"In 1996, the
Chinese government had the “China plan” and pumped hundreds of thousands
of dollars into
Bill Clinton’s
re-election campaign. There were congressional investigations,
and several fundraisers were prosecuted, but Attorney General
Janet Reno
rejected calls for an independent counsel. Campaigns tightened up
their donor-validation procedures, and life moved on." 10/15/17, "You Can’t Buy the Presidency for $100,000," Wall St. Journal, Mark Penn, op-ed (Penn
was chief strategist for Hillary's 2008 pres. campaign, her 2000 Senate
campaign, and for Bill Clinton's 1996 pres. campaign)
...............
10/31/17, "And that's why Trump won," Washington Examiner, Noemie Emery, opinion
"...Donald Trump understands only one thing...matters. His critics, such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Jeff
Flake, who last week made three largely correct and inspiring speeches,
seem to know everything but.
They understand politics, policy, and the uses of etiquette, but seem
deaf, dumb, and blind from the central great issue that drove Trump’s
election: The top tiers of the country have been flourishing nicely,
while those underneath have been taking a beating. And one reason is
international trade.
Like Hillary
Clinton and the sixteen...candidates who lost to
Trump in the primary, these...people
seem unable to grasp what Roger Altman explained in the Washington Post
this past weekend: that “the so-called American dream ... has ended for
most of our citizens. Half of the young adults in this country will earn
less over their lifetimes than their parents did. Indeed, the whole
idea of rising living standards, which defined this country for so long,
is a thing of the past.”
Trump won, not because the country was racist or sexist, or because
most in the country enjoyed his coarse language. He won because he was
the only one who realized the problem existed.
Trump was elected by...Obama voters in the upper
Midwest whose communities had been devastated by job losses. The irony
was that Bush, Flake, and Obama, while deploring Trump’s sins, still
listed free trade as one of their paramount values, even though the
evidence since has been more than abundant that embracing free trade
beyond the limits of prudence was their founding and critical sin.
On Oct. 10, 2000, on the advice of the experts, Bill Clinton signed a
now-infamous trade deal with China, calling it a ‘win-win’ solution for
both of the countries that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It turned out the experts were wrong. It created job losses that were
worse than expected. Workers didn’t ‘bounce back,’ as experts predicted,
but remained unemployed. These losses fanned out in concentric circles
of failure, as losses of wages led to failures of stores, restaurants,
and local businesses in their localities, as entire districts fell into
decline.
Along with this, and caused by it, came a radicalization of politics.
“In the 2000s, congressional districts where competition from Chinese
imports was rapidly increasing became more politically polarized,” the
Wall Street Journal reported in August 2016. A study by four economists
released late last November reported that districts represented by
moderate Democrats in 2002 were likely to be represented by liberal
Democrats or conservative Republicans eight years later. The moderate
Democrats vanished. This foretold the rise of both Trump and of Bernie
Sanders.
In the 2016 GOP primaries, Trump won 89 of the 100 counties mostly
deeply affected by the Chinese invasion, his...anti-trade
talk “tapping into sentiments ... largely ignored by conventional”
voices. The study concluded that “if Chinese import gains had been 50
percent smaller,” Trump would have lost Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Hillary Clinton would have been president.
The bill her husband signed sixteen years earlier ended up breaking her
heart.
In the primaries, the election, and now in the aftermath, Trump’s
critics have been eloquent in outlining his faults without understanding
the reason he beat them, which is their great failing. Is no one around
who comprehends why this happened...?"
-----------
Comments
------------
Note from blog editor: I don't usually post anything from the above deeply Establishment author. I had to use ellipses in 7 instances. The author's interpretation and/or choice of words was either distractingly hateful or borderline comedic ("Like Hillary Clinton and the sixteen...[extremely well-qualified] candidates
who lost to Trump in the primary, these...[well-meaning, cultured,
intelligent] people") which made the article difficult to get through. Rush Limbaugh mentioned
the article on his show on 10/31 for the China trade issue, otherwise
I'd never have read it.
.................
Link to Rush Limbaugh transcript:
10/31/17, "Two Fascinating Election Postmortems," Rush Limbaugh
"Rush: Think back to the Trump campaign. Think back to any Trump rally or any
Trump public appearance. The odds are Trump unloaded on China. He would
unload on China and currency manipulation. He would be critical of China
and their cheating, exporting a bunch of cheap stuff that we would buy
here but not accepting any of our exports, balance of trade, the trade
deficit with China. He dumped all over China. How many of you thought,
“So what?"...
I remember during the campaign we had some people saying, “Why’s he
focusing on China? China’s not in the news for that. The Chinese…” Well,
that’s what this piece is about. Noemie Emery: “And That’s Why Trump
Won.” It has nothing to do with Russia, has nothing to do with Hillary.
It has nothing to do with emails....
Trump didn’t have an animus toward China for personal reasons. It wasn’t
because he had had bad experiences with them. It’s because he knew! He
knew that in certain parts of the country the trade deal with China had
devastated… It’s much the same thing that Salena Zito has found in her
reporting from the deep-middle parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and
West Virginia and so forth, parts of Ohio, that voters there were
affected by all kinds of things that no other candidate ever mentioned....
The supposed idiot, the supposed dummkopf outsider who doesn’t know what
he’s doing, was the only presidential candidate who understood that
millions of Americans harbored sheer anger over a previous trade deal
with China that had cost them jobs and communities."
Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"
Breitbart: Ohio Democrat Party Warns: Stop Talking About Mueller Investigation, Stick to Real Issues
Washington Examiner: And That's Why Trump Won - Noemie Emery
....................
.........
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Trump won 89 of 100 counties that suffered worst from Bill Clinton's trade deal with China on his way out the door in Oct. 2000. No candidate but Trump realized the problem existed and how brutally Americans had been treated. To this day, people like George Bush, Obama, and Jeff Flake don't see the problem or understand that trade deal abuse of American communities likely elected Trump-Washington Examiner, N. Emery
EPA says Clean Power Plan "will result in negligible CO2 emission changes" by 2020-EPA.gov, March 2012
EPA: Pending Clean Power Plan rule "will result in negligible CO2 emissions changes":
March 2012, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," NSCEP, National Service Center for Environmental Publications
p. 13, "ES.3 Key Finding of Economic Analysis
.................
Added: page 6, "Table of Contents"
..............
March 2012, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," NSCEP, National Service Center for Environmental Publications
p. 13, "ES.3 Key Finding of Economic Analysis
.................
Added: page 6, "Table of Contents"
..............
Monday, October 30, 2017
Only nuclear energy can lift all humans out of poverty while protecting the natural environment-Mike Shellenberger, 10/30/17, at IAEA
President Trump ignores the only violation of law that has occurred in RussiaGate: leaking of US intelligence by unnamed US intelligence personnel to media members such as NY Times’ Michael Schmidt and Washington Post’s Adam Entous. Names of leakers wouldn't be hard to find out-Angelo Codevilla, 6/4/17
"These legal and pseudo-legal proceedings abstract from the
patently obvious felonies that U.S intelligence officials have
committed each and every time they have informed reporters of the Washington Post and New York Times about the...results of U.S communications intelligence....Since the number of those who
possessed the information in question is small, ascertaining the
identity of those who divulged it poses no problem to serious
investigators. Since Messrs Schmidt and Entous could not help but know
that communications intelligence is protected by a strict liability
statute, they could also be held responsible for their participation in
the crime."
June 4, 2017, "Punishing The Real Russia Crime: Leaking," Angelo Codevilla, American Greatness
"The appointment of a special prosecutor, as well as the congressional proceedings to uncover and punish such associates of Donald Trump as may have colluded with the Russian government with regard to the 2016 campaign, are a combination of partisan and Intelligence-bureaucracy warfare. No one has mentioned any activity of anyone in that campaign that might qualify as a violation of any criminal statute.
June 4, 2017, "Punishing The Real Russia Crime: Leaking," Angelo Codevilla, American Greatness
"The appointment of a special prosecutor, as well as the congressional proceedings to uncover and punish such associates of Donald Trump as may have colluded with the Russian government with regard to the 2016 campaign, are a combination of partisan and Intelligence-bureaucracy warfare. No one has mentioned any activity of anyone in that campaign that might qualify as a violation of any criminal statute.
Moreover, these legal and pseudo-legal proceedings abstract from the
patently obvious felonies that U.S intelligence officials have
committed each and every time they have informed reporters of the Washington Post and New York Times about the targets, functions, and results of U.S communications intelligence.
18 U.S. code 798 is, a “strict liability” statute, and specifies ten years’ imprisonment and $10,000 fine for each count. Trump’s enemies, and Trump himself, treat this parody of law as a game. It is not.
Herewith a summary of how the parody grew to its current dimensions, and a straight-line projection of where it leads unless the distinction between law and politics is re-established.
A minor defensive maneuver at the time, the “Russia interference in the elections” narrative grew into the Democratic Party’s main explanation for the massive electoral rejection at all levels it ended up suffering on November 8, 2016.
By spring 2016, Obama administration appointees to the U.S. intelligence agencies, having raised those agencies’ traditional alignment with the Democratic Party to unprecedented levels, were acting as adjuncts to the Clinton campaign. Candidate Clinton was suffering from the public’s perception that her use of a private email server for government business had compromised classified information. When Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails [allegedly] hacked by the international hacker Guccifer and published by Wikileaks showed that the party was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders, the alienation of Sanders supporters further diminished Democratic prospects in November.
To divert attention from Clinton’s assorted e-mail problems, the DNC hired its associated IT firm, Crowdstike, which concluded―without giving any evidence―that “the Russians” had been hacking Democrats, and that they had done so to help the Republicans. The intelligence agencies concurred.
Numerous intelligence officials have claimed to know who supplied the-mails to Wikileaks. No one has given evidence on the record. A minor defensive maneuver at the time, the “Russia interference in the elections” narrative grew into the Democratic Party’s main explanation for the massive electoral rejection at all levels it ended up suffering on November 8, 2016.
When Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, much of the U.S government, intelligence agencies included, conducted “opposition research” on him. This included tacitly validating a scurrilous report by a British source of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes. At first, it targeted Paul Manafort, whom Trump had chosen to manage his campaign at the Republican convention, and Carter Page, a minor foreign policy advisor. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained a warrant from the secret court established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to intercept their electronic communications. Both men had worked, legally, with Russian entities.
On May 24, 2017 Obama’s CIA Director John O. Brennan testified in that regard with language that reflected the “probable cause” assumption presented to the court that these were or could be “foreign agents”:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals, and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
Note well: Here is a U.S, official, excusing the “wiretapping” of his Party’s political opponents on the basis of the fact that Russians (like many foreigners) use their dealings with Americans to influence them and his assumption that said Russians had succeeded to some culpable extent. Under questioning, however, Brennan was forced to recant those assumptions: “I don’t know whether or not such collusion…I don’t know.”
18 U.S. code 798 is, a “strict liability” statute, and specifies ten years’ imprisonment and $10,000 fine for each count. Trump’s enemies, and Trump himself, treat this parody of law as a game. It is not.
Herewith a summary of how the parody grew to its current dimensions, and a straight-line projection of where it leads unless the distinction between law and politics is re-established.
A minor defensive maneuver at the time, the “Russia interference in the elections” narrative grew into the Democratic Party’s main explanation for the massive electoral rejection at all levels it ended up suffering on November 8, 2016.
By spring 2016, Obama administration appointees to the U.S. intelligence agencies, having raised those agencies’ traditional alignment with the Democratic Party to unprecedented levels, were acting as adjuncts to the Clinton campaign. Candidate Clinton was suffering from the public’s perception that her use of a private email server for government business had compromised classified information. When Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails [allegedly] hacked by the international hacker Guccifer and published by Wikileaks showed that the party was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders, the alienation of Sanders supporters further diminished Democratic prospects in November.
To divert attention from Clinton’s assorted e-mail problems, the DNC hired its associated IT firm, Crowdstike, which concluded―without giving any evidence―that “the Russians” had been hacking Democrats, and that they had done so to help the Republicans. The intelligence agencies concurred.
Numerous intelligence officials have claimed to know who supplied the-mails to Wikileaks. No one has given evidence on the record. A minor defensive maneuver at the time, the “Russia interference in the elections” narrative grew into the Democratic Party’s main explanation for the massive electoral rejection at all levels it ended up suffering on November 8, 2016.
When Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, much of the U.S government, intelligence agencies included, conducted “opposition research” on him. This included tacitly validating a scurrilous report by a British source of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes. At first, it targeted Paul Manafort, whom Trump had chosen to manage his campaign at the Republican convention, and Carter Page, a minor foreign policy advisor. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained a warrant from the secret court established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to intercept their electronic communications. Both men had worked, legally, with Russian entities.
On May 24, 2017 Obama’s CIA Director John O. Brennan testified in that regard with language that reflected the “probable cause” assumption presented to the court that these were or could be “foreign agents”:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals, and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
Note well: Here is a U.S, official, excusing the “wiretapping” of his Party’s political opponents on the basis of the fact that Russians (like many foreigners) use their dealings with Americans to influence them and his assumption that said Russians had succeeded to some culpable extent. Under questioning, however, Brennan was forced to recant those assumptions: “I don’t know whether or not such collusion…I don’t know.”
And: “we see contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons all the time.”
Nevertheless Brennan tried to make a public policy case for surveilling
these political opponents: “It is when it’s in the context that there is
something else going on--and so we knew, at the time, that the Russians
were involved in this effort to try to interfere in our election.”
Brennan was not asked for evidence of any such attempt, nor was he forced to confront the fact that Hillary Clinton had received millions of dollars from foreign entities, including Russian ones.
Nevertheless, he was forced to say that the wiretapping showed zero evidence of collusion between the Trump associates and the Russians with regard to anything, never mind criminal activity:
"Question: “But if someone left this hearing today and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your statements, correct?”
Brennan answered: “They would have misheard my response to the very good questions that were asked of me…I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal of my statement.”"
The essence of the story had already appeared in the New York Times on February 14 :
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were [allegedly] discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election. The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."
Simple facts: Already well before the election, intelligence officials--possibly including Mr. Brennan--had used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to do legally (though not a bit more properly) the kind of snooping into the political opposition that the 1972-74 Watergate burglars had done. But the legality of what they did ended the instant that they went to The New York Times and Washington Post with “Phone records and intercepted calls.” At that point, they became criminals.
After the election, as the Democratic Party scrambled to protect itself from the opposition’s victory and perhaps to reverse it, bureaucratic self-interest led the intelligence agencies, especially CIA, to become the spearhead of that effort. On December 15 U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News they had “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed how messages and other documents hacked from Democrats were used to influence the presidential election.
On January 5 The Washington Post’s Adam Entous and Greg Miller reported that “U.S. officials…said that American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome. The ebullient reaction among high-ranking Russian officials—including some who U.S. officials believe had knowledge of the country’s cyber campaign to interfere in the U.S. election—contributed to the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow’s efforts were aimed at least in part at helping Trump win the White House.”
There followed a public report by the agencies of their “high confidence”―but zero evidence―that Putin preferred Trump. Predictably, already in mid-December The Hill reported that, according to a poll: More than half of Americans bothered by Russian interference in election. No surprise then that on January 19 The New York Times reported that American intelligence officials “are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump.”
There was never doubt about the CIA’s bureaucratic motivation. Early on, Trump had found Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (USA-ret) to be his favorite spokesman on foreign policy and let it be known that Flynn would be his National Security Adviser. As the Defense Intelligence Agency’s director, Flynn had fought bitter bureaucratic battles with the CIA and with the Obama administration. Worse, as the Wall Street Journal reported on January 4, Flynn harbored plans for reforming the intelligence community’s structure in ways that threatened CIA’s status.
Even less surprising, then, that the agencies “wiretapped” Flynn to see what they could “get on him.” What they got was a series of phone calls between the prospective National Security Adviser and the Russian ambassador. The Times reports:
"The calls began on Dec. 29, shortly after Mr. Kislyak was summoned to the (Obama) State Department and informed that, in retaliation for Russian election meddling, the United States was expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other sanctions. Mr. Kislyak was irate and threatened a forceful Russia response, according to people familiar with the exchange. But a day later, Mr. Putin said his government would not retaliate, prompting a Twitter post from Mr. Trump praising the Russian president—and puzzling Obama White House officials. On Jan. 2, administration officials learned that Mr. Kislyak — after leaving the State Department meeting--called Mr. Flynn, and that the two talked multiple times in the 36 hours that followed.
Brennan was not asked for evidence of any such attempt, nor was he forced to confront the fact that Hillary Clinton had received millions of dollars from foreign entities, including Russian ones.
Nevertheless, he was forced to say that the wiretapping showed zero evidence of collusion between the Trump associates and the Russians with regard to anything, never mind criminal activity:
"Question: “But if someone left this hearing today and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your statements, correct?”
Brennan answered: “They would have misheard my response to the very good questions that were asked of me…I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal of my statement.”"
The essence of the story had already appeared in the New York Times on February 14 :
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were [allegedly] discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election. The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."
Simple facts: Already well before the election, intelligence officials--possibly including Mr. Brennan--had used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to do legally (though not a bit more properly) the kind of snooping into the political opposition that the 1972-74 Watergate burglars had done. But the legality of what they did ended the instant that they went to The New York Times and Washington Post with “Phone records and intercepted calls.” At that point, they became criminals.
After the election, as the Democratic Party scrambled to protect itself from the opposition’s victory and perhaps to reverse it, bureaucratic self-interest led the intelligence agencies, especially CIA, to become the spearhead of that effort. On December 15 U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News they had “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed how messages and other documents hacked from Democrats were used to influence the presidential election.
On January 5 The Washington Post’s Adam Entous and Greg Miller reported that “U.S. officials…said that American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome. The ebullient reaction among high-ranking Russian officials—including some who U.S. officials believe had knowledge of the country’s cyber campaign to interfere in the U.S. election—contributed to the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow’s efforts were aimed at least in part at helping Trump win the White House.”
There followed a public report by the agencies of their “high confidence”―but zero evidence―that Putin preferred Trump. Predictably, already in mid-December The Hill reported that, according to a poll: More than half of Americans bothered by Russian interference in election. No surprise then that on January 19 The New York Times reported that American intelligence officials “are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump.”
There was never doubt about the CIA’s bureaucratic motivation. Early on, Trump had found Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (USA-ret) to be his favorite spokesman on foreign policy and let it be known that Flynn would be his National Security Adviser. As the Defense Intelligence Agency’s director, Flynn had fought bitter bureaucratic battles with the CIA and with the Obama administration. Worse, as the Wall Street Journal reported on January 4, Flynn harbored plans for reforming the intelligence community’s structure in ways that threatened CIA’s status.
Even less surprising, then, that the agencies “wiretapped” Flynn to see what they could “get on him.” What they got was a series of phone calls between the prospective National Security Adviser and the Russian ambassador. The Times reports:
"The calls began on Dec. 29, shortly after Mr. Kislyak was summoned to the (Obama) State Department and informed that, in retaliation for Russian election meddling, the United States was expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other sanctions. Mr. Kislyak was irate and threatened a forceful Russia response, according to people familiar with the exchange. But a day later, Mr. Putin said his government would not retaliate, prompting a Twitter post from Mr. Trump praising the Russian president—and puzzling Obama White House officials. On Jan. 2, administration officials learned that Mr. Kislyak — after leaving the State Department meeting--called Mr. Flynn, and that the two talked multiple times in the 36 hours that followed.
American intelligence
agencies routinely wiretap the phones of Russian diplomats, and
transcripts of the calls showed that Mr. Flynn urged the Russians
not to respond, saying relations would improve once Mr. Trump was in
office, according to multiple current and former officials."
Since Obama, the Democratic Party, and CIA had given dicta but zero evidence concerning “Russian meddling,” the advice that Flynn gave and Trump endorsed made the Obama administration and its Russophobia look silly.
That is when the Obama administration’s/CIA’s rage, the media’s complicity, and the “attentive public’s” gullibility therewith, went into high gear to turn ordinary, garden-variety actions in international affairs―if conducted by opponents―into pseudo crimes.
In real life, foreign affairs means dealing with foreigners. Every day in every way, just about everybody who is involved in international relations practically or academically―never mind persons who are about to undertake official responsibilities―communicates with foreign officials to the maximum extent possible testing possible new approaches to policy. Hence, as Michael Flynn was dealing with the Russian ambassador, he was doing his job, and doing it just right. So did then Senator Jeff Sessions and every other Senator who meets with representatives of foreign governments.
Nevertheless, a March 1, 2017 Times article depicts the “finding” by Obama administration officials that people close to Trump had many contacts with Russians as something of a smoking gun of culpability.
This sort of thing should be dismissed by comparing it to the old joke about the college dean who was accused of lascivious behavior for having insisted on his female undergraduates showing him their theses before letting them graduate. Except that the U.S. intelligence officials who have purveyed the Trump/Russia stories have done so by citing U.S. communications intelligence. That is not a joke. It is a crime.
On May 17, acting under Section 28 Chapter VI part 600, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel
Since Obama, the Democratic Party, and CIA had given dicta but zero evidence concerning “Russian meddling,” the advice that Flynn gave and Trump endorsed made the Obama administration and its Russophobia look silly.
That is when the Obama administration’s/CIA’s rage, the media’s complicity, and the “attentive public’s” gullibility therewith, went into high gear to turn ordinary, garden-variety actions in international affairs―if conducted by opponents―into pseudo crimes.
In real life, foreign affairs means dealing with foreigners. Every day in every way, just about everybody who is involved in international relations practically or academically―never mind persons who are about to undertake official responsibilities―communicates with foreign officials to the maximum extent possible testing possible new approaches to policy. Hence, as Michael Flynn was dealing with the Russian ambassador, he was doing his job, and doing it just right. So did then Senator Jeff Sessions and every other Senator who meets with representatives of foreign governments.
Nevertheless, a March 1, 2017 Times article depicts the “finding” by Obama administration officials that people close to Trump had many contacts with Russians as something of a smoking gun of culpability.
This sort of thing should be dismissed by comparing it to the old joke about the college dean who was accused of lascivious behavior for having insisted on his female undergraduates showing him their theses before letting them graduate. Except that the U.S. intelligence officials who have purveyed the Trump/Russia stories have done so by citing U.S. communications intelligence. That is not a joke. It is a crime.
On May 17, acting under Section 28 Chapter VI part 600, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel
to “determine whether and to what
extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within
the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and
responsibilities” specifically about “any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as “any other matters that arose or may arise from the investigation.” Ominously however, the Special Counsel’s specific charge concerns the joke, not the crime.
In this regard, Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems poised to follow the path of his immediate predecessor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed pursuant to the CIA’s urging to ferret out and punish whoever had “outed” its employee, Valerie Plame. But since the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifically de-criminalized any “outing” that occurred in the course of political controversies, there was no crime to prosecute.
Moreover, the “outer’s” identity, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, was already known. Nevertheless, Fitzgerald focused his attention on Vice President Cheney’s office and snared his chief of staff, Scooter Libby for perjury for having had a different recollection of a conversation than had the other party to that conversation.
In the present case as well, there is no suggestion, never mind evidence, of relations with “the Russians” that break any U.S. laws.
As for “collusion” against the interests of the United States, former CIA director Brennan testified that he has no evidence of any. Nor has anyone else pointed to any. Nor is there any suggestion even of Trump associates discussing changes to U.S policy as radical as those which Obama promised to President Dimitry Medvedev in March 2012 on a “hot mike” regarding U.S missile defense
....
What, then is Special Counsel Mueller to uncover and punish?
In this regard, Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems poised to follow the path of his immediate predecessor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed pursuant to the CIA’s urging to ferret out and punish whoever had “outed” its employee, Valerie Plame. But since the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifically de-criminalized any “outing” that occurred in the course of political controversies, there was no crime to prosecute.
Moreover, the “outer’s” identity, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, was already known. Nevertheless, Fitzgerald focused his attention on Vice President Cheney’s office and snared his chief of staff, Scooter Libby for perjury for having had a different recollection of a conversation than had the other party to that conversation.
In the present case as well, there is no suggestion, never mind evidence, of relations with “the Russians” that break any U.S. laws.
As for “collusion” against the interests of the United States, former CIA director Brennan testified that he has no evidence of any. Nor has anyone else pointed to any. Nor is there any suggestion even of Trump associates discussing changes to U.S policy as radical as those which Obama promised to President Dimitry Medvedev in March 2012 on a “hot mike” regarding U.S missile defense
....
What, then is Special Counsel Mueller to uncover and punish?
Unfortunately, Mueller is likely to do exactly
what Counsel Fitzgerald did: focus on “any other matters that arose or may arise from the investigation.” In
other words, he is likely to focus on discrepancies between who said
what to whom when. This is a corrupt parody of justice, aimed at
crushing opposition to the ruling class. That is why, for example,
Michael Flynn―or anyone in a similar position―would be foolish to answer
any questions whatsoever, even regarding the time of day.
The deepening levels of corruption in our legal system and our politics may be seen in what appears to be the disregard that the media, the legal system, the Trump administration itself, and the Special Counsel’s charge are showing for the one and only violation of law that has occurred: namely, the revelations of communications intelligence operations as well as of results therefrom, by unnamed but authoritative intelligence officials, to such as the Times’ Michael Schmidt and the Post’s Adam Entous.
Since the number of those who possessed the information in question is small, ascertaining the identity of those who divulged it poses no problem to serious investigators. Since Messrs Schmidt and Entous could not help but know that communications intelligence is protected by a strict liability statute, they could also be held responsible for their participation in the crime.
Instead, we have a ruling class, led by the Democratic Party, that is trying to reverse the effects of an election that repudiated it by alleging a conspiracy―evidence for which is limited to the allegation itself. We have a Republican Party and President so frightened of their political enemies that they play along, in the forlorn hope of being granted legitimacy. Hence, both sides play at politics and law.
But contending on the basis of insubstantial allegations while tolerating flagrant crime kills respect for law. It augurs a future in which the only punishable crime will be to stand with the less bloody-minded side."
"Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014."
The deepening levels of corruption in our legal system and our politics may be seen in what appears to be the disregard that the media, the legal system, the Trump administration itself, and the Special Counsel’s charge are showing for the one and only violation of law that has occurred: namely, the revelations of communications intelligence operations as well as of results therefrom, by unnamed but authoritative intelligence officials, to such as the Times’ Michael Schmidt and the Post’s Adam Entous.
Since the number of those who possessed the information in question is small, ascertaining the identity of those who divulged it poses no problem to serious investigators. Since Messrs Schmidt and Entous could not help but know that communications intelligence is protected by a strict liability statute, they could also be held responsible for their participation in the crime.
Instead, we have a ruling class, led by the Democratic Party, that is trying to reverse the effects of an election that repudiated it by alleging a conspiracy―evidence for which is limited to the allegation itself. We have a Republican Party and President so frightened of their political enemies that they play along, in the forlorn hope of being granted legitimacy. Hence, both sides play at politics and law.
But contending on the basis of insubstantial allegations while tolerating flagrant crime kills respect for law. It augurs a future in which the only punishable crime will be to stand with the less bloody-minded side."
"Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014."
..................
Unfortunately for Facebook, its ad claims don't gain it entry to the Russia party. Hillary super PAC spent $6 million on ads in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in week before election alone. At best only $6500 in Facebook ads could possibly have run in swing states in entire 2016. In 1996 Chinese gov. spent hundreds of thousands on Bill Clinton re-election, AG Janet Reno rejected calls for independent counsel-Wall St. Journal, Mark Penn, op-ed
"In the last week of the [2016] campaign alone, Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC dumped
$6 million in ads into Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin." Facebook totals inexplicably are from a two year period, June of 2015 throught May of 2017-including 7 months AFTER the election.
10/15/17, "You Can’t Buy the Presidency for $100,000," Wall St. Journal, Mark Penn, op-ed (Penn was chief strategist for Hillary's 2008 pres. campaign, her 2000 Senate campaign, and for Bill Clinton's 1996 pres. campaign)
"Russia didn’t win Trump the White House any more than China re-elected Bill Clinton in 1996."
"The fake news about fake news is practically endless. Americans worried about Russia’s influence in the 2016 election have seized on a handful of Facebook ads—as though there weren’t also three 90-minute debates, two televised party conventions, and $2.4 billion spent on last year’s campaign. The danger is that bending facts to fit the Russia story line may nudge Washington into needlessly and recklessly regulating the internet and curtailing basic freedoms.
After an extensive review, Facebook has identified [that during a two year period, 7 months of which were AFTER the election] $100,000 of ads that came from accounts associated with Russia. Assume for the sake of argument that Vladimir Putin personally authorized this expenditure. Given its divisive nature, the campaign could be dubbed “From Russia, With Hate”—except it would make for a disappointing James Bond movie.
Analyzing the pattern of expenditures, and doing some back-of-the-envelope math, it’s clear this was no devilishly effective plot. Facebook says 56% of the ads ran after the election, reducing the tally that could have influenced the result to about $44,000. It also turns out the ads were not confined to swing states but also shown in places like New York, California and Texas. Supposing half the ads went to swing states brings the total down to $22,000."...
[Links for above paragraph: Facebook says only about 25% were "geographically targeted" (no locations mentioned), and of those "more ran in 2015 than 2016." They've already said that 56% of the total ran AFTER the election. Not stated is how many of the "targeted" ads ran after the election.]
(continuing): "Facebook also counted ads as early as June 2015. Assuming they were evenly spread and we want only those that ran the year of the election, that knocks it down to $13,000. Most of the ads did not solicit support for a candidate and carried messages on issues like racism, immigration and guns. The actual electioneering then amounts to about $6,500.
Now look at the bigger picture. Every day, Americans see hundreds of ads on TV and radio, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and smartphones. North Americans post to Facebook something like a billion times a day, and during the election many of those messages were about politics. Facebook typically runs about $40 million worth of advertising a day in North America.
Then consider the scale of American presidential elections. Hillary Clinton’s total campaign budget, including associated committees, was $1.4 billion. Mr. Trump and his allies had about $1 billion. Even a full $100,000 of Russian ads would have erased just 0.025% of Hillary’s financial advantage. In the last week of the campaign alone, Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC dumped $6 million in ads into Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy, mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate. Converting someone who voted for the other party last time is an enormously difficult task.
Swing voters in states like Ohio or Florida are typically barraged with 50% or more of a campaign’s budget. Try watching TV in those states the week before an election and you will see how jammed the airwaves are.
No one wants foreign governments meddling in American elections. In 1996, the Chinese government had the “China plan” and pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. There were congressional investigations, and several fundraisers were prosecuted, but Attorney General Janet Reno rejected calls for an independent counsel.
Campaigns tightened up their donor-validation procedures, and life moved on. The same is called for here. Internet companies should improve their screening of electioneering ads, impose clearer standards on all ads, and do a better job weeding out phony accounts.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have probably been spent already poring over that $100,000 of Facebook ads. Better to keep it all in perspective, as everyone did in 1996. The only way Russia will get its money’s worth is if Washington overreacts and narrows the very freedoms that make America different in the first place." [Facebook says roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone.]
---------------
Added: Per advertising industry experts, Facebook grossly inflates ad reach claims: Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state in the U.S. citing more people than actually exist. Analyst on Facebook miscalculations: "There appears to be a systematic misrepresentation of data across the board, at a scale unlike anything we’ve ever seen," per VAB president and CEO Sean Cunningham-Adweek, 10/2/17
10/2/17, "Facebook Ad Reach is More than U.S. Census Bureau Data in All 50 States (Report)," adweek.com, David Cohen
"Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state by anywhere from 3 percent to 42 percent."
"Facebook’s issues with reporting ad reaches larger than the actual population base appear to be even more prevalent, according to a new report from the Video Advertising Bureau.
Early last month, Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser pointed out discrepancies between Facebook’s ad reach and U.S. Census Bureau data, including:
The VAB took a closer look in the report it released Monday, and its findings included:
Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state in the U.S. by anywhere from 3 percent to 42 percent.
*While Facebook cited visitors from different areas as one of the reasons for its reach topping U.S. Census figures, the same reach figures are generated when advertisers select “everyone” in the U.S. or users who “live” in the U.S.
*The gap between Facebook’s ad reach figures and U.S. Census date for users 18 through 34 is “much more pronounced within the 10 most populous cities.”
The
VAB said in the conclusion of its report, “Whether this is truly another
metrics glitch remains to be seen. However, with questions of trust
regarding ad-tech platforms at an all-time high among many marketers,
our analysis provides another instance where first-party data should at
least be questioned, or even challenged, particularly when the numbers
don’t align with universally accepted metrics such as U.S. Census Bureau
population data and basic media math.
And VAB president and CEO Sean Cunningham said in a statement emailed to Social Pro Daily: “It’s difficult to understand how a precision platform, such as Facebook, could continue to miscalculate these numbers time and time again. Rather, there appears to be a systematic misrepresentation of data across the board, at a scale unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Advertisers need to know that the data and metrics they’re viewing are valid, and third-party verification, rather than simply accepting data at face value, is the only way to ensure that advertisers get what they pay for.”
Facebook had not yet responded to a request for comment at the time of this post."
..................
10/15/17, "You Can’t Buy the Presidency for $100,000," Wall St. Journal, Mark Penn, op-ed (Penn was chief strategist for Hillary's 2008 pres. campaign, her 2000 Senate campaign, and for Bill Clinton's 1996 pres. campaign)
"Russia didn’t win Trump the White House any more than China re-elected Bill Clinton in 1996."
"The fake news about fake news is practically endless. Americans worried about Russia’s influence in the 2016 election have seized on a handful of Facebook ads—as though there weren’t also three 90-minute debates, two televised party conventions, and $2.4 billion spent on last year’s campaign. The danger is that bending facts to fit the Russia story line may nudge Washington into needlessly and recklessly regulating the internet and curtailing basic freedoms.
After an extensive review, Facebook has identified [that during a two year period, 7 months of which were AFTER the election] $100,000 of ads that came from accounts associated with Russia. Assume for the sake of argument that Vladimir Putin personally authorized this expenditure. Given its divisive nature, the campaign could be dubbed “From Russia, With Hate”—except it would make for a disappointing James Bond movie.
Analyzing the pattern of expenditures, and doing some back-of-the-envelope math, it’s clear this was no devilishly effective plot. Facebook says 56% of the ads ran after the election, reducing the tally that could have influenced the result to about $44,000. It also turns out the ads were not confined to swing states but also shown in places like New York, California and Texas. Supposing half the ads went to swing states brings the total down to $22,000."...
[Links for above paragraph: Facebook says only about 25% were "geographically targeted" (no locations mentioned), and of those "more ran in 2015 than 2016." They've already said that 56% of the total ran AFTER the election. Not stated is how many of the "targeted" ads ran after the election.]
(continuing): "Facebook also counted ads as early as June 2015. Assuming they were evenly spread and we want only those that ran the year of the election, that knocks it down to $13,000. Most of the ads did not solicit support for a candidate and carried messages on issues like racism, immigration and guns. The actual electioneering then amounts to about $6,500.
Now look at the bigger picture. Every day, Americans see hundreds of ads on TV and radio, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and smartphones. North Americans post to Facebook something like a billion times a day, and during the election many of those messages were about politics. Facebook typically runs about $40 million worth of advertising a day in North America.
Then consider the scale of American presidential elections. Hillary Clinton’s total campaign budget, including associated committees, was $1.4 billion. Mr. Trump and his allies had about $1 billion. Even a full $100,000 of Russian ads would have erased just 0.025% of Hillary’s financial advantage. In the last week of the campaign alone, Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC dumped $6 million in ads into Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy, mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate. Converting someone who voted for the other party last time is an enormously difficult task.
Swing voters in states like Ohio or Florida are typically barraged with 50% or more of a campaign’s budget. Try watching TV in those states the week before an election and you will see how jammed the airwaves are.
No one wants foreign governments meddling in American elections. In 1996, the Chinese government had the “China plan” and pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. There were congressional investigations, and several fundraisers were prosecuted, but Attorney General Janet Reno rejected calls for an independent counsel.
Campaigns tightened up their donor-validation procedures, and life moved on. The same is called for here. Internet companies should improve their screening of electioneering ads, impose clearer standards on all ads, and do a better job weeding out phony accounts.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have probably been spent already poring over that $100,000 of Facebook ads. Better to keep it all in perspective, as everyone did in 1996. The only way Russia will get its money’s worth is if Washington overreacts and narrows the very freedoms that make America different in the first place." [Facebook says roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone.]
---------------
Added: Per advertising industry experts, Facebook grossly inflates ad reach claims: Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state in the U.S. citing more people than actually exist. Analyst on Facebook miscalculations: "There appears to be a systematic misrepresentation of data across the board, at a scale unlike anything we’ve ever seen," per VAB president and CEO Sean Cunningham-Adweek, 10/2/17
10/2/17, "Facebook Ad Reach is More than U.S. Census Bureau Data in All 50 States (Report)," adweek.com, David Cohen
"Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state by anywhere from 3 percent to 42 percent."
"Facebook’s issues with reporting ad reaches larger than the actual population base appear to be even more prevalent, according to a new report from the Video Advertising Bureau.
Early last month, Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser pointed out discrepancies between Facebook’s ad reach and U.S. Census Bureau data, including:
- Facebook claims that it can reach 41 million U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 24, while U.S. Census data pegs the total population of that age group at 31 million.
- The social network also claimed that it can reach 60 million U.S. adults 25 through 34, while the U.S. Census total for that demographic is 35 million.
The VAB took a closer look in the report it released Monday, and its findings included:
Facebook’s ad reach figures outpace U.S. Census estimates for every single state in the U.S. by anywhere from 3 percent to 42 percent.
*While Facebook cited visitors from different areas as one of the reasons for its reach topping U.S. Census figures, the same reach figures are generated when advertisers select “everyone” in the U.S. or users who “live” in the U.S.
*The gap between Facebook’s ad reach figures and U.S. Census date for users 18 through 34 is “much more pronounced within the 10 most populous cities.”
- Facebook’s estimated daily reach is two times to 12 times larger than what it should be “based on basic media math.”
- When preparing a demographic-targeted, one-day, $5,000 ad buy on Facebook, there is a gap of more than 10 million adults between 18 and 34—1.9 million to 12 million—between the low and high ranges.
And VAB president and CEO Sean Cunningham said in a statement emailed to Social Pro Daily: “It’s difficult to understand how a precision platform, such as Facebook, could continue to miscalculate these numbers time and time again. Rather, there appears to be a systematic misrepresentation of data across the board, at a scale unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Advertisers need to know that the data and metrics they’re viewing are valid, and third-party verification, rather than simply accepting data at face value, is the only way to ensure that advertisers get what they pay for.”
Facebook had not yet responded to a request for comment at the time of this post."
...........................
............................
Added: Facebook's "Trust-me metrics:"
"Facebook has promulgated a number of "trust-me metrics...There is a pattern. All of them are about giving the appearance of being bigger.""...
10/4/17, "Facebook accused of inflating its reach among young adults," Poynter.org, Rick Edmonds
"Analyst Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research raised that and other questions about Facebook's claims to advertisers in a report in early September.
Now the Video Advertising Bureau, a trade group for cable and broadcast networks and their sites, has a follow-up study saying that the internet giant is over-counting non-existent 18- to 24-year-olds in all 50 states.
Collectively, Wieiser and the VAB say, the company's claimed reach exceeds census estimates by a third in the 18-24 demographic and 80 percent among 25-to-34-year-olds.
This is not Facebook's first misadventure with ad metrics. A year ago September, the company conceded that over a period of two years it had miscalculated and thus overstated the typical time that users were spending engaged with its videos.
I chatted with a Facebook spokesman, who explicated the company's cryptic rejoinder to Wieser that its estimated reach numbers "are based on a number of factors" and do not necessarily correspond to census data, itself an estimate.
Those young users Facebook counted could include people from other countries registering in the United States and some who misreport or don't update their age, he said. Also the reach figure would pick up tourists and other visitors.
I'll buy that there are plenty of people in New York City (and a few other destinations) at a given time who do not live there. But I am highly dubious that addition would cover the gap the critics have identified.
Sean Cunningham, president and CEO of the Video Advertising Bureau, told me that Facebook has promulgated a number of "trust-me metrics ...There is a pattern. All of them are about giving the appearance of being bigger ... pushing the idea that they are ubiquitous."
The accusation is not that Facebook is overcharging. Its ads are generally placed by electronic auction, and the price is based on the numbers (views and a watch-to-completion factor) for a given ad.
But Cunningham said that the inflated claims for desired demographic groups are meant to influence ad buyers who are considering the scale of Facebook purchases compared to their broadcast and cable budgets.
His members would like to see Facebook using the same exacting third-party verification that is expected in the TV industry, Cunningham said. "Data innovation is a big part of what's going to be good about the future of advertising," he added, "but we need an equal view where everyone is looking at the same set of data."
The Facebook spokesman said that the company is partnering with both Nielsen and comScore to develop new and more exact measures of digital audience reach. More is on the way, he said, as well as a more detailed explanation of the reach claims.
I had the impression that the current controversy is focused on national advertisers and big brands. But Cunningham said his membership includes Comcast and other cable system owners who see the same dynamic at work in local market competition for ad share.
As I and others have been reporting for some time, Facebook and Google's growing dominance in local advertising is the biggest factor in ad revenue declines at newspapers and magazines. Those placements make publications less competitive in selling ads to their digital sites and often are financed by reducing print schedules.
The questions about Facebook's claimed reach take place against a broader background of concerns about ad fraud in digital buying and pricing.
Just last week, the Financial Times said an internal study had found bogus listings for ft.com ads on a number of ad exchanges. It urged clients to step up verification to insure against fraudulent placements....
..............................................
Added: Facebook's "Trust-me metrics:"
"Facebook has promulgated a number of "trust-me metrics...There is a pattern. All of them are about giving the appearance of being bigger.""...
10/4/17, "Facebook accused of inflating its reach among young adults," Poynter.org, Rick Edmonds
"Analyst Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research raised that and other questions about Facebook's claims to advertisers in a report in early September.
Now the Video Advertising Bureau, a trade group for cable and broadcast networks and their sites, has a follow-up study saying that the internet giant is over-counting non-existent 18- to 24-year-olds in all 50 states.
Collectively, Wieiser and the VAB say, the company's claimed reach exceeds census estimates by a third in the 18-24 demographic and 80 percent among 25-to-34-year-olds.
This is not Facebook's first misadventure with ad metrics. A year ago September, the company conceded that over a period of two years it had miscalculated and thus overstated the typical time that users were spending engaged with its videos.
I chatted with a Facebook spokesman, who explicated the company's cryptic rejoinder to Wieser that its estimated reach numbers "are based on a number of factors" and do not necessarily correspond to census data, itself an estimate.
Those young users Facebook counted could include people from other countries registering in the United States and some who misreport or don't update their age, he said. Also the reach figure would pick up tourists and other visitors.
I'll buy that there are plenty of people in New York City (and a few other destinations) at a given time who do not live there. But I am highly dubious that addition would cover the gap the critics have identified.
Sean Cunningham, president and CEO of the Video Advertising Bureau, told me that Facebook has promulgated a number of "trust-me metrics ...There is a pattern. All of them are about giving the appearance of being bigger ... pushing the idea that they are ubiquitous."
The accusation is not that Facebook is overcharging. Its ads are generally placed by electronic auction, and the price is based on the numbers (views and a watch-to-completion factor) for a given ad.
But Cunningham said that the inflated claims for desired demographic groups are meant to influence ad buyers who are considering the scale of Facebook purchases compared to their broadcast and cable budgets.
His members would like to see Facebook using the same exacting third-party verification that is expected in the TV industry, Cunningham said. "Data innovation is a big part of what's going to be good about the future of advertising," he added, "but we need an equal view where everyone is looking at the same set of data."
The Facebook spokesman said that the company is partnering with both Nielsen and comScore to develop new and more exact measures of digital audience reach. More is on the way, he said, as well as a more detailed explanation of the reach claims.
I had the impression that the current controversy is focused on national advertisers and big brands. But Cunningham said his membership includes Comcast and other cable system owners who see the same dynamic at work in local market competition for ad share.
As I and others have been reporting for some time, Facebook and Google's growing dominance in local advertising is the biggest factor in ad revenue declines at newspapers and magazines. Those placements make publications less competitive in selling ads to their digital sites and often are financed by reducing print schedules.
The questions about Facebook's claimed reach take place against a broader background of concerns about ad fraud in digital buying and pricing.
Just last week, the Financial Times said an internal study had found bogus listings for ft.com ads on a number of ad exchanges. It urged clients to step up verification to insure against fraudulent placements....
The worse case for Facebook is that hits to its credibility will slow
the astronomic rates of ad revenue growth that have kept the company a
darling among investors even as it has grown from big to huge."
"Rick
Edmonds is Poynter's media business analyst, co-author of 10 State of
the News Media reports, former Tampa Bay Times and Philadelphia Inquirer
editor."
..................
Sunday, October 29, 2017
3 on Long Island arrested in massive opioid fentanyl haul unleashed pit bull to charge at police-Newsday, 10/28/17
"Police said Moore ignored repeated warnings to keep
his pit bull on a leash and allowed the dog to charge at detectives
during the raid. Although police shot the dog, the animal
survived."
10/28/17, "3 men arrested, large amount of fentanyl seized in raid, police say," Newsday, (Long Island, NY State) Jean-Paul Salamanca
The trio face multiple charges in connection with possessing 725 grams of fentanyl, Suffolk police Commissioner Timothy Sini said at a news conference Saturday at police headquarters. Sini said Suffolk police and other law enforcement agencies executed a search warrant for the Edwards Road home on Friday at 4 p.m.
The fentanyl was shipped via regular mail from Hong Kong to New York City for distribution on Long Island, Sini said. Suffolk County police, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the NYPD and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service were among the agencies that collaborated in the investigation. Authorities also seized $7,400 cash, numerous 9 mm rounds, two cellphones and a 2007 Mercedes-Benz during the raid.
“That’s over 1.1 million doses of fentanyl that aren’t being used in our communities and that saves thousands and thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of lives,” Sini said.
Corey Robinson, 24, who lived in the house, was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, a felony. Thomas Moore, 41, who also resided in the house, was charged with obstruction of government administration. Daequan Rickenbacker, 25, of Woodland Drive in Mastic Beach was charged with loitering.
Police said Moore ignored repeated warnings to keep his pit bull on a leash and allowed the dog to charge at detectives during the raid. Although police shot the dog, the animal survived, according to Sini. No police were injured.
Robinson and Moore were arraigned at First District Court in Central Islip on Saturday. Robinson was released on recognizance and his next court date is Dec. 6. Moore was released on recognizance and his next court date is Nov. 3. No arraignment information was listed in online court record for Rickenbacker late Saturday.
Used to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedures, the highly addictive fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." image above from Newsday
..................
10/28/17, "3 men arrested, large amount of fentanyl seized in raid, police say," Newsday, (Long Island, NY State) Jean-Paul Salamanca
"Authorities arrested three men and seized
enough opioid fentanyl to make 1.1 million street doses during a raid of
a Mastic Beach [NY] home, officials said Saturday.
The trio face multiple charges in connection with possessing 725 grams of fentanyl, Suffolk police Commissioner Timothy Sini said at a news conference Saturday at police headquarters. Sini said Suffolk police and other law enforcement agencies executed a search warrant for the Edwards Road home on Friday at 4 p.m.
The fentanyl was shipped via regular mail from Hong Kong to New York City for distribution on Long Island, Sini said. Suffolk County police, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the NYPD and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service were among the agencies that collaborated in the investigation. Authorities also seized $7,400 cash, numerous 9 mm rounds, two cellphones and a 2007 Mercedes-Benz during the raid.
“That’s over 1.1 million doses of fentanyl that aren’t being used in our communities and that saves thousands and thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of lives,” Sini said.
Corey Robinson, 24, who lived in the house, was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, a felony. Thomas Moore, 41, who also resided in the house, was charged with obstruction of government administration. Daequan Rickenbacker, 25, of Woodland Drive in Mastic Beach was charged with loitering.
Police said Moore ignored repeated warnings to keep his pit bull on a leash and allowed the dog to charge at detectives during the raid. Although police shot the dog, the animal survived, according to Sini. No police were injured.
Robinson and Moore were arraigned at First District Court in Central Islip on Saturday. Robinson was released on recognizance and his next court date is Dec. 6. Moore was released on recognizance and his next court date is Nov. 3. No arraignment information was listed in online court record for Rickenbacker late Saturday.
Used to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedures, the highly addictive fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." image above from Newsday
..................
Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore has no commercials running. None. Democrat Doug Jones has ads and lots of signs-Commenter, "A Warning To Alabama GOP, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, S. Gorka, and Crew," 10/29/17
Alabama Senate Election day: December 12, 2017:
10/29/17, "A Warning To Alabama GOP, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, S. Gorka, and Crew," tcth, sundance
Alabama commenter says Republican Moore has no commercials running. None. Democrat candidate has commercials, lots of signs:
Let's hope Republican Roy Moore's visit to Washington DC this close to Dec. 12 election will score him some bread to buy tv ads and put up signs:
Among reasons not to take Alabama Senate race for granted:
"*One party in power.
*A special election in a deeply one-sided state everyone takes for granted.
*A seat formerly held by a stalwart of the party in power. (Kennedy/Sessions)
*A disgruntled opposition party whose grassroots strategy is under the radar.
*No-one in the media paying attention. (A strategy that benefits from stealth)."
Comment above to post:
10/29/17, "A Warning To Alabama GOP, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, S. Gorka, and Crew," tcth, sundance
------------------------
Comment: Obviously, the election shouldn't be taken for granted.
I don't agree with the commenter that "not playing well with others" is a negative. The biggest problem in this country is that there's no opposition to the Democrat Party/Deep State. The notion of "gridlock" is a lie sold by all sides to keep the rubes at bay. Most laws today are passed by unelected bureaucrats via regulation in government agencies out of reach of voters. The two parties are completely united on their agenda of open borders, endless foreign wars paid for by US taxpayers, massive free trade deals, and extreme globalism. All of this must be reversed. The country doesn't need another Senator to "go along" with this agenda.
...........
..................
10/29/17, "A Warning To Alabama GOP, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, S. Gorka, and Crew," tcth, sundance
Alabama commenter says Republican Moore has no commercials running. None. Democrat candidate has commercials, lots of signs:
Let's hope Republican Roy Moore's visit to Washington DC this close to Dec. 12 election will score him some bread to buy tv ads and put up signs:
Among reasons not to take Alabama Senate race for granted:
"*One party in power.
*A special election in a deeply one-sided state everyone takes for granted.
*A seat formerly held by a stalwart of the party in power. (Kennedy/Sessions)
*A disgruntled opposition party whose grassroots strategy is under the radar.
*No-one in the media paying attention. (A strategy that benefits from stealth)."
Comment above to post:
10/29/17, "A Warning To Alabama GOP, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, S. Gorka, and Crew," tcth, sundance
------------------------
Comment: Obviously, the election shouldn't be taken for granted.
I don't agree with the commenter that "not playing well with others" is a negative. The biggest problem in this country is that there's no opposition to the Democrat Party/Deep State. The notion of "gridlock" is a lie sold by all sides to keep the rubes at bay. Most laws today are passed by unelected bureaucrats via regulation in government agencies out of reach of voters. The two parties are completely united on their agenda of open borders, endless foreign wars paid for by US taxpayers, massive free trade deals, and extreme globalism. All of this must be reversed. The country doesn't need another Senator to "go along" with this agenda.
...........
..................
FBI illegally used taxpayer money in attempt to throw 2016 US presidential election. Everyone colluded with Russians except Trump: Hillary, the DNC, Democrat lawyers, the FBI-Mark Steyn...(If US gov. using tax dollars to try to throw an election isn't treason, what is?)
3/1/2017, "FBI reimbursed some expenses of dossier author," CNN, Evan Perez
"The FBI reimbursed some expenses of the former British intelligence operative who produced a dossier containing allegations of President Donald Trump's ties to Russia, people familiar with the matter said....The Washington Post first reported Tuesday that the FBI and Steele had sought to reach a payment arrangement."...
......................
10/27/17, "How to Steele an Election," Mark Steyn, SteynOnline
"In October 2016, things took a stranger and more disturbing turn. Steele "reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the Bureau to pay him to continue his work". [CNN confirmed, 3/1/17, "FBI reimbursed some expenses of dossier author."] In other words, the permanent bureaucracy and the ruling party were collaborating to get the goods on their political opponent, by illegally paying a foreign spy to interfere with the election. Why would the most lavishly funded investigative agency on the planet need the services of a British subject and his modest consulting firm?
Not just for plausible deniability but also for plausible reliability: Hey, investigating Trump would never have occurred to us, but the former head of the Russia desk at MI6 thought we ought to know about this...Which, in case you haven't noticed, is the precise equivalent of Bush crediting British intelligence as the unimpeachable source for his belief that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire yellowcake from Niger.
A month later, Trump did the impossible and won the election. And within twenty-four hours Mook and Podesta had begun "engineering the case" that the election "wasn't entirely on the up-and-up". On November 18th, Andrew Wood, formerly British Ambassador in Moscow, and John McCain, the Senator from Arizona and fierce Never Trumper, met at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia. Sir Andrew told Senator McCain about the dossier and said he'd known Steele when they were both on Her Majesty's service in Russia and that he was a splendid chap, very sound and awfully decent
[UPDATE! Steve McIntyre, slayer of hockey sticks, notes that Andrew Wood is not merely a former ambassador but an Associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd (Steele's company).]
One month after the election, on December 9th, McCain met with FBI Director Comey and handed over the dossier....
At some point someone somewhere might well have genuinely believed they were asking Christopher Steele to find something on Trump that Hillary could use to destroy him in the media and win the election. Mr Steele failed to deliver. This is not necessarily his fault: There may, indeed, be nothing to deliver.
But there was enough of a pseudo-dossier, by the debased standards of the bloated US "intelligence community", to be used as a pretext to get the rubber-stamp FISA court to approve 24/7 surveillance of everyone around Trump - and maybe that would turn up something to destroy him.
But, again, it didn't. Every sentient creature knows that - because everyone understands that if they'd found anything they'd have leaked it.
So once again the worthless dossier was pressed into service, this time to bolster the case that the Russians had stolen the election from Hillary. During the stupid and anachronistic two-and-a-half-month electoral "transition", the outgoing Administration worked round the clock to de-legitimize and cripple their successors. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, a dismal and deeply compromised individual, told Jim Comey to set up a meeting with Trump and present him with the dossier. Which he did. Supposedly, Comey felt that he needed to disclose to the President the existence of a report of his supposed sexual predilections: So the G-Man briefed the Pee-Man. As I said to Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, it is yet another reasonable inference that the only purpose of this meeting was to enable the leaking of the meeting - and thereby damage the incoming President: The briefing was arranged as cover for the leak thereof.
All this from one dodgy dossier compiled by an MI6 agent with deep ties to FSB operatives in Russia. Has any one foreigner so interfered in a US election as Christopher Steele?
Hillary and her chums needed Steele for oppo research. The Deep State needed Steele as a cover for wiretapping the Trump team. The Never Trumpers needed Steele to mire the incoming President and hobble him from the get-go. And the outgoing Administration needed Steele to bolster their narrative that Trump and the Russians had colluded to steal the election. In fact, Trump seems to have fewer "ties" to Russia than almost any other multinational businessman of comparable wealth, and certainly fewer ties than the corrupt Clintons.
Many things can be deduced from this scandal: Robert Mueller should retire, preferably somewhere far, far away. James Comey should be charged, convicted and jailed. So should senior figures in the Clinton campaign. And those large sections of the "intelligence community" that have gone rogue and spend more time subverting their own government than any foreign enemies need to be overhauled from top to toe, or, more likely, put out of business entirely.
Thus Washington's vast wilderness of distorting mirrors: as I told Tucker Carlson, everyone was colluding with the Russians except Trump - Hillary, the DNC, Democrat lawyers, the FBI, all frantically pointing fingers at the only non-colluding guy in the room. No man anywhere has ever been less in need of a "golden shower" than Donald J Trump. He is surrounded on all sides by powerful forces leaking on him incessantly."
.............
"The FBI reimbursed some expenses of the former British intelligence operative who produced a dossier containing allegations of President Donald Trump's ties to Russia, people familiar with the matter said....The Washington Post first reported Tuesday that the FBI and Steele had sought to reach a payment arrangement."...
......................
10/27/17, "How to Steele an Election," Mark Steyn, SteynOnline
"In October 2016, things took a stranger and more disturbing turn. Steele "reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the Bureau to pay him to continue his work". [CNN confirmed, 3/1/17, "FBI reimbursed some expenses of dossier author."] In other words, the permanent bureaucracy and the ruling party were collaborating to get the goods on their political opponent, by illegally paying a foreign spy to interfere with the election. Why would the most lavishly funded investigative agency on the planet need the services of a British subject and his modest consulting firm?
Not just for plausible deniability but also for plausible reliability: Hey, investigating Trump would never have occurred to us, but the former head of the Russia desk at MI6 thought we ought to know about this...Which, in case you haven't noticed, is the precise equivalent of Bush crediting British intelligence as the unimpeachable source for his belief that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire yellowcake from Niger.
A month later, Trump did the impossible and won the election. And within twenty-four hours Mook and Podesta had begun "engineering the case" that the election "wasn't entirely on the up-and-up". On November 18th, Andrew Wood, formerly British Ambassador in Moscow, and John McCain, the Senator from Arizona and fierce Never Trumper, met at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia. Sir Andrew told Senator McCain about the dossier and said he'd known Steele when they were both on Her Majesty's service in Russia and that he was a splendid chap, very sound and awfully decent
[UPDATE! Steve McIntyre, slayer of hockey sticks, notes that Andrew Wood is not merely a former ambassador but an Associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd (Steele's company).]
One month after the election, on December 9th, McCain met with FBI Director Comey and handed over the dossier....
At some point someone somewhere might well have genuinely believed they were asking Christopher Steele to find something on Trump that Hillary could use to destroy him in the media and win the election. Mr Steele failed to deliver. This is not necessarily his fault: There may, indeed, be nothing to deliver.
But there was enough of a pseudo-dossier, by the debased standards of the bloated US "intelligence community", to be used as a pretext to get the rubber-stamp FISA court to approve 24/7 surveillance of everyone around Trump - and maybe that would turn up something to destroy him.
But, again, it didn't. Every sentient creature knows that - because everyone understands that if they'd found anything they'd have leaked it.
So once again the worthless dossier was pressed into service, this time to bolster the case that the Russians had stolen the election from Hillary. During the stupid and anachronistic two-and-a-half-month electoral "transition", the outgoing Administration worked round the clock to de-legitimize and cripple their successors. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, a dismal and deeply compromised individual, told Jim Comey to set up a meeting with Trump and present him with the dossier. Which he did. Supposedly, Comey felt that he needed to disclose to the President the existence of a report of his supposed sexual predilections: So the G-Man briefed the Pee-Man. As I said to Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, it is yet another reasonable inference that the only purpose of this meeting was to enable the leaking of the meeting - and thereby damage the incoming President: The briefing was arranged as cover for the leak thereof.
All this from one dodgy dossier compiled by an MI6 agent with deep ties to FSB operatives in Russia. Has any one foreigner so interfered in a US election as Christopher Steele?
Hillary and her chums needed Steele for oppo research. The Deep State needed Steele as a cover for wiretapping the Trump team. The Never Trumpers needed Steele to mire the incoming President and hobble him from the get-go. And the outgoing Administration needed Steele to bolster their narrative that Trump and the Russians had colluded to steal the election. In fact, Trump seems to have fewer "ties" to Russia than almost any other multinational businessman of comparable wealth, and certainly fewer ties than the corrupt Clintons.
Many things can be deduced from this scandal: Robert Mueller should retire, preferably somewhere far, far away. James Comey should be charged, convicted and jailed. So should senior figures in the Clinton campaign. And those large sections of the "intelligence community" that have gone rogue and spend more time subverting their own government than any foreign enemies need to be overhauled from top to toe, or, more likely, put out of business entirely.
Thus Washington's vast wilderness of distorting mirrors: as I told Tucker Carlson, everyone was colluding with the Russians except Trump - Hillary, the DNC, Democrat lawyers, the FBI, all frantically pointing fingers at the only non-colluding guy in the room. No man anywhere has ever been less in need of a "golden shower" than Donald J Trump. He is surrounded on all sides by powerful forces leaking on him incessantly."
.............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- susan
- I'm the daughter of a World War II Air Force pilot and outdoorsman who settled in New Jersey.