Abuse and Power by Carter Page

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you read it?

[Gadianton]

Per his testimony, he did this out of bias against Page, believing the email was a typo that he chose to "correct" rather than do the right thing and confirm with the source. He lost quite a bit for cutting a corner out of bias, but the judge ruled it did not appear to be an intentional attempt to hurt Page, thus the probation rather than 0-6 months in prison most likely on the table instead.

So the DOJ admitted wrongdoing, and the culprit was sentenced. One wonders how the deep state was unable to keep a lid on all of this. Seems like one of the easier things for the tremendous power of the deep state to keep under wraps.

[ajax18]

So this is also where the excerpt from the book has bearing. Carter Page tells us this (page 2, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence): "If Russia did interfere in US elections through social media, as some would later allege, the government in Moscow was simply treating our politics as our diplomats and NGOs had treated theirs." In other words, he is aligned with Putin's view of the justification of Russian interference. The next two paragraphs further emphasize that Page is viewing Russian/US relations from the same lens as Putin.

Thank you for at least reading a portion of it and commenting. I know it can be very difficult to read something so long when it's something you don't agree with.

1) The Russian government directly interfered in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump

What exactly was the interference? Was it just some Russian people posting pro Trump statements on social media? Help me understand what I'm missing here or why some Russians making pro Trump posts on social media is so dangerous and outrageous?

You might like the part where Carter goes into the surveillance state. He actually talks about Jay Edgar Hoover and a time when the criminalization of political opinion pendulum had swung the other way. Would you agree that privacy is dead at this point?

In other words, he is aligned with Putin's view of the justification of Russian interference. The next two paragraphs further emphasize that Page is viewing Russian/US relations from the same lens as Putin.

I think Carter would contend that this was an academic practice of trying to see oneself in the others shoes by looking through that lens. It doesn't mean that he was loyal to Putin nor that he wanted to help Putin fulfil the former Soviet Unions ambitions of global communism.

But he does make multiple references in it to the paradigm noted above regarding Russia's role in the Central Asian and Eastern European regions as well as disparaging views of western hypocrisy and failures.

Is it illegal to criticize government policy in the US? I thought that was a constitutional right.

Thank you again Honorentheos for reading along and giving me your take on it thus far.

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax, with respect to Russian interference in the 2016 election, The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report has been publicly available for years. Almost a thousand pages that answer the questions you’ve been asking over and over. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume5.pdf

It also provides some balance to the self-serving narratives of Manafort and Page.

[honorentheos]

Thank you for at least reading a portion of it and commenting. I know it can be very difficult to read something so long when it's not something you don't agree with.

To be cleared my issue isn't with agreement. I'd readily read something well argued that challenges a belief of mine. Case in point? The Peter Zeihan book I started a thread on challenges a central belief of mine. It forced me to reevaluate my worldview.

This book isn't challenging my worldview as it's apparently a rough read meant to justify Page and bring in some $$$. I offered to read it, not because I expect it to be worth the time spent to do so, but because the opportunity to have a good faith discussion on a topic of your choice would be on the table.

[honorentheos]

Ajax, with respect to Russian interference in the 2016 election, The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report has been publicly available for years. Almost a thousand pages that answer the questions you’ve been asking over and over. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume5.pdf

It also provides some balance to the self-serving narratives of Manafort and Page.

Thanks, Res. I was heading that way after my post.

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax, with respect to Russian interference in the 2016 election, The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report has been publicly available for years. Almost a thousand pages that answer the questions you’ve been asking over and over. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume5.pdf

It also provides some balance to the self-serving narratives of Manafort and Page.

Thanks, Res. I was heading that way after my post.

You’re welcome. You’re carrying the laboring oar in this discussion, so the least I can do is hunt and fetch.

[honorentheos]

Along with Res' link, the second document in the report is specifically about the use of social media by Russian ops.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume2.pdf

What exactly was the interference? Was it just some Russian people posting pro Trump statements on social media? Help me understand what I'm missing here or why some Russians making pro Trump posts on social media is so dangerous and outrageous?

It helps to have a base level understanding of how US campaigns tend to operate where the focus in a general election is twofold: Exciting ones base to ensure they show up on election day, and disillusioning likely voters for the opposition. Undecided voters are usually just folks who lean a certain way over the other but haven't decided if they will vote despite the claims they are on the fence for one candidate over the other.

Russian use of social media in 2016 wasn't just tweets and ads blasted on Facebook. They made use of analytic data to target messaging to sometimes very small numbers of voters in critical states to send tailored messages that undermined Clinton. The narrow margins of victory in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania could be attributed to any number of causes, but the social media campaigns and Comey's election-eve announcement tied to the emails were consequential for the outcome.

This was on top of the steady drip of claims about the stolen emails. The vast majority of potential voters had little idea about the actual content of the emails. But the steady drip and messaging kept pounding home impressions about Clinton's dishonesty and schemes. Its effectiveness is astounding, really, given how qualified she was as a candidate. Yet I'd bet you could count on one hand the posters on this board who have a favorable view of her despite the belief everyone here is in lockstep with some master liberal agenda.

[ajax18]

This book isn't challenging my worldview as it's apparently a rough read meant to justify Page and bring in some $$$. I offered to read it, not because I expect it to be worth the time spent to do so, but because the opportunity to have a good faith discussion on a topic of your choice would be on the table.

I'd be happy to hear any of your reactions to what you read so I can understand your side of the story. I know it's going to be slow moving since we both have jobs but I'll try to pop in and give my best effort to stay on point.

[ajax18]

Along with Res' link, the second document in the report is specifically about the use of social media by Russian ops.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume2.pdf

What exactly was the interference? Was it just some Russian people posting pro Trump statements on social media? Help me understand what I'm missing here or why some Russians making pro Trump posts on social media is so dangerous and outrageous?

It helps to have a base level understanding of how US campaigns tend to operate where the focus in a general election is twofold: Exciting ones base to ensure they show up on election day, and disillusioning likely voters for the opposition. Undecided voters are usually just folks who lean a certain way over the other but haven't decided if they will vote despite the claims they are on the fence for one candidate over the other.

Russian use of social media in 2016 wasn't just tweets and ads blasted on Facebook. They made use of analytic data to target messaging to sometimes very small numbers of voters in critical states to send tailored messages that undermined Clinton. The narrow margins of victory in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania could be attributed to any number of causes, but the social media campaigns and Comey's election-eve announcement tied to the emails were consequential for the outcome.

This was on top of the steady drip of claims about the stolen emails. The vast majority of potential voters had little idea about the actual content of the emails. But the steady drip and messaging kept pounding home impressions about Clinton's dishonesty and schemes. Its effectiveness is astounding, really, given how qualified she was as a candidate. Yet I'd bet you could count on one hand the posters on this board who have a favorable view of her despite the belief everyone here is in lockstep with some master liberal agenda.

That's interesting. I remember EAllusion did admit that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate. Do you think suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story by Twitter, Facebook, etc. influenced the 2020 election? Based on the type of voter you're describing I can't see how it didn't. But I haven't met anyone personally who was influenced by Russian trolls or the Hunter Biden laptop.