’ telephone conversations and other raw intelligence. The operation succeeded in creating great clouds of innuendo intended to buttress the totally unproven allegation that Russia and Trump operatives collaborated to meddle in the election process. In deliberately encouraging leaks, former president Obama probably committed impeachable offenses –- that may still be indictable."

Personal/Political/Ego

RE: Raptor.  Asking me to “Bounce” when I've  posted and then trying to block me for having a  different view  is nothing but suppression of free speech. That's puny and it’s what dictators do.  That’s how power works. Suddenly you’re looking like one of them when you try to suppress a POV – for whatever reason - because it rattles your own.  Same thing. Matter of degree.  It doesn’t work. That'’s not radical. It’s same old. That’s why old same power trip political movements don’t work.  One word: ego.  Every voice counts.

In the 1970s, people were saying US out of Central America, US out of Asia, US out of Africa, US out of the US! People talked about how bad the US was. The more powerful any State, the worse it behaves. True. Now to say, the US is worse than Russia. And Hillary Clinton, she’s bad and Obama was bad and Russia is good  and so on.How does that kind of old 70s track help us now?  There’s all kind of signs that Russia used propaganda because they were put off by Clinton. It will all come out. We’ll see. Dull-as-beans Hillary is a good guy compared with KKK-worshiped Rump. If we don’t get that there is a big difference, we’re lost. If we’re still 70s thinking that everything and all political parties are identical we’re wrong. One word: Rump. He represents the decline of the US and extra bad news for AAs.  That's the real catastrophe. That's what topractically focus on now. 

So this doesn't directly deal with the subject of this thread, but it has to do with the prospects of more propaganda, and we have to be aware of it whenever and where ever we see it.

So as of recent,  the media has been reporting sarin gas being used on folks in Syria and are accusing Asaad of using this gas. Like they did before only to find out that it was the rebel proxies (terrorist back by saudi arabia, back by the u.s.), who got the chemicals from as saudi prince, if I recall. They mishandled the stuff and got effected and effected others.

Now given that the u.s. is looking for an excuse to wage war with syria directly and I believe we can agree that Asaad is familiar with this reality, why would he give the u.s. an excuse to invade syria? Here are some articles that, depending on how this thing, this accusation with the us of sarin plays out, that may hold useful information to respond to the propaganda and the lies the mainstream media via the u.s. govt want the public to soak up like as we see and have read with regard to the accusations of russian involvement in the tampering with the u.s. presidential elections of 2016.

 

 

Top Journalist Says Hillary Approved Sending Sarin to Rebels Used to Frame Assad, Start Syrian War


In April of 2013, Britain and France informed the United Nations that there was credible evidence that Syria used chemical weapons against rebel forces. Only two months later, in June of 2013, the United States concluded that the Syrian government did, in fact, use chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces. President Obama immediately used this chemical attack as a pretext for invasion and authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, according to the White House.

Since the US has been funding these ‘moderate rebels’ more than 250,000 people have been killed, over 7,600,000 have been internally displaced, and 4,000,000 other human beings have been forced from the country entirely.

All of this death and destruction carried out by a sadistic army of rebels who’ve been funded and armed by the United States government, based on, what we are now told, was a complete fabrication.

World renowned journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed, in a series of interviews and books, that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria.

As Eric Zuesse explained in Strategic Culture, Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

“By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”
 
Hersh didn’t say whether these ‘arms’ included the precursor chemicals for making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya, explains Zuesse in his report. But there have been multiple independent reports that Libya’s Gaddafi possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US Consulate in Benghazi Libya was operating a “rat line” for Gaddafi’s captured weapons into Syria through Turkey.

While Hersh didn’t specifically say ‘Clinton transported the gas,’ he implicated her directly in this ‘rat line’ of arms which the sarin gas was part of.

Of Hillary Clinton’s involvement, Hersh told AlterNet that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died in the storming of the Benghazi embassy, 

“The only thing we know is that she was very close to Petraeus who was the CIA director at the time … she’s not out of the loop, she knows when there’s covert ops.  That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel.”

Backing up Hersh in his claims is investigative journalist Christof Lehmann, who after the attacks discovered an evidence trail leading back to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.

As Lehmann explained, Russian and other experts have repeatedly stated that the chemical weapon could not have been a standard issue Syrian chemical weapon and that all available evidence — including the fact that those who offered first aid to the victims were not harmed — indicates the use of liquid, home made sarin. This information is corroborated by the seizure of such chemicals in Syria and in Turkey.

While this is certainly no silver bullet, this implication should not be glossed over. As the Free Thought Project has reported extensively in the past, the presidential candidate has ties to international criminal cartels who’ve been funding her and her husband for decades.

When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, the William J. Clinton Foundation agreed to disclose its donors at the request of the White House. According to a memorandum of understanding, revealed by Politifact, the foundation could continue to collect donations from countries with which it had existing relationships or running grant programs.

The records would show that of the 25 donors who have contributed more than $5 million to the Clinton Foundation throughout the years, six are foreign governments, with the largest contributor being Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Saudi Arabia’s role in funding Clinton is tremendous, as the Syria/Saudi relationship over the last half century is what this civil war is all about.

A Zuesse points out in his article on Strategic Culture,

When the interviewer asked Hersh why Obama is so obsessed with replacing Assad in Syria, since “The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups”; and Hersh replied that not only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “nobody could figure out why.” He said, “Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period.”

This has actually been the case not only since the Party that Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it; but, actually, the CIA’s first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in Syria, overthrowing a democratically elected leader, in order to enable a pipeline for the Sauds’ oil to become built through Syria into the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline started the following year. But, there

But, there were then a succession of Syrian coups (domestic instead of by foreign powers – 195419631966, and, finally, in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during the 1970 coup. And, the Sauds’ long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has still not been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired “regime change” in Syria, so as to enable not only the

The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired “regime change” in Syria, so as to enable not only the Sauds’ Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that the Thani royal family (friends of the Sauds) who own Qatar want also to be built there. The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman). Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).

 

Jumping to conclusions; something is not adding up in Idlib chemical weapons attack

  Wow!  I remember when Hussein was accused  of killing over 2 million of his own people.  [Kurds] But since this is the social media era I'm not surprised to see a doctor go on twitter in the middle of the chaos.  Those 2 million in Iraq didn't have that luxury to tell it while it's happening so that it would be no confusion or lies or finger pointing.  Which the latter of finger pointing to me is a distraction of the truth.  it could well be the doing of Isil or Al Queda or the Tailban...but!  For some reason, the Syrian President is to blame and listening to Trump  Obama is to blame.  So I think it was smart of the doctor to do this.  Cuz he knew that somehow the attack will be covered up until "they" decide who to blame.  So for now?  It's President Assad.  But!

  @Brotha DK

Yall still debatin?  Ha!  I thought this is what dudes do when they are in disagreement not banned each other from freedom of speech especially during these times when ANY black person male or female can be a target just for being BLACK.  I won't believe that any one here on this board will want to limit an open perspective just cause it doesn't gel with personal findings.  Look...I used to get bounced on allllllllllll the time by those who thought their perspective WAS THE REAL PERSPECTIVE.  And you saw what happened....right?  I kept standing in my truth cuz personally I don't give a sweet fock about what another motherfocker may think about HOW I think.  They have no power.  They can't bring back the dead...so fock em.  And I keep being the dynamic strong intelligent black woman I am...cuz it was MY digits of learning that got me my perspective-not theirs.  My time studying, reading utilizing my critical thinking skills.  Aint never gon be a SLAVE in some else's head....so my brotha.  Keep being YOU.  I dig both of yall and I appreciate the knowledge yall bring to this table. 

However, I understand when you are adamant about WHAT you believe and the determination to stand in your truth.  And I agree there are people who are serious about thinking alike.  But historically we know that thinking the same?  Would've kept us in a horse and buggy and outhouse [and in slavery] til this day.  But because we each think differently...uniquely and outside the box?  We now have trains, planes, cars, trucks and ships to  get around in life.  And we all have indoor plumbing [and freedom] as a result of having different perspectives...that's called progression.  So you can't move through life thinking it's all about one way of traveling through it-there's many ways to get to the same destination of thought.  As I say I like ya both.  And you two are a delight and asset to this board.    So to me?  You two fight like brothers-which by the way is ABSOLUTELY normal.  Just sayin.  But!

Kocolicious posted:

 

Yall still debatin? 

Ha, it was over a long time ago well before I put the dude on ignore. Koco, you've been here as long, no, longer than I have. Back when AA.org's chat cite was formatted differently. And you may recall, the many back and forth's I've had with Dell Gimes (?) and the negro-conservatives. We disagree almost all the time, but their rebuttal/response to the subject of discussion were sound. If nothing else they, we, stayed on subject. And thread jacking was once loathed. I guess the game has changed now since after my last great hiatus. 

We can debate belief, when its folks just sharing a point of view, but when facts, or lack thereof, comes to the fore of the debate, that's where it ought to be. So when the debate goes awry and stays awry with stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion, that tells me what I need to know and I am done with you so long that is the path one will continue to take. I don't know what he's posted on this thread because I log straight on, believe it or not.

But your query is a sign to me that whatever he posted has nothing to do the subject in question, so...., as far as I can detect, no we aren't debating.

It's not about boxing anyone "in". If we talking butter and someone turns to talking about whip cream then there is nothing longer to talk about. Start a thread and talk about whip cream.

Hmmm, I got an idea:

Perhaps I should unblock the seeing of his posts  for the next time a subject comes up and we find ourselves on the opposites sides on this. I like to know if I can turn to you to moderate to keep us on subject or at least keep us from going too far awry and bring the discussion back to the topic in discussion. So say you???

Kocolicious posted:

  @Brotha DK

Yall still debatin?  Ha!  I thought this is what dudes do when they are in disagreement not banned each other from freedom of speech especially during these times when ANY black person male or female can be a target just for being BLACK.  I won't believe that any one here on this board will want to limit an open perspective just cause it doesn't gel with personal findings.  Look...I used to get bounced on allllllllllll the time by those who thought their perspective WAS THE REAL PERSPECTIVE.  And you saw what happened....right?  I kept standing in my truth cuz personally I don't give a sweet fock about what another motherfocker may think about HOW I think.  They have no power.  They can't bring back the dead...so fock em.  And I keep being the dynamic strong intelligent black woman I am...cuz it was MY digits of learning that got me my perspective-not theirs.  My time studying, reading utilizing my critical thinking skills.  Aint never gon be a SLAVE in some else's head....so my brotha.  Keep being YOU.  I dig both of yall and I appreciate the knowledge yall bring to this table. 

However, I understand when you are adamant about WHAT you believe and the determination to stand in your truth.  And I agree there are people who are serious about thinking alike.  But historically we know that thinking the same?  Would've kept us in a horse and buggy and outhouse [and in slavery] til this day.  But because we each think differently...uniquely and outside the box?  We now have trains, planes, cars, trucks and ships to  get around in life.  And we all have indoor plumbing [and freedom] as a result of having different perspectives...that's called progression.  So you can't move through life thinking it's all about one way of traveling through it-there's many ways to get to the same destination of thought.  As I say I like ya both.  And you two are a delight and asset to this board.    So to me?  You two fight like brothers-which by the way is ABSOLUTELY normal.  Just sayin.  But!

Sista Kocolicious, much respect and appreciation to you and for what you speak. Right, if we ban one another from speaking, however rationalized, that’s weak and anti-revolutionary at best. It’s something to get through. I will be back in a few weeks. I have long-standing business with an African company where there are several white managers but the two top execs are black. I like that.  

Brotha Raptor wrote: 

Perhaps I should unblock the seeing of his posts  for the next time a subject comes up and we find ourselves on the opposites sides on this. I like to know if I can turn to you to moderate to keep us on subject or at least keep us from going too far awry and bring the discussion back to the topic in discussion. So say you???

As you wish my brotha...I will try to do the latter.  However, you know sometimes it's hard to stay on subject when there's a correlation.  I may not be the best person cuz sometimes I tend to stray too.   But for discussions I'm not participating in and most important....to keep you two on point and talkin....it will be my pleasure.  So.  Count me in.  But!

 

Brotha DK wrote: 

Sister Kocolicious, much respect and appreciation to you and for what you speak. Right, if we ban one another from speaking, however rationalized, that’s weak and anti-revolutionary at best. It’s something to get through. I will be back in a few weeks. I have long-standing business with an African company where there are several white managers but the two top execs are black. I like that.

  I agree fully.    See ya when you get back!  But!

Kocolicious posted:

Brotha Raptor wrote: 

Perhaps I should unblock the seeing of his posts  for the next time a subject comes up and we find ourselves on the opposites sides on this. I like to know if I can turn to you to moderate to keep us on subject or at least keep us from going too far awry and bring the discussion back to the topic in discussion. So say you???

As you wish my brotha...I will try to do the latter.  However, you know sometimes it's hard to stay on subject when there's a correlation.  I may not be the best person cuz sometimes I tend to stray too.   But for discussions I'm not participating in and most important....to keep you two on point and talkin....it will be my pleasure.  So.  Count me in.  But!

 

Fair enough. So what I am gonna do is go back over this thread post for post where DK and I were going back and forth. Again as it relates to the subject of this thread that I started.

...Now in dealing with the subject of this thread, I am going to highlight what I think are the most essential posts and replies to the posts. That is, I said this, DK, said that and so forth and you may look over it - if I missed something or am not clear I trust that you will call me to task on that for clarity. And I extend this out to sunnubian and RADIORAHEEM to participate in some form of moderation, if they are reading this post. For them, you I and DK are the only ones to post with some degree of frequency of late.

I am willing to concede to where I was not consistent in staying on point with respect the subject at hand. If there are statements that I have made that were not consistent to the subject at hand, quote me paste it and I'll address it. If you see that same with DK, I asked you be consistent and address his remarks.

So I unblocked (Unblock, not un-ban for I can not ban anyone from posting/responding to my posts. Only MBM, last I checked can do that), and read DK's remarks and will give rebuttal to those remarks and prior remarks  afterwards.

If there is something you wanna examine, step in inquire and hopefully I can provide a cogent response. Cool? And again, RAHEEM, sunnubian don't be shy. I'd like for you (or others) to participate where you can. Give your critique.

DK may engage accordingly, or not. It is his choice, however I have, I hope gave a clear succinct and unambiguous outline of how I intend on approaching the subject matter.

Gotta run. I will get into it, well within two weeks to set it off, so stand by.

 

 Okie dokie my brotha!   I am also in school so I'll be going back and forth on the board  to check in.  I usually come in here when I am bored, stuck on a paper or just burned out from reading or to see the latest but nevertheless I will do my very best to be available more for my favorites dudes!  But!

The premise of this thread is to  share data to the contrary of what mainstream media has been peddling with  regard to russia’s role in the undermining of the u.s. president elections.

It is believed by many, in particular DENNISKALITA, that russia did indeed interfere with the elections. It would be convenient for me to say that’s not true, but I would find that irresponsible without evidence, to said accusation. One can opine however they wish, but make it clear it is an opinion. However, I say that there has been no data presented as evidence that russia hacked the elections. This is what the video clip talks about in addition to the fact that america’s history of tampering with other nations elections.

I am going to run this debate back and hopefully highlight the more, if not most relevant statements and the responses. Koco, feel free to  chime in ask me questions and if there is something I need to address more or clarify. let me know and I’ll do my best.

 

DK: “Ford is incorrect. His idea that Russia "open up avenues of cooperation at every opportunity -- despite the hostility" is naïve”

-I wonder if DK understands the context with which that statement is made.

DK goes on to say: “For the US election, there's Russian cyber fingerprints. We'll maybe find out more. They aided Trump with propaganda (fake news) which idiots ate up + +”.

My response: “Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election?”

DK: “Alright, if you want to share Ford’s data, feel free to provide your missing evidence. Where is your data?”

-I did not say I had evidence. I said, as I have been saying is that no proof/evidence has been provided. Not in this thread, but in another thread dealing with the issue of alleged Russian involvement in the elections. And clearly he did not read me clear. I said:

“Unless you are doing first-hand in the field investigating, what sources are you relying on such that you believe Russia played a role in the past potus election?” That is, DK what information source ‘media outlet’ are you looking to to compel you or persuade you to think as you do? 

The “first-hand in the field…” remark supposes or presupposes that neither he nor I are in the field as an investigative journalist would be collecting data information, evidence one way or the other.

DK says: “Look, tell you the truth, this Mr. Data approach will likely not go anywhere”

-This is because he has not seen any evidence. NONE to date. And tried to preempt or get out ahead of it by saying; ‘No thanks, will pass on playing lawyer games.” to save face.

Previous to that statement:

DK states: “Evidence of Russian cyber fingerprints have been brought up by US Intel agencies. Can you disprove that with field references, footnotes and programming code? Of course not.”

-DK have you seen these ‘cyber fingerprints that have been brought up by u.s. intel agencies? Or, again, are you regurgitating a talking point? Perhaps a rhetorical question, but humor me…

DK: “Data is not always academically required in order to know things”

-Whose talking academics? Where did that come from? Well, in any even DK, data in the form of EVIDENCE is required to see if the allegations are true. That don’t seem to matter to you as it appears given some of your remarks. It’s wrong-headed to say the least.

DK: “Not against data but it is not always needed”

-In this case, it is.  Under Obama, amerikkka was ready to bang with Syria over the allegations of chemical weapon use. Until it was learned that the chemicals were in the possession of the Saudi/u.s. terrorist posing as rebels, mismanaged the stuff and affected themselves and folks around them. Given that fact, a fact that I am sure you know DK, it is almost beyond comprehension that give that fact, you would be so gullible, so…, as you say ‘naïve’ to just accept the propaganda with no evidence to support it?

After I presented data regarding the witnesses who attended the congressional hearing on the alleged Russian hacking of the voting, the think tanks they work for and some background information, and a stunning quote that you, up to this point have not given any substantive rebuttal for.

These witnesses, congress though were credible enough to give testimony. Who do you fine credible enough to trust what they are telling you? Your source. I’d like to check’em out. That’s a reasonable request, no?

I am gonna quote Rumer again:

“….I believe that Russian intelligence services and their proxies intervened in our election in 2016. I have NOT SEEN the classified evidence behind the intelligence community assessment published a few weeks ago. Some has criticized for not sharing the evidence of Russian intrusion They miss the mark. It is the totality of russia’s efforts in plain sight to mislead misinform [sic] exaggerate that is more convincing than any cyber evidence”.

Kinda sounds like you with your “we don’t always need data” (as in evidence), remark don’t it?

 

And this is how you respond:

DK: “His face looks like a compressed carnival. It’s a patchwork of con- man façades. There’s a lack of human feeling and he has that dead fish-eye look of ignorance/arrogance.”

…Really?

And then this:

“With you, too much ego, too little soul. Lack of respect for self/ others means no unity whatever your data.  I sincerely hope you get over it. For real. L8R”

-All because you have NO PROOF, that is, NO EVIDENCE to back up the propaganda that has you hooked line and sinker up to this point. There’s a saying that when one runs out of bullets they just throw the gun at you. Until you provide a source, data, the reveals the evidence, DK, you have been shown to resort to throwing the gun at me.

I blocked you because you were just talking straight nonsense.  To block you only means that when I log on I do not see what you have written. I does not mean that you cannot see what I've written, nor does it mean that you can not respond to what I post. Again I do not have the power to stop you from writing/posting anything, so miss me with this "suppression of free speech" nonsense. I have a right to ignore you. Which is not only a 1st amendment right, but a human right.

Kocolicious posted:

Brotha DK wrote: 

Sister Kocolicious, much respect and appreciation to you and for what you speak. Right, if we ban one another from speaking, however rationalized, that’s weak and anti-revolutionary at best. It’s something to get through. I will be back in a few weeks. I have long-standing business with an African company where there are several white managers but the two top execs are black. I like that.

  I agree fully.    See ya when you get back!  But!

And Koco, you know full well that I can not ban DK, so what are you agreeing with? Really? Why did you not tell him that Raptor does not control AA.org?

But what is "anti-revolutionary" is one who accept claims without evidence.

Cognitive dissonance is anti-revolutionary, as we may observe WHEN DK responds to my posts.

Misinformation, in part, played a role in the dismantling of nearly every black revolutionary organization, particularly the black panthers.

Now speaking of (anti) revolutionary. What I find to be anti-revolutionary is to say that Ford is "naive" that is, having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous. This is what DK is calling Ford.

About Ford:

Glen Ford  worked as a newsperson at four local stations: in Columbus, Georgia, Atlanta, Baltimore – where he created his first radio syndication, a half-hour weekly news magazine called “Black World Report” – and Washington, DC. In 1974, Ford joined the Mutual Black Network (88 stations), where he served as Capitol Hill, State Department and White House correspondent, and Washington Bureau Chief, while also producing a daily radio commentary. In 1977, Ford co-launched, produced and hosted “America’s Black Forum” (ABF), the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television.

ABF made Black broadcast history. For the next four years, the program generated national and international headlines nearly every week. Never before – and never since – had a Black news entity commanded the weekly attention of the news services (AP, UPI, Reuters, Agence France-Presse – even Tass, the Soviet news agency) and the broadcast networks.

Ford in 1979 created “Black Agenda Reports,” which provided five programs each day on Black Women, History, Business, Sports and Entertainment to 66 radio stations. The syndication produced more short-form programming than the two existing Black radio networks, combined.

Ford also produced the McDonald’s-sponsored radio series “Black History Through Music,” aired on 50 stations, nationwide.

In 1987, Ford launched “Rap It Up,” the first nationally syndicated Hip Hop music show, broadcast on 65 radio stations. During its six years of operations, “Rap It Up” allowed Ford to play an important role in the maturation of a new African American musical genre. He organized three national rap music conventions, and wrote the Hip Hop column for Jack The Rapper’s Black radio trade magazine.

In addition to his broadcast and Internet experience, Glen Ford was national political columnist for Encore American & Worldwide News magazine; founded The Black Commentator and Africana Policies magazines; authored The Big Lie: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of the Grenada Invasion (IOJ, 1985); voiced over 1000 radio commercials (half of which he also produced) and scores of television commercials; and served as reporter and editor for three newspapers (two daily, one weekly).

Ford was a founding member of the Washington chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ); executive board member of the National Alliance of Third World Journalists (NATWJ); media specialist for the National Minority Purchasing Council; and has spoken at scores of colleges and universities.

Given his credentials, DK wanna call him "naive"? Now that's anti-revolutionary!

Yeah, where's your data? Who have your relied on as a source(s), that has persuaded you to believe that russia hacked the voting?

To the extent that I can defend my position from my side of the monitor, I have given an article stating that the FBI was not allowed to brush for "cyber fingerprints". Not allowed by the DNC? If the demos said russia interfered, then why wouldn't they let the FBI check it out? Why must they go through a third party (posted an article on that 'party')?  Given that alone, I ask what source are you relying on? I wanna be as informed as possible. Without all the extras, can I get sources that provide data that you are relying on to inform your position on russia as it pertains to the hacking controversy?




On route, in Houston. More blended here than in Oakland/Bay Area.  Yep. I have to give it to you, Raptor. If this was a court of law, I couldn’t produce hard evidence that Russia has ever used spies or  ever engaged in cyber-espionage. There are plenty of news articles on the topic. Scanning Google News right now....here's one where Trump's own Sect'y of State Tillerson talks about Russian meddling in the US election: http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20170411-story.html    Maybe he lacks documentation.  Here's another:  Russian arrested in Spain for ‘hacking’ the American election  http://www.news.com.au/world/n...80fc3d95723dab9b2c34    Is it all phony?  There's smoke but I don't have objective evidence on fire. I  also so do not have a comparison chart showing why Clinton  is better than Trump.   You may dismiss the idea that someone could just look at Trump's face and see  a dangerous clown especially with every  white supremacist group in the US excited as hell about him. I see it as a sign. You have rules of engagement. I probably didn’t follow them. Don’t we have bigger fish to fry starting with ourselves?  ‘nuff said.




What we need is some UNITY.




 

Brotha Raptor wrote:

And Koco, you know full well that I can not ban DK, so what are you agreeing with? Really? Why did you not tell him that Raptor does not control AA.org?

But what is "anti-revolutionary" is one who accept claims without evidence.

Cognitive dissonance is anti-revolutionary, as we may observe WHEN DK responds to my posts.

Misinformation, in part, played a role in the dismantling of nearly every black revolutionary organization, particularly the black panthers.

  Now my brotha I was agreeing with Brotha DK when he said this:  ..." Right, if we ban one another from speaking,"  I'm about freedom of speech is all.  Cuz quite frankly I agreed with Brotha DK that it's about different perspectives and the opportunity to express that difference should be encouraged regardless if it's an opposing opinion.   I just agreed with Brotha DK on that point.  Nothing more.  I know you guys are  used to me writing long commentary explaining what I mean when I disagree or agree with an issue/topic but I am in school [again] and have very little time...so that's why I ONLY said I agree.....if I had MORE time?  Oh yea... it may have been a long explanation as to why I agree.  BTW:  I wasn't gonna tell Brotha DK you don't control  AA.org...he's been here as long as I have or even longer....I'm sure he's knows who runs aa.org.  Just like you know ...right?  So that would've been redundant...and a little insulting.  Plus as I said I like you both...I ain't gettin' in the middle of brothers fighting.  Oh no.   That would be redundant as well since you guys debate those good thought provoking debates that give folks something to think about.   I wouldn't dare!  But!

I think that all of this "Russia interfered with the election" rhetoric is just a damn rouse; nothing but 'spin' and deception psychology being played on the American public to deflect from the fact that it was Americans who tampered with the voting machines during/before the election in the first place.

America and Russia have been spying on each other for decades, so the implication that Russia may have did some 'spying' during the election should not be surprising to any Americans that were ever awake during HISTORY class.

And regardless to the PROPAGANDA that Trump and his ilk continue to disseminate on a loop since the 'SELECTION' of Donald Trump, I see nothing Russia has to gain in particular by a Trump win, mainly because our politicians are already so damn soldout, and are such political prostitutes, that anything Russia would have to gain with a Trump win, could just as well be achieved regarless to who won.

In other words, all Russia had to do was cruise through the 'hoe'-stroll Congress long enough and one or several would run to the curb and 'lean-in' to Russia's car anyway, so  .  .  .  

 

The whole thing is a cluster. States fuck with each other and then  with their own people like us.  I’m trying to correct my own ego not get into a pissing fight posing as a bicker fest over Kremlin criminal ass clowns or same in US.  Serious, this is the time to get over ourselves and connect with one another.   Working on it.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×