Conspiracy In The U.S. Election & Trump's Presidency

PlagueRider

It's just a flesh wound
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
265
Likes
16
Points
49
#1
"Republican leaders are currently thrashing about - holding secret meetings, issuing confidential memos and making public denunciations - as they approach a state of near panic over what Donald Trump is doing to their party. It's enough to make some believe that Mr Trump may not have the Republican establishment's best interests at heart."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35066940

I honestly can't see him winning the election, but why is he the Republican front runner after so many incendiary comments?
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,952
Likes
6,218
Points
294
#3
Perhaps Republicans have just been taken aback that someone would say out loud the shit that's swilling about in their brains and want to distance themselves with the 10 foot pole. Of course, it's all the Democrats fault. It always is. It's like their obsession with guns... Always thinking in terms of things as a target.
 

Ulalume

tart of darkness
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
2,993
Likes
5,150
Points
219
Location
Tejas
#4
Yeah, I'd heard that Jeb Bush was putting that story around, that Trump's antics were all a plot by Hilary Clinton. Clearly, this is why Jeb has done so poorly. It's a conspiracy!

Nah, Trump is just repeating what has been spewing from right-wing radio in recent years, from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, et al. Karl Rove was in many ways responsible for bringing those particular type of voters together to make a potentially winning voting bloc, but we've been saying for years that this would eventually come back to bite them. Looks like that time has come.

Let's hope we don't all have to suffer for it.
 
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,575
Likes
3,424
Points
244
#5
I don't know about Trump being a Democrat fifth columnist, but the more I look at his spectacularly ridiculous barnet the more I'm convinced his hairdresser is. For fuck's sake, he's a billionaire but all he can afford to dress his dome is something that looks like the result of a very short sighted person trying to throw roadkill on his head from another room. Possibly in the dark... and during an air raid.

(For overseas readers: Barnet = Barnet Fair = Hair.)
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
25,047
Likes
8,569
Points
284
#6
The hair is the real conspiracy because it distracts from his poisonous disseminations. By making that the target, you have a classic false flag situation, sheeple!
 

Ascalon

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
189
Likes
217
Points
49
#8
It looks like there are major shenanigans going on as the Russians have got sloppy with their interference with the US elections.

One journalist has caught them out:
Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I Am Not Sidney Blumenthal
The Republican nominee for president pushed Russian propaganda about Benghazi to American voters.
By Kurt Eichenwald

On Newsweek...
 

Analis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,618
Likes
350
Points
99
#9
An answer is given by Russia Today, not sputnik, but it would be equally valid for the latter :
https://www.rt.com/viral/362696-rt-beats-internet-podesta/
RT beats internet to break #Podestaemails6 & everybody loses their minds (conspiracy theory warning)
Published time: 13 Oct, 2016 19:08Edited time: 13 Oct, 2016 22:09

RT breaking the latest Podesta emails before WikiLeaks sparked accusations of collusion with the whistleblowing organization. Actually, no conspiracies were involved – just good journalism.
Having discovered over 1,800 emails date-stamped October 13 on the WikiLeaks site, RT sprung into action.

Wikileaks followed shortly after by tweeting that #PodestaEmails6 were now available.

Despite the documents being public when discovered by RT, accusations soon began that it was proof that Russia and WikiLeaks are somehow working together. Christopher Miller, a journalist for the US government-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, set the wheels of suspicion in motion.

Hillary Clinton’s Press Secretary Brian Fallon then followed suit, tweeting that the work by RT journalists was part of a conspiracy “in service of Trump”.

WikiLeaks even stepped in to clarify that the emails were available, just not tweeted, and that RT had not acquired them in any other way.

Brian Fallon was contacted by an RT journalist. We offered to explain to him how the team broke the news. He has not responded.
Eichenwald ends his article by asking « Mr Putin to stay the hell out of our election ». Whatever truth there may be behind these supposed attempts at interference, he could seem sincere only if he had expressed such outrage when his country was actively trying to interfere with elections in other countries, notably in... Russia.

Additionaly, as any other US media outlet, he appears to take for granted that Russians are trying to favor Trump's election at any cost as they see him undeniably as a well-disposed president towards them. While they would probably slighlty prefer him to be elected than Hillary Clinton, unsurprisingly as she keeps proclaiming anti-Russian tirades, with a distincly bellicose tone, things are not so clear-cut ; at best, as most US voters, their stance would be of choosing the lesser of two evils (the candidates they would really want to be elected are probably Jill Stein or Gary Johnson...) :
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362242-ideal-world-putin-clinton-trump/
Neither Clinton nor Trump likely Putin preferences for White House
Published time: 10 Oct, 2016 12:50Edited time: 10 Oct, 2016 16:06

Journalists, columnists, academics, pundits, politicians, your average man on the street — they all have one thing in common: They all think they know what Vladimir Putin wants.
The exact phrase “what Putin wants” has shown up on Google more than 22,000 times. At the same time, the question “what does Putin want?” has shown up more than 9,000 times — so it seems the few who don’t already think they know, would really like to find out.

Pointing the finger at Moscow and making baseless claims about ‘what Putin wants’ to win political points has become an entirely predictable strategy — but it’s a popular strategy because it’s a remarkably simple and convenient one. No substance required, just good old-fashioned fear-mongering.

In the US, efforts to link Russia to domestic politics have ranged from the absurd to the outright comical. Cast once again as the Evil Empire, Russia has become one of the most persistent themes in what is playing out as perhaps the biggest presidential election train wreck in history.

For Hillary Clinton, no one has been a more convenient scapegoat and bogeyman than the Russian president, as evidenced by her ongoing strategy of attempting to bury the content of various unflattering leaks by insisting that anything that reflects negatively on her is simply part of a Kremlin plot to discredit her and help Donald Trump to victory.
......
 

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
3,966
Likes
3,936
Points
159
#10
An answer is given by Russia Today, not sputnik, but it would be equally valid for the latter :
https://www.rt.com/viral/362696-rt-beats-internet-podesta/

Eichenwald ends his article by asking « Mr Putin to stay the hell out of our election ». Whatever truth there may be behind these supposed attempts at interference, he could seem sincere only if he had expressed such outrage when his country was actively trying to interfere with elections in other countries, notably in... Russia.

Additionaly, as any other US media outlet, he appears to take for granted that Russians are trying to favor Trump's election at any cost as they see him undeniably as a well-disposed president towards them. While they would probably slighlty prefer him to be elected than Hillary Clinton, unsurprisingly as she keeps proclaiming anti-Russian tirades, with a distincly bellicose tone, things are not so clear-cut ; at best, as most US voters, their stance would be of choosing the lesser of two evils (the candidates they would really want to be elected are probably Jill Stein or Gary Johnson...) :
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362242-ideal-world-putin-clinton-trump/
Putin ally threatens the US with nuclear war if Trump not elected.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
9,143
Likes
8,652
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
#11
... things are not so clear-cut ; at best, as most US voters, their stance would be of choosing the lesser of two evils (the candidates they would really want to be elected are probably Jill Stein or Gary Johnson...) ...
The lesser-of-two-perceived-evils conundrum is definitely foremost in American voters' minds this year. I've been stunned by how many friends and acquaintances are bogged down in personality-centered factors, not unlike how one might select a favored competitor on a reality show. My mind is even more boggled by the lack of concern about substantive issues and the leading candidates' positions on those issues.

As to Stein and Johnson ... I agree that a significant (though not decisive) number of voters would rather dump the foreground social-media-mudslinging crap in favor of a coherent platform akin to what the Green and Libertarian parties promote. The problem is that both Stein and Johnson have managed to project themselves as air-headed dabblers even less qualified for the office than the Oompa Loompa-esque contender. As such, those who might or would vote for a third party candidate (e.g., me, as I've done multiple times heretofore ... ) find this option effectively out of play.
 

Analis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,618
Likes
350
Points
99
#12
Putin ally threatens the US with nuclear war if Trump not elected.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q
Zhirinovski is a loon, Russia's equivalent to Cruz, Trump or Boris Johnson, he's used as a kind of boogeyman or scarecrow by Putin, he's not really his ally, his party is not in a coalition with Russia United. All of this doesn't matter, as what he says of Hillary Rodham Clinton is true, by her own admission she intends to push for direct confrontation with Russia (which could only end as a nuclear war).

The lesser-of-two-perceived-evils conundrum is definitely foremost in American voters' minds this year. I've been stunned by how many friends and acquaintances are bogged down in personality-centered factors, not unlike how one might select a favored competitor on a reality show.
Politics in the USA (and to some extant in Europe) have become a kind of reality show...

My mind is even more boggled by the lack of concern about substantive issues and the leading candidates' positions on those issues.

As to Stein and Johnson ... I agree that a significant (though not decisive) number of voters would rather dump the foreground social-media-mudslinging crap in favor of a coherent platform akin to what the Green and Libertarian parties promote. The problem is that both Stein and Johnson have managed to project themselves as air-headed dabblers even less qualified for the office than the Oompa Loompa-esque contender. As such, those who might or would vote for a third party candidate (e.g., me, as I've done multiple times heretofore ... ) find this option effectively out of play.
From a foreign perspective, the 'debate' appears so low and petty that all concerns about the candidates' platforms were overshadowed by a few trivial sentences Trump had told 11 years ago. Johnson and Stein would appear to us as the right candidates, as they intend to end all interventionism, deflate the dangerous race to confrontation with Russia and soon China and destroy the influence of the militaro-industrial complex (Clinton again told recently that she intended to build a ring of missiless aorund China. So that the fact that Johnson did not understand what a journalist meant by the situation in Aleppo (if I'm not wrong – and in any case the journalist was spewing the usual neo-con drivel on Syria), or that Stein has a dubious stance on vaccines, does not disqualify them ; all for all, probably we would need now somebody with a lack of 'experience' ; and Clinton will always appear as much, much loonier and dangerous than them.

Coming back to the main topic, Eichenwald said that he didn't know if Trump or the Russians had been misled by a fake document, or if they had themselves made up the file. But what if it had been made up to discredit any newcoming wikileaks revelation ?

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610091046160830-hillary-media-slander-fake-wikileaks/
War on WikiLeaks: Pro-Hillary Media Fabricates Email to Discredit Whistleblower

21:51 09.10.2016(updated 02:25 10.10.2016)

The barrage by the establishment media echoing the Clinton campaign’s line that the WikiLeaks dump was a "Russian misinformation campaign" laced with false documents began to take a dark turn when news networks began pushing out a fraudulent document that pre-dates the dump.

WikiLeaks released a transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech before Goldman Sachs where she called Bernie Sanders supporters and the poor a “bucket of losers” in what is the news scoop of the century. Right? While the words do seem to echo, likely intentionally, Clinton’s gaffe about a “basket of deplorables” there is a little rule in life – if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The problem with this fake document being pumped around, starting with MSNBC national security analysts Malcolm Nance – who was an intelligence officer for 35-years – is that it has nothing to do with the WikiLeaks Podesta Emails document release at all. It was never included in the release and, in fact, it pre-dates the WikiLeaks file dump by several days.
That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with "(chaos)" actually written in the side bar and "((makes air quotes))" written before the “bucket of losers” piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
Yes, that is what an actual disinformation campaign looks like with the information passed along to Nance by KA Semanova whose WordPress account shows a notorious image of the Russian President and Donald Trump kissing in what has become the leading symbol of slandering the outsider by the growing ranks of the Russophobic punditry class.
It didn’t stop there, though. FoxNews personality Megyn Kelly, who has recently been blasted by her colleague Sean Hannity as clearly being in the tank for Hillary Clinton, cited the very questionable transcript on live television attributing it falsely to WikiLeaks before later apologizing on air saying that the document was clearly not a Clinton campaign document but refusing to correct the record on WikiLeaks.
After Megyn Kelly pushed the false narrative and then apologized on air, another more establishment FoxNews personality Howard Kurtz also referenced the "bucket of losers" statement from the grotesquely comical fake transcript that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks whatsoever and claimed it was from the WikiLeaks document release which, again, a five second typing in the whistleblower’s search box would tell you immediately otherwise in what no doubt tees up Clinton to claim it’s all a fraud at the debate.
One would also have to immediately wonder why WikiLeaks would respond to John Podesta’s tweet that “Don’t have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked…” with a response Tweet – "@johnpodesta Submit to WikiLeaks another copy of all your emails. We’ll compare the two identical archives for you," unless they were absolutely certain of the veracity of their source.
Several other outlets also supposedly fell for the fake transcript, which is all but impossible based on its truly hilarious content and a five second typing into a search box, as what began as an establishment misinformation campaign against WikiLeaks and to cushion Clinton from the fallout of the leak continues to unfold right before our very eyes. It would all be funny if it weren’t so sad… and blatantly obvious.
I personally have no doubt that Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks of Sanders' voters exactely like what the bogus mail said, and I am not so sure that she would never say it publicly (after all, she issued recently a less than amiable comment to Trump's voters). But the fact that a plausible content was included in a phoney mail and that it was widely relayed suggests that it could be part of a ploy to divert attention from any upcoming revelation, using the classic tactic of discreditation by association. In fact, mainstream US media reacted here exactely as Eichenwald reproached it to Trump and sputnik.
 

Analis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,618
Likes
350
Points
99
#15
Sputnik answered to Eichenwald and Newsweek :
https://sputniknews.com/us/201610191046516451-newsweek-silent-eichenwald-emails/

Newsweek Shamefully Silent as Twitter Demands Retraction From Implicated Writer

22:15 19.10.2016(updated 06:50 20.10.2016)
After Sputnik published a series of emails from Newsweek writer and Vanity Fair editor Kurt Eichenwald to a former Sputnik editor -- exposing Eichenwald’s claims that he was fed a false story by US intelligence -- the magazine has remained shamefully silent on the issue.

Eichenwald not only offered former Sputnik writer and editor Bill Moran a new job if he agreed to remain silent about the lies contained in the Newsweek piece, he also wrote that he was fed the story by US intelligence officials.

You need to ask yourself — how does someone like me who is deeply wired into the intelligence community know so fast that you had posted this? It’s not like I was sitting around reading Sputnik. Others are though, and they are not reading it 24-hours a day in real time for the purpose of keeping abreast of the news,” Eichenwald wrote to Moran.

Immediately after Sputnik’s exposé was published, Eichenwald’s mentions on Twitter exploded with demands from people wanting to know whether the man who won a 2006 award for Ethics in Journalism was lying to Moran — or if US intel is actually trying to sway the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor by manipulating the media.
Instead of responding to this writer’s request for an answer to a valid question, he blocked her. He also blocked hundreds of others who dared to question his integrity.
Sputnik journalists are not the first Eichenwald has blocked over questions of ethics and integrity — TechDirt writer Mike Masnick, who wrote two pieces about the Eichenwald Trump-Putin conspiracy, also suffered the same fate.
“The Blumenthal email was not manipulated. It was just misrepresented — this is a big difference — just as Eichenwald is now misrepresenting what Sputnik did,” Masnick argued in one of his articles on the issue, titled ‘Media Bias And The Death Of Intellectual Honesty, Doubling Down.’
In a tweet following Sputnik’s publication of Eichenwald’s emails to Moran on Tuesday, Eichenwald wrote:

U cant argue with propagandists who deceive you into compassion with lies.”

Eichenwald here seems to be admitting to the authenticity of the emails, as he truly appears to believe his threatening tone and quid pro quo offer in exchange for Moran’s silence is “compassion.”
The irony of an award-winning Washington journalist, who was just exposed as being fed stories by a US government agency, having the nerve to call anyone else a propagandist, is delightful.
At the time of this article’s publication, Newsweek has still not corrected or retracted their article — nor have they responded to requests from Sputnik for comment on the issue. The New Republic, which was also implicated in the quid pro quo offer, has likewise not responded to Sputnik’s request for comment.
 

Analis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,618
Likes
350
Points
99
#16
A more sober take on the controversy. At the very least, Eichenwald appears to have overreacted by falling for anti-Russian hysterics :
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...dia-politics-death-intellectual-honesty.shtml

Media, Politics & The Death Of Intellectual Honesty
from the what-just-happened dept
Yeah, so I get that it's political silly season, and people like to throw around all kinds of arguments of "bias" -- especially towards the media. I've been on the receiving end of those accusations, but for the most part, I think claims of media bias are silly and over-hyped. What's true, though, is that it's all too easy to be sloppy in reporting and to try to hype up a nothing story into a something story. Here's a story where no one comes out of it looking very good and the end result is a complete mess. It starts with Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald. Last night I saw a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta. The email contained a link and full text to a much earlier Eichnwald story about Benghazi and Clinton. The Sputnik story incorrectly stated that the text in the email was by Blumenthal, and not by Eichenwald. It took one sentence out of this longer article, and falsely claimed that Blumenthal was admitting that the mess in Benghazi was "preventable." As Eichenwald notes, this is wrong:
Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.


The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article.

Okay. So that's actually kind of interesting. This Russian source was so eager to get a story out of the leaked emails that it misrepresented them -- either by accident or on purpose. That's marginally interesting, and certainly a fun thing to report on. What happened next is where things really go off the rails. While Sputnik pulled down its story once Eichenwald pointed out the error, a few hours later, Donald Trump mentioned the story at a rally as if it were true:
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

Okay. So we've still got a story here, and the story is this: holy shit, Donald Trump is willing to take very, very unreliable sources and broadcast them as fact. But that's not the story that Eichenwald started pushing. He went on something of a Twitter rampage making a bunch of claims that were not supported at all by the story, claiming variably that (1) the leaked emails were doctored (2) that Wikileaks was responsible for this (3) that the Russians and Wikileaks are in cahoots and (4) that Trump and the Russians are in cahoots. Now, any of these might actually be true. But none of them are actually supported by any actual evidence. Eichenwald just makes the logical leaps from what's written above, assuming that only the Russians could have given Trump that news -- ignoring that the story on Sputnik was getting passed around on social media (again: real story: Trump relies on unreliable sources for news). Here are just a few of Eichenwald's many, many tweets promoting his own article (and note how most have tons of retweets):

Note that he insists that the only way Trump could have gotten this is from the Russians. But that's clearly not true. The Sputnik story was up and lots of people saw it, and it was discussed on Twitter and elsewhere. It makes perfect sense that someone who saw it either works for the Trump campaign or knew someone there and sent it over. Again: that's the real story: Trump relies on sketchy sources found online.

This morning lots of people were pointing out the problems with Eichenwald's exaggerations about his story, including the Washington Post, NY Magazine and Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept. Greenwald's account highlights that many Hillary Clinton supporters keep saying that the Podesta leaks include faked emails, but no one has pointed out a single one.

Eichenwald, for his part, keeps insisting that the original Sputnik report involved a "manipulated" email, which implies that the email was faked or doctored. This is flat out wrong. The email was misrepresented. It's entirely possible that it was misrepresented on purpose to make Clinton look bad. But misrepresented is different than doctored. Here, let me prove it to you: Eichenwald misrepresented who could have possibly seen the Sputnik piece. He did not doctor that information.

I don't think -- as some are claiming -- that this is evidence of "media bias" on Eichenwald's part. I honestly think that he's guilty of the same thing that probably happened with Sputnik. He saw what seemed to be a really great story, and oversold it. Sputnik did the same. Both look bad.

And, honestly, almost everyone comes out of this looking bad. Eichenwald and Newsweek oversold a story. Various Clinton supporters look bad for buying the claims in the story without reading them or checking them carefully. Trump, of course, looks bad for relying on a Russian government site for unreliable news. And, basically, everyone looks at this story and sees from it what they want. Trump supporters can see more examples of media bias. Clinton supporters believe there's more support for the idea that Russia is supporting Trump. Wikileaks haters get more ammo claiming that the site is working with the Russians and/or that it's releasing fake emails (though it does not appear to be doing so). Again: many of these things may actually be true, but this story only supports the single claim of Trump relying on bad info.

But this is the state of things today. 2016 can't end fast enough. Hopefully 2017 is better.
 

Tribble

Furry Idiot
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
1,575
Likes
2,663
Points
154
#17

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
22,247
Likes
18,112
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#18
Very well, but please do limit the content of this thread to the subject of hacking/conspiracy.
 

graylien

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,229
Likes
2,521
Points
169
#19
IIRC the polls started to swing back towards Trump after the news story broke about the FBI looking into Clinton's email fiasco again. Didn't some polls even have Trump slightly ahead?

From the analysis I've read, there seem to be two main reasons why the polls were off.

Firstly, some Trump voters didn't admit to supporting Trump due to social pressure branding Trump voters racist, mysogynistic, etc etc.

Secondly, groups that normally vote in low numbers and so weren't greatly factored into the polls actually turned out in number to vote for Trump -particularily people without a college education.

I think this election was so divisive that it was inevitable whichever side lost would resort to conspiracy theories to explain their defeat.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
46,025
Likes
16,160
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#22
Heres a great one!

In bizarre ‘birther’ twist, claims Trump is Pakistani
Report says president-elect was born as Dawood Ibrahim Khan in Waziristan before being adopted by American family

BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF November 13, 2016, 9:20 am 2


A screenshot from a report on Pakistani TV's Neo News claiming that Donald Trump was born in Pakistan as Dawood Ibrahim Khan. (Screen capture: YouTube)

After years leading the false charge that President Barack Obama was born outside of the United States, President-elect Donald Trump is facing his own minor “birtherism” moment, with a Pakistani television network claiming the New Yorker was born in Pakistan.

“Believe it or not, presidential candidate Donald Trump was born in Pakistan and not in America,” the Urdu-language Neo News reported last month in a video clip that went viral after Trump’s election victory on November 8.

The report, not unlike the claims once made against Obama, appears to have originated with social media posts positing unsourced theories about Trump’s birth and previously unknown life in the Islamic Republic.

According to Neo News, Trump was born as Dawood Ibrahim Khan in the now-Taliban-controlled Waziristan region of the country in 1954. After his parents were killed in a car accident, a British Indian Army captain took little Dawood to London, where the Trump family later adopted him and brought him to America, the report claimed.

Citing numerous tweets to back up the story, Neo News even provided a photo of the alleged young Trump, wearing what appears to be traditional Pakistani boys’ garb. ...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-bizarre-birther-twist-claims-trump-is-pakistani/



 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
46,025
Likes
16,160
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#26
The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate.
It's up to Capitol Hill to protect American democracy.

DAVID CORN NOV. 16, 2016 3:24 PM

Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."

This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy. This is news worthy of bold and large front-page headlines—and investigation. Presumably intelligence and law enforcement agencies are robustly probing the hacking of political targets attributed to Russia. But there is another inquiry that is necessary: a full-fledged congressional investigation that holds public hearings and releases its findings to the citizenry.

If the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are digging into the Russian effort to affect US politics, there is no guarantee that what they uncover will be shared with the public. Intelligence investigations often remain secret for the obvious reasons: they involve classified information. And law enforcement investigations—which focus on whether crimes have been committed—are supposed to remain secret until they produce indictments. (And then only information pertinent to the prosecution of a case is released, though the feds might have collected much more.) The investigative activities of these agencies are not designed for public enlightenment or assurance. That's the job of Congress.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...nvestigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
22,247
Likes
18,112
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#29
'NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election.'

Could there be a more misleading headline? How does one 'hack an election'?

 
Top