Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Saturday, Dec. 15, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
In blow to Mueller investigation, Google CEO says Russians spent less than $5K on campaign ads in 2016
by Ben Baird
Photo via Video ScreenshotThe theory that “Russian masterminds” pulled off a technological coup by swaying the electorate to vote for Donald Trump remains popular among Democrats. No one appreciates this explanation more than twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who scheduled a blame-all book tour around the allegation that Russian interference in the 2016 election cost the former first lady her chance to sit in the Oval Office.
But Google CEO Sundar Pichai played the role of Democratic myth-buster on Tuesday by providing testimony before the House Judiciary Committee that dramatically undercuts the left’s insistence Russia botched the 2016 election. Pichai informed the committee that Moscow’s supposedly sophisticated cyber-espionage campaign spent a mere $4,700 on Google advertising during the presidential race.
Red Scare Reborn
“We undertook a very thorough investigation, and in 2016, we now know of two main Russian accounts linked to Russia which advertised on Google for about $4,700 in advertising,” the CEO said in response to Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) questions regarding the extent of Russian meddling.
Nadler appeared to do a double take and asked Pichai to repeat the figure, which did not change the second time around. The central actors behind Moscow’s vaunted cyber influence campaign spent a paltry, inconsequential sum on reaching U.S. voters on the world’s most widely usedinternet search engine.
Chump change
The social media giant Facebook reported similar findings after an internal review in 2017. Investigators determined that thousands of ads purchased by Russian firms cost $100,000, and few of these sponsored promotions were actually designed to support Trump or Clinton.
Instead, most of the ads focused on dividing Americans by focusing on hot-button issues like race, LGBT issues, and gun rights. In other words, Russian trolls simply echoed content already published by American media outlets, which attract viewers based on the very same polarizing issues.
In contrast, together Trump and Clinton dwarfed the Russian investment, spending $81 million on Facebook advertisements alone before Election Day 2016.
The 3,000 Facebook ads that Russia used to expand their reach represented a drop in the bucket compared to total campaign spending. For instance, Clinton spent over $214 million on television ads that — like Russia’s promotions — had very little to do with policy.
“This is not high-level spycraft,” concluded Alex Madrigal, staff writer for The Atlantic. “It is, rather, bread-and-butter audience-development work. My guess here is that they simply looked at Facebook analytics. It’s one click in the Facebook interface to look at these numbers.”
Troll factory
Yet, the mainstream media continues to report that “Putin’s Propaganda Network is Vast,” while Democrats see shadowy Kremlin agents behind every election upset.
A Wired report from November 2017 charged that the Trump administration was failing to fully fund and implement the State Department’s efforts to counter state propaganda efforts through its recently formed Global Engagement Center (GEC). A disgruntled former GEC employee suggested that his mission to fight Russia’s disinformation campaign was stalled throughout 2017 as the State Department reviewed its national security priorities and considered how to effectively fund its efforts to counter state-sponsored propaganda.
When Russia spends a paltry $4,700 in Google advertising, the State Department can hardly be blamed for refusing to rush headlong into funding a costly and provocative counter-propaganda program. But the lack of an imminent threat didn’t stop Wired from concluding that “the Tillerson-led State Department is avoiding any moves that might anger Moscow.”
The bottom line is that Russia was reduced to a regional power following their Cold War demise, and their cyber-espionage efforts reflect the lack of technological sophistication that can be expected from a country where poverty is the top concern among voters.
Judge Jeanine Pirro calls out Democrats over ‘Russian collusion delusion’
Judge Jeanine Pirro calls out Democrats over ‘Russian collusion delusion’
by Jerry McCormick
Photo via Fox News Insider Youtube VideoJudge Jeanine Pirro has had just about all she can take of Robert Mueller’s investigation and the false Democrat narrative on Russia collusion.
During her Saturday edition of her Fox News show, Justice with Judge Jeanine, Pirro told the anti-Trumpers to “fold up their fantasy tents” on the “Russian collusion delusion.”
Money and Time Wasted
The Mueller investigation has gone on for about two years now.
Estimates as to how much money has been spent on the investigation regularly top out at over $60 million.
But after all that time, the only things that have come of the probe are some indictments for former Trump staffers on charges that had nothing at all to do with collusion — or Trump.
In fact, on that front, Mueller has come up with exactly nothing.
Divisiveness
But Pirro wasn’t just upset about the time and money being spent on the investigation.
Mueller’s probe has also left a nation that feels more divided than ever.
And Democrats continuing demands for the impeachment of Trump is only adding more fuel to that fire.
With Democrats only weeks away from taking charge of Congress, Republicans are extremely fearful that one of the first pieces of business is going to be impeachment filings against Trump.
This will only cause more angst and divide in a country that is already on the verge of an internal meltdown.
It will also likely be a waste of time and money, since Dems don’t actually have anything to charge Trump with.
And while Democrats are trying to justify their congressional salaries, the American people are the ones that are going to have to foot the bill for their irresponsible decisions.
Targeting Comey
Pirro also made note of how former FBI Director James Comey plays into all of this.
There is little doubt that Comey — or someone under his watch — has leaked sensitive information to the media.
There is also little doubt that Comey used bogus information to secure warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Even so, Comey has not received so much as a slap on the wrist for his actions.
“Cardinal James Comey believes the rules don’t apply to him,” Pirro said. “He doesn’t remember important facts about… the FISA case that required his approval.”
According to transcripts from the closed-door hearings before congressional committees, Comey has already perfected the art of saying a lot without saying anything.
He does so with a big smirk on his face because he knows nothing will ever come of it.
On that point, Pirro is right: Comey does think he is above the law because as of yet, nobody has proved him wrong.
Trump on Kasich, Flake Competing in 2020: 'I Hope So'
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Trump on Kasich, Flake Competing in 2020: 'I Hope So'
By Sandy Fitzgerald
President Donald Trump, pointing to his approval ratings, said Thursday he hopes Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake do mount presidential campaigns against him in 2020.
"I hope so," he told Fox News' Harris Faulkner Thursday. "I think I have the greatest base in the history of politics. I have people who love me, frankly. That includes a lot of women. I got a tremendous percentage of women last time."
A new poll shows Trump at 46 percent approval rating, and complained that he still gets bad news press.
"When you tell me I'm at 48, last time it was at 50 percent at Rasmussen," he said. "When I am a 50 percent, and when I open up China like I'm doing right now, nobody reports it."
Trump said he is particularly pleased with his support among women, as he didn't think he would get one woman's vote while running in 2016 against Hillary Clinton.
"Hillary wished she had my numbers," said Trump. "She got trounced with women. I will tell you something, the news and polls are really fake, but I have the greatest base in history, because the 46 and 48 percent, those people never wavered. In fact, it was your pullback. Fox News has always given me a bad poll but other than that, they treat me fairer than most. I don't know why that is. But the poll has already been lousy."
He also spoke about his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying that there is still a way to go but China is opening its trade to other countries because "they want to please President Trump.
"I think we are going to work a fantastic deal for both to a countries, and fantastic for us," said Trump. "We will get them to open up."
But China's economy is "only in trouble because of me," he said. "We never made any money with China, we lost money with China. In the last four months, we've taken in almost $11 billion of taxes paid nobody has ever heard of that, nobody knows that. People don't report on that. They only report on nonsense."
The Federal Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped Major Bombshell
By Margot Cleveland
The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning, which may indicate they’re hiding the truth.
On Tuesday, attorneys for Michael Flynn filed a sentencing memorandum and letters of support for the former Army lieutenant general in federal court. The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple 302 interview summaries of Flynn’s questioning by now-former FBI agent Peter Strzok and a second unnamed agent, reported to be FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka.
Further revelations may be forthcoming soon following an order entered late yesterday by presiding judge Emmet Sullivan, directing the special counsel’s office to file with the court any 302s or memorandum relevant to Flynn’s interview.
Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, pleaded guilty more than a year ago to making false statements to federal investigators during a January 24, 2017 interview. During that interview, Strzok and (presumably) Pientka questioned Flynn about a telephone conversation the Trump advisor had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
While Flynn’s sentencing memorandum methodically laid out the case for a low-level sentence of one-year probation, footnote 23 dropped a bomb, revealing that the agents’ 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As others have already noted, the August 22, 2017 date is a “striking detail” because that puts the 302 report “nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.” When added to facts already known, this revelation takes on a much greater significance.
First, text messages between Strzok and former FBI Attorney Lisa Page indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned the national security advisor on January 24, 2017. Specifically, on February 14, 2017, Strzok texted Page, “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page responded, “Launch on f 302.” Given Strzok’s role in the questioning Flynn, the date (three weeks from the interview), the notation “F 302,” and Page’s position as special counsel to Andrew McCabe, it seems extremely likely that these text exchanges concerned a February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview.
Additionally, now that we know from the sentencing memorandum that the special counsel’s office has tendered a 302 interview summary dated August 22, 2017, we can deduce that an earlier 302 form existed from James Comey’s Friday testimony before the House judiciary and oversight committees.
During the day-long questioning of the former FBI Director, Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Comey whether the agents who interviewed Flynn had indicated that Flynn did not intend to deceive them during the interview. After Comey replied “No,” Gowdy pushed him, asking “Have you ever testified differently?” Comey again responded, “No.”
But when asked whether he recalled being asked that question doing an earlier House hearing, Comey countered: “No. I recall — I don’t remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.” (More on that testimony shortly.) This exchange then followed:
Mr. Gowdy: “Who would you have gotten that from if you were not present for the interview?”
Mr. Comey: “From someone at the FBI, who either spoke to — I don’t think I spoke to the interviewing agents but got the report from the interviewing agents.”
Mr. Gowdy: “All right. So you would have, what, read the 302 or had a conversation with someone who read the 302?”
Mr. Comey: “I don’t remember for sure. I think I may have done both, that is, read the 302 and then investigators directly. I just don’t remember that.”
President Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, so the 302 of the Flynn interview Comey read must have been written before then. Why then was a new 302 drafted on August 22, 2017? And by whom?
The timing of the re-write—shortly after then-FBI Agent Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after his anti-Trump text messages came to light—raises the possibility that Mueller wanted to scrub the evidence of Strzok’s taint. Having the second agent involved in questioning Flynn draft a new 302 summary would eliminate attacks premised on Strzok’s bias against the president.
But was that the only reason the FBI issued a new 302? Were there any differences in the versions?
Congress has been trying to get to the bottom of this question for months upon months. In February, senators Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham requested the DOJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, conduct a comprehensive review of potential misconduct in the Russia investigation and specifically asked Horowitz to answer these questions about the Flynn interview and the 302s:
“Did the FBI agents document their interview with Lt. Gen. Flynn in one or more FD-302s? What were the FBI agents’ conclusions about Lt. Gen. Flynn’s truthfulness, as reflected in the FD-302s? Were the FD-302s ever edited? If so, by whom? At who’s direction? How many drafts were there? Are there material differences between the final draft and the initial draft(s) or the agent’s testimony about the interview?”
Horowitz has yet to answer these questions, but the special counsel’s office now has federal judge Sullivan inquiring as well. Sullivan made history a decade ago when he ordered an independent investigation into “the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence,” he discovered during the government’s prosecution of the now-deceased Ted Stevens, then the senior senator from Alaska. The DOJ’s misconduct in the Stevens’ case led Sullivan to enter a standing order in all criminal cases on his docket.
The most recent iteration of Sullivan’s standing entered in the Flynn case required Mueller’s office to produce “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” The order further required the government to submit to the court any information “which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material.”
Flynn referenced some of these materials in his sentencing memorandum, specifically the FR-302 from August 22, 2017 and a memorandum apparently written by McCabe and dated January 24, 2017—the same day as Flynn’s interview. Now Sullivan wants to see those documents and ordered Mueller by Friday afternoon “to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302.” Sullivan further ordered “the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to [Flynn’s interview.]”
What motivated Sullivan is unclear, but his experience in the Stevens’ case was a likely trigger. In that case, the government withheld 302s, didn’t include exculpatory statements in the 302s, and did not create a 302 for an interview that “didn’t go very well,” from the prosecution’s standpoint. Sullivan likely wants to assure himself that the Flynn case isn’t a copycat of the political targeting of Stevens from a decade ago.
Once the government dockets the evidence, Sullivan should be able to resolve two outstanding questions: First, what, if any, changes were made to the 302s? Second, did Strzok and his fellow FBI agent express a view on whether Flynn was lying?
Here, we return to Comey’s testimony from Friday referenced above, that “the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.” Comey further explained, though, that his “recollection was [Flynn] was — the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being — they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there.”
The earlier version(s) of the 302s will either support or contradict Comey’s testimony. Same with McCabe’s January 24, 2017 memorandum. The latter will prove particularly interesting given the conflict between Comey’s latest testimony and that of McCabe, who served as deputy director of the FBI at the time. In an executive session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, McCabe acknowledged “the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying, . . .”
Of course, this all assumes that the special counsel’s office still has copies of the initial 302s created, which might not be the case given that when Mueller’s “pitbull,” Andrew Weissmann, led the Enron Task Force, his team, among other things, systematically destroyed draft 302s.
Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.
‘Smells like quite the cover up’: Findings from new OIJ report raise red flags
(YouTube Screenshot)A startling report released Wednesday by the Office of the Inspector General left many wondering if perhaps it’s time to investigate special counsel Robert Mueller.
According to the report, someone within Mueller’s office reset the government-issued phones of disgraced former FBI special agent Peter Strzok and disgraced former FBI attorney Lisa Page after they were booted from his investigation into Russian collusion last year.
Justice OIG ✔@JusticeOIGDOJ OIG releases report of investigation describing the recovery of text messages from certain FBI mobile devices https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf …
10:09 AM - Dec 13, 2018
This matters because both prior to them joining the special counsel’s team and during their time handling the investigation into then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, the duo exchanged text messages that referenced an “insurance policy” against Trump’s election.
The exact meaning of this “insurance policy” remains unclear because thousands of the romantically involved duo’s text messages disappeared once word of their anti-Trump animus went public.
The report notes that following Strzok and Page’s departure from the Special Counsel’s Office, Mueller’s staff reset their phones and then issued them to new owners.
Peter Strzok was removed from the Mueller probe BECAUSE of his inappropriate and politically biased texts. Now Mueller is saying that they weren't an issue and that's why his people deleted all of his messages before OIG could see them. Not buying it.https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1073250333948895233 …
Regarding Strzok’s phone in particular, the report reads, “[T]his iPhone had been reset to factory settings and was reconfigured for the new user to whom the device was issued. It did not contain data related to Strzok’s use of the device.”
More notable is the discovery that a member of Mueller’s team reset the disgraced former agent’s phone after reviewing it and reportedly “determin[ing] it contained no substantive text messages.”
This may explain why the OIG has been unable to locate any text messages from Dec. 13, 2016, to May 17, 2017, the day that Mueller was appointed special counsel.
Strzok was a senior agent in the FBI National Security Branch who was fired for wrong doing, due to his text messages, and criminally referred by the DOJ OIG.
His phones should have been sealed in evidence bags and locked up tight.#Mueller wiped them clean. Unreal.
His phones should have been sealed in evidence bags and locked up tight.#Mueller wiped them clean. Unreal.
This discovery contradicts the FBI’s original claim. When the OIG first realized that five months of messages were missing, the bureau reportedly blamed the discrepancy on an alleged technical glitch that affected the phones’ message retention system.
The OIG’s report seemingly disproves this claim, though it stops short of explicitly noting so. What remains unclear is whether the FBI had merely been mistaken or had purposefully lied.
Even more troubling to many — particularly on social media — is the timing aspect. Because the messages reappeared the day Mueller was assigned, some wonder if his very assignment had been part of Strzok and Page’s “insurance policy” against the president.
Trump’s agenda has been stymied in part because of the special counsel’s relentless attacks on him, his family and his current and former associates.
John Solomon: DIA is holding doc that can exonerate Flynn, ‘we should all ask for declassification’
Frieda Powers 
A bombshell revelation by The Hill’s John Solomon pointed to a document held by the Defense Intelligence Agency which could potentially exonerate retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Solomon spoke about the existence of the document, which he said even President Donald Trump was not aware of, in an appearance on Fox News on Thursday.
The “Hannity” panel, which included Solomon, addressed the latest developments in the case of Trump’s former national security adviser who awaits sentencing for lying to the FBI.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered that documents related to Flynn’s FBI interview in 2017 be turned over to him, sparking speculation that the case against him could be tossed out due to the circumstances surrounding Flynn’s conversations with FBI agents.
“Let me say this about Mike Flynn,” Solomon told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday.
“In May 2017, there was a document identified to a small number of people in the United State government. It’s in the possession of the Defense Intelligence Agency,” he revealed.
“For 18 months there’s been an effort to resist declassifying that document,” the award-winning investigative journalist said.
“I know that that document contains extraordinary exculpatory information about General Flynn,” Solomon shared. “I don’t believe the president has ever been told about this document. One lawmaker discovered it but he was thwarted by the Defense Intellige’nce Agency in his ability to disclose it.”
He called for an effort to be made to release the document and reveal the information contained within it, in the hopes it could “enlighten” Judge Sullivan.
“I think we all should ask for that declassification,” Solomon said. “Get that out. It may enlighten the judge. It will certainly enlighten the American public.”
The extraordinary revelation sparked a cry on social media to get the word out and for the document to be de-classified.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/12/www_14.html
Related Posts :
Back From Another Con... With More Books! Day 1
Spongebob Schwammkopf – Schluckauf Remix | Nickelodeon Deutschland- Crafty Weekends Link Party
‘Happy Birthday, Breanna Yde!’ Official Tribute Music Video feat. ‘Our Time is Now’ | Nickelodeon- Batvark #1--the Path to Paradise Begins in Hell? The Last Wednesday of Every Month...
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment