Biden impeachment inquiry ‘eight months of abject failure’, watchdog report says

[Bradskii]

The Senate (GOP led) issued a report about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
I guess that doesn’t count though because…?

If someone said that Russia would never have any interest in interfering with US elections then I'd think that person naive at best. I think any investigation would only be interested in the degree to which it occured. Can anyone possibly imagine Putin saying 'Yeah, nah. It's nothing to do with us. It would be unethical anyway.'

 

[KCfromNC]

I keep forgetting there are people who still believe that Russia hacked our elections.

Maybe so, but not sure what that has to do with my post, since I never said anything about that.
I certainly hope this isn't an attempt at one of those "fixed it for you" post. I believe those are against the rules here.

Edit - I see others have caught on the the game as well.

 

[KCfromNC]

Holy 2017 Batman!

Weird how closely far right messaging mirrors the Russian narrative.

 

[DaisyDay]

Hunter had already been cleared

Well, why not?

 

[probinson]

I think that it’s a fad that will fade after the kooky times we are in subside

I am not nearly as optimistic as you that this is a "fad".

 

[probinson]

Politics is difficult, yes.

Thank you for illustrating exactly what I was saying.

Your response has nothing at all to do with the analogy I was making. Yes, political discussions have many various viewpoints, but many (most?) political discussions simply do not take place in earnest. Often, it's the equivalent of someone presenting something for discussion and the person responding by sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending like it was never shown.

 

[probinson]

Apart from an opinion piece on YouTube,

It was a compilation of clips from the media showing just how heavily the propaganda was to get people to believe in Russia, Russia, Russia. It was in no way an "opinion piece" and anyone that watched the video would know that.

you linked to a Twitter account that related to a single hashtag about the Nunes document.

Actually, I posted a link that had screenshots of emails between Twitter execs talking about how they were being pressured by the US government to classify accounts as "Russian bots" that they KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt were NOT Russian bots. Again, this is something you would know if you actually looked at what I posted. You're telling on yourself.

You have your work cut out for you because it's difficult proving a negative.

True, and especially since there was a concerted propaganda campaign by the US governemt and media to convince people that Russia is hiding behind every rock. Propaganda is a highly effective tool.

But you're not in a position to say 'Russia wasn't involved in any way.'

I have no idea what level, if any, Russia was involved. But I can say with absolute certainty that the media GROSSLY inflated any actual involvement there may have been.

All you can say is that you haven't yet seen any evidence that, in your opinion, proves there was interference. Despite the collosal amount of info in the 2020 report (and there is some redaction but nowhere near what would prevent you from reading it).

"Collasal amount of info" sounds markedly like "irrefutable evidence". Got anything of substance beyond hyperbole?

 

[probinson]

The Senate (GOP led) issued a report about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
I guess that doesn’t count though because…?

Let's take a look at the actual report. It's amusing to me that another poster classified this as "some redactions".

Ample evidence... that has been apparently been almost completely redacted from public view.

Well, at least their "confidence level" increased because of all of these many, many ... redactions.

Ah. Here is the alleged "bot activity", with "two unexplained events", that are ... fully redacted.

The "evidence" that "Russian bots" were interfering with the election amounts to people saying "Here's a report!" without actually acknowledging that if there is any evidence, it's almost certainly redacted and therefore unable to be corroborated.

It's worth noting that there are two different things being discussed. "Russian interference" in the context of this report is talking primarily about secret of voting machines and other IT systems. SQL injection scripts, attempts to bypass security measures and more are the primary focus of this report.

There is barely a passing mention of the "Russian bots" that the government was pressuring Twitter execs to censor on the advice of the dubious Hamilton 68 dashboard that was pressed incessantly by government officials and the media as the YouTube video I posted earlier demonstrated. This is primarily what I'm talking about.

I have no doubt that there is cyber warfare taking place as we speak, but that does not change the fact that the government and media amplified what amounted to a left-wing conspiracy theory concerning bots making posts to influence elections.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Russian interference" in the context of this report is talking primarily about secret of voting machines... There is barely a passing mention of the "Russian bots"...

Perhaps you should peruse Volume 2, which focuses specifically on Russia's use of social media to influence the election.

Use of Automated Accounts and Bots. The use of automated accounts on social media has allowed social media users to artificially amplify and increase the spread, or "virulence,"ofonlinecontent. Russia-backedoperatives,exploitedthisautomatedaccounts feature and worked to develop and refine their own bot capabilities for spreading disinformation faster and further across the social media landscape.. In January 2018, Twitter disclosed its security personnel assess that over 50,000 automated accounts linked to Russia were tweeting election-related content during the U.S. presidential campaign.69

From the Twitter doc: "Through our supplemental analysis, we have identified 13,512 additional accounts, for a total of 50,258 automated accounts that we identified as Russian-linked and Tweeting election-related content during the election period"

what amounted to a left-wing conspiracy theory concerning bots making posts to influence elections.

It is not a left-wing conspiracy theory. It is a conclusion of a bipartisan Senate report.

 

[Bradskii]

It was a compilation of clips from the media showing just how heavily the propaganda was to get people to believe in Russia, Russia, Russia. It was in no way an "opinion piece" and anyone that watched the video would know that.

And the person who put it together was of the opinion that it was the result of propaganda. No facts were offered at all.

Actually, I posted a link that had screenshots of emails between Twitter execs talking about how they were being pressured by the US government to classify accounts as "Russian bots" that they KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt were NOT Russian bots. Again, this is something you would know if you actually looked at what I posted. You're telling on yourself.

I read the whole Twitter discussion. It was about one single hashtag. That was it. It discussed nothing else.

I have no idea what level, if any, Russia was involved. But I can say with absolute certainty that the media GROSSLY inflated any actual involvement there may have been.

Those two comments contradict each other. The first is somewhat naive in suggesting that there may not have been any. And if you don't know how much involvement they did have then you cannot say anything 'with absolute certainty.' That is just opinion.

"Collasal amount of info" sounds markedly like "irrefutable evidence". Got anything of substance beyond hyperbole?

That report ran to (if I recall), a few hundred pages. None of it is irrefutable simply because there is a lot of it. You are free to refute any of it if you have information to the contrary. But as I said, you have your work cut out. Because there is a lot of it.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's take a look at the actual report. It's amusing to me that another poster classified this as "some redactions".

Anyone who has looked at the report will know that you have have cherry picked a couple of pages that were heavily redacted. What has been redacted would be something between 5 and 10%. Obviously for good reason. And the committee obviously knows what those portions contain. And have reached a by-partisan conclusion. Again, you are free to challenge any of the information that you are allowed to see.

 

[probinson]

And the person who put it together was of the opinion that it was the result of propaganda. No facts were offered at all.

They were direct quotes from politicians and people.

I read the whole Twitter discussion. It was about one single hashtag. That was it. It discussed nothing else.

If you want to pretend that's the case, I can't stop you. There's plenty of information out there about the government pressuring Twitter execs to censor people on a bunch of topics from "Russian bots" to "COVID misinformation" (that was actually true). In fact the 5th Circuit of Appeals just recently found that the government was in fact guilty of suppressing free speech by pressuring Twitter to censor people.

Those two comments contradict each other. The first is somewhat naive in suggesting that there may not have been any. And if you don't know how much involvement they did have then you cannot say anything 'with absolute certainty.' That is just opinion.

Well OK. But if you don't think there was coordinated propaganda to play up Russian involvement despite Twitter execs saying that the "bots" they were being told to censor were not in fact bots, then you didn't read what I posted very closely. Politicians are opportunistic and they don't really care if the "bots" they told Twitter to censor were actually bots. It furthers the narrative that it's Russia, Russia, Russia!

That report ran to (if I recall), a few hundred pages.

And I'm sure you've read every word and committed it all to memory, which is you believe it unequivocally.

 

[probinson]

Perhaps you should peruse Volume 2, which focuses specifically on Russia's use of social media to influence the election.

Use of Automated Accounts and Bots. The use of automated accounts on social media has allowed social media users to artificially amplify and increase the spread, or "virulence,"ofonlinecontent. Russia-backedoperatives,exploitedthisautomatedaccounts feature and worked to develop and refine their own bot capabilities for spreading disinformation faster and further across the social media landscape.. In January 2018, Twitter disclosed its security personnel assess that over 50,000 automated accounts linked to Russia were tweeting election-related content during the U.S. presidential campaign.69

From the Twitter doc: "Through our supplemental analysis, we have identified 13,512 additional accounts, for a total of 50,258 automated accounts that we identified as Russian-linked and Tweeting election-related content during the election period"

Meanwhile behind the scenes, Twitter execs said they were "feeding Congressional trolls".

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1613589035934519296

It is not a left-wing conspiracy theory. It is a conclusion of a bipartisan Senate report.

McCarthy would be proud.

There's no question that the Hamilton 68 dashboard (the equivalent of McCarthy's list of 205 communists working to influence the State Department), which has been roundly discredited, was the source for nearly all of this information about Russian bots.. If history is to teach us anything, it should be that just because the government sanctions your preferred conspiracy theory doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Bradskii]

They were direct quotes from politicians and people.

And it was edited as an opinion piece. No evidence at all.

If you want to pretend that's the case, I can't stop you.

I don't have to pretend. That was exactly the case.

Well OK.

I'm glad you agree.

And I'm sure you've read every word and committed it all to memory, which is you believe it unequivocally.

I'm accepting it as a genuine report by a bi partisan committee. If you have anything in it you want to refute then feel free to produce your evidence.

 

[probinson]

Anyone who has looked at the report will know that you have have cherry picked a couple of pages that were heavily redacted. What has been redacted would be something between 5 and 10%.

Sure. And 90% of statistics are made up.

Obviously for good reason.

I am continually amazed at the level of undying trust you have in the government to always do the right thing for the right reasons.

And the committee obviously knows what those portions contain. And have reached a by-partisan conclusion.

That would be a bipartisan conclusion. Although your "by-partisan" gaffe is perhaps more accurate.

Again, you are free to challenge any of the information that you are allowed to see.

And you're free to reference any of it that you think proves any point you may be trying to make. But that would require effort. It's much easier to say here is a 1,000+ page report. It's like, really long, and written by people in the government. So it's absolutely true. Every last word of it.

 

[probinson]

And it was edited as an opinion piece. No evidence at all.

What are you even talking about? How are direct quotes from people NOT evidence of what they said and how frequently and incessantly they said it? Do you know what an opinion piece is? The creator of the video didn't opine anything. He simply took clips from the media and put them together to show how the incessant narrative of "Russia hacked our elections" was ingrained in people.

I'm accepting it as a genuine report by a bi partisan committee.

So you're just going to completely ignore the emails from the Twitter execs that call into question some of its conclusions? Why?

If you have anything in it you want to refute then feel free to produce your evidence.

I have. There is no question that Twitter felt very differently about the accounts they were asked to censor. Yoel Roth, Twitter's then safety czar, is quoted in one email saying that it was "bull----". I'm amazed that you don't find that as relevant to this topic.

 

[Bradskii]

And you're free to reference any of it that you think proves any point you may be trying to make. But that would require effort. It's much easier to say here is a 1,000+ page report. It's like, really long, and written by people in the government. So it's absolutely true. Every last word of it.

You're the one making the points. It's you that's saying that the report is wrong. I'm prepared to listen to any evidence that you have that indicates that.

 

[Bradskii]

What are you even talking about? How are direct quotes from people NOT evidence of what they said and how frequently and incessantly they said it?

There is zero evidence that there was no interference by Russia. It is evidence that people believe it. Your job is to refute it.

So you're just going to completely ignore the emails from the Twitter execs that call into question some of its conclusions? Why?

I addressed that. It was about one hashtag.

I have. There is no question that Twitter felt very differently about the accounts they were asked to censor. Yoel Roth, Twitter's then safety czar, is quoted in one email saying that it was "bull----". I'm amazed that you don't find that as relevant to this topic.

Someone denied that he didn't do his job properly? I'm shocked...

 

[essentialsaltes]

There's no question that [something or other] was the source for nearly all of this information about Russian bots.

Yes, there's a question, since the source I quoted was Twitter, as referenced in the bipartisan senate report.

"Through our supplemental analysis, we have identified 13,512 additional accounts, for a total of 50,258 automated accounts that we identified as Russian-linked and Tweeting election-related content during the election period"

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is no question that Twitter felt very differently about the accounts

In the image you shared, this is Twitter's preliminary assessment with respect to #ReleaseTheMemo, whatever that was.

If Alice (or the Russians) is innocent of stealing the Queen's tarts, that does not imply she is innocent of all crimes.

There is no question that Twitter identified "50,258 automated accounts that we identified as Russian-linked and Tweeting election-related content during the election period"