By "messengers" , do you mean the obviously biased media that spends every minute of every day trying to take down Trump? The message they are giving the sheep is completely biased because they are all butthurt from Trump's victory and Trump's negative remarks about their bias and bullshit. I don't know if the guilty pleas will have anything significant to do with Trump and the year long claim of Russian collusion. Now that they can't find collusion, the media is shifting to obstruction. But if there was no collusion, what's the motivation for obstruction?
ScienceChic wrote: You can attack the messenger, but the message remains the same. Do you think the indictments and guilty pleas are all lies?
“The fact that Robert Mueller fired an investigator immediately when these texts came to light is evidence he’s running a tight ship and lends credibility to his investigation — not detracts from it,” Lisa Gilbert, an expert on government ethics at the watchdog group Public Citizen, told me.
And when it comes to the Clinton memo, Strzok wasn’t acting alone. According to CNN, the memo drafting process was a “team effort” and a “handful of people” reviewed the edited language.
Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Strzok could’ve overridden Comey’s own view of Clinton’s conduct. Even if Strzok were in fact leading a partisan effort to tweak the language out of a personal desire to defend Clinton, he couldn’t have done it against the will of his own boss. And Comey is famously hostile to political favoritism or chumminess with politicians.
“That fact that it appears Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation as soon as he find out about the messages tends to underscore Mueller’s seriousness about keeping the investigation free from even the appearance of bias,” Noble told me.
This is a video interview of one of Trump's campaign marketing managers explaining how they advertised using the Cambridge Analytica data. With Facebook's direct help.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested that Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign, turn over documents as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Mueller asked the firm in the fall to turn over the emails of any Cambridge Analytica employees who worked on the Trump campaign, in a sign that the special counsel is probing the Trump campaign’s data operation.
The special counsel's request, which the firm complied with, wasn’t previously known. The emails had earlier been turned over to the House Intelligence Committee, the people said, adding that both requests were voluntary.
During the campaign, Cambridge Analytica provided data, polling and research services to the campaign.
How Cambridge Analytica gathered its data in the first place and how it's used against you.
A key insider from the Trump campaign's digital operation - Theresa Wong - unravels for the first time the role played by social media and Facebook's in getting Trump into the White House.
Jamie Bartlett learns how Facebook's vast power to persuade was first built for advertisers, combining data about our internet use and psychological insights into how we think.
On November 9 at around 8.30 AM., Michal Kosinski woke up in the Hotel Sunnehus in Zurich. The 34-year-old researcher had come to give a lecture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) about the dangers of Big Data and the digital revolution. Kosinski gives regular lectures on this topic all over the world. He is a leading expert in psychometrics, a data-driven sub-branch of psychology. When he turned on the TV that morning, he saw that the bombshell had exploded: contrary to forecasts by all leading statisticians, Donald J. Trump had been elected president of the United States.
For a long time, Kosinski watched the Trump victory celebrations and the results coming in from each state. He had a hunch that the outcome of the election might have something to do with his research. Finally, he took a deep breath and turned off the TV.
On the same day, a then little-known British company based in London sent out a press release: "We are thrilled that our revolutionary approach to data-driven communication has played such an integral part in President-elect Trump's extraordinary win," Alexander James Ashburner Nix was quoted as saying. Nix is British, 41 years old, and CEO of Cambridge Analytica. He is always immaculately turned out in tailor-made suits and designer glasses, with his wavy blonde hair combed back from his forehead. His company wasn't just integral to Trump's online campaign, but to the UK's Brexit campaign as well.
Of these three players—reflective Kosinski, carefully groomed Nix and grinning Trump—one of them enabled the digital revolution, one of them executed it and one of them benefited from it.
How social media marketing has influenced our politics, and how easy it is for outside influences to sway the outcome of our elections.
Editor's note: This piece has been updated numerous times and will continue to be updated as new revelations emerge.
Facebook played a vital role in the outcome of the 2016 election—ask any digital director on one of the presidential campaigns, or maybe some Russian propagandists.
News that Facebook took at least $100,000 from Russian troll farms to promote socially and politically divisive content reignited discussion around just how much of an impact Facebook had in getting Donald Trump elected.
It also begged a serious question: Had Facebook helped Russia manipulate the outcome?
This genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Moving forward, we must guard against future manipulations. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms need to be more tightly regulated since they aren't doing it themselves. No foreign money should be buying political ads - Facebook has taken some steps to address this, but I don't think it's enough. I didn't even post additional articles on the fake groups that were created by Russian operatives and accumulated hundreds of thousands of members - that's a black hole of influence because they don't have to purchase ads to reach millions with their propaganda. Nor have I shared the sh*tstorm that is Twitter with its infestation of millions of bots and fake accounts, and how those networks have been shown to actively work to make propaganda go viral. It's a huge problem that cannot be ignored.
Yes, a shadowy Russian firm with ties to the Kremlin bought about $100,000 worth of Facebook ads intended to sway voters during last year’s presidential campaign, the social media giant disclosed earlier this month.
Does it matter? Given the tens of millions spent on political ads in 2016 that’s a bucket of water thrown down a storm drain. And influencing elections with ads is a delicate science. It requires coordination, timing, and finesse – three things the Russian ad buy doesn’t seem to have had.
The problem is, those Russian-bought online spots might be just a hint of a darker, undetected flood of attempts at influence, according to experts in political communication. To use a different analogy they might be the equivalent of the Watergate break-in. That was a petty crime that by itself didn’t sway the 1972 election. Its real importance was rooted in the vast, illegal conspiracy of which it was a symbol and product.