Stewart Rhodes

[rogue06]

Because of the radically changed procedures under the reign of Pandemica, and the actions of the Information Gatekeepers, I think there's a lot of stuff we'll never know, other than that the election was not "free and fair."

Of course, to the libiots, any view other than accepting the results as totally legitimate is election denialism.

But only the 2020 election. The Democrats are still free to continue to question the 2000 election -- and still do. Same goes for the 2004 election as well as the 2016 election. And any off year election result like Stacey Abrams clearly losing in Georgia in 2018 but still claiming she won (with a lot of Democrats backing her).

Those aren't clear cases of election denial because... well... um,... uh... TRUMP!!!!!1!!!!

[Juvenal]

Thursday, April 21, 2022
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is likely that Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, including 26% who say it’s Very Likely. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats believe it’s likely the 2016 election outcome was changed by Russian interference


Kevin_lol.gif

The difference being that a couple dozen Russians were indicted for election interference in 2016 whereas none of the 60+ lawsuits challenging the 2020 election held up in court, most of which were simply frivolous, with many of the lawyers who brought them to court facing censure.

That's a big difference.

[Bill the Cat]

The difference being that a couple dozen Russians were indicted for election interference in 2016 whereas none of the 60+ lawsuits challenging the 2020 election held up in court, most of which were simply frivolous, with many of the lawyers who brought them to court facing censure.

That's a big difference.

That in no way shows that the election was actually "changed". There is absolutely no evidence that has been presented in any of those cases that shows a single vote was changed. 72% of Dems obviously still don't get that...

[shunyadragon]

But only the 2020 election. The Democrats are still free to continue to question the 2000 election -- and still do. Same goes for the 2004 election as well as the 2016 election. And any off year election result like Stacey Abrams clearly losing in Georgia in 2018 but still claiming she won (with a lot of Democrats backing her).

Those aren't clear cases of election denial because... well... um,... uh... TRUMP!!!!!1!!!!

The Democrats do not claim these elections were a part of a nation wide conspiracy including the whole USA court system. Your neglecting the fact that the results of the 2020 election were uncontraversila and declared without fraud in the whole country. . . . and not only Trump.

[Juvenal]

That in no way shows that the election was actually "changed". There is absolutely no evidence that has been presented in any of those cases that shows a single vote was changed. 72% of Dems obviously still don't get that...

Advertising works. That's evidence.

[Bill the Cat]

Advertising works. That's evidence.

Then it should be easy for you. Identify the interference. Then show survey numbers that said that particular piece of interference changed someone's mind.

[Mountain Man]

The difference being that a couple dozen Russians were indicted for election interference in 2016 whereas none of the 60+ lawsuits challenging the 2020 election held up in court, most of which were simply frivolous, with many of the lawyers who brought them to court facing censure.

That's a big difference.

If you're referring to the Russian trolls that were indicted but the case never actually tested in court, well, that was just Mueller artificially inflating the number of people indicted. He knew he would never have to defend his accusation before a judge or jury because there was no way to get those Russians in a courtroom, so he could say whatever he wanted, and all we're left with is an empty accusation. There's also nothing to suggest that their activity had any significant influence on the election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians associated with the Internet Research Agency definitively shows, given current evidence, that while a small team in St. Petersburg ran a successful audience-development campaign mostly on behalf of Trump, that campaign was neither targeted nor sizable enough to change the election’s result.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...opment/553685/

As for the 60+ lawsuits surrounding the 2020 election, none were ever given a full and fair hearing in court because judges kept making the dubious claim that the plaintiffs lacked "standing".

[Cow Poke]

The difference being that a couple dozen Russians were indicted...

ham sandwich.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

Advertising works. That's evidence.

The "laughably small" amount of money the Rooskies poured into Facebook, not all of which was even spent prior to the election is rather unlikely to have moved the needle much.

[rogue06]

The "laughably small" amount of money the Rooskies poured into Facebook, not all of which was even spent prior to the election is rather unlikely to have moved the needle much.

Bryon York did some quick analysis and discovered that the Russians spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total. That's equivalent to something like 1 maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. IOW, they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the lion's share coming after the election.

In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

I can imagine every campaign manager and advertising executive are dying to know how anyone can exert so much influence after doing so little

And for just a bit more context^[1], when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

Further, according to the indictment the Russians spent "thousands" of dollars every month for advertising on social media. According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

And here is a bit more to chew on.

On the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (the indictment that blew up in his face when they showed up and he started giving a list of excuses why he didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

00000000000000ab000-00aaae.jpg

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesnt align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

He later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times (which covered that part), his "unusually candid statement that flouted Facebook's well-sculpted messaging strategy, which has generally been to stay as far away from partisan debates as possible"^[2] -- but not before a couple other Facebook executives, including Andrew Bosworth ("VP AR/VR at Facebook. VP of Ads before that. Co-Invented News Feed, Messenger, Groups, and more" and who has been called one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg's most trusted lieutenants), praised Goldman for what he did, tweeting it was an "Important thread here."

And in case you don't believe me, let's lake a look at what folks like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, no friend of Trump's by any measure^[3], have said that the Russian's efforts were ineffective. To be more precise he said that not a single vote was changed nor was the election outcome affected by their attempted meddling.

And then there is FBI director Christopher Wray matter-of-factly declaring at a conference held at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (a think tank that US News & World Report ranks as centrist) that "[The Russians] do not tamper in our infrastructure. They try to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system." And the left has been doing exactly what they hoped for.

So

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."
• Rod Rosenstein acknowledging that there is no evidence that even one vote was changed by Russian efforts
• Christopher Wray saying the Russian's actual goal was getting the loser upset in order to promote distrust in the electoral system

And we're asked to believe that they tipped an election. Seriously?






1. For even more perspective, back during the 2004 race then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct Inside Washington show on PBS that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president ("Lets talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. Theyre going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points." )

2. Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence. And who can forget how Facebook representatives told Obamas 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was "on our side" and then grumbled about Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing because it helped Trump.

3. having wanted people to secretly record Trump in an effort to gather evidence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump among other things)

[Juvenal]

The "laughably small" amount of money the Rooskies poured into Facebook, not all of which was even spent prior to the election is rather unlikely to have moved the needle much.

I expected folks to jump on the narrowest sense, but not necessarily you.

As Space Karen — yeah, at this point he's earned the moniker by calling out the manager at Apple for not pouring hundreds of millions into his billionaire dumpster fire at Twitter — has shown with Tesla, it's not necessary to spend money on advertising to advertise effectively.

The front groups and bot accounts set up by Putin's caterer were reported to have reached over 100 million American FB users. And with the help of targeting algorithms and the demographic data supplied by Trump's campaign manager — which led to his conviction on tax charges, for which he was pardoned by Trump along with a cohort of similarly shady actors, like Stone — that reach was focused.

I don't know if it was enough to turn the election, but it could have been.

The doubts about whether interference turned the 2016 election are based on factual evidence that led to dozens of convictions for election interference in criminal courts.

That's in contrast to the farcical evidence Bill attempted to equivocate that led to Trump lawyers being censured for frivolous suits and for knowingly presenting false evidence at the bar.

The only case out of over 60 cases that resulted in any action in favor of the Trump campaign's junior varsity legal team featured the following exchange.
.

But during a hearing for a federal version of that suit on Thursday, Judge Paul Diamond of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pressed a lawyer for Mr. Trump on whether the campaign’s observers did, in fact, have access to the facility. The lawyer said, grudgingly, that there were “a nonzero number” of people in the room. (In the interest of expediting the case, Judge Diamond pushed the Philadelphia board to agree to an expanded number of observers.)

That "nonzero number" is an admission that the claim he had previously made, that no observers were allowed to observe, was not only false, but likely knowingly false. And they still got relief.

The embedded link has a more thorough breakdown of the claims that didn't hold up in court, claims for which there was even less factual basis.

[Juvenal]

I always appreciate the transparent nature of your trolling, ff. Like others here, I had no idea who this Rhodes guy was. Apparently he's not exactly closely related to Cecil.

Most of America knew who Rhodes was because he and his Oath Keepers were featured in the first J6 hearing. They were the group that first breached the Capitol, and then sent "stacks" into the building searching for Pelosi — for certain — and likely Pence as well. Without them, there would likely have been no breach of the Capitol.

Apparently your media sources failed to keep you properly informed.

You might want to do something about that.

[oxmixmudd]

If you're referring to the Russian trolls that were indicted but the case never actually tested in court, well, that was just Mueller artificially inflating the number of people indicted. He knew he would never have to defend his accusation before a judge or jury because there was no way to get those Russians in a courtroom, so he could say whatever he wanted, and all we're left with is an empty accusation. There's also nothing to suggest that their activity had any significant influence on the election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians associated with the Internet Research Agency definitively shows, given current evidence, that while a small team in St. Petersburg ran a successful audience-development campaign mostly on behalf of Trump, that campaign was neither targeted nor sizable enough to change the election’s result.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...opment/553685/

As for the 60+ lawsuits surrounding the 2020 election, none were ever given a full and fair hearing in court because judges kept making the dubious claim that the plaintiffs lacked "standing".

They were never given a 'full hearing' because they were frivolous. And many of those lawyers now face censure as a result.

or ... it was a nationwide judicial conspiracy to throw out uniformly those lawsuits regardless of merit.

I go with the former. No one In his right mind believes 60+ independent judges of both political leanings could be persuaded to uniformly declare such potentially serious matters frivolous when they were not.

[Ronson]

Most of America knew who Rhodes was because he and his Oath Keepers were featured in the first J6 hearing.

I seriously doubt that. People who lean left may have known who he was because they consider J6 hearings to be important and have been following them.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...-survey-finds/

Fewer than half of Americans can name all three branches of government, survey finds

They were the group that first breached the Capitol, and then sent "stacks" into the building searching for Pelosi — for certain — and likely Pence as well. Without them, there would likely have been no breach of the Capitol.

Apparently your media sources failed to keep you properly informed.

You might want to do something about that.

Rhodes' name probably was mentioned but it wouldn't have been committed to memory unless one has a deep interest in this proceeding. That may be perplexing for those on the Left, but (IMO) most Americans realize that the US government was never in any danger of being overthrown on J6. There were a lot of violent protests preceding that incident all over the country and they desensitized me to being terribly interested. Besides, it's not like such things have never happened before in DC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...States_Capitol

[Mountain Man]

They were never given a 'full hearing' because they were frivolous. And many of those lawyers now face censure as a result.

or ... it was a nationwide judicial conspiracy to throw out uniformly those lawsuits regardless of merit.

I go with the former. No one In his right mind believes 60+ independent judges of both political leanings could be persuaded to uniformly declare such potentially serious matters frivolous when they were not.

It wasn't a conspiracy since there was, to my knowledge, no collusion or coordination between the judges, but we do know that most judges are reluctant to be seen as "overturning the will of the people", and it was for this reason that one judge after another stood behind the "lack of standing" ruling which got the cases out of their courtrooms without ever having to rule on the merits of the case itself or grant discovery to plaintiffs.

As for lawyers being censured, well, in the one case Sydney Powell was told by a Michigan judge that she lacked standing and claimed, without any real evidence, that her case "was about undermining the People's faith in our democracy", a conclusion which would require the judge to be a literal mind reader but at any rate is proof of what I said, that no judge wanted to be accused of interfering in an election.