Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 10, 2017

"Russia Interfered!" - By Purchasing Anti-Trump Ads?

After the ludicrous "Russian hacking" claims have died down for lack of evidence, the attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of "Russian ads influenced the elections". Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this dreck.

As evidence is also lacking for any "Russian interference" claims the media outlets have started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers ever read beyond them.

On the NYT Homepage today we find another one of these: Google Finds Russia Bought Ads to Interfere in Election.

Google has found no ads that "Russia", the state or nation, has bought. There is also no evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the false headline claims. But now we have "Russian agents", not "Russia", which allegedly did something.

Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.

The term "Russian agents" is not defined at all. Where these "secret agents" or Public Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?

Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased $4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar with the company’s inquiry ...

"Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government." Believed by whom? And how is "connected" defined? Isn't any citizen "connected" to his or her government?

Those believed, connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads? Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some $6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But something "Russian" spending $4,700 was "interference"?

But wait. There is more:

Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.

So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ....

The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.

The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed, connected "Russians" on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that "Russia" wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?

The allegedly "Russian" Facebook ads were just a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly "Russian" Goggle ads were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also anti-Trump.

Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common people. No claim of anything "Russian" can change those facts.

Posted by b on October 10, 2017 at 15:37 UTC | Permalink


But, But, But
It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets

Posted by: Yul | Oct 10 2017 15:59 utc | 1

Clinton won the election. Trump winning the Electoral College doesn't change that. If anybody has been repudiated by popular vote, it is Trump. It wasn't a huge win because the Democratic Party platform of how great the economy is is not going to win big for the good and simply reason it's BS. And black voters weren't going to turn out for a white candidate. If winning the election is a moral endorsement and losing is conviction of sin, then it is Clinton who was the angel and Trump who was the devil in the judgment of the American people. Seeing Clinton supporters as demons serving evil just means you hate the American people.

Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful. Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation. Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 10 2017 16:24 utc | 2

Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery!

The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious.

Posted by: WorldBLee | Oct 10 2017 16:33 utc | 3

if the Dems wanted to campaign for the NEXT election rather than the LAST one, they could try opposing Trump on an actual issue... but I don't see Clinton doing squat for Puerto Rico, EPA standards, Black Lives, health care, Yemen, education, etc. The truth is, she and her party don't oppose Trump on anything except who won the last election and which country to threaten next.

I stopped listening to Amy Goodman over a year ago when I got sick of hearing nothing but this partisan BS, though once in a while I turn it on for a few minutes, and Goodman is STILL going on and on about Trump v Clinton! but today I got to hear Julian Assange tell her off, so it was worth it.

Posted by: anon | Oct 10 2017 16:40 utc | 4

thanks b.. this highlights the pettiness of the american press, and people like steven @2 as well..

the whole thing is quite laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many doorknobs...

Posted by: james | Oct 10 2017 16:41 utc | 5

b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google, Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies.

Johnson #2. You obviously do not understand the US constitution. It was crafted to distribute political power to all of the States, not to just those with the largest populations. That was done deliberately and carefully in order to get the 13 former colonies to agree to joining a united states. That is why we have the electoral college and why each of the states have exactly two US senators irrespective of their population. So you want to abolish the electoral college? Well then change the US constitution. Of course keep in mind that the constitution has a rule for that process too -- it requires that 2/3 of the states agree. Good luck with trying that! Well you loyal Hillary sycophants should just go back and continue to cry in your beers like the pathetic losers that you all are.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 10 2017 17:07 utc | 6

The 2016 election, as with every federal election since at least 2000, was rigged.

Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she had popular support.

Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus. But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy.

It's been the same tired song and dance in this country since forever, and I don't think it'll ever change, especially not with almost universal control of the government, media, finance, and industry by the money-printing fifth column.

Posted by: SlapHappy | Oct 10 2017 17:12 utc | 7

@2 "Clinton won the election."

Keep saying that. Ha!

Democrats are crazy and going crazier by the minute.

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

Beat your head against the wall while repeating that, you crazy Democrat.

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

Only 1197 days to go !

Unless Democrats haven't straightened out their totalitarian DNC before then.
(fat chance)

In which case it is:


"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

"Clinton won the election."

Posted by: Librul | Oct 10 2017 17:46 utc | 8

If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than the corporate interests that pay them the most money.

The 'differences' they postulate and promulgate across media are of things inconsequential, or of things that can never be wholly resolved with laws and regulations. When important things arise, they are locked away in committee or alleged 'deadlock'. What bills do pass are always, not sometimes, but always those that enrich their own pockets in some way.

Those that believe in either cause, Democrat or Republican, are avoiding the truth staring them in the face. They prefer the old reality we lived in where news could be controlled via 5 or 6 media outlets. They prefer The Matrix to the reality of where we exist today.

The truth is slowly oozing out, even as these parasitic creatures shovel and shove it back under rocks and into overflowing waste bins. The result of this is apathy in extremis. This will continue until a disaster or collapse of some part of the existing system forces people to act for change.

Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met.

This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun for falsity. It's prpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor

Posted by: Oilman2 | Oct 10 2017 17:50 utc | 9

"It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets..."

Yeah, not only meddling, but economic chaos through hitmen, regime change through rouges, assassination and more.

When the tables turn, let the whining commence.Hillary screams into tear-stained pillow! Shocking!!!

Posted by: JSonofa | Oct 10 2017 18:06 utc | 10

@2 steven

The rules of the game have been known by all sides for a very long time, and the winning condition for just as long. Clinton might have gotten the most votes, but Trump won the election, and no amount of wishing the goalposts were positioned differently is going to change that.
Play the game to win by the rules of winning, not on your strengths and then bitterly complain that the winning condition doesn't match your strengths, because that makes you not just a loser, but a sore loser.

Posted by: poo is fertilizer too | Oct 10 2017 18:48 utc | 11

Yes b, Big Lies always deserve outing for however long it takes. Here's a link to several ongoing lies/cover-ups that are finally being exposed to the light of day,

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 10 2017 19:00 utc | 12

You bet it, EL Pais had an article explaining that the Russians had been interfering in the Catalan independentist claims

Posted by: Mina | Oct 10 2017 19:19 utc | 13

When Russia starts killing our politicians, let me know.

At that point they will be doing what the CIA has done for decades, see

Posted by: Perimetr | Oct 10 2017 19:19 utc | 14

ha Karlofi just beat me to the link

Posted by: Perimetr | Oct 10 2017 19:20 utc | 15

@10 Yes, indeed

Another way of saying it is that if the rules had been different Trump would have run differently with different results.

Trump ran for electoral votes.
Hillary ran for electoral votes.

Game over.

To look back and claim that all along they were really running a different game -- for popular votes -- is just thumb sucking by sore losers that are living in denial.

By the way,

"As a percentage of eligible voters, Clinton received 28.43% (65,845,063) of all votes compared to Trump’s 27.20% (62,980,160) and Did Not Vote’s 44.37%"

The most popular, the most votes, went to Mr Did Not Vote. And he ain't President either.

Posted by: Librul | Oct 10 2017 19:22 utc | 16

There's plenty of doubt that Russia interfered with US elections, but no doubt that the US meddled in a Russia election . .here.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 10 2017 19:24 utc | 17

Oilman 2 @ 9: said:"Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met."

"This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction"

Absolutely true.. Great synopsis.

Posted by: ben | Oct 10 2017 19:32 utc | 18

This "Russia did it" canard is really getting old. The U$A and it's corporate empire needs to go away...

Posted by: ben | Oct 10 2017 19:35 utc | 19

Perimetr @14--

Yeah, but considering the topic and info provided, that link ought to be posted every 25 comments or so. Here's one for you and all other barflies that aims at one aspect of the Massive Big Lie that keeps being covered up by the Outlaw US Empire for what by now ought to be obvious reasons, Mary's Mosaic, The book's Forward and Introduction are there for all to read, as well as essays about other actors. An excerpt from the Introduction:

"A ‘shadow government,’ what Cold War intelligence historian L. Fletcher Prouty once called “The Secret Team,” (and what Winston Churchill once referred to as the “High Cabal” that ruled the United States 6), has eviscerated America’s fledgling experiment in democracy. “On top of this,” wrote Prouty in 1992, “we have now begun to realize that one of the greatest causalities of the Cold War has been the truth. At no time in the history of mankind has the general public been so misled and so betrayed as it has been by the work of the propaganda merchants of this century and their ‘historians.’”7" My Emphasis, and why b must continue to do his tedious, repetitive work to tell the Truth and make the lying bastards accountable.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 10 2017 20:54 utc | 20

the problem is that those people "in charge" are autistic. they don't interact with the world, people, etc. they might be some of them, bi-polar enough, to fully understand, and even enjoy your cold, logical analysis. but there is no leverage on those people but one, a revolution and a "comité de salut public".

Posted by: broders | Oct 10 2017 21:13 utc | 21

"Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies."

That's a major development, thanks for that find. Apparently they need total information control in public space because big preparations are underway. Sadly, they are succeeding:

Americans pushed into pro-war frenzy by elite-controlled MSM & NATO

Years of Russia hysteria and North Korea fearmongering led by the US mainstream media and NATO propaganda have built support for war among Americans, making them ready to “fight and die” in overseas lands, author and journalist Max Blumenthal told RT.

A recent study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has pointed at a shift in the collective thinking and feeling of Americans, when it comes how they view global conflict.

The study was conducted over the last two years leading up to the elections in 2016 and found that Americans seem to have found a new appetite for war.

Blumenthal, who co-hosts the “Moderate Rebels” podcast focused on US interventions and is the Senior Editor of AlterNet’s Grayzone Project, spoke to RT America’s Manila Chan about these developments.


We also see, for the first time in history, a majority of Americans willing to send US troops to fight and die for Latvia against Russia, and that is a reflection of their support for NATO.

Liberals disproportionately support these militaristic policies, which seem to suggest support for a hot war with Russia, and even hot war with China. It would be disastrous if they took place. So why didn’t that take place? Because of the partisan war against Trump, who has been portrayed as an enemy of NATO – even though he is now as supportive of NATO as ever; as someone who is a Manchurian candidate of Russia, who is controlled by Putin’s nine-dimensional chess and has colluded with Russia. So, Democrats tend to see Russia in a negative light, and they support interventionist policies.

But if you also look at CNN and MSNBC versus Fox News, which is the de-facto channel of the Republican Party and Trump, you see non-stop contributors from the national security state – like James Clapper, Michael Hayden, the former CIA director – pushing these kinds of militaristic policies. So, these are the channels that Democrats watch. Their media, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, has really stepped up the fearmongering and militarism.

So, you see a total reversal from the Bush period, the Bush era – when Democrats were staunchly against the Iraq war, because it was Bush’s war. And now you see the people that are against guns that are against mass shooting – favoring pointing guns and committing mass shootings abroad.[..]

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 10 2017 21:13 utc | 22

And speaking of censorship:

UK today – Songs about Jewish Lies, Power and Control now a Criminal Offence – Alison Chabloz

This is almost funny given that the UK "elites" have been sponsoring Daesh from the beginning:

Britain To Criminalize Reading Online Extremist Content

Interestingly they clump together "far-right" (hint:Trump supporters) with Deash content.

Unfortunately Russia did not interfered with NATO obliteration of Libya. But some Hollyweird celebrities were involved:

How George Clooney was asked to spy on Gadaffi, before Hillary Clinton decided to destroy Libya

A series of leaked emails, seen by The Sunday Times, revealed how the Argentinian prosecutor urged the Hollywood actor to focus a number of commercial satellites on Libya and “put pressure on Gaddafi generals” by documenting evidence of humanitarian crimes.

Clooney is the co-founder of the Satellite Sentinel Project which uses commercial satellites to document war atrocities committed by the government in South Sudan.

Since the project launched in 2011, satellites have detected mass grave sites in the southern part of the Sudan, where the army has been accused of targeting a black ethnic minority.

Moreno Ocampo emailed Jolie to ask her to take part in a “honeytrap” dinner to capture Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, whose use of child soldiers was highlighted by a viral campaign in 2012. Moreno Ocampo wrote that Jolie “has the idea to invite Kony to dinner and then arrest him,” and said Jolie’s husband at the time, Brad Pitt, may accompany her to the Central African Republic.

Interesting to know about Clooney's ties to intelligence. He's been doing hell of a job for humanitarian causes, including the famous "Darfour" project that split South Sudan in two, giving the AngloZios control over the oil-rich southern part.

It's worth to mention that Angelina's Jolie father, a famous actor Jon Voight, is a strong supporter of the Jewish Chabad Lubawitch cult.

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 10 2017 21:57 utc | 23

IMHO, Russia-gate is all-about an effort to seize and control the internet ... even though kiddy porn and the "dark web" abides and thrives ... (yes, I saw the article about the police-run kiddy porn dark web hub.

Attacking Russia -- WWIII -- yes, eventually ... but first, control of the internet(s)

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 10 2017 22:27 utc | 24

"Clinton won the election."

Um, no she didn't. You win or lose any game according to the rules, which in this case were well known and have been around for a long time. Clinton, the supposedly competent "smart" candidate went for racking up bigger majorities in states she was going to win anyway.

Posted by: ian | Oct 10 2017 22:38 utc | 25

ian @24--

But as behavior by those at DNC proved, they had no intention of playing by the rules.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 10 2017 23:16 utc | 26

@steven t johnson #2
You write, "Clinton won the election." No, sir. By US law and tradition the election is the Electoral College. The fact is, she lost the popular vote with only a 48% plurality of those voting. Turnout was only 55%, which means Clinton had the approval of only about 26% of eligible voters. In fact, 49% if eligible voters chose to vote for neither of these two f*cks.

I for one did not for Trump and do not support him, but I do support the rule of law and tradition, which includes the Electoral College whether we like it or not. If we don't like the electoral process, we should work to change it, such as Move to Amend. I will savage Clinton till the cows come home, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "desperate effort to apologize for Trump," that stupid f*ck sitting in the White House whose incompetence could only have been outshown by Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: William Rood | Oct 11 2017 0:07 utc | 27

@26 -- it was a race to the bottom and the biggest asshole won it!

It matters little who the jockey is: the Pentagon owns the horse.

Posted by: x | Oct 11 2017 0:57 utc | 28

Maybe it was a year ago that I tried to explain the "federalist" nature of USSA presidential elections, and everyone (on some blog or other) was totally sure that I was advocating some profoundly Satanic thing (or whatever). The Constipation could specify that whoever received the most votes from all of the voters would be the winner. But it could just as well state that the candidate who won the most votes in the greatest number of states would be the winner. Now note that Wyoming has ~586,000 "residents", while California has ~39,250,000 "residents". 39,250,000/586,000 = ~67. So, if we used the latter method, each Wyoming voter would have ~67 times the "electoral power of each California voter. (This sort of reasoning has an amazing tendency to become super-complicated insanely fast!) It is relevant to note that each state sends exactly two senators to the Capitol; so each Wyoming voter has about sixty-seven times as much electoral power in that regard.

But like I said, it gets complicated real fast! Citizens in Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico cannot vote on the federal level at all (except to select "observers"). Furthermore, the Great State of South Dakota raises very much of it's revenue by assessing various fees upon its "residents" ("more officially" known as a "domiciliaries") but probably the great majority of these domiciliaries do not ever actually live in South Dakota. But they vote there, and no where else (of course they don't really vote there, since they are all over the country. Any American can become a permanent domiciliary there in one day if the simply pay the modest fees. This vastly increases the voting power of the tiny population who actually reside there, and gives them more congresspeople to boot.

So the Constipation explicitly requires a "federation" in which "the states themselves are people too" (sort of). So the Constipational "electoral system" is a sort of compromise that gives each state a number of "electoral votes" equal to the total number of congresspeople, which is determined by the number of domiciliaries (remember South Dakota here!) plus the number of senators, always just two for each state, and thus, the tiny states are given a bit of an advantage. This is why the electoral vote (which counts) can differ from the popular (majority) vote, which doesn't.

Oh and one other thing: these electoral votes do not apply directly to the presidential candidates. They apply to the temporary election of electoral college "electors". So the voters never actually vote for the presidents at all; they merely vote for these electors. However, no ordinary Americans have the faintest idea who these electors who they vote for, and who then vote for the presidents "on their behalf", really are.

And that's just how it works.

Posted by: blues | Oct 11 2017 1:05 utc | 29

Ian (@24),

Good comment. A cursory Internet search on the Electoral College yields the following:

"Currently, there is a total of 538 electors, there being 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors allocated to Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20) and Pennsylvania (20)."

In the first place, the United States does not have a single, national presidential election. It has fifty-one Presidential elections (counting the District of Columbia). Almost every one of these state presidential elections follows the winner-take-all formula in which 51% of the vote determines the winner. The remaining 49%, however distributed among all the candidates who received votes, does not count. For example, a candidate like You-Know-Her can win the California Presidential election -- and thus California's 55 Electoral College votes -- with 51% of the vote in California. Winning 75% or even 99% of the vote in California still wins only 55 Electoral College votes. Same for the other winner-take-all state elections. Piling up vote margins in excess of 51% in any state Presidential election accomplishes nothing. Apparently, this long-standing truism of American political life escaped You-Know-Her and those to whom she paid so much money for their lousy campaign advice. So she campaigned where she didn't need to, and didn't campaign where she should have. Not very smart, to say the least. Of course, she also had a truly awful negative image, no policy message worth mentioning, an unaccomplished political career spanning decades dangling from her husband's (Ross Perot provided) Presidencies, not to mention a shrill, hectoring voice that sounds like fingernails scraping over a schoolroom blackboard, so those things didn't help either.

All that aside, as Thomas Frank has said and written over so much of the last year, You-Know-Her could have simply chosen Senator Bernie Sanders as her Vice Presidential running mate -- you know, something obvious like partnering with a truly progressive and popular politician -- but she picked Tim Kaine, a complete non-entity who managed to lose the Vice Presidential debates to a religious fanatic like Mike Pence. You-Know-Her just couldn't find enough stupid things to do or smart things not to do.

In any event, looking at just the six states with the largest number of electors, You-Know-Her won California and New York for a total of 84 votes. All-About-Him won Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania for a total of 107 votes. Game over right there. More to the point, however: You-Know-Her campaigned where people felt OK with the status quo. All-About-Him, for his part, campaigned where people loathed Democrats traditionally and didn't like the status quo in any event. These people felt fucked-over by the ruling elites (of both right-wing factions of the Corporate Oligarchy Party) and wanted to scream "fuck you" right back, regardless of the absurdity of utilizing All-About-Him as the only available vehicle for delivering the message.

And I still have no idea what "the Russians" could possibly have done to "influence" this pretty simple and easy-to-understand calculus.

Posted by: Michael Murry | Oct 11 2017 1:12 utc | 30

Funny comment at 2:

Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful. Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation. Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 10, 2017 12:24:54 PM | 2

A few points:
(1) The Electoral College is part of the political system that grants roughly equivalent powers to the federal legislative, judicial and executive, and to the states. Notice how the Senate is structured? Why does Rhode Island get the same number of votes in the Senate as Texas, with its much larger population, does? So let's get rid of the Senate! . . . This is high school civics stuff.

(2) This election was supposed to be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton - that's what the big money donors wanted. Without serious DNC manipulation, it would have been Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump. What that mostly shows is the high level of public dissatisfaction with the status quo. So, the whole point of defending Clinton (the media/DNC game) has little to do with Trump - it's internal DNC politics, aimed at keeping Sanders supporters from taking over the DNC. That's what the Russia story is all about.

Republicans don't like talking about this much either, since they know that Sanders would have beaten Trump - they'd much rather run against Clinton. What it really comes down to is a plutocratic system of goverment, bent on perpetuating a global empire by any means necessary, with only a few politicians in either party (Rand Paul, say, or Tulsi Gabbard), opposing it.

Russia, is just a distraction game by those who don't want to draw attention to, for example, the fact that American infrastructure is falling apart and neither party seems capable of rebuilding it, just like neither party is capable of fixing our idiotic foreign policy - Afghanistan, Syria, same old BS.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Oct 11 2017 1:22 utc | 31

Anyone else get the sense that the Russiagate issue is dying out and the lost puppies promoting it are like the Japanese soldiers stuck on islands who didn't get the word that the WW2 was over?

I mean, folks like the Johnson fellow who was rather quick to pounce on the thread @2, should look back one year and do a fresh analysis on the situation at the time.

Money talks, advertising sells and mass media spews rhetoric but ultimately the campaign raises the money to pay for all this. Bezos and Zuckerberg with both fists on their handlebars are routinely done in by POTUS tweets as far as grabbing attention.

The editors and producers across the country must be waking up to the fact that the harder they drill down on this as a show of allegiance to the fallen duchess, the more they lose access to the White House and the ~62,000,000 voters who voted against her. That's a big chunk of market. If you're Macy's, maybe you purchase some hot lingerie ads in the WasPo, but Pew Research (not my endorsement, but they made a useful report) has an interesting line on the decline of advertising in the face of subscriptions -- but if a media giant accrues more subscribers, wouldn't the ad revenue follow? Link

The media, my impression, has so lowered the bar for editorial standards that anonymous sources and reporter bias have pretty much replaced journalism with echo-chamber pandering. So, anything goes. Nothing sticks.

Posted by: Stumpy | Oct 11 2017 2:42 utc | 32

"Without serious DNC manipulation, it would have been Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump."
Since we're talking about propaganda, don't forget the Washington Post. I (vaguely) remember the first Clinton-Sanders debate which all the polls said was won by Sanders, and then the Washington Post chimed in with the story that Clinton was the runaway winner. So why isn't the FBI investigating the WaPo instead of RT and Sputnik? . . .Sure.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 11 2017 2:42 utc | 33

Sputnik and RT Under FBI Investigation

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 11 2017 2:54 utc | 34

Sputnik and RT Under FBI Investigation

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 11 2017 2:54 utc | 35

It still looks like Tuvalu-USA 1:0. And USA is not even aware of it. Evidence: if you are an evil government bent on subverting USA, how large part of national budget would you commit to that cause? Naively, 1% or more, but if you want to stay hidden, perhaps you would stick to something of the order of 0.1-0.2%. In the case of Tuvalu, that would translate to 30-60 thousand USD. In the case of Russian Federation, that would be 200-400 million USD.

Concerning the points raised by nonsense factory, I mostly agree except that it was a bit less conspiratorial, IMHO. To the degree that Democratic Party has a political machine, it seems to be in the hand of "Third Way Liberals", people who think about themselves as technocrats, and competence is more important that all that left-right stuff. Alas, that are not all that competent. Bernie Sanders was opposed by a lopsided majority of the political machine, in DNC and outside, for the simple reason that he was not one of them.

Concerning imperialist foreign policy, so few Americans care about it that it is driven purely by a combination of lobbies. They run gamut from "Israel is our most precious and beloved ally" to more tepid "We will always support Israel". The distinctions may look hilarious from outside, but they produce a surprising amount of mutual enmity. On North Korea, the gamut seems to be trying to starve them, but without hectoring, or super hectoring. Trump seems less dangerous than Hillary, but mostly because he has a habit of interrupting his underlings before they explain him anything complicated, so less chance that he will agree on a major invasion or sustained bombing.

It is a bit more interesting with health care policies, because they are subject of diverse pressures, only some of them coming from well financed lobbies. And now Democrats are defending their chief achievement, ACA a.k.a. Obamacare, a reform partially disabled at its inception, seemingly by the futile desire of Obama to make it "bipartisan". Obama was highly erudite and intelligent, so his lack of understanding and myopic perspective point to a more systematic mental ailment of the Democratic establishment.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 11 2017 3:46 utc | 36

Sorry to Bernie Sanders supporters.

Q: Do you expect me to believe Sanders any different from Hillary or Obomo?
A: No, lesser evil? The lesser evils still evil!

Sanders supporters, get a life Trump won regardless... The same to DNC, get a life Trump won in spite no burger evidences, Putin or Russia changed the outcome 2016 election.

What more proofs do you need Sanders a prostitute, no different from Hillary, Obomo or any democrats, (below)?

He supported the White Helmets.

He Support and voted with the other 99 senators "All 100 members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to the United Nations on April 27 that spread misleading pro-Israel myths. Included as signatories were the Senate's two progressive leaders, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. "

He rejected BDS "he supported Israel’s right to exist, rejected the anti-Israel BDS campaign, and blasted the anti-Israel bias at the United Nations "

He supported "NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999....The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq war, he voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government in Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted," but he blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. When an audience member asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

Posted by: OJS | Oct 11 2017 3:55 utc | 37

In August 2016 I was unexpectedly bombarded by hundreds of political adds for the campaign to reelect Rob Portman for the senate seat for Ohio. The ads would appear wherever Google has advertising space, on YouTube, and on alternative media sites, usually with multiple copies on the same page. The barrage continued for over a month. I am a Finnish citizen and have not even been to Ohio for decades, so I could not understand why the U.S. elections were interfering in me. It took me several weeks to understand what had happened.

In April 2016, John Jones, a British lawyer who represented Julian Assange died after being struck by train in West Hampstead. Wikileaks tweeted about the death on August 16th.

I commented on the incident in a photo post on Facebook on August 20. The photo I used was a screencap of a 1965 Hollywood movie, the type that were posted outside movie theaters before the digital age. To find the right photo I used Google image search, searching by the names of the leading actors, Rod Taylor and Jill St. John. At first I had accidentally misspelled Rod Taylor's name as Rob Taylor.

As we are on the topic of the new Cold War, I will reproduce my full post here:


The 1965 film, The Liqudator, staring Rod Taylor and Jill St. John, presents the standard operating procedure used by the British secret services for assassinating Commies, Russian trolls and other enemy agents of influence: push them under the train at the Tube station.

After Julian Assange implied that DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was shot dead in Washington, DC, was the source for #DNCLeaks, a new conspiracy theory has emerged: Was Assange's lawyer John Jones also murdered?

The sources:

Assange lawyer dies - The Register, 19 Apr 2016
a statement from his legal firm did not provide any details on the nature or location of his death.

Britain’s top human rights lawyer who represented Julian Assange and worked alongside George Clooney’s wife Amal dies in apparent suicide - The Sun, 21 April 2016
A spokesman for British Transport Police said it was called to West Hampstead rail station in north London at 7.07am on Monday after a man was struck by a train.

A spokesman added: “He was pronounced dead at the scene. The man’s death is not being treated as suspicious. A file will be prepared for the coroner.”

WikiLeaks @wikileaks Aug 16
Lest we forget: beloved WikiLeaks lawyer killed by train. Left behind wife and two young children. Rest in Power JJ

Arkancide: lawyer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dead - Dr. Eowyn, August 18, 2016
John Jones worked at renowned civil rights legal firm Doughty Street in central London, alongside Hollywood actor George Clooney’s wife Amal. He specialized in extradition, war crimes and counter-terrorism, taking cases from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Cambodia. At the time of his Arkancide, Jones was trying to save the lives of Colonel Gaddafi’s son Saif and Libyan spy chief Abdullah al-Senussi. Both had been ordered before a firing squad in Tripoli, but Jones was trying to divert their case to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Holland, which does not have the death penalty.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Oct 11 2017 8:21 utc | 38

Nothing illegal about a foreign government trying to influence an election abroad. Problems arise when nationals of that country actively collude with foreign governments.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 11 2017 8:53 utc | 39

Well said, "b"

Posted by: Michael S | Oct 11 2017 9:20 utc | 40

What an odd comment Steven T Johnson has posted @ 2. Does he not understand how the US electoral system works? The Electoral College has always chosen the President. I suppose Johnson would have preferred Richard Nixon to have won the 1960 Presidential election over John F Kennedy - Nixon won the popular vote then.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 11 2017 10:13 utc | 41

Died down? Lol. That's why Carter Page just pledged the 5th

Posted by: ridiculous | Oct 11 2017 13:37 utc | 42

The blame Russia hype -> an outside enemy, a traditional long standing one - is just a last ditch stab of the usual US vilification efforts, this time to not much purpose.

So much hysterical steam has gathered, signs of US unity, from the pol. duopoloy, the MSM, the mega corps, the MIC, the underground actors, secret plotters *gvmt. controlled,* and “foreign” influences…

These various factions can’t accuse each other (except for Dem-Rep local to keep ppl divided and confused) so the blame Russia meme suits, specially because it represents a US failure, manifested in incredulous anger and virulous spite: Russia was supposed to be subjugated (corps, oil cos, control of finance, agri, terror attacks, breakaway regions, etc.) and its ppl thrown into poverty, desperation, local strife, war … decimated, killed off, and then working for US oil cos. McDos and as lovely brides and cute kids globally.

That didn’t happen, it was decided to implement the same scenario on Ukraine (stick with the same playbook and find a weaker enemy..) A catastrophic choice which saw the return of Crimea to Russia and the Donbass as a de-facto R-protectorate. Then, Bashar’s Syria, where the US has practically been driven out. (I can’t believe how long that took and how agonising the wait was…I’m like ready to join the Putin get with it crowd, heh.) Russia and Iran have won and even if that is slim win, vulnerable, there it is.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 11 2017 15:24 utc | 43

What more proofs do you need Sanders a prostitute, no different from Hillary, Obomo or any democrats, (below)? Posted by: OJS | Oct 10, 2017 11:55:12 PM | 37

It is one of the principles of ontology that "ours" are all different, and "they" are all the same. For that matter, there are huge distinctions between prostitutes. If Sanders were in business of satisfying customers with big bucks, I guess he could be preferred by masochist in bad need for a stern dominatrix, while those more partial for a motherly type ...

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 11 2017 15:41 utc | 44

Great article over on Sputnik by Finian Cunningham about who is really buying influence - Absurd Russian Ad Hype as US Corporations Buy Democracy -

Posted by: R. Martin | Oct 11 2017 17:39 utc | 45

Meanwhile Tom Friedman doubles up on the misreporting in the NYT editorial section:
Friedman is never the most rigorous, and he certainly knows what hand feeds him. Still this is beneath ridiculous rehashing of false and misleading information. The url (which I copied above accordingly) makes that all the more sad-clownish.
But the more interesting is this: Since Friedman is a columnist, we can see comments from the readers... and mostly they just swallow the bs like champs, with the usual smattering of calls for retaliation and more. US liberals: the leading warmongering fascists of the 21st century.

Posted by: fx | Oct 12 2017 13:35 utc | 46

It seems that Sanders has good intentions, but he's caught between a rock and a hard place. Looks too scared of the lobby to reveal much, rather hinting:

The MSM instead of inflating the "Russia influence" should be rather than investigating other explosive topics:

Not only the pressitutes give Hitlery their protective shield, they push some kind of sick, twisted worhship of her that made me almost puke:

This is probably good move

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 12 2017 13:41 utc | 47

This is interesting

‘Human input into YouTube machinery’ makes specific news trend – Project Veritas (VIDEO)

[..] In the recording Pettie also says Nick Dudich, audience strategy editor for the New York Times, is “one of the people I think who has more knowledge about YouTube as a platform than probably anyone else that I know.”

Speaking with a member of Project Veritas, Dudich said that he placed a negative report about Facebook in a spot where he knew it wouldn’t draw much attention, while bragging about using his Silicon Valley friendships to make videos trend.

“We actually just did a video about Facebook negatively, and I chose to put it in a spot that I knew wouldn’t do well,” Dudich said in the secretly filmed conversation.

Dudich claimed that his friends in Silicon Valley helped NYT videos trend, while saying he doesn’t want the NYT to know about his connections, according to Project Veritas.

“Let’s say something ends up on the YouTube front page, the New York Times freaks out about it, but they don't know it's just because my friends curate the front page. So, it’s like, a little bit of mystery you need in any type of job to make it look like what you do is harder than what it is,” Dudich says in the recording.
Read more
© Shannon Stapleton NYT video editor caught bragging about slanting Trump coverage (VIDEO)

The video released Wednesday is the latest in a Project Veritas series called “American Pravda,” aimed at the US mainstream media. The installment released Tuesday also featured recordings of Dudich, in which he claims he worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to counter the “threat” of Trump and that he did not join the Times to “be objective.”

It is impossible to assess the credibility of Dudich’s claims, however, as he also claimed that former FBI Director James Comey was his godfather, and that he used to participate in Antifa activities on behalf of the FBI.

Dudich admitted this was not true after Project Veritas interviewed his father, who said he didn’t even know Comey. It was “a good story,” Dudich said when asked why he lied. [..]

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 12 2017 16:16 utc | 48

I urge all good people to move away from FB, Google, enemies of mankind, asap:

Facebook pressured by Senate to work with social platforms in hunting ‘bad actors’

[..] When these bad actors are trying to cause harm, they don't just go on our platform ‒ they go on others,” Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg told Axios on Thursday. Facebook is working with both the US government and other technology companies “so that when anyone identifies a threat, we can get them [sic] off all of our platforms.

Without offering specifics, Sandberg said that “things happened on our platform in this election that should not have happened ‒ especially, and very troubling, [sic] foreign interference in a democratic election.”

[..] In May 2016, a former Facebook employee said the employees curating the trending news section let their political bias influence the story rankings, discriminating against conservatives.

Emails from the private email account of Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks last October, show Sandberg wanting Clinton to “win badly” and promising to help make that happen. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg also wrote several personal emails to Podesta, saying their interactions have “really moved [his] thinking.”

Asked if Facebook owed Americans an apology, Sandberg told Axios that the company is “determined” to defeat any foreign threats, “because our values are worth defending.”

“We think we've done a very thorough job on this Russian actor,” she added. [..]

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 13 2017 14:09 utc | 49

to fx comment 46.

i seldom read MSM directly these days.
but i always read the comments on this website (some times i read each and every comment (when i have the time)
and then follow the MSM links referred to.

its the best and only way to read other peoples bulls*t

nice reading article by Tom Friedman in NYTimes (aka Jew York Times)
(when i say nice, i mean from a comedic/ironic point of view)

"There is an abiding dream in the tech world that when all the planet’s people and data are connected it will be a better place. That may prove true. But getting there is turning into a nightmare — a world where billions of people are connected but without sufficient legal structures, security protections or moral muscles among companies and users to handle all these connections without abuse.
Lately, it feels as if we’re all connected but no one’s in charge."

hahahahahaha (oops missed one) ha

what do you mean no one is in charge. i always thought the CIA/NSA and other US/EU/NATO were in charge
he makes reference to Google (
(google search "cia created google".....2.06 million hits)
also referrs to Facebook, Twitter etc
(forgot to mention Amazon (Bezos/Washington Post etc)

dont use Facebook. its just 1 giant data-collecting agency
where all the f*****ers freely give up all their personal details to the CIA

no need for anyone to do any sort of old-world stuff such as "hacking"

there is a saying that
"to iterate is human to recurse divine"

ie any f*****ker can iterate
i've always wanted to be able to recurse
now, thanks to Google/Facebook it becomes feasible for a person to do that iteration thing

(although i think time travel is still going to prove a lot harder to master.....haha)

I like to get abusive.
but unfortunately i must stick to irony, or sarcasm.

PS i only backed Trump because his odds (at 3/1 or so (after he had secured the Republicos nomination) seemed so good
(3/1 in a 2-horse race is generally good)

Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2017 14:41 utc | 50

sorry i meant
now, thanks to Google/Facebook it becomes feasible for a person to do that recursion thing

Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2017 14:43 utc | 51

PS Tom Friedman
"There is an abiding dream in the tech world that when all the planet’s people and data are connected it will be a better place. That may prove true. But getting there is turning into a nightmare — a world where billions of people are connected but without sufficient legal structures, security protections or moral muscles among companies and users to handle all these connections without abuse.

Lately, it feels as if we’re all connected but no one’s in charge."

I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony) - 1971

(and dont skimp on the Harmony)

Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2017 14:48 utc | 52

re:Tom Friedman article (

"Last November, Facebook C.E.O. Mark Zuckerberg dismissed as “a pretty crazy idea” evidence that people were using Facebook to generate fake news to tip the U.S. election. Last week, after disclosing hundreds of Russia-linked accounts — where fictional people posing as U.S. activists spread inflammatory messages about immigration and guns and trashed Hillary Clinton and boosted Donald Trump — Zuckerberg admitted, “Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.”

Facebook “a pretty crazy idea”

google search "girl commits suicide facebook bullying" 215,000 hits
i never knew any company could be so succesful

don't ban bullying; just avoid Facebook

Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2017 15:05 utc | 53

One Imperator_Rex on Twitter says that Wikileaks will have "dirt" to dish on the Trump/Russia/Clinton *leak* in coming days:

Posted by: Brucie A. | Oct 19 2017 14:14 utc | 54

I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony) - 1971

(and dont skimp on the Harmony)

Posted by: chris m | Oct 14, 2017 10:48:52 AM | 52

Am I wrong in thinking that the slavic-looking blonde chick, the 2nd woman who appears in the video about 5 seconds in, is wearing what looks like some sort of "traditional Ukrainian" dress?

Posted by: Just Sayin' | Oct 19 2017 18:21 utc | 55

It's okay when Bill Clinton interferes in Russian election....remember this?

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

Posted by: Ruben Chandler | Oct 26 2017 5:15 utc | 56

The comments to this entry are closed.