The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

**Pam** · July-23-18, 11:41 AM

This came out several months ago, but I don't think I posted it yet. Interview with former NSA employee Bill Binney.

https://youtu.be/Sv0-Lnv0d0k

**bust** · November-13-18, 12:03 AM

The New York Times produced a great 3-part video series dissecting the Russian campaign to subvert and sew discord among its adversaries using disinformation. The classic divide and conquer strategy. Contamination from within.

Part 1 provides historical context, including first hand accounts from KGB defectors, and examples.
Part 2 looks more at the strategy, and details the 7-part Russian disinformation playbook, with examples.
Part 3 analyzes antidotes, and many of the challenges we face defending ourselves [[lots more examples).

Some here have repeated some of the specific disinformation campaigns. Some have posted links to conspiracy theories promulgated by Russian propaganda outlets. [[They're not just RT and Sputnik.)

Here's one take away: Don't be a "useful idiot".

Part 1: Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...fake-news.html

Part 2: The Seven Commandments of Fake News
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...pizzagate.html

Part 3: The Worldwide War on Truth
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...-measures.html

**Richard** · November-13-18, 11:28 AM

Do you think that this could also be a disinformation propaganda ploy by The NY Times?

Even more so when they write that the US was thrown off guard by the disinformation propaganda ploy?

You do relize that we have overthrown entire countries useing disinformation propaganda with coups.

We were the disinformation propaganda kings in WW2 and throughout the Cold War,the only difference is the public was not aware of it with real time internet.

Every media outlet has had massive amounts of retractions in the past few years in the interest of getting the story out first,is that considered mistakes or disinformation propaganda.

**aj3647** · November-13-18, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

Do you think that this could also be a disinformation propaganda ploy by The NY Times?

Even more so when they write that the US was thrown off guard by the disinformation propaganda ploy?

You do relize that we have overthrown entire countries useing disinformation propaganda with coups.

We were the disinformation propaganda kings in WW2 and throughout the Cold War,the only difference is the public was not aware of it with real time internet.

Every media outlet has had massive amounts of retractions in the past few years in the interest of getting the story out first,is that considered mistakes or disinformation propaganda.

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Anything to defend the Russians, eh Richard? You know Richard, if you dislike the U.S. so much and think we're so evil, maybe you'd be happier moving back to Mother Russia. Far fewer gays and minorities and Spanish-speaking immigrants to ruffle your feathers there too.

**canuck** · November-13-18, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Anything to defend the Russians, eh Richard? You know Richard, if you dislike the U.S. so much and think we're so evil, maybe you'd be happier moving back to Mother Russia. Far fewer gays and minorities and Spanish-speaking immigrants to ruffle your feathers there too.

I think the reference to ''useful idiots'' in the video must have ruffled his feathers too.

**Richard** · November-13-18, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Anything to defend the Russians, eh Richard? You know Richard, if you dislike the U.S. so much and think we're so evil, maybe you'd be happier moving back to Mother Russia. Far fewer gays and minorities and Spanish-speaking immigrants to ruffle your feathers there too.

You say we like you have a frog in your pocket,I agree people like you that do not care for or show respect towards thier fellow Americans are pretty much evil in my book.

My kids are bi lingual and are half Spanish,so there you go creating scenarios in your mind that only exist in your mind.

Yes I have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants that feel they are exempt from the same laws that apply to us.

I am thinking that you can google the definition of ILLEGAL sense you seem to not understand the meaning of.

I also have a problem with people like you that treat your fellow Americans like second class citizens and put them behind the ILLEGALS.

You fake cry about health care for Americans but write a blank check to provide it for ILLEGALS and then say,look at me I am compassionate.

As far as other Americans when I signed up it was to protect and give my life for my fellow Americans,there was no checklist concerning race,color,or creed.

You on the other hand post like you are part of the Russian disinformation group that try’s to cause division and instill hate.

You are more of a danger to this country then the Russians will ever be.

Maybe if you got out of the basement and traveled a little you will find no matter what or where you are, people are the same,the only boogie men are the ones that perfer to chop you and yours heads off.

Granted there is no shortage of those.

By any chance do you have any proof of Putin and Trump colluding to win the office yet?

Still waiting for that all these years later.

**aj3647** · November-23-18, 01:16 PM

Jerome Corsi is negotiating a plea deal with Robert Mueller:

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ler-washington

You might remember Corsi's name as one of the most vocal proponents of Birtherism during the Obama Administration. He's a Right Wing conspiracy theorist who has written for World Net Daily and InfoWars. He also lied to federal investigators in the Russian investigation. Oops.

It's been widely reported that Corsi along with Roger Stone colluded with WikiLeaks to illegally release DNC emails hacked by Russian Intelligence, in effect making them "useful idiots" and dupes of the Russians to help them influence the 2016 election.

It's is almost certain that the price Mueller will ask of Corsi to avoid putting him behind bars will be that he testifies against Roger Stone in court. Then the question becomes, will Stone cut a deal to save his neck or will he go to prison for Trump? Everyone else in this position has cut a deal to save their own neck and I suspect Stone will do the same.

**canuck** · November-23-18, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Jerome Corsi is negotiating a plea deal with Robert Mueller:

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ler-washington

You might remember Corsi's name as one of the most vocal proponents of Birtherism during the Obama Administration. He's a Right Wing conspiracy theorist who has written for World Net Daily and InfoWars. He also lied to federal investigators in the Russian investigation. Oops.

It's been widely reported that Corsi along with Roger Stone colluded with WikiLeaks to illegally release DNC emails hacked by Russian Intelligence, in effect making them "useful idiots" and dupes of the Russians to help them influence the 2016 election.

It's is almost certain that the price Mueller will ask of Corsi to avoid putting him behind bars will be that he testifies against Roger Stone in court. Then the question becomes, will Stone cut a deal to save his neck or will he go to prison for Trump? Everyone else in this position has cut a deal to save their own neck and I suspect Stone will do the same.

Thanks AJ, you just made my day.

**aj3647** · November-29-18, 09:42 AM

Ruh Roh, Michael Cohen to plead guilty today on new charges of lying to Congress about Trump's business connections to the Russians.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/michael-co...opstories.html

Cohen's previous guilty pleas came in a campaign finance violations case brought by the U.S. Attorney's office that was unrelated to the Russia investigation, this is the first time Cohen is pleading guilty to charges brought by Robert Mueller as part of the Russia investigation.

It is also reported that Cohen has provided 70 hours of sworn testimony to Robert Mueller as part of his cooperation deal.

**Bham1982** · November-30-18, 11:00 AM

Mueller has 36 indictments so far, more than in Watergate or any investigation of any President in American history, and all this in about a year. Quite the "nothingburger" as Dotard likes to claim.

**aj3647** · November-30-18, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Mueller has 36 indictments so far, more than in Watergate or any investigation of any President in American history, and all this in about a year. Quite the "nothingburger" as Dotard likes to claim.

It's looking increasingly like Mueller was sandbagging until he got Trump's written answers, and now that he has them, there's no reason for him to hold back. We've seen a flurry of revelations this week:

-Paul Manafort lied to the Special Counsel and breached his plea deal, which means Mueller will ask for the maximum penalty at his sentencing hearing and likely add an additional perjury charge. Mueller is also mulling putting Manafort on trial again for the charges that were dropped as part of the plea deal.
-We now know that Trump and Manafort have a "Joint Defense Agreement" and that Manafort's legal team was feeding information about Mueller's line of questioning to Trump's lawyers to give Trump an inside look at Mueller's investigative thought process. Just another regular day where the President of the United States is jointly cooperating with a convicted felon. I'll take "Things Innocent People Don't Do" for $500, Alex.
-Trump also has a Joint Defense Agreement with Birther Conspiracy Theorist Jerome Corsi. Dude sure does have a lot of JDAs for someone who didn't do anything wrong.
-Trump was in negotiations with the Russians to build a Trump Tower in Moscow all the way up until June of 2016, after he had already locked up the Republican nomination. As part of these negotiations, Trump was willing to give Vladmir Putin a $50 million Penthouse suite.

**Maof** · November-30-18, 12:05 PM

^^^He also said there was nothing wrong with what he did..smh

**Richard** · November-30-18, 01:56 PM

I will take $500,Alex,because Muellers star witness against Trump is now nationally known as not a credible witness.Thats gotta hurt.

All of the indictments and still nothing directly related to the original intent of the investigation,outside of going after anybody close to the president or his followers.

**Bham1982** · November-30-18, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

I will take $500,Alex,because Muellers star witness against Trump is now nationally known as not a credible witness.Thats gotta hurt.

That's kinda the point. Trump's associates are a rouge's gallery of criminals, liars, and grifters, just like him, and are going down, just like him.

Originally Posted by Richard

All of the indictments and still nothing directly related to the original intent of the investigation,outside of going after anybody close to the president or his followers.

That was actually the specific intent of the investigation [[investigate any illegal activity surrounding the President, with investigation headed by a Republican, authorized by a Republican, and pretty much unprecedented in its success to this point).

**Richard** · November-30-18, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

That's kinda the point. Trump's associates are a rouge's gallery of criminals, liars, and grifters, just like him, and are going down, just like him.

That was actually the specific intent of the investigation [[investigate any illegal activity surrounding the President, with investigation headed by a Republican, authorized by a Republican, and pretty much unprecedented in its success to this point).

You meen kinda like they did with this one?

FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a government watchdog, according to the whistleblower’s attorney.
The Justice Department’s inspector general was informed that the documents show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation alleges.

The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to enforce criminal laws pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges.

http://conservativefighters.org/news...whistleblower/

Seems as though the democrats are immune from prosecution while sleeping with the Russians.

The whole Trump Russian collusion aspect was really just a smoke screen to divert attention from Hillary.

I say fair is fair,now go after the obama administration officials that handled the bank foreclosures and bailed out the banks,then landed multi million dollar a year jobs by the same ones they bailed out.

They are all corrupt,why go after Trump out of spite and stop there,take em all out of the picture.

**bust** · December-01-18, 08:41 AM

Richard, there you go again. You need to find better sources than one referenced in the New York Times as a Russian fake news site. Here it is listed as a fake news site by the Daily Dot too. Sorry to tell you: that officially makes you a "useful idiot", again.

Here are more references:

According to Media Bias Fact Check:

Conservative Fighters
An extreme right site characterized by fake news. Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy.

Daily Caller
A site with a right bias, whose factual reporting ranks MIXED.

Daily Dot
A site with a left bias, whose factual reporting ranks HIGH.

The New York Times
A site with a center-left bias, whose factual reporting ranks HIGH.

PS. I'm not calling you names. "Useful idiot" is not my term. It's what the propagandists in the FSB call people who unwittingly spread the disinformation they seek to spread.

I'm trying to help.

Operation Infektion: A three-part video series on Russian disinformation
Russian Disinformation: From Cold War to Kanye
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/o...elections.html

**Jimaz** · December-01-18, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by bust

...According to Media Bias Fact Check:...

Thanks. That's worth bookmarking.

Curious entry from their FAQ:

... Further, prior to and after the election of 2016 there was an explosion of fake right wing websites, many of which originate in the country of Macedonia....

Wait. What? Why Macedonia?

**Richard** · December-01-18, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by bust

Richard, there you go again. You need to find better sources than one referenced in the New York Times as a Russian fake news site. Here it is listed as a fake news site by the Daily Dot too. Sorry to tell you: that officially makes you a "useful idiot", again.

Here are more references:

According to Media Bias Fact Check:

Conservative Fighters
An extreme right site characterized by fake news. Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy.

Daily Caller
A site with a right bias, whose factual reporting ranks MIXED.

Daily Dot
A site with a left bias, whose factual reporting ranks HIGH.

The New York Times
A site with a center-left bias, whose factual reporting ranks HIGH.

PS. I'm not calling you names. "Useful idiot" is not my term. It's what the propagandists in the FSB call people who unwittingly spread the disinformation they seek to spread.

I'm trying to help.

Operation Infektion: A three-part video series on Russian disinformation
Russian Disinformation: From Cold War to Kanye
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/o...elections.html

So after all of that can you provide a source that disproves the raid?

It is easy to say fake news,but how is it any different then the biased news where it is anti trump all day long never offering or allowing an opposing opinion?

Do you really think that a left leaning news source is going to report on anything negative towards the left?

We had this discussion before about the use of fake news terms when it comes to content,I asked you to show me a reliable news source that has not had a large percentage of retractions.

You never did that,and the reason is because there is not one.

So at what point does false or non fact supported information supplied that then becomes retracted does not qualify as fake news?

The bottom line is no matter who reported it,before you can call it fake news you really need to prove or provide a link from a reliable source that says the raid did not occur.

We already know investigations were reopened by the house in order to have them addressed before the turn over in January,so it becomes pretty plausible that it would occur in the course of the investigation.

I realize your goal is to school me on fake news,but using the media to manipulate the public to achieve an objective has been around long before you and I were born and will be around long after.

The only reporter or commentator that I have seen on the left that actually reports both sides is Major Garrett,and the looks that he gets from the newscasters are priceless,you can see the facial expressions of anger towards him for actually providing an unbiased opinion.

They do not want to hear that,the only thing that they want to hear is no different then some posters here..... Trump sucks end of story.

https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/...act-check.html

So in the above link you now have a fact checking site arguing with another fact checking site about who provides the best facts.

**Jimaz** · December-02-18, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

... Curious entry from their FAQ:

... Further, prior to and after the election of 2016 there was an explosion of fake right wing websites, many of which originate in the country of Macedonia....

Wait. What? Why Macedonia?

Turns out it was just unemployed kids trying to make money posting click bait who happened to live in Macedonia.

Inside the Macedonian Fake-News Complex

**bust** · December-02-18, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

So after all of that can you provide a source that disproves the raid?

I did a quick search for the name of the guy, clinton, and uranium, and I looked at the results. Every single site talking about this is a site notorious for promoting fake news. Most are ones that have been identified as pushing Russian propaganda. Some push almost nothing else.

Is there a reputable site that says this happened? If the only ones pushing the story are the likes of RT, WND, Daily Caller, RedState, ConservativeFighters, and ZeroHedge it is is almost certainly bunk. It would be nothing more than a waste of time and a distraction disproving whatever new disinformation campaign they are rattling on about.

**Pam** · December-02-18, 03:14 PM

Speaking of fake news... Wikileaks is suing the Guardian for story claiming Julian Assange met with Manafort.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status...31696143241217

**Bham1982** · December-05-18, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Pam

Speaking of fake news... Wikileaks is suing the Guardian for story claiming Julian Assange met with Manafort.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status...31696143241217

I think it's already well known that Wikileaks is fakenews. It's just Russian-Trump propaganda.

**Richard** · December-05-18, 09:37 AM

So what causes the spread of fake news?

Normaly one would search a subject,read from multiple sources and try to form an unbiased opinion.

You see it here all of the time .. Google it.

But yet when you have Google and Bing censoring conservative view points out of thier 45 billion cached pages,you end up with a very large percentage of the population only being privy to one side of the story or view point.

So on one hand you may have Russian-Trump propaganda but also combined with a one sided view from the other side,which is worse.

A large percentage of the news I watch is steaming the liberal news channels,they had a lot to say negative wise towards Hillary and Trump before the election,after the election it became non stop anti Trump and little actual news,then it is backed up by all of these anti Trump expert interviews,only showing one side of an issue.

So you have a manipulative media source on the left and a so called fake news on the right.

So how does one verify what is considered fake news if the search company only gives one viewpoint which would by default make any other news be considered fake,and backed by multiple links that say the same thing in essence verifying the one sided view.

So who is actually creating fake news ?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...t-be-regulated

**rb336** · December-05-18, 12:41 PM

There's a lot of supposition and a lot of connections to circle-jerk style attributions from right-wing web sites and "news" sources but little in the way of verifiable facts in virtually every item I've read on the subject. I've gone so far as to try the exact searches they talk about and I have gotten totally different results than those claimed in the above link.

While I have no doubt that some phrases and searches trigger algorithms that might skew the results, sometimes just a small change gets different results. Most of these opinion pieces - I call them that because that is where the vast majority of them are posted - in editorial or op-ed pages - are written by people with no clue how a search engine works.

**Richard** · December-05-18, 01:05 PM

^ todays news has a 24 hour cycle at best,the average reader how much time per day reading it let alone enter in 1000 different keywords in order to maximize results and then spend an hour going through 100 different results with the least popular being on page 99 which may be the only one that is factual.

I agree,most of the links provided are somebody’s opinion,then you have to determine where they got theirs,is it slanted,and where they got thier facts to support it or influence it.

It becomes even harder when the media has gone the route of actually not staffing investigative reporters and just parroting other sources in the interest of getting the news out first in the 24 hour time frame.

You could spend hours fact checking something,but by that time it is old news and nobody cares.

It has now come down to the definition of fake news is anything you do not agree with and who is to argue because there is little way to actually prove on wrong for the most part.

I think discussions tend to be more based on how one feels about a particular subject,outside of a nuclear bomb blast that is easy to see and verify,it is hard to be judgmental towards somebody for the most part when it is thier opinion.

There are millions of people,you can always find somebody to agree with you and somebody to disagree with you,it is just life and what makes it interesting.

Sometimes it is like one is required to hire a full time research analyst in order to have an opinion.