« Brainstorming my Hugo nominations: Best Novel and Best Series | Main | The Stupidest Environment Imaginable - Open Thread »

March 16, 2018

Comments

Now it's suddenly criminal,

yes, because of the crime.

"In 2012, The Guardian reported that President Obama’s reelection team was “building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before.”"
What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

The only thing we have to trump is Obama himself.

I see the hand of Obama in those Oklahoma death sentence smotherings as well.

Good luck on this tack, Marty. With your theory that HRC had a decades long history of extreme criminality, yet had somehow evaded any charges let alone conviction, despite years of hearings and investigations, you seem to me the perfect end result of the kind of disinformation we are talking about. CA may not have started it, but by God their dirty tricks fell upon fertile ground, long prepared by the "vast, rightwing conspiracy". Where you and McKinney are concerned, however, you managed not to be their (CA's) perfect audience, due to your dislike of Trump, but in other ways, you're on the team.

Campbell's Soup and the Kremlin have identical footprints on Facebook, but I wouldn't order the cream of Novichok bouillabaisse at the Russian Tea Room in your home town.

What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

Call me simple minded, but it seems to me that there is a difference between, on one hand, mining data for information and to reach voters receptive to your message, and on the other using that data to spread disinformation.

The former is unexceptional in concept; just the means is new. The latter is also not novel -- the Big Lie has been with us for a while. But it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing, which is what the quote above seems to suggest.

Plus, it skeeves me a bit that conservative evangelicals get expensive hookers on CA's and the RNC's tab and all Obama offered was free birth control.

An investigation by Channel 4 News has revealed how Cambridge Analytica claims it ran ‘all’ of President Trump’s digital campaign – and may have broken election law. As the report went on air, the firm announced it has suspended chief executive Alexander Nix, pending a full investigation.

An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News has revealed how Cambridge Analytica claims it ran key parts of the presidential campaign for Donald Trump.

The British data company was secretly filmed discussing coordination between Trump’s campaign and outside groups – an activity which is potentially illegal.

Executives claimed they “ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy” for President Trump.

cleanup on aisle 4, Marty. bring extra Febreeze.

What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

From CharlesWT's link:

"According to The Guardian, Obama’s new database would be gathered by asking individual volunteers to log into Obama’s reelection site using their Facebook credentials."

Hmmm. Asking individual volunteers to log into Obama's reelection site, versus having third party apps hoodwink people into giving up their personal information to an undisclosed political disinformation operation.

Must be same same. The whataboutism gets more and more laughable by the hour.

Obama's campaign offered free pizza on Facebook.

Liberals showed up with votes.

Cambridge Analytica .. has a brothel ever had a more high-falutin name ... offered Hillary Clinton and other Democrats fucking children in pizza-joint dungeons.

Conservatives showed up with military weaponry.

I guess there wasn't a school to shoot up that day.

When Obama mined FB for his candidacy

Did Obama use data in violation of its terms of use?

Does Obama, or anyone associated with Obama, hang out his or their shingle as one-stop shopping for fomenting coups?

Did Obama employ foreign nationals in his campaign?

We aren't talking about engaging with voters in social media, we're talking about breaking the law.

We aren't talking about engaging with voters in social media, we're talking about breaking the law.

"We" is such slippery word....

(R)'s need to get their heads around the idea that they elected a freaking crook to be POTUS.

He's a crook.

Tarentino is reportedly eyeing Joseph diGenova to play the Harvey Keitel cleaner role in the sequel to "Pulp Fiction".

Keitel is not available because he is set to play the role of Joseph diGenova in Scorcese's upcoming "The Day of the Ratfuckers".

Actual rats will play all of the other republican parts.

Animals will be harmed in the making of the film, for the sake of verisimilitude, because who's gonna believe this shit otherwise?

In other news, 15 years ago today, George W Bush pumped his fist, declared "I feel good", and initiated the most recent war in Iraq.

Just thought that deserved to be remembered.

We keep hearing about how Trump was elected by all of the angry folks out there in the heartland.

You have no idea what "angry" means.

People need to not push their luck. That is all.

What Russell said +

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/one-million-dead-by-tristero.html

"Did Obama use data in violation of its terms of use?"

Yes. They got them there and then took all their data just like CA. If it's illegal then it was illegal. If it is ethical it was unethical.

The whataboutism is to point out how irrational conspiracy theorism has spread. You might as well be saying Trump killed Vince Foster.


Alright.

mp killed Vince Foster.

Good that the CA CEO is suspended.

Not so good that it isn't "by the neck".

Maybe later.

Marty: Obama "took" their data.

The campaign called this effort targeted sharing. And in those final weeks of the campaign, the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button....

Not illegal. Not unethical. NOT REMOTELY TRUE.

Bobbyp,glad you found someone to say "We didn't do that".

Thank god we cleared that up.

Thanks bobbyp. I started digging, thought that was the answer, but was trying to disentangle the truth from the fiction. I can see where Marty thought otherwise, various people/outlets are trying to establish an equivalence. I'm not much of a researcher, especially at the moment, so I'll stop now with a reasonably clear conscience!

GftNC: I can see where Marty thought otherwise ...

This assumes that what Marty says is actually what Marty thinks. But let that pass, for the sake of the posting rules.

Let's assume that Marty really, honestly thinks that Obama and He, Trump used Facebook in exactly the same way. Or let's not, because that would come awfully close to violating the posting rules in a different way.

--TP

Thank god we cleared that up.

Glad to be of service.

From MIT's Technology Review, FWIW:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/

(R)'s need to get their heads around the idea that they elected a freaking crook to be POTUS.

is there a plan B ?

mp killed Vince Foster.

I thought Nixon did it, the dirty ratfucker.

as always, the Republican party is a cult.

apparently there's nothing the believers won't excuse in Trump.

hook. line. sinker.

and i hope they choke on it.

There is actually very little difference in the way it was used. I'm certain that a professional, and shady, data collection firm was better at it.

The data collected unbeknownst to the user wasn't much different, just more people.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/utterly-horrifying-ex-facebook-insider-says-covert-data-harvesting-was-routine/ar-BBKsPq7

FOX news contributor catches up on the news:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-contributor-calls-network-propaganda-machine-in-farewell-email

Difference between the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica is that the former got Facebook users to sign in on the campaign website, and consent to use of their data for the election - but they did also scrape the data of all those people's Facebook friends.
Not in breach of Facebook's TOU, but questionable, certainly - and it points to the need for tougher data protection laws.

A GOP operative on Trump (in an article about the consequences of Mueller being fired:
Republicans fear Trump’s tweets, Fox News and his base more than they revere the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution. I’ve said this before, and the joke is less of a joke and more of a caution at this point, but Trump could kill and eat a live baby on the South Lawn of the White House and the GOP caucus would shrug and say, “Well, he’s new at this. He’s not a traditional politician.”...

In comparison, Donna Brazile's comment at the end is extraordinarily weak sauce:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/20/if-trump-fired-mueller-roundup-217661

apparently there's nothing the believers won't excuse in Trump.

The late Mr Mulligan has a great deal to answer for.

There is a great deal of difference. On one hand we have a campaign that openly requested known supporters to sign up for a computer app that would enable said campaign to reach out to others known to the recipient. This, vs. the undercover theft of their data without their permission, or knowledge, i.e., the Facebook business model

So one group willingly subjected themselves to participate in a political campaign (with a side of propaganda no doubt), and the other group had their data palmed off to others without their knowledge or permission (I repeat myself) and were subjected to unsolicited propaganda thrown in for good measure.

Such a deal.

Marty has half a point...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html?utm_term=.74017f07669a
Facebook “goes into this endless hairsplitting that people should have known,” said Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit advocacy group that has brought privacy cases before the FTC. “No one could have known that their friends were disclosing their personal data on their behalf. It’s entirely illogical, and it breaks the consent law.”…

…In 2011, Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, built a database of every American voter using the same Facebook developer tool used by Cambridge, known as the social graph API. Any time people used Facebook’s log-in button to sign on to the campaign’s website, the Obama data scientists were able to access their profile as well as their friends’ information. That allowed them to chart the closeness of people’s relationships and make estimates about which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote.

“We ingested the entire U.S. social graph,” Davidsen said in an interview. “We would ask permission to basically scrape your profile, and also scrape your friends, basically anything that was available to scrape. We scraped it all.”

Not in breach of Facebook's TOU, but questionable, certainly - and it points to the need for tougher data protection laws.

Not all that questionable if you're a sentient person using Facebook. Whenever you volutarily "friend" someone, that person can see what you make available, including your other friends. It's not really questionable that a social network would allow friends to have a list of the things (including friends) available on the page. This is what Facebook is all about (and why I hardly ever use it). Whenever you post something to numerous people, it's a publication. When you publish a book, you can't control who reads it. When you publish something to social media, you can exert control who reads it only to the extent you trust your friends to keep stuff between you.

That's different than fraudulently collecting information - using false pretenses to mine data. No false pretenses were used by the Obama campaign. The only thing that was used were the natural properties of social media - available to anyone who is a "friend." That "sharing" is presumably done on purpose.

“We ingested the entire U.S. social graph,” Davidsen said in an interview. “We would ask permission to basically scrape your profile, and also scrape your friends, basically anything that was available to scrape. We scraped it all.”

We would ask permission. Very different than defraud.

Absolutely questionable - which is why Facebook is facing action over breaches of the 2011 consent decree, going beyond solely the Analytica case.

"A sentient person" handwaves away the seriously dubious policy of accessing data not only of the person consenting to a particular use like this, but also all their friends, who might have had no such intention.

"A sentient person" handwaves away the seriously dubious policy of accessing data not only of the person consenting to a particular use like this, but also all their friends, who might have had no such intention.

Doesn't it depend on the privacy settings? As a sentient person, I rarely use Facebook for anything that I don't feel comfortable being somewhat public, because I don't feel like going into a detailed study of what the privacy settings are actually going to allow. It's "social media" not electronic mail, and, sure, Facebook has, in some cases, violated the agreement that it makes with people, and that's on Facebook. Whether it's unethical for a political campaign to honestly use the service to try to gather mailing lists to solicit donors and votes - I don't see it. I say honestly - that means not misrepresenting what's happening.

I can send a list of all my friends' names, snail mail addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, etc. to a political campaign in the hope that the campaign sends it campaign literature. There's nothing wrong with that, and doing it electronically isn't wrong either.

My grammar is failing me, sorry. But it's not wrong to do things honestly with information provided willingly. It's wrong if someone hacks Facebook, or deceives people. CA deceived people coming and going.

But Obama did it, toooooo! So there!


I must have missed the part where Obama's campaign hired a bunch of Putin-associated fixers and bagmen to provide the disinformation that FB/CA then spread, and also to launder the money changing hands with CB/CA.

...er, that last bit should be FB/CA.

CA asked permission too, both times millions of people got their information shared that didn't get asked, much less actually give permission. Since at least half of my FB friends were Obama supporters I'm pretty sure they had mine.

Cynically, as a sentient being, I am pretty sure the mensa quiz I took through Facebook seven years ago ensured all those people have all my friends data.

If not, they got it another way. And they use it.

I hope GDPR gets implemented here at some point. Then no second hand permissions or uses.

The problem with GDPR is that a lot of companies face a serious problem. If they are complaint with GDPR, then they can find themselves unable to respond to entirely unexceptional subpoenas from local courts. Whereas if they comply with their local legal obligations, they are subject to serious penalties under GDPR.

Now if their local government is somewhere that the rule of law is notional (or less), being unable to comply with attempts to gain information on political opponents might be a good thing. But in other places, where police are adequately constrained by law? There, what GDPR mostly ends up doing is protecting real criminals. Unintended consequences.

let's start with this -

Obama: sign up for our facebook app IN SUPPORT OF MY CAMPAIGN and we will leverage your contacts to reach out to people

Trump/CA: TAKE THIS ONLINE QUIZ that has NOT ONE FREAKING THING TO DO WITH POLITICS AT ALL and we will, without your knowledge or consent, leverage your information and that of your contacts to reach out to people

I'm not even getting into the violations of law.

there is no meaningful comparison to make between trump and obama. not as presidents, as leaders of political campaigns, as participants in the body politic at any level. not in terms of their understanding of or regard for american history, law, traditions, or civic institutions generally. not as husbands or parents. not as intelligent, ethical, resposible human beings. probably not as tippers or pet owners.

none. none whatsoever.

it's a stupid conversation to even try to have. i feel my IQ declining simply by considering it hypothetically.

donald J trump is a miserable excuse for a human being. on the rare occasions when he stumbles across a reasonable thought, he degrades it by having even though it.

you, marty, make yourself seem foolish by insisting on trotting out the "yeah, but obama..." thing when trump is discussed.

i have no problem with your calling any of obama's actions or policies into question. i call some of them into question myself.

doing so via comparison with trump and any of his kids or hangers-on is nonsensical. you're comparing a competent and responsible actor with a flaming ass.

apples and oranges are at least both fruit.

michelle goldberg, on the CA thing:

There’s a lesson here for our understanding of the Trump presidency. Trump and his lackeys have been waging their own sort of psychological warfare on the American majority that abhors them. On the one hand, they act like idiots. On the other, they won, which makes it seem as if they must possess some sort of occult genius. With each day, however, it’s clearer that the secret of Trump’s success is cheating. He, and those around him, don’t have to be better than their opponents because they’re willing to be so much worse.

my bold.

why defend this guy? why embarass yourself? why degrade your own intelligence by making excuses for his corruption?

the man poisons everything he touches. he's toxic, his family is toxic, his political and business associates are toxic. no few of those who cast their lot with him will find themselves with their careers, reputations, and lives a shambles before all is said and done. if not in jail. he's a walking talking cancer on our common public life.

i'd stay the hell away from him.

apples and oranges are at least both fruit.

Apples and road apples, perhaps? Nah, those are still too similar.

The crisis of growing numbers of investigations into the tactics of the Obama campaign is something to behold. It’s like they didn’t even try to maintain the secrecy of their efforts. Ever since that 2012 MIT Technology Review piece GftNC linked to blew the lid off the story, it’s been a feeding frenzy. These past six years of unbridled outrage have been exhausting.

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/03/20/alex-jones-defends-integrity-russia-s-elections-putin-cant-be-dictator-because-he-won-76-percent/219686

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/03/20/foxs-geraldo-rivera-austin-tx-sanctuary-city-maybe-bomber-has-beef/219691

America needs a new asshole blown in it, a thousand miles in every direction, just to get its attention to its fucking violent end.

Should rent-controlled tenants be issued automatic weapons via grants from the Clinton Foundation to eliminate republican landlord vermin?

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/03/21/late-night-some-politics-more-local-than-others-open-thread-jared-kushner-grifter-icarus/

I tink so, but let me tink about it.

Dese heah, are heavy qvuestins.

First, every one of those stupid tests asks your permission for access to your data. Second, the Obama people asked for permission with exactly the same innocuous level of detail as those tests.

What is stupid is conflating a discussion of how CA and the Democratic data collection effort weren't dissimilar as being any support or approval of Trump.

Not every damn thing in the world is about whether Trump is good or bad. Some things are worth discussing in the absence of value judgement.

The point is whether scraping Facebook's social graph, gathering information of millions of voters without their permission, its the friends data that is in question, was good or bad for anyone to do. Should I be able to give them permission to take your data?

I believe, clearly stated on my first comment on the subject, that is unethical but I'm pretty sure that it us not illegal at this point.

Stupid is acting like the Obama, or Clinton, campaigns didnt have people out collecting exactly the same data, perhaps not as effectively, and making CA a scapegoat because they were good at it.

Stupid is continuing to pretend the FBI is made up of some group of shrinking violet patriotic perfect people being taken advantage of by those mean politicians.

FIB history is replete with people using there positions for personal and political power. To pretend Coney et al were f'ing Captain America is stupid. We are watching an incompetent, yes venal, arrogant, etc. politician being taken to the woodshed by people of enormous political power as FBI leaders, former and present.

They have and continue to use or abuse that power in support of your agenda. That's a bad thing no matter who's in the WH.

There are dozens of intelligent thoughtful conversations that we could be having, but anyone who disagrees with the headline of the day is labeled stupid and dismissed.

Funny how no one noticed that it isn't the Republicans that control the media, or the FBI and who are actively desiring the military to eschew civilian leadership.

It isn't the GOP that's likely to create a fascist regime in this country, it's the party intent on squashing any voice of dissent.

Stupid my @ss.

scraping friends data was neither illegal nor outside the terms of service at the time of either Obama's or CA's actions.

acquiring information for a nominal purpose and using for another, different story.

and, there are other questions relating to violation of election law.

and, there are questions regarding the general skeeviness, for lack of a better term, of the motivations and participation of the mercers, bannon, et al.

but, by all means, continue to hammer away at the point that is not the point.

nobody's quashing your "voice of dissent". some of us are asking you to use your head.

i'm sure your point here is not to support trump. my guess is that you want to be the voice of conservative moderation, keeping all of us libs honest by showing us our guy "did it too".

"our guy" didn't "do it too". the situations are not comparable. primarily because the men are not comparable, but also in the simple facts of the two cases.

"would you like to participate in a political campaign" is fundamentally a different question than "would you like to take a quiz".

if you want to continue arguing your point, start by showing how the above is either not so, or not relevant.

since the crux of the matter turns on the idea of consent, I'm you have some heavy lifting to do.

It isn't the GOP that's likely to create a fascist regime in this country, it's the party intent on squashing any voice of dissent.

so... the party that lives in your imagination?

nobody needs to worry about that one.

also:

Should I be able to give them permission to take your data?

No.

There are dozens of intelligent thoughtful conversations that we could be having...

Yes, that could be. The CA contrempts could be a jumping off place to have an intelligent conversation on the role of social media in our society, but when the very first words you utter are, "Obama did the same thing," it is pretty much a dead giveaway of where you are coming from.

To pretend Coney et al were f'ing Captain America is stupid.

James Comey is an asshole whose memo late in the game most likely tipped the election scales in favor of Trump. I, for one, shall never forgive this act of venality or partisanship-take your choice.

Funny how no one noticed that it isn't the Republicans that control the media

Yes, we all know how big business is controlled by flaming liberals. Where do you get this shit? It is an absurd claim.

It isn't the GOP that's likely to create a fascist regime in this country

Say again whose party nominated and now supports a flaming authoritarian asshole in the Presidency? Your claim is, for all intents and purposes, self-refuting.

Next up, Marty gives us lectures on the "deep state", a favorite meem among many of the loonier lefty types, much to my chagrin.

remember when Obama brought his crooked real-estate developer into the White House to solve middle east peace?

sure you do.

"The CA contrempts could be a jumping off place to have an intelligent conversation on the role of social media in our society, but when the very first words you utter are, "Obama did the same thing," it is pretty much a dead giveaway of where you are coming from."

No, that's what you hear. Where I'm coming from is that the issue isn't a Trump issue, trying desperately to separate some one thing from the quagmire of "we have to try to use this to make Trump look bad", so we could have a some discussion of a policy or social issue or phenomenon that isn't "if you say A you support Trump".

And no I am not going to lecture on the deep state, entrenched bureaucracy is a real t5hing, able to in most cases protect itself from change. That isn't a conspiracy it is simply inertia.

To pretend Coney et al were f'ing Captain America is stupid.

***

Funny how no one noticed that it isn't the Republicans that control the media, or the FBI

C'mon Marty, for God's sake get a grip (sapient hated it when I told her to do so a while ago, I hope you won't be so offended). Comey was the poster boy for the GOP when he dropped the bombshell about the emails on Huma Abedin's husband's computer (can't remember the creep's name), and I believe that for most of his life he has been a registered Republican, changing to "unaffiliated" only recently (I wonder why?) Mueller is a Republican, and although I don't know about McCabe, he followed protocol rigorously to exclude any conflicts of interest during and after his wife's unsuccessful run. Do you really want to get into the mindset that whenever the Intelligence services take a position that "your side" hates, you impugn them on the basis that they must be in hock to "the other side"? The left did that for decades, do you want to do it too, just to join a bunch of unprincipled pols and give the benefit of the doubt to a scumbag like Trump and his campaign? Where will America be if both sides start routinely slandering e.g. the FBI, in defiance of facts? What about the rule of law - isn't that supposed to be a conservative obsession?

the issue isn't a Trump issue

as much as you want people to talk about something else (as always), there is in fact a Trump issue here.

specifically, the data that CA used was obtained under false pretenses.

and how does that make it a Trump problem? well, the guy who oversaw the FB program at CA, and who was VP and Sec of the company until August 2016, was Steve Bannon.

expect to hear a lot about "illegal campaign coordination" in the next few weeks.

Cleek, could you please turn down the intensity of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers that are forcing Marty to follow Cleek's Law so rigorously?

Or turn them way, way, up. A petawatt or two should do the job. thnx.

Mueller is not a Republican, Comey is not a Republican, and that's irrelevant to my point anyway. Perhaps a better understanding of the power of an "independent" law enforcement agency is necessary to grasp how ludicrous it is to paint any of these FBI officials as somehow abused or bullied.

Marty doesn't like having His President questioned.

Please don't fall for his disavowal of Trumpism.

"Mueller is not a Republican."

I found it hard to believe too that Vivian Vance ordered the murder of Martin Luther King.

Mueller is not a Republican

of course not. once we ignore his last-known voter registration, the obvious proof presents itself: if he was a Republican, there's no way he'd spend a second questioning anything a fellow Republican ever did, and he'd spend his days whattabouting anyone who did.

No, that's what you hear.

I didn't hear nuttin'. That's what you WROTE.

Mueller is not a Republican, Comey is not a Republican, and that's irrelevant to my point anyway.

On what basis do you say that they are not, and how is it irrelevant when you have said: Funny how no one noticed that it isn't the Republicans that control the media, or the FBI?

In case you hadn't noticed, I was standing up for the concept of an "independent" law enforcement agency, and while they have not been able to be abused or bullied before, these norms are changing under the regime of the appalling Trump. If you think firing people two days before their retirement doesn't send a chilling message to other public servants, some of whom may not be all that principled, think again.

Funny how no one noticed that it isn't the Republicans that control the media, or the FBI?

Plus of course the obvious point (so obvious I missed it) that Sessions is the AG, with power over the DOJ including the FBI, and I assume you will agree that he is a Republican?

“we have to try to use this to make Trump look bad"

He doesn’t really need anyone’s help.

And I guess the flip side is “I have to try to pretend this doesn’t make Trump look bad” (or at least no worse than Obama/Clinton).

I don't think it makes Trump look bad or good, I think it is a fact of marketing life, political marketing in particular. Facebook isn't worth $160 a share because my mom likes to see pictures of the great grandkids.

It's the data. They, meaning CA, the Dems and thousands of other people/organizations, found a way to mine FB data. A way provided to them by FB, who did nothing to stop it until it hurt their stock price. And then just made token efforts.

I don't care how Trump looks. He spends full time answering the latest charge, if he was good at his job he would be ineffective at this point, and he sucked to begin with. Who cares? He can't do any real harm. Give him the wall and they DACA, how much will be built before someone else gets in office? Really?

people of enormous political power as FBI leaders, former and present.

They have and continue to use or abuse that power in support of your agenda.

I'm guessing that you are acquainted with a very different group of FBI agents than the ones that I have known over the years. All of whom were well on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Support for any kind of "liberal agenda" was nonexistent.

I'm guessing that you are acquainted with a very different group of FBI agents than the ones that I have known over the years. All of whom were well on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Support for any kind of "liberal agenda" was nonexistent

You make a point, as a Republican (!), that I hesitated to make as an old hippy, who assumed (along with everyone else I knew) that all law enforcement pretty much was on the side of the right. I don't imagine it's changed that much.

Plus of course the obvious point (so obvious I missed it) that Sessions is the AG, with power over the DOJ including the FBI, and I assume you will agree that he is a Republican?

And, while we're on the subject, Rosenstein (the Deputy AG who is Mueller's boss, and the only one who can fire him) is a Republican. And Mueller (previously head of the FBI under Bush II) is a life-long Republican, too. (By the way, like all flaming liberals, Mueller is an ex-Marine.)

when the very first words you utter are, "Obama did the same thing," it is pretty much a dead giveaway of where you are coming from."

No, that's what you hear.

Let's go to the videotape....

Thus fundamental political theory 101. You can't imagine that CA came up with this as an original thought.

When Obama mined FB for his candidacy he was hailed as a new generation leader who understood the advantage of social media the way Kennedy understood the power of tv.

Now it's suddenly criminal, and unethical which I happen to agree with in both cases, but it isn't new except in its effectiveness.

OK then.

What is criminal and/or in violation of their terms of agreement with FB is not the fact that they scraped friend data. That was legal at the time they did it, and when Obama did it, and from FB's point of view it was a feature they used to market their API to developers.

The distinction, to beat the poor dead horse once again, is that Obama's team disclosed that participation in his stuff *was participation in his campaign*. CA's on behalf of Trump did not.

And, being a company owned and operated by foreign nationals, there may be other violations of election law involved.

The Ukrainian call girl thing is just langiappe.

If you want to talk about data privacy, fine. If you don't want to have your point mistaken as a claim that "Yeah, but Obama did it too!", perhaps don't lead off with "Yeah, but Obama did it too!".

In any case, not much point in giving all of us a hard time about it, you said what you said. If what you said wasn't what you meant to say, say what you meant to say. But don't blame all of us for reading what you wrote.

I didn't reference FBI agents, I referenced people who rose to executive ranks in the FBI. They carry tremendous political power and the "your agenda" I referred to was the harassment and removal of the President.

I couldn't imagine Mueller is a Republican, but ok I was wrong. Coney is an Obama Democrat, no matter what he was, Rosenstein hasn't fired Mueller, but then he hired him. Most important, all of those people are interested in protecting the power of the FBI, from any one else.

Mueller is not a Republican, Comey is not a Republican

Mueller is, famously, a (R).

Comey was for his entire life until quite recently, he is currently unaffiliated. I can't imagine why.

Both were appointed to their positions by George W Bush.

Seriously man, c'mon.

By way of analogy, imperfect as they may be, we have one situation that is like a friend calling to see if it’s okay to stop by for a few beers and a chat. We have another situation that is like someone sneaking into your house and drinking a few beers taken out of your fridge.

Both involve someone coming into your house and drinking your beer, yet they are not the same thing. Of course, on the other hand, that’s not to say you have to let anyone drink your beer under any circumstances if you don’t want them to. You can always tell your friend you’re busy.

is like someone sneaking into your house and drinking a few beers taken out of your fridge

a guy learns that you're a good source for beer. so he comes over and tells you he wants to chat. you chat and give him some beers, but he doesn't drink them himself; he actually takes the beers and sells them to his friends when you're not looking.

Mueller is an ex- a former Marine.

An ex-Marine is what you call someone who went postal and shot up a shopping mall. :)

The left did that for decades

Not for nothing, but "the left did that for decades" because, for decades, the FBI and the intelligence services illegally interfered with people's constitutionally protected rights to assemble, speak, be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, and generally disagree with the policies of the government.

If anyone thinks that's what's going on now, I have a bridge to sell you.

He spends full time answering the latest charge....

Trump is no different from any other president in this regard, except for the fact that he’s so unsuited by temperament and personal history to be president that there are so many more charges that can be made. It’s not just that people are out to get him; it’s that there’s so much to get him on. And the number of people who are out to get him and the level of desire they have for getting him are not independent of his past and his character. I’m out to get him to some degree, because he’s a rotten piece of sh*t who’s horrible for this country and the world.

That's very true, russell.

"If anyone thinks that's what's going on now,"

There were and are other ways to abuse power, the FBI has and is using all of them. It's just ok with you this time.

how is the FBI abusing its power?

cleek beat me to it!

They’re conducting a secret investigation without authorization, except everyone knows about it, including their bosses and congress. It’s a really tricky deal.

i googled a bit and the thing that keeps coming up is the Nunes memo.

i hope that's not where this is going. because that's in Crazytown, and my mom always told me to never go there.

She said that ain't the way to have fun, son....

There are so many great renditions to choose from, but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj600c_TmUo

It's just ok with you this time.

In a nutshell, you are reading my mind, and on the basis of your imaginary understanding of what I think, you are calling me a hypocrite.

You have been plainly disingenuous throughout this thread. But, you want to accuse me of hypocrisy.

I don't need this crap. Adios.

When do we get use the term Nazi as a synonym for republican:

https://thinkprogress.org/20000-illinois-republicans-voted-for-nazi-7bbeeb7631fd/

When do we get use the term Nazi as a synonym for republican?

Perhaps when someone like Jones gets the nomination and Republican leaders don't reject him out of hand. Which, this time, they instantly did.

This guy is definitely a pigfucking republican:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/03/21/director-pro-trump-group-boasted-asking-airline-passengers-rag-their-heads-if-they-were-terrorists/219687

Perhaps when someone like Jones gets the nomination and Republican leaders don't reject him out of hand.

but Republican voters didn't.

Yet another Godless liberal democrat terrorist perverted by socialist public schooling and from a broken brown family:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ad912c5d629717dd35ca6486ef96b51bca633c525aa82ec9cf45abb2949fc4c.png

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/03/racism-in-action

"I couldn't imagine Mueller is a Republican, but ok I was wrong."

The next time Mueller and Rosenstein show up at the
stinking Federalist Society and their membership cards don't work, their imaginations are going to fail them to.

Jones was running unopposed for the nomination. Good work showing your true colors, GOP.

too

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad