Senator Mark Warner is Dead Wrong on Russia by Publius Tacitus

 Almost all of the readers of this blog, I suspect, do not remember the House UnAmerican Committee hearings investigating communist subversion in the 1940s. I know that Colonel Lang was a youngster back then and does remember, but if you are younger than 69 you only know about it from history. I raise that because it appears to me that we are now in a full fledged new era of Red Scare. The Russians, so we are told, hacked our election and threatened our democracy. If you disagree with this and try to argue the other point then you are nothing more than a Putin puppet or Kremlin stooge.
Today's hearing put on by the Senate Intelligence Committee turned out to be nothing more than a boring piece of kabuki theater designed to portray Russia as a rising menace and the United States as an innocent naif simply trying to enjoy the blessings of democracy. The outrage expressed by Democrat and Republican Senators over "outside interference" in our sacred democracy goes is laughable. Do none of these legislators remember what the United States, via CIA covert actions, did in Iran, Guatemala, Italy, Greece, Vietnam or Chile, just to mention a few? An appreciation of irony appears to be a lost art in the fantasy world that is Washington, D.C.
Senator Mark Warner is part of this anti-Russia propaganda onslaught and has said some things this week that are demonstrably false. When he appeared yesterday alongside Senator Richard Burr, Warner insisted that those nefarious Rooskies had manipulated Google searches to return results favoring media claimed to be Russian propaganda outlets (e.g., RT and Sputnik News). He made this claim last Sunday on Face the Nation:
"We saw manipulation of certain algorithms, so that if you Googled certain items, you got Russia news, [RT] News, other false news. We saw the selective hacking into DNC and individuals that then tried to leak that information to benefit Mr. Trump," (Sunday). 
Senator Warner reiterated this point today during his remarks at the Senate Intel hearing:
“Let me start off on that. I think we know about the hacking and the selective leaking of information. But as a former tech guy, what really concerns me is at least some reports, and we have to get to the bottom of this, is that there were upwards of 1,000 paid Internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect taking over a series of computers which are then called a botnet. They can then generate news down to specific areas. It’s been reported to me, we have to find this out, specific areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania where you would not have been receiving off of whoever your vendor might have been, Trump versus Clinton, in the waning days of the election, but instead Clinton is sick, or Clinton is taking money from some source, fake news. We’ve also seen as well the fact that if you think about — if you look just, for example, if you googled election hacking during the period leading up to the election and immediately afterwards, you wouldn’t get Fox or ABC or New York Times. What you get is four out of the first five news stories that popped up were Russian propaganda. 
Do tell. Well, I cannot ignore a challenge. I did the Google search with the term he suggested, "election hacking," and limited the search to the time leading up to November 8. Here is what I got:


This entry was posted in Borg Wars, Russia. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to Senator Mark Warner is Dead Wrong on Russia by Publius Tacitus

  1. Willybilly says:

    Agreed fully… but the problem is that even cooler heads and respected pundits are still trying to sell themselves and the public on this utterly ridiculous fallacy…. painting the usa as a banana republic easily manipulated….

  2. In fact, Google’s search-algorithm is notorious for DISFAVORING alt-media sources. That’s one reason why I abandoned Google several years back: their filter bubble. I now use, which does not track or store your results, and does not rely on filters.

  3. Hey, I am only a few months away from being 69, but I learned about the House UnAmerican Activites hearings because our local public school system had not yet been corrupted with socialist, pc nonsense. I was too young when it was going on, but it did often come up in my studies as I prepared to teach English.
    You can’t study Steinbeck without knowing his communist phase. And you can’t teach “The Crucible” without knowing how Arthur Miller was using the Salem witch trials as a metaphor for the communist scare he had been subjected to.
    But, my problem with your post is that your logic is too darned hard to deny, and to read through it takes a little time. It’s not a Tweet, for heavens sake.
    As am ex-English teacher, I often have fantasies of forcing students to read using the method in Clockwork Orange to try to force all the violent tendencies our of the main character in that novel. Only my idea would be to force some logic and knowledge into the heads of those who prefer scandal and nonsense.
    And by the way, shouldn’t we also have a history lesson about how some of our leaders–I believe Slick Willy one of them–did much after the fall of the USSR to install an economy in Russia that could not hold and ended up collapsing.

  4. Eric Newhill says:

    IMO, Warner and the rest know it’s all BS. It’s just all about having a chance to remind the public that Clinton won the popular vote and, in states she lost, it was really close. Therefore, Trump is illegitimate and Congress doesn’t need to work with him at all – or something like that. The left wing base eats it up. US politics at its worst.
    The republic is in its last stage of life with fly-over/rust belt America fighting for its life and the elites – especially the left leaning ones – telling them to eat cake (or high tech mumbo jumbo). Either this Russia matter + political spying gets settled and filed away in its proper place (the round file and prison, respectively) or all hell is going to break loose in a manner from which we will never recover, IMO.

  5. Mikey says:

    It will be interesting to see Google’s official reaction to this, if any.

  6. doug says:

    Russia is certainly not the USSR. Much of this is purely political. The Democrats and portions of the Republicans see this as an opportunity to simply attack piggybacking on the strongly embedded negative association of the Russian lead COMINTERN. That was a very real threat. One I paid attention to as I had a deep antagonism towards Socialism let alone full blown Communism. When the USSR started disintegrating it was clear to me early on that it was real and due to the stagnation intrinsic in top down planning, an immutable aspect of socialism. Idealism easily runs amuck, paved with good intentions and all that. That’s now in the dustbin of history.
    But memes persist and the notion that Russia is somehow some intrinsic enemy bent on World domination is still there. They are a country with interests. One with a rather nationalistic people that have been through a lot of crap. But they also have, perhaps, a more realistic view of their limits than many of us in the West.

  7. kgw says:

    All this from those who say nothing about the theft of Socotra Island for yet another surveillance/drone base. The insane clown posse has never stopped, will it ever? /R Only when throttled to dust…

  8. Jim MacMillan says:

    Publius Tacitus: Is Marco Rubio also wrong that his campaign committee was hacked by Russians?

  9. Yeah, blame the Russians for his loss (snark is not directed at you, it is rhetorical). Does that make sense? What exactly was hacked? How did that adversely affect his campaign? I think Little Marco had other problems. Blame the Russians and/or Putin becomes the excuse for everything it would appear.

  10. scott s. says:

    Jim MacMillan:
    It appears what Rubio has said is “former members of my presidential campaign team, who had access to the information of my presidential campaign, were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia” which seems to be a bit more restrained than your characterization. In particular we don’t know who the “members” are, how they were “targeted” nor how the ultimate source “IP addresses” were determined.

  11. The NYT is now reporting that Nunes’s sources were two WH officials, thus insinuating that it’s just not important, i guess.
    Hard ever to believe the NYT. What would this mean really if true?

  12. PT,
    You may not understand how the Google Advanced Search works.
    Your query limiting results to the time “leading up to November 8” returned sites/posts that were created prior to November 8. It did not return results as they were prior to November 8.
    There is no way to ask Google to display the results it would have delivered on any prior date.
    Neither you, nor Senator Warner can conclusively state what results Google would have returned prior to the election unless you had taken a screen shot of those results at the time they were returned.
    The issue is not and has never been whether or not Russians attempted to influence the election – the issue is whether or not there was collaboration by the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

      Comey said the investigation “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”

  13. b says:

    In gact, the NYT reports that Nunes’ claims about the intel reports are true. Deeply buried in the piece:
    “the officials’ description of the intelligence is in line with Mr. Nunes’s own characterization of the material, ”

  14. Fred says:

    indeed. If your company advertised on Google you got defrauded since their algorithms obviously didn’t take your ads to the people you intended them for. You should sue.

  15. Fred says:

    No, no. The NYT is stating publicly that administration officials – the leakers – are conducting surveillance of senior members of Congress. That would be Obama era officials – unofficially since they are not named and provided this hit-piece evidence on the condition of anonymity. The NYT would never make anything up. Just ask Judith Miller or Jason Blair.

  16. I have developed the theory that the “Gray Lady” has Dementia, but a long-standing form of it.
    I didn’t read the article and will have to look for it. I got second-had reporting fro a conservative site. I’ll have to try to find it. But reading the NYT has always made me feel dirty. 🙂

  17. Ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I use DDG too. Works fine.

  18. Ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Eric, it’s also about distracting the Dem-voting sheeple from demanding of their party leaders a no- holds-barred inquiry into why their party. Got trashed up and down the ballot in 2016. And 2014. And 2010.

  19. Ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Eric, I’m reading Michael Grants “The Fall of the Roman Empirce” now and the parallels are simply frightening.

  20. I think you are right there, but it is hidden, actually drowned out by the drumbeat of the idea that Nunes must recuse himself. Spicer is a trooper, I think, and I have to agree with him that what’s in the reports are far more important than how those reports made it too the light of day.

  21. O.K. I read it, and I think I understand what Fred is saying.
    And, as usual, I have confirmed my opinion that the NYT is an evil force in American politics, has been for a long time.
    Can’t wait to get Publius Tacitus’s opinion about this new development in the Nunes saga.

  22. helenk3 says:

    if hilary had won would the Russian hack nonsense even be a story? How much air time did the selling of the uranium to Russia get? How much air time did the hilary e-mails get? they just dropped some more yesterday. see anything about it on msm?
    for those so anxious to go to WW3 did they forget that obama decapitated our military? Or are they thinking they will make money off the military build up?
    McCain been trying to get the US into a war with Russia for years. Do they have information on his Viet Nam prison days that he wants destroyed?
    Lindsey who has never been on the battle field sure seems anxious to send others to one.
    Have they not figured out yet that if we go to war with Russia, the whole ME along with Europe will become a hell that no one will recover from.
    the democrats LOST not because of Russia but because of their own stupidity and contempt for the American citizen

  23. helenk3 says:

    stolen from the crawdad hole. thought it was interesting

  24. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Well, I do remember the accusations of “McCarthyism”, and criticism of HUAC that were so common in the 1950s.
    The offensive question then:

    “Are you now or have you even been a member of the Communist Party?”

    The idea was that that was an outrageous question to ask. On the other hand, my opinion is that that was a quite justified question to ask of the people who were guiding America’s opinions.

    Now the question is:

    “Have you ever been in communication with any Russians?

    The idea, to some, is that any such communication is automatically suspect, or can be portrayed as suspect.
    Sounds to me like the new McCartyism.

  25. David says:

    One can think of the Times as “Pravda on the Hudson” and the Washington Post as “Izvestia on the Potomac” in that during the old days of the USSR, people read Pravda and Izvestia in order to find out what the party said was news. Today the Times and Post fill that role for the Borg.

  26. JohnH says:

    I suspect that Warner is engaging in projection…IOW Democrats had paid internet trolls, so Russians must have had them. I suspect Republicans employed them as well.
    Unfortunately trolls are a fact of life on today’s internet…and I expect that any rich and powerful entity routinely employs them as part of public relations, or, in the case of governmental entities, as part of their public “diplomacy.”

  27. Lefty says:

    Mark Warner is is a twit, and usually can’t be prodded into saying anything that might offend anyone.
    Wonder what the Dems hit him with to get him to toe the hysterical Dem party line? Odds are it will not take long for him to revert to his usual mealy mouthed form.

  28. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Me, three. Not being pursued all over the internet by ads simply because I ran a search is a boon. Now, if I visit or make a purchase from a site, and am then pursued, that is different.
    But beyond this issue, Google has crapified their search results through their choices on many topics, for a certainty burying search results almost irretrievably for sites that they do not favor.
    And don’t get me started on the recent Congressional, largely Republican, action to permit one’s ISP to monetize one’s internet usage without any way of opting out. I may have to investigate VPNs.

  29. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    PFC Chuck,
    Yes, aren’t they just?

  30. Peter AU says:

    Sometime ago I researched a subject on DuckDuckgo. Several years later, wanting to find a particular court case, but not remembering exact terms, it would not show up on DDG. Tried numerous search terms over several hours.
    Tried yandex search and found it, first search term, first page of search results.
    Several years ago that particular court case was relatively easy to find using DDG.

  31. Helenk3,
    No uranium was sold to Russia.

  32. I’ll remember that way of looking at those publications. Thanks.

  33. Jmc says:

    Speaking of Google, some posters here might be a bit chagrined if they google our president’s decades long relationship with McCarthy’S hatchet man, Roy Cohn.

  34. TonyL says:

    I agreed with Richard. The search that PT did was mostly meaningless. I can say with 99.99% certainty is that searching the same topic at at different times would give different results.
    And regardless all the noise generated by the Borgs, we should pay a little more attention to Comey’s investigation.

  35. Fred says:

    The Grey Lady is now the Blog of the Borg, owned by the richest man on earth, Carlos Slim. There’s a Pulitzer and a pink-slip ready and waiting for the intrepid reporter who writes up just how Carlos got so rich and millions of his fellow Mexicans got so poor that they had to leave the land of their ancestors and journey North to work in the land of the gringos.

  36. Quite interesting. Thanks. Now I am totally depressed about the state of our so-called Democratic Republic. The people in charge aren’t political ideologues but just plain perverts and criminals.

  37. robt willmann says:

    A new story of the day is that Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is in discussions with the U.S. House and Senate Intelligence (?) Committees about testifying with a grant of immunity. His lawyer seems to have confirmed it–
    This would most likely be “use immunity” under Title 18, U.S. Code, sections 6002 (establishes use immunity) and 6005 (more specifically addresses it before Congress)–
    As set forth in section 6002: “… no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”
    An interesting twist that might appear if Flynn is given immunity when testifying before a committee of Congress is that if he is asked about a conversation or communication illegally intercepted without a proper warrant or legal authorization, he will not have to answer that question and cannot be held in contempt for not answering. This comes from the “wiretapping statute”, Title 18, U.S. Code, section 2515, of chapter 119–
    The U.S. Supreme Court supported the doctrine in Gelbard v. U.S., 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357 (1972). Two of the parties in that case had been granted transactional immunity, a broader type of immunity than use immunity–
    The theatre might develop into something fun to watch, if Flynn and his lawyer claim that Flynn’s conversations were illegally intercepted, and Flynn refuses to answer questions based on the intercepted communications, even if immunity is given and the conversations were neutral and benign.

  38. charly says:

    unknown location within Russia?
    I don’t much about hacking but obscuring your IP address is 101 akin to wearing a mask when robbing a bank

  39. charly says:

    Another issue is that google tailors the result to the person who is asking the questions so different people will get different answers

  40. ToivoS says:

    PT refers to the ” House UnAmerican Committee”. I don’t know if that was a lazy shorthand or not but it is an accurate way to refer to the HCUA. Having been born in 1944 I certainly remember those days.
    My experience was that my father was named in one of their hearings. He was a veteran of the civil war in Spain during 1936 – 1938. Not sure what his specific political affiliations were but do know that he became a person non-grata in communist circles when he returned in 1938 — he complained about the Soviet officers who led the international brigades and how they treated the grunts on the ground as cannon fodder. Whatever the causes were he served in WWII and was building his family during the 50s. I was only 10 or so when he was named and was unaware of the political issues at play then. As a result of being named he lost his job and what I do remember is that for the next year I recall being hungry. It was not malnurishment, but just feeling hungry all of the time because we no longer ate much meat — mostly a pasta, potato, carrot and tomato sauce diet.
    It wasn’t until my twenties when I went back and investigated what had gone on that it became clear what had happened in the previous decade. But without question what is happening now in the US in this anti Russian, anti-Trump campaign smells very similar to what was going on in the 1950s.

  41. helenk3 says:
    a little bit of info on the Nunes white house sources.
    sounds like the one guy was a little butt hurt

  42. helenk3 says:
    mike flynn trying to make a deal will testify if he gets immunity.
    he is a real weasel how did he ever get to be a general?

  43. Bill H says:

    Can anyone listen to a tale about Russia “paying a thousand hackers in Russia to plant fake news stories” and think that we are dealing with adults? This is the stuff of grade school level imagination.
    And what happens when this cabal succeeds in convincing the majority of the voting public that the election was not legitimate? Do they not realize that they not only discredit this president but all future presidents? Do they not realize that they are attempting to assure that this nation can never again have a legitimate Chief Executive?

  44. ToivoS says:

    That does not make Flynn a weasel. There is a massive anti-Russian hysteria going on right now. There is no way to predict which crazed prosecutor would go after him — either feds or states. If it were me I would insist on immunity even if I knew I had broken no laws.

  45. Edward Amame says:

    Warner is essentially correct. There was a disinfo campaign run during our election campaign and possibly the primaries: hackers stole emails from Dems; then auto bots posted stories based on the hacked info on Twitter and Facebook and from there showed up RT and Breitbart.
    However, fake news on social media probably had a very limited impact on the election. Still, it’s important to know the details and to try to keep it from happening again.
    I have written here before, what actually concerns me are Trump connections to the criminal underworld here in the US and in Russia and Kazakhstan.

  46. We constantly receive calls offering us great discounts on vacation resorts in Mexico. I don’t know how they get our number. I always tell them that I will not and have never stepped foot on Mexican soil. I tell them to take us off the list until the people there get some sense and rise up against their government and the rich who do nothing to help make their lives better.

  47. Edward Amame says:

    Nunes’ sources were a pair of Trump appointees. One serves at the NSC, and the other serves as an assistant White House counsel. Barton Gellman says that neither of them have the security clearances necessary to have distributed that info to Nunes. And Gellman wonders if the Trump White House is spying on the FBI investigation.

  48. It is indeed new McCarthyism.
    Since I was younger when the “communist scare” was happening, I really didn’t notice it.
    But as my comment above explains, I did study it in literature classes as an English major, and I did mention it when I taught literature from some of the people in “the arts” at the time.
    To me, those people were much like the actors and actresses now. They know a little about politics and think they know everything.
    Many young people know just a little about socialism and communism and it sounds good to them, but they don’t realize the consequences of putting those ideologies into effect. The underlying idea of Materialism guides those ideologies.
    Since I am Christian, I always point out that humans “do not live by bread alone.” And that most of those writers eventually realized the problems associated with them.
    But the real thing is that it is not wrong or evil if someone reads and studies those ideas and seems attracted to them at some point. Trying to put those ideologies into effect and actively working to overthrow our country would be wrong.
    So the questioning should have been aimed only at people who had done those things and not just thought about them.

  49. helenk3 says:
    I love this article. this whole mess does have the look of the movie The Sting

  50. Eric Newhill says:

    What you just said about sources is not known. You’re being a good liberal tool and reporting Borgist fake news as usual.

  51. Eric Newhill says:

    Wow. Are they paying you finally to write fake news or is it that you have become 100% given to the jihad now?
    What concerns me is that you’re a paid Borg operative – something I have as much evidence for as you do re; Trump connections to underworld, etc.
    But in your case it is far more self-evident.

  52. We have far more evidence that the Democrats were pushing disinformation and doing so in collaboration with major media outlets. You seem okay with that. True?

  53. Helen, my only caution would be that we have not yet heard from Flynn. The version being spun by the media may be (sit down now, I don’t want you to pass out from the shock) not true. God forbid that the media has failed to accurately report events and comments. I agree with you that, on the surface, this looks bad for Flynn. But I also suspect we’re not getting the full story yet. Keep your powder dry.

  54. Edward Amame says:

    Eric Newhill
    What do you mean “What you just said about sources is not known.” The NY Times is Borgist news and stories you don’t like are to be discounted/ignored? Eric, I think you are very very…very far out on the fringes.

  55. Don’t be ridiculous. Warner posits something that no one has provided a shred of evidence to support—i.e., if you googled “election hacking” you’d get RT and Sputnik results. Pure fantasy. I guarantee you that Warner did not conduct such a search prior to November 8. Ok. You have evidence to the contrary? What we can look at is the actual stories in the media and posted on the internet during the lead up to 8 November. That evidence is irrefutable and shows quite clearly that Hillary was being treated largely with kid gloves and Trump was being savaged. Do you really believe that the average Trump voter had the time to spend one to two hours a day on the internet surfing the so-called “fake news” sites that had positive things to say about Trump and negative things about Hillary?

  56. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    Who’s “we” and what was this disinfo the Dems were pushing?

  57. Edward Amame says:

    Eric Newhill
    Ha ha ha. You’re a gone daddy, you are!

  58. Dr.Puck says:

    The striking thing, to me, about all the evidence amassed here on SST, most of it aggregated by you, is that it constitutes an overwhelming dossier that should be delivered pronto to Mr. Bannon, Mr. Hannity, and Mr. Burr. Also: why not deliver it masterfully via youtube?
    (Might as well go the total war route ‘informationwise’ with respect to making the implicit case that the deep state/Obama/HRC/enabling SJW’s/revolutionary utopian left/denizens of the swamp/wall street/Borg, are all in ways small and great working to delegitimize the President and provoke a coup d’etat–for the sake of bringing back communist-light social engineering centered on feminism and college professors.)

  59. Fred says:

    The sources of the NYT information “Several current American officials identified the White House officials”… “The officials all spoke on the condition of anonymity…” “But another person who was briefed on the events said ….”
    I believe the lawyers call these types of statement “hearsay”. The only slam dunk evidence I see is that NYT sources provided surveillance on the Chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee. What probably cause did they have to do that and what legal authority do they have to provide that information to the press? Perhaps they didn’t trust the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, to leak the story. Or maybe they told him first.

  60. Fred says:

    “fake news on social media probably had a very limited impact on the election”
    So the fake Rolling Stone rape story had no impact on the election? The fake “1 in 5 women” raped on college campus stories had no impact on the election? I think you are mistaken.

  61. Bill H says:

    Except that it assumes the Russians did engage in a fairly massive campaign to interfere in the election, a premise which I find laughable.

  62. kooshy says:

    Except for the American elected or not elites and the related MSM, most of the world is widely aware and is viewing this unraveling.

  63. Edward Amame says:

    There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly unique that Publius Tacitus has posted here. Most of it seems to be standard issue stuff on right wing blogs, judging by Google. His last blockbuster on Elizabeth Farkas was just more right wing stuff. She was on a cable news show talking about a NY Times article. Farkas talked about how some WH officials tried to preserve intel about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election, not “that the Obama Administration was spying on Trump” as Publius Tacitus contends.

  64. helenk3 says:
    Russia may have not have time to keep interfering in other country’s elections
    looks like there are problems at home

  65. fanto says:

    I am thinking in similar ways – the idea that our Pravda and Isvestija are in the dark about something is totally intolerable to their masters – and that is why they are hysterical about “the process”. This leads me to another thought – if the US gave access to “raw data” of their intercepted communications to our closest ally in ME, then these would know everything. (sorry, I do not have a link to that fact, but maybe someone here has it). If this is not the case, if they do miss something, then there is possibly another layer of secrecy, which is unknown to them and that would drive them crazy. This is my “conspiracy theory”…sources, sources, sources…

  66. Edward, As long as you close your eyes and plug your ears can you maintain such a nonsensical position. Just deal with the facts. Here is what Farkas said:
    “I was urging my former colleagues and frankly speaking the people on the [Capitol] Hill…it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”
    In that little snippet she admits that she is seeing classified information where the names American citizens are disclosed. The names of AMCITS in such documents should not appear. It is illegal. She admits to helping encourage the leaking and admits she did it as well. You may not like those facts, but it is the truth. Not my words. Her words. So you want to assert that her words are “just more right wing stuff?” Very difficult to take you seriously when write something so absurd.

  67. Edward Amame says:

    That’s because national security and WH officials aren’t allowed to speak on the record. Spicer did not deny it was them in his news conference.
    Here’s the Times’ policy regarding anonymous sources.
    The assistant WH counsel worked for Nunes before Pres Trump. It would seem like that the NSC guy was rooting around in intelligence looking to back up the President’s Twitter claim that he’d been spied on by the Obama Admin. The guy to reach out to Nunes would have been his former counsel.

  68. Edward Amame says:

    I don’t think you want to go there. Then what about two of the biggest fake Facebook stories that claimed that Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and that the pope endorsed Trump?

  69. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    Farkas said nothing about “seeing classified information where the names American citizens are disclosed.” She was talking about a NY Times article about preserving intelligence related to Trump/Russia.
    Your version of events is playing on Fox News and right wing blogs and nowhere else.

  70. helenk3 says:

    more news on the Nunes sources. The two persons that met him at the white house were not the original source they were just the messengers. Source was high up in an intel agency.
    just on FOX news.

  71. Wrong again. Profoundly wrong. Here’s the NY Times article in question:
    “In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. . . . American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.”
    What do you think, “SCRAMBlED TO SPREAD INFORMATION ACROSS THE GOVERNEMENT” means? She absolutely was spreading intelligence info, as were other members of “THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.” Information in intelligence channels is always shared with those who have a need to know. There is no need “TO SPREAD INFORMATION.” Moreover, the information being spread contained the names of American Citizens. That is illegal.
    Please try to get your facts right before spouting off. Makes you look very foolish.

  72. There you go again. The story actually was reported accurately. Just because some other goofs got it wrong does not change the reality that Hillary was fully aware that our “ALLY”, Saudi Arabia, was arming ISIS. You should take a look at Salon before popping off like that:

  73. doug says:

    “This is not true.”
    Example? Irving’s Dissent struggled mightily with this. Mixed economic systems, which comprise all first world economies, make tradeoffs. Pure socialism, where “The People” own all means of production, suffers the natural bureaucratic tendency to protect a sphere of operations. Even large companies and near monopolies (which are a weakness in capitalism) have the problem and tend to self destruct or get nibbled to death by more nimble competitors.

  74. Mikey says:

    The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 Election, Comey did,
    Real Clear Politics has the polling data for the 2016 election. RCP offers the ability to make custom charts, (to zoom in on a specific date range).
    It’s true that Trump got a significant poll bounce (about 5-6 points) when the DNC emails were released on July 22nd. The problem is, a week later his polling was back down to pre-July 22nd levels. Trump’s bounce from this only lasted 3-4 days.
    Comey’s letter to Congress on the discovery of HRC’s emails on a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner on Friday Oct 28th (11 days prior to the election) did far greater damage to Clinton polls than the DNC emails did.

  75. Publius Tacitus,
    Using the WiFi at Lowes so just a short note.
    This is the first I’ve heard of Warner’s theory that Russian hackers manipulated Google search results in the lead up to the election. On the face of it, it does sound like an unproven wive’s tale. However, Google has battled those who manipulate search algorithms for their own benefit for years. I also know how Akamai servers provide targeted and localized content on a regular basis. So bottom line, I think it is doable and it would have been a brilliant move from an info op standpoint. That doesn’t mean it happened.
    Your search experiment is flawed. Richard Armstrong already pointed this out. Your search in real time does not mimic the conditions present in the lead up to the election, nor does it mimic the specific areas that the Russian hackers supposedly targeted. Google may be able to prove or disprove this theory if they could look at localized search results that were given during the specified timeframe. Beyond that, I doubt even the NSA can prove or disprove this.
    Having said that, I still agree with your last paragraph. Russia is certainly not the adversary that we faced during the Cold War. We are also not the same country we were during the Cold War. We have both embrace new theories and method of info ops, albeit each in our own way. It may be nasty and unsavory, but it is ignorant and dangerous to equate this to war. It’s a new normal in how states relate to each other. We accept being spied upon and aggressively spy upon others. We do this without calling it an act of war. We have to learn to do the same with info ops. As you said, we should focus on the facts and learn how to mitigate against such info ops. I’m sure Russia is studying the hell out of our ten year, five billion dollar info op that we perpetrated on Kiev.

  76. Mikey says:

    “Still, it’s important to know the details and to try to keep it from happening again.”
    Fake news is nothing new, the only thing new is the medium conveying it.
    Sounds like you are suggesting censorship. Are you?

  77. Thanks, helenk3. It’s the end of the month, and I am stuck doing my least favorite thing in the world: household accounting because someone is too busy golfing in AZ while I am home while it drizzles and is cold all day.
    I have to depend on good people like you keeping me up on what is happening.

  78. helenk3 says:

    but my image of him as a weasel is more than about asking for immunity. The whole thing about lying to Pence about his actions did so much harm to the image of the incoming white house. He was like a poison pill.
    He showed he had no honor

  79. Here is why I think that neither my search nor my reasoning is flawed. What Warner said does not make sense. Neither he nor anyone else conducted such a search prior to the election. Had they done so, it would have been publicized at the time. Someone, somewhere would have written about the “smears” against Hillary being put out by RT and Sputnik. Go back and look at the what was actually put out by RT or Sputnik on a given day. However, as someone who closely followed the election and regularly wrote about it, the claim that info from RT and Sputnik was leading the news is nothing more than a damn lie. I challenge you or anyone else to produce the evidence. I go back and look at article that were being written, both in the mainstream media and on blogs, and the notion that RT or Russian sources were driving any of the news cycle in favor of Trump or against Clinton is ludicrous.

  80. helenk3 says:

    this is off topic
    this should be fun to watch. SJW heads exploding all over the place

  81. I have no idea how any of this Internet stuff work. All I know is that many of the people I know do not use Google. For instance, I have a family member who has set the Explorer to come up first in MSN and she does internet searches from that site. I wonder how many people do things that way and what difference that makes.
    You are right about how IF I use Google to do a search, I end up having to look almost to the bottom of the screen to find what I want because most of the links that come first are for more local sites that are really not exactly what I want. If I do the same search often, for instance to find the address of my church just so I can send them something in the mail, it finally comes up at the top of the page each time I search. At first it provides all kinds of sites that are for some churches with the same name in other parts of the country.
    I’m probably not explaining it right. But it seems to me that the results of the searches for simple-minded people like me can in some way be manipulated.
    Give me some good academic library databases and I can search like a pro, but Google and Internet Explorer and such drive me crazy. And my relative’s MSN site drives me crazy because it is entirely a left-wing site as far as I can tell. MSN’s little story board provides drivle for news and mostly, if it does come up with national political news, the story is usually something to the detriment of the right.

  82. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    From further down in the NY Times article you linked to:
    “…Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not…”

  83. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    Saying that our “ALLY, Saudi Arabia, was arming ISIS” is not the same as saying “Clinton sold weapons to ISIS.”

  84. And the “Clinton sold weapons to ISIS” meme barely got any coverage. Don’t be ridiculous. That it appeared on some rightwing blogs does not mean it got wide play and was taken on board by voters as a reason to not vote for Hillary. You’re grasping at straws.

  85. You clearly have had no experience whatsoever handling classified info. If you are cleared for it and have a need to know you have access to it. There is no need to “SPREAD” the info. If you are SPREADING it beyond those with a need to know then you are doing something wrong.

  86. Edward Amame says:

    Sam Peralta
    Not exactly. NBC News reported the list of serial numbers was provided “to share it with those on the Hill who could lawfully see the documents.”
    That is not what Publius Tacitus suggested. He wrote: “the Obama Administration went to congressional staffers who did not have access to these COMINT products and urged them to seek to gain access to them.”

  87. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    If you actually followed the thread, you will see that I wrote, “fake news on social media probably had a very limited impact on the election. Still, it’s important to know the details and to try to keep it from happening again.”
    Fred, in a reply to me, said that I was “mistaken.” My reply back to him Fred was intended to suggest that if his fake rape story had an impact on the election, then what about “Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and that the pope endorsed Trump?”
    I will repeat. I don’t think that fake stories in social media (or Rolling Stone) had much of an impact on the election, if any.

  88. Fred says:

    He’s a busy blogger running over sampled polls and fake news while running the FBI too. He must be KEK personified. All that work for a modest pension and a world full of people who don’t trust him.

  89. Fred says:

    Intercepted by whom, GCHQ? Where? Who released that info and to whom?

  90. John_Frank says:

    I do know from my own experience during the election that:
    a. Google was manipulating the search engine key word requests to favor Hillary Clinton;
    b. Twitter was playing with how hashtags trended and whether tweets were shadow banned in favor of the Clinton campaign; and,
    c. Facebook was playing with the news feed in an effort to favor the Clinton campaign.
    Furthermore and while the Democrats may deny it, both the Clinton and Trump camps had online bot twitter campaigns.
    As well, the Clinton camp was paying people to go around on social media and ‘correct the record.’ This started during the primary and continued throughout the election.

  91. Fred says:

    Yes I’m sure that the editor knows the name of the source and approved the story. Also “pivotal to the story” is anonymity and innuendo, like the phrase “American Officials” and your implication that the person releasing the information about who Nunes spoke to to the press had legal authority to release that information.

  92. Fred says:

    Not owning Rolling Stone I won’t be shelling out millions. Feel free to spread the word on the other two. Selling weapons to jihadi groups like the various free Syrian army groups was hardly fake nor big on Facebook.

  93. ToivoS says:

    Since these comments seem to be about Russia’s intervention in our election perhaps we should consider how the US intervened in Russia’s election for president. This story is well told in the movie Spinning Boris (
    The movie is quite entertaining. It was marketed as a Comedy, but in fact it is very close to the truth. The movie includes a segment about a Time correspondent in Moscow who learned about the effort and after Boris’s election reported the story in Time. It shows pretty clearly that Bill Clinton as president promoted Yeltsin and Dick Morris’s role (then in the Whitehouse) in coordinating his actions with these US political consultants then working in Moscow.
    The Russians full well know how the US intervened in that election.

  94. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Google displays the results based on money.
    For many years, MEPC would bring up the Middle East Policy Council as the first or second selection; but now it is in the middle of returned results.

  95. Sam Peralta says:

    “our ten year, five billion dollar info op that we perpetrated on Kiev.”
    I believe it was more than an “info op”. We fomented a coup that toppled a duly elected president and backed historically fascist elements.
    I find it very fascinating, the level of hysteria being created by elements within our IC in collusion with the MSM and the establishment of both parties about Russian info ops. It is like the kettle calling the pot black. Which country has done more influencing and intervening in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries than us? Why isn’t that ever brought up by those engaging in this hysteria?
    I also find it fascinating that the liberals who were typically more skeptical about the nefarious activities of the CIA & malfeasance in the IC are now their cheerleaders.
    IMO, it is all about the Trump Derangement Syndrome! They just can’t stomach that he actually won the election by mocking their cherished shibboleths.

  96. JF,
    Please explain in your own words how the Google search algorithm works and how it can be manipulated as you suggested.

  97. Mikey says:


  98. Edward Amame says:

    Publius Tacitus
    Farkas said she told “…the Hill people to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can…” She told the Daily Caller in another interview that she didn’t possess the intel and didn’t share it. She was on the show talking about this story in
    the NY Times: “Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking.”
    It opened with this: “In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government…”
    However, further in the article, it talks about the effort in another way:
    *start of Times quote* As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.
    At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.
    There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress. In one instance, the State Department sent a cache of documents marked “secret” to Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland days before the Jan. 20 inauguration. The documents, detailing Russian efforts to intervene in elections worldwide, were sent in response to a request from Mr. Cardin, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and were shared with Republicans on the panel.
    “This situation was serious, as is evident by President Obama’s call for a review — and as is evident by the United States response,” said Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Mr. Obama. “When the intelligence community does that type of comprehensive review, it is standard practice that a significant amount of information would be compiled and documented.”
    The opposite happened with the most sensitive intelligence, including the names of sources and the identities of foreigners who were regularly monitored. Officials tightened the already small number of people who could access that information. They knew the information could not be kept from the new president or his top advisers, but wanted to narrow the number of people who might see the information, officials said. *end of Times quote*
    Dis Sen Cardin have a “need to know?” Does anything in that in that 5 paragraph description of how info was “spread” suggest the Obama team was “doing something wrong?”

  99. Mikey says:

    I thought it was based on popularity? Which translates to money.
    Also if you have a google account and are logged in it will tailor your search based on your search history.
    I make it a habit of only logging in when necessary and deleting cookies when the browser is closed.

  100. Mikey says:

    I looked at Google Trends to find a correlation to the terms ‘election’ and ‘hacking’. It’s largest peak was in early December a month after the election. There was also a slight blip around the election.

  101. Jack says:

    Its getting curiouser and curioser. Apparently the “unmasker” is a well known high level official.

  102. John_Frank says:

    In somewhat related news:
    Intelligence official who ‘unmasked’ Trump associates is ‘very high up,’ source says
    It is worth taking the time to read the report, as we learn the Obama administration was apparently “wiretapping” the Trump campaign before Mr. Trump even become the Republican nominee.
    Also, people may want to follow @adamhousley, or at least monitor his twitter feed.
    Returning to the issue at hand, have we now reached the stage were simply sending out a tweet with a link to an article posted on any “non-approved” website, including RT, RT_America or Sputnik is akin to being a Putin stooge?

  103. John_Frank says:

    That is an unrelated question to the point, which was when one keyed in the words Hillary Clinton into the search engine browser favorable terms were presented to search, which was not the case with Donald Trump.

  104. Kooshy says:

    As I wrote here a while back IMO, drones, and various other unmanned military equipments are making wars cheaper and more leveled handed between the haves and have nots. So I believe we can expect cheaper, remote controlled wars,can come to every neighborhood, like your local library.

  105. Origin says:

    There is a fundamental problem with ever relying on a count of news stories from any single computer or group of computers of a single user. The rub is that the search engines know their users so intimately that the serve up stories that confirm the user’s own biases.
    To understand what I mean, get a friend who has different interests than you have and do a search on something like “twentieth century” about twenty times and each time clicking the first thing served up and then printing out each result as a record. Have one of you always click ONLY on results regarding cinema and entertainment and never clicking history results. The other searcher should ONLY click on results relating to Twentieth century history specifically not clicking on any result relating to entertainment.
    Te results of the later searches will not bear much commonality. The search engine will quite quickly learn that one of you is a historian and the other a cinema fan and give each what the algorithm think you want. While the firs search returns may seem similar, there will be little, if any, similarity in the twentieth pair of searches. Repeat the same process a week later after using the same machines and the searches will be even more different.
    The machines are deviously smart–they may know you better than you think you know yourself.

  106. juliyya says:

    A little joke from Russian 101: Pravda niet Izvestia. Izvestia niet Pravda.

  107. jld says:

    “explain in your own words how the Google search algorithm”

    LMAO, ony Google knows how the Google search algorithm works and having been tuned and battle tested in adversarial conditions (SEO…) for more than 20 years the Google search algorithm does EXACTLY what Google management and engineers tell it to, that is, WHATEVER THEY LIKE…

  108. confusedponderer says:

    “looks like there are problems at home”
    You believe that is so? I doubt it, but I am awkwardly sceptical. Try this:
    “What do(..) this (demonstrations) mean for Putin?
    VERY LITTLE. The protests were ostensibly against corruption and it’s doubtful that they will pose any significant threat to Putin, who boasts approval ratings around 80%.
    What it does show is a willingness by the opposition populous to hit the streets regardless of whether authorities allow them to or not.”
    If you hear Putin is in big trouble at home, doubt it, if it comes from US or Israeli media.
    US media are, according to Trumpy, after underlining his ‘great repect for media freedom’, full of deceitful ‘fake news’ every day, which are, of course, to be ignored (especially when they are critic of Trump himself). Witness phantasy beating reality – as for his ‘respect’ for media:
    In his first press conference Trump said to the CNN-Reporter Jim Acosta something like that: “I won’t give you a question, you’re ‘fake news’!”
    Ah yes. And so easy. You could learn from Trump the great master – and, then you could just ignore who or what you dislike, be openly hostile and speak some BS.
    Heretical propoal:
    It may be that these ‘Putin’s problems’ are being stirred up by things like … the IRI (chaired by John McCain – not a friend of Putin –, the NDI (chaired by Madeleine Albright – “What’s the point of having this superb military… if we can’t use it?”), etc. pp.
    “A ministry of justice’s report on foreign funding of NGOs in Egypt has revealed that IRI in Egypt has received funding of about 7 million dollars by USAID for the Egyptian 2011-12 elections. The military rulers who gained control of the country following the January 2011 revolution consider this foreign funding interference in internal affairs.”
    ‘foreign funding interference in internal affairs’? How heretic. That said, I have a heretic thought: Perhaps they work like that beyond just Egypt? Say, in Russia too?
    “The National Democratic Institute (NDI), or National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works with partners in developing countries to increase the effectiveness of democratic institutions. The NDI’s core program areas include citizen participation, elections, debates, democratic governance, democracy and technology, political inclusion of marginalized groups, and gender, women and democracy.”
    Another heretical thought:
    It’d probably be enlightening to learn what ‘increase the effectiveness of democratic institutions’ means practically.
    Maybe it is not so much about Russians getting tired of the evil man Putin but something else, say, about the evil Americans getting tired of the evil man Putin, trying to … ‘reset’ russia to the grand glory it had under … that sick man and alcoholic … Yeltsin (under whose ood time US … advisors … had offices in the Kremlin)?
    If that was so, we’d have today americans going hysterical over russia, while US NGOs stir up russian NGOs and opposition leaders to protestate Putin, the evil russian leader. And while doing that, they’d howl that the evil Putin, in light of demonstrations, is about to be overthrown. So beautiful and simple …
    Well, perhaps just too beautiful and simple. Since it sounds so wonderful, it probably is untrue … which means, oh dear lord, ‘fake news’?! Again?! How disturbing …
    It appears that these vile ‘fake news’ are an omnipresent and a clearly cruel curse chasing Mr. Trump. And, of course, Mr. Putin.
    I read myself another such gem recently: That Putin laughed himself to faintness over the dead cat that sits on Trumps head. If Trump works more on his unique … skill level, Putin may just laugh himself to death soon. Regime change the Trump style. How cunning …

  109. LondonBob says:

    As some have put I believe a lot of this is projection. Google, Twitter etc. were manipulated, on behalf of HRC. There was fakenews, on behalf of HRC by the MSM. There was foreign interference, on behalf of HRC etc.
    I notice Farkas works for the Atlantic Council. What is it with the Atlantic Council?
    There is a honest journalist.
    Apparently the DNI Coats has now instructed the FISA stuff, surveillance records etc. to be released to the House.

  110. Mark Logan says:

    Curiouser indeed. The deep search to identify and prosecute “leakers” at the White House has acquired a complication. Nunes looks the perfect dunce. I swear the new crew there appears to be a confederacy of such.
    Trump needs time to adjust to his new job, I get that, but the learning curve had best be so steep they should rope up to climb it for the reason mountaineers have been known to cite: “To keep the smart ones from leaving!”

  111. Fred says:

    Rolling Stone wrote the fake rape story. Now you falsely attribute that to me. You are getting desperate. If you think the common refrain from the Democratic Party leadership that 1 in 5 women on college campuses are sexually assaulted during they time on campus has no effect on elections then you need to look at what the Senator from NY, Kirsten Gillibrand have to say on the matter. Here’s one article directly quoting the Senator stating that talking point.

  112. binky354 says:

    I’m so tired of hearing about the bad Ruskies. Nearly every article written indicates that intelligence agencies attribute election meddling to the Russians, as if they have the hard evidence. Have I missed something? Top Stories Recurring 2017-04-01&utm_term=VDHM

  113. French’s article is garbage. He’s a second rate mind writing third rate drivel. Example, he states as a fact that Russia stole the DNC emails and passed them to Wikileaks. There is not a shred of evidence to support that conclusion. He also repeats the assertion that Russian manipulation of the media, using “bots” and trolls, was important. Again, no evidence.

  114. Sam Peralta says:

    These are not whistleblower leakers. They are using information in the service of an agenda. An info op in collusion with the MSM to manipulate the perceptions of Americans.
    Enquiring minds want to know if this “leaker”, is a known perjurer?

  115. doug says:

    The literal definition of “socialism” is “worker ownership of the means of production.” That does not mean “ownership by the government,” or “ownership by political party,” or “ownership by representatives” – it means literal ownership of the means of production by the people who work it.

    Really? This is from
    1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

  116. Chris Chuba says:

    Rebel Yell
    Or google ‘rebel yell’ one guy gets historical references and the other places to buy the Bourbon, point taken. I think this underscores that the Senator’s assertion that manipulating google for a mass of users would be very hard to do and even harder to prove. I do not believe that he has the actual facts to back up his case.
    Fake News
    Has anyone been able to document an actual example of a fake news stories that originated from Russia?
    ‘The Pope Endorsed Trump’ this was clearly fake, I don’t think is rocked anyone’s world but how would one show that such a story originated in Russia as opposed to a local zealot. After all, even the professional MSM makes mistakes so I would expect U.S. native born bloggers to post their own nonsense without it being prodded by Russia.

  117. doug says:

    Dictionaries provide the meaning of words in the current lingua franca. That’s what they do. Pretty much the exact same definition exists as the principal one in any other English or American dictionary.
    The archaic meaning that only the workers involved in an enterprise own those means of production is even less viable than collective ownership.
    For instance, my partner and I started a small business with our own money. No loans, no passive investors. By your definition we were operating a socialist enterprise at that point. Fine and good, then we needed someone to answer the phone. As soon as we hired that employee that little instance of socialism ended. I suppose if that person contributed capital and became an equal owner with us the socialist experiment would have continued. Sadly, there is a real shortage of people that answer phones with the money needed for the business’s capital.
    Business’s don’t form out of thin air. Capital is needed and that capital is owned by someone and the workers that start one will almost never have equal capital to contribute. And if businesses are owned by the people that work there how do they expand – shrink? What happens if a long term worker leaves? They obviously can’t continue to have a share of ownership else the “socialism” breaks. Realistically, these decisions come from planning group(s). In a country of some size those planning groups will conflict with each other so there has to be supra planning groups that can re-allocate resources. That pretty much ultimately means central planning.
    As for mixed economies and services provided to all such as K-12 education, libraries, parks, interstates, etc., of course these things are beneficial and create a stronger society. Mixed economies are clearly more efficient that either pure, capitalist ones or pure socialist ones.
    As for the media control by the few, if you haven’t noticed the disintermediation of the press and media is rapidly changing the landscape. Access to a wide variety of “stuff” is there for the consumption. And it has few controls. Especially in the USA as the First Amendment restricts almost nothing, true or false, inflammatory or not. And it’s now possible for large numbers of people to “publish” pretty much anything. Moon landing a hoax? 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy?, Russians (or the British Monarchy)secretly aiming to take over the World? Meanwhile traditional MSM is becoming more and more irrelevant. Witness Trump. Without the fracturing of the media cartels he would not be President. WaPo and the Times are resembling vanity publications line NR and TNR more and more.
    People live in their own silos more than ever and no longer are they separated by distance to find people of similar views.

  118. doug says:

    As an aside, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary also lists the meaning of irregardless as “regardless” and notes it is non-standard English. That’s consistent with how I’ve always viewed the word. Why would you think that is not accurate?

  119. Cee says:

    In light of the Moscow bombing today it seems like these folks are back and busy

  120. bondo says:

    warner is a sorry whore
    clinton got maybe 10 million votes 1/3 of which where from illegals.
    the dnc machine, corrupt machine, stole the rest.
    only a few in ca and nyc voted for the hagwitch.
    trump is pres.

  121. doug says:

    >>No. Capital is not always needed to form successful businesses
    Of course not. One of the companies I much admired was SAIC back when they were wholly employee owned. In fact, when we started our company we considered whether to be more of a job-shop/contractor such as SAIC was both birthed as and prospered as for decades. We instead chose to be a tech manufacture but started out tiny with money we saved. SAIC was a natural for employee ownership as it is not capital intensive. We, on the other hand, needed capital as a manufacture though we were sufficiently profitable that we did not need outside money until our recievables grew too rapidly. We had to pay tax on that even though it wasn’t in the bank because manufacturing businesses get taxed based on accrual accounting. So capital was needed even with gross margins >60%.
    We also looked at ESOPs but, being a tech manufacturer in a narrow, changing field, felt in unwise to essentially put people’s retirement into a smallish company’s ESOPS. We did, at one point give away a small percentage of the company common stock to all employees and pro-rated it based on how long they had worked for us. It was given free and clear. We also had to award a large cash bonus in addition to the stock because both the stock and bonus were fully taxable. We didn’t want employees to wind up in a tax hole because we gave them stock. It took a sizeable chunk out of our working cash in addition to dilution w/o increase in capitalization.
    As for dictionary quality arguments, given your assertions further discussion on that score seems less than productive. You are welcome to continue with, what appears clearly to me, no longer the principal definition of socialism.

Comments are closed.