@native
ask you guys what you think it all means.

written for the WaPo, and by that particular writer. Marc A. Thiessen's neocon credentials are longstanding, and David Browder is anything but an objective source of information. Beyond that, the entire Magnitsky affair seems a very complicated and controversial thing to unravel.

It's all too easy for anti-Clinton or anti-Trump charges to bleed over into Russophobia generally. That is something best avoided I think.

@Linda Wood @Linda Wood
I always figured the CIA was meddling in ALL our media from Kennedy on. But not to this extent.

Again, what is Bozos doing? Is this cover for something? Or what? Just to make them look ‘honest’?

They’re not bashing the Clinton Creature for nothing. (This is the part that bothers me).

EDIT: fir/for

had an article about the CIA's control of media like the Washington Post last year:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-...

ZeroHedge
Dec 20, 2016
Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org

… But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:

“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”

As this occurred, a petition calling on the Washington Post to disclose its new ties to the CIA when reporting on the agency garnered 30,000 signatures. According to the RootsforAction petition:

“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”

… In its most recent article on the CIA’s claims of a Russian hack, the Post made no mention of its ties to the CIA. But while this connection calls into serious question the validity of a newspaper that claims to be a purveyor of “great journalism,” the connections are not enough to prove nefarious collaboration.

Unfortunately, however, history reveals actual collusion between the CIA and news outlets, including the Washington Post.

In 1977, Carl Bernstein, a former Post journalist, wrote about the CIA’s efforts to infiltrate the news media, often with the assistance of top management at the papers. In total, Bernstein reported, over 400 journalists were involved:

“Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go?betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without?portfolio for their country…In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

Though Bernstein failed to name the Post as an offender in his article, according to Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the CIA worked directly with the Washington Post, among many other outlets. In his comprehensive history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, Weiner wrote of the CIA’s first official chief, Allen Dulles:

“Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.”
He continued:

“It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information.”

@snoopydawg
Don’t use Facebook to schmooze or ‘connect’. I use it to post funny stuff and political propaganda during election season. Posters, memes, etc., so I’ve never paid attention to any ads. Plus it’s the only way I remember birthdays half the time. I’m old and getting scatty.

And out of curiosity, what wasn’t true? If we want to put truth and honesty back in our elections, it looks like maybe Putin should run ‘em.

Speaking of which, did you see my post on the 4 newest members of the rules committee? Perez can’t POSSIBLY think we’re stupid enough to think he’s an honest man, can he? If so, he’s so fucking stupid it’s amazing his body doesn’t forget to breathe.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the number people who are caught up with the Russian brainwashing that has been going on for over two years now. The PTB must be feeling desperate that so many people are not believing what their mouthpieces from the media are telling us.

The Russian Facebook ads that caused Hillary to lose the election

I do too

remember, she's not a warmonger

isn't this part of campaigning?

who is surprised by this?

no comment

hasn't this been going on for years?

no idea on this

WTF

?

This proves what exactly?

And there you have it. Some of the ads that Russia placed on Facebook to change the course of history in this country. I'm not sure how these ads would have helped me make up my mind on who to vote for, but maybe others are more gullible than I am. How about you?