There’s a reason Russia has relied upon web-based warfare in its attacks on us. It’s cheap. Lotta bang for the buck.
And it isn’t the general schisms in our cultural issues Russia would have difficulty divining on its own, even by simply reading our newspapers or watching the tee vee. Nor do I dispute Russians are masterful at cyber warfare.
But it’s their awareness of specific individual voter data, and to which voters such disinformation was deployed, that I find an interesting (not remarkable) coincidence. That information is not easily amassed.
And if it were, why wouldn’t the Trump administration do everything in its power to help us learn how to prevent them learning such important information in the future? Surely you’ll agree they’ve been less than forthcoming or proactive in stopping any future attacks?
And you’re right, I’m saying I don’t believe it is in question. I’m not saying it is yet proved, but I believe it is a reasonable conclusion to draw. In my opinion.
Sorry about that – I will remember that in the future.
There’s tons of information that is not easily amassed, and the specific job of intelligence agencies is to amass it. That does not mean that it is collected by what you think is the most likely route.
For example: the data could have been stolen. It could have been passed on from someone on the inside. The Russians could have come up with their own analysis. There might have been no data used, as we might be only seeing the tip of an iceberg of a variety of cheap efforts that were essentially scattershot, or they maybe got lucky on this one. Maybe we are not aware of other ad campaigns that failed quite yet. Maybe they used middlemen to buy data from other, similar companies. And, as you suspect, maybe they used this particular company or campaign. But insinuating that one of these options is logically more likely than any other is absurd: it’s as baseless speculation as we saying that God’s eyes are probably blue, since it is such a pretty color.
Nope. Neither did a $100K ad buy. Both were a drop in the ocean. But we’re having Congressional investigations into and general hysteria about one and not the other.
I think it means that Okrahoma has come to the conclusion that Trump’s election win is illegitimate because the Russians swung the election. I’m as surprised as anyone by this turn of events, but we live in crazy times.
In my view, all of those are possible, but not likely. I am not reaching my conclusion in a vacuum. My opinion is based on much more than just the links I previously provided. It includes:
[ul]
[li]Trump’s utter aversion to speaking against Russia and Russians;[/li][li]His failure to appoint a bi-partisan commission to investigate how Russia influenced our elections in 2016 and how to prevent such meddling in the future;[/li][li]Trump’s longstanding involvement with Russian mobsters and oligarchs, spanning decades;[/li][li]Both Trump’s and Jared Kushner’s need for funds to save their empires, Kushner’s in particular, demonstrating a potential desire to bargain;[/li][li]Kushner’s efforts to set up a “back channel” of communication with Russians in their own embassy, surprising even the Russians;[/li][li]The bragging by Kushner referenced in Fubaya’s earlier post #2379;[/li][li]Various Russian spies and political operatives who were also caught bragging about stealing the American presidency;[/li][li]Trump’s comments about “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails…”[/li][li]The email to Donald Trump Jr. that states clearly that giving Trump’s campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton was, “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” and no one in the Trump campaign batted an eyelash about, “part of…”[/li][li]Trump’s firing of James Comey in a self-confessed effort to stop/hinder the FBI’s Russian investigation;[/li][li]Trump’s efforts to stymie the investigation as evidenced by his entreaties to Mike Pompeo and Dan Coats to make the Russia investigation go away;[/li][li]Trump’s initial refusal to fire Mike Flynn, even after being clearly and urgently advised he was compromised, together will all Trump’s efforts to protect him even after the firing;[/li][/ul]
and many, many other facts. There is so much.
There is also the matter of Trump’s general and consistent character. He has never been anything other than a shyster, a carnival barker, a Music Man. I don’t believe he would hesitate for a moment to sell out his country to Russia for personal gain.
Taken altogether, I really have no difficulty in concluding there is a course of conduct that points rather blindingly to a conspiracy of coordinated efforts between Russia and the Trump campaign to elect Trump to the presidency. In my opinion. Obviously YMMV.
The figure is actually $150,000 of what is presently known from Facebook, and we don’t yet know if $150,000 is all they spent. I believe this sum was identified because it was paid for in rubles so was rather obvious.
It means he doesn’t understand what a force multiplier an investment in Facebook ads is. They are literally pennies per each. $150,000 is a pretty impressive amount to spend on a cyber warfare campaign. If every dollar buys 50 ads, I mean… the math is pretty obvious. That’s 7.5 million ads. And of course that’s not counting the number of times they are republished from page to page by users sharing them.
Facebook is an amazing marketing tool. I spend a few bucks on them, and I get a dozen new clients. It cost me less than $100 to rack up nearly 2000 likes to my business page.
Now, not only is this $100-150k actually enough to reach quite a number of people, it is also just a single purchase of a single pro-trump marketing firm.
Well, then, a question? If GOP operatives innocently sold demographic data to people they thought were American Trump supporters, would that qualify as “collusion”?
Well, first, IANAL, but my understanding is that “collusion” is not a crime. Conspiracy is, though.
The first element of Conspiracy requires a showing that two or more people were in agreement to commit a crime. That’s a threshold issue. If only one person is intending to commit a crime, then Conspiracy would not apply, so, no. Your innocent GOP operatives would be safe from such a charge in this layperson’s opinion.
