Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron LGBTQ Nation
Chris Barron, who co-founded GOProud several years ago and “LGBT for Trump” last year, said before the election that “the left” was trying to “scare gay people” into voting for Clinton by saying that Trump would be bad on LGBT issues.
Just after the election, Barron wrote a column entitled “Donald Trump will be a friend, an ally and an advocate for the LGBT community.” Since he was so wrong, the Daily Beast asked Barron what he thinks now.
“My concern has always been what happens at the department and agency levels,” he said. “And I definitely have concerns with what is going on at Department of Justice. The attorney general [Jeff Sessions] has a very different position on LGBT issues than the president does. But his job is to carry forward the president’s agenda and not push his own… I’m certainly concerned he is [pushing his own].”
Because Donald “You’re fired!” Trump just can’t be held responsible for one of his most prominent appointee’s very public actions. Even when said employee tried to resign and Trump refused to accept his resignation.
And he’s also apparently not responsible for his own tweets and for the directives he signs. It’s all someone else’s fault (maybe Hillary’s!).
Jimmy LaSalvia, who co-founded GOProud and at least understands that “presidential appointees” are “appointed by the president,” sounds disappointed.
“I never thought that Donald Trump was an anti-gay homophobe,” LaSalvia, who left the Republican party in 2014 and endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2015, said. “I certainly didn’t think that when I met him back in 2011. But we’ve all learned a lot about who he really is since then. With his political pandering and posturing to endear himself to the intolerant wing of the GOP over the last few years, it doesn’t surprise me that this administration will go down as the most anti-LGBT in history.”
Or maybe LaSalvia is just a terrible judge of character. It’s not like Trump has any reason to pander to “the intolerant wing of the GOP”… a faction most people just call “the Republican base.”
I just don’t know what these people expected. They are a tiny minority in the GOP, not even powerful enough to be considered a “special interest.” Evangelicals and people who don’t go to church but don’t like queer people, though, define the party. And Trump is a con man who was never particularly pro-LGBT and who appointed a prominent Religious Right politician as his running mate.
But they’re still clinging to the very unlikely notion that, in his heart of hearts, Donald Trump loves LGBTQ people. I have no way of confirming or denying that, but I can say that if that’s true, then Trump has a really funny way of showing that love.
Note: This article was updated to make it clear that Jimmy LaSalvia no longer identifies as a Republican.
This Story Filed Under
The Daily Beast reported last week that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is looking into a data analytics company called Cambridge Analytica as part of its investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
Cambridge Analytica specializes in what’s called “psychographic” profiling, meaning they use data collected online to create personality profiles for voters. They then take that information and target individuals with specifically tailored content (more on this below).
According to the Daily Beast report, congressional investigators believe that Russian hackers might have received help in their efforts to distribute “fake news” and other forms of misinformation during the 2016 campaign. Hence the focus on Cambridge Analytica.
So far there’s been a lot of speculation about the potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and most of the stories have orbited around the financial dealings of the Trump family and people like Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. But this story is specifically about how team Trump might have facilitated Russia’s meddling in the US presidential election.
The stakes, in other words, are high.
So here’s what we know about Cambridge Analytica, its connections to the Trump campaign, and what sorts of things the House Intel probe is likely looking into.
Trump’s digital army
In June 2016, the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica to take over its data operations.
We know from the reporting of Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim at the New York Times that Jared Kushner, who was charged with overseeing Trump’s digital operations, is the reason Cambridge Analytica joined the Trump campaign.
Kushner hired a man named Brad Parscale, a Texas-based digital expert who had worked previously for team Trump. According to Confessore and Hakim, Cambridge Analytica convinced Parscale (who has since agreed to be interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee) to “try out the firm.” The decision was reinforced by Trump’s campaign manager, Steve Bannon, who is also a former vice president of Cambridge Analytica.
It’s not clear to what extent Cambridge Analytica helped (Parscale denied that Cambridge was of any use in a recent 60 Minutes interview), but we do know that Trump’s digital operation was shockingly effective. Samuel Woolley, who heads the Computational Propaganda project at Oxford’s Internet Institute, found that a disproportionate amount of pro-Trump messaging was spread via automated bots and anti-Hillary propaganda. Trump’s bots, they reported at the time of the election, outnumbered Clinton’s five to one.
Pro-Trump programmers “carefully adjusted the timing of content production during the debates, strategically colonized pro-Clinton hashtags, and then disabled activities after Election Day.”
Martin Moore, director of the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at King’s College, told the Guardian’s Carole Cadwalladr that Trump’s campaign “was using 40-50,000 variants of ads every day that were continuously measuring responses and then adapting and evolving based on that response.”
These online ads were spread primarily thought bots on social media platforms. The ads that got liked, shared, and retweeted the most were reproduced and redistributed based on where they were popular and who they appealed to.
The benefit of this kind of data is that it allows data companies like Cambridge Analytica to develop more sophisticated psychological profiles of internet users (more data points means more predictive power).
Cambridge Analytica was also able to use this real-time information to determine which messages were resonating where and then shape Trump’s travel schedule around it. So, if there was a spike in clicks on an article about immigration in a county in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, Trump would go there and give an immigration-focused speech.
When you consider how a few thousands votes in a handful of swing states determined the election, this is no small thing.
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Flynn and the Russians
In early July, Shane Harris of the Wall Street Journal released a series of reports that offered some of the most compelling evidence yet that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian hackers.
Harris interviewed a man named Peter Smith, a pro-Trump GOP operative who sought to acquire the 30,000 deleted emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server. Of the several hacker groups Smith reached out to, at least two had connections to Russia — that’s according to Smith.
Smith told Harris that he was in regular contact with Gen. Michael Flynn, who at the time was one of Trump’s closest confidants — and of course later became Trump’s national security adviser.
“He [Smith] said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this — if you find anything, can you let me know?’” said Eric York, a computer-security expert from Atlanta who searched hacker forums on Mr. Smith’s behalf for people who might have access to the emails. …
…In phone conversations, Mr. Smith told a computer expert he was in direct contact with Mr. Flynn and his son, according to this expert. … The expert said that based on his conversations with Mr. Smith, he understood the elder Mr. Flynn to be coordinating with Mr. Smith’s group in his capacity as a Trump campaign adviser.
Harris examined intelligence reports that described the efforts of Russian hackers to retrieve emails from Clinton’s server and pass them along to Flynn, who would then share them with the Trump campaign.
By itself, Harris’s reporting makes no connection to Cambridge Analytica. But in August the Associated Press published a report that helped connect the dots. In an amended public financial filing, Flynn was forced to disclose “a brief advisory role with a firm related to a controversial data analysis company that aided the Trump campaign.”
The “data analysis company” is none other than Cambridge Analytica. The precise amount of money Cambridge paid to Flynn is unknown, as are the details of Flynn’s role.
But we know that congressional and DOJ investigators believe that Trump’s campaign might have helped guide Russia’s voter targeting scheme and that Flynn, who worked for Trump’s campaign and with Cambridge Analytica, is suspected of having extensive ties with Russian operatives.
A Cambridge Analytica spokesperson confirmed to Vox that the company is cooperating with the Russia investigation but flatly denied any wrongdoing.
“As one of the companies that played a prominent role in the election campaign, Cambridge Analytica has been asked by the House Intelligence Committee to provide it with information that might help its investigation,” the statement said. “We believe that other organizations that worked on the campaign have been asked to do the same. CA is not under investigation, and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the company.”
What does Cambridge Analytica actually do?
If you use the internet or social media, you leave behind a digital trail of crumbs. Every post you like, every tweet you retweet, every thread you participate in — it’s all data up for collection and input.
Cambridge Analytica, a company created by Robert Mercer, a billionaire patron of right-wing outlets like Breitbart News, has been swallowing up all the data they can get. They’re not the only company doing this, but they appear to be the most prominent — in part because of their high-profile clients.
In a 2016 speech, Alexander Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica, unfurled the company’s methodology: “We’ve rolled out a long-form quantitative instrument to probe the underlying traits that inform personality,” he proclaimed. “If you know the personality of the people you’re targeting, you can nuance your messaging to resonate more effectively with those key groups.”
By “your message” he means whoever pays the company for its services. But so far the firm has only taken on Republican clients, with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson being the most visible. They also worked on behalf of 2016 pro-Brexit “Leave” campaign, mining online data and using it to target and persuade British voters.
So what are they doing with all that data?
Cambridge Analytica has built models that translate the data they harvest into personality profiles for every American adult — Nix claims to have “somewhere close to 4 or 5 thousand data points on every adult in the US.”
Their models are based on the psychometric research of Michal Kosinski, who in 2013 was still a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge (hence the name “Cambridge Analytica”). Kosinski and his colleagues developed a model that linked subjects’ Facebook likes with their OCEAN scores. OCEAN refers to a questionnaire used by psychologists that describes personalities along five dimensions — openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
Cambridge Analytica has combined this social psychology with data analytics. They collect data from Facebook and Twitter (which is perfectly legal) and have purchased an array of other data — about television preferences, airline travel, shopping habits, church attendance, what books you buy, what magazines you subscribe to — from third-party organizations and so-called data brokers.
They take all this information and use it for what Nix calls “behavioral microtargeting” — basically individualized advertising.
Instead of tailoring ads according to demographics, they use psychometrics. It’s a simple idea, really. Rather than assuming that all women or African Americans or working-class whites will respond to the same message, they target individual voters with emotionally charged content — in other words, ads designed to tug on emotional biases.
The success of this approach hinges on the accuracy of the company’s psychological profiles. But how much can they know about someone’s psyche on the basis of a few tweets or likes? Quite a lot, apparently. In a 2016 profile for Das Magazin, a Berlin-based culture magazine, Kosinski talked about the predictive power of his model.
Here’s how the authors summed it up:
The strength of their [Kosinski and his Cambridge colleagues] modeling was illustrated by how well it could predict a subject’s answers. Kosinski continued to work on the models incessantly: before long, he was able to evaluate a person better than the average work colleague, merely on the basis of ten Facebook “likes.” Seventy “likes” were enough to outdo what a person’s friends knew, 150 what their parents knew, and 300 “likes” what their partner knew. More “likes” could even surpass what a person thought they knew about themselves.
Combine this kind of predictive power with an army of bots and you’ve got a potent propaganda tool. As Woolley told me, “One person controlling a thousand bot accounts is able to not just affect the people in their immediate circle but also potentially the algorithm of the site on which their operating.”
Bots are even more effective, as they’re able to react instantly to trending topics on Twitter and Facebook, producing targeted posts, images, and even YouTube videos.
“The technologies can capture what people are thinking at a particular moment,” Albright told me, “and serve it back to them over and over again.” And with the benefit of psychographic profiling, he adds, they’re able to deliver “content on an individual basis on Twitter and Facebook feeds where people are being grabbed and pulled in certain directions through certain types of posts and stories.
“I’ve called it an emotional leash,” Woolley said.
There’s a lot we don’t know
We don’t know if Flynn actually passed any data to the Russians. Nor do we know if his numerous ties to Russia resulted in collusion.
We don’t know if the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to help their disinformation operation. We know only that there are many points of overlap. And if anyone in his campaign did coordinate with Russia, we don’t know if Trump himself was involved in any way.
We don’t know if the data produced by Cambridge Analytica ever found its way to Russians. And if it did, we don’t know for sure how it got there or how much it helped or if the company was aware of it.
We also don’t know how useful Cambridge Analytica’s work was to the Trump campaign. Researchers like Woolley told me that the company’s capabilities are a “bit overblown,” but we simply don’t know. We know only what they’ve admitted publicly about their methods and what they claim to be able to do.
One thing we do know is that data companies like Cambridge Analytica have changed things. Facebook is already under fire for allowing Russia to manipulate its algorithms during the 2016 election. And we’ve likely just scratched the surface in terms of how state actors are able to weaponize information online. The role of companies like Cambridge Analytica in these efforts remains something of a mystery, however.
In any event, no definitive evidence has emerged that connects Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign to Russia’s efforts to influence our election. What we’re left with, ultimately, is a ton of smoke and no fire. But if the ongoing investigations conclude that the Trump campaign did help Russia target voters, expect to hear more about Cambridge Analytica.
It’s entirely possible that such collusion could have occurred and the work of Cambridge Analytica had nothing to do with it; however, that would be strange, since targeting voters is precisely what the company was hired to do.
Cyber cold war is just getting started, claims Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton embarked on a speaking tour of Britain with a message that the Brexit referendum was won on the basis of a big lie and warning that Vladimir Putin has been conducting a “cyber cold war” against the west. She urged more women to enter …
‘I’m worried’ says Hillary Clinton as she attacks Trump and Putin in Cheltenham Literature Festival talkGloucestershire Live
‘State of Denial’: Hillary Clinton Blames Nigel Farage, Macedonian Fake News Factories, for Losing ElectionBreitbart News
Hillary Clinton interviewed by Fareed Zakaria for Sunday, Oct. 15 at 10:00am Eastern and PacificCNN (blog)
Savannah Morning News –BlueRidgeNow.com
all 242 news articles »
putin won US 2016 election – Google News
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites)
Donald Trump unwittingly tips off that the New York Times is about to drop a major Trump-Russia bombshell
Trump just keeps giving things away
Donald Trump has been served a subpoena to turn over his obscene Apprentice tapes
This is precisely what Donald Trump has been fearing
The Daily Advertiser (blog)
Why are Russian media outlets hyping the Mueller investigation?
San Francisco Chronicle
Cybersecurity sleuths claim Russia used Pokemon Go to inflame racial tensions and accuse Twitter of deleting crucial data detailing Russian efforts to sow discord during the 2016presidential election. “Russia, Russia Everywhere,” read The New York …
Don’t make Russian election hack great againThe Daily Advertiser (blog)
Hillary Clinton Suggests Russian Interference In US Election Was A “Cyber 9/11”BuzzFeed News
The Donald Trump media feeding-frenzy is in full flow. But beyond all the fun stuff about the horse-race and the insults, have there been any really good articles explaining the Trump phenomenon? I have found two recent pieces particularly interesting. Thomas Edsall explains how – “The economic basis for voter anger has been building for over 40 years” – and has some interesting numbers on the stagnation of real wages, the shrinking of the middle-class, the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and the impact of Chinese accession to the WTO.
Another good analysis, this time on the Vox site, looks at the kinds of people who are attracted to Trump’s rhetoric – and in particular at political scientists’ work on the rise of authoritarian attitudes in America. Apparently, people’s attitudes to parenting are a good predictor of their attitudes to Trump. Those who value obedience in children, above all, are “authoritarian” types, who also like Trump. But there are also is a large group of people with “latent authoritarianism”, which is aroused when they feel under threat.
If you prefer full-throated condemnation to analysis, may I recommend this speech by Mitt Romney. It got covered a lot when it was made on Thursday, but it is worth reading in full. I suspect historians may judge that the speech was made several months too late. I also liked Robert Kagan’s eloquent condemnation of Trump in the Washington Post.
Donald Trump “reelection campaign” funds may be going to Trump’s personal secretary
Trump’s supposed 2020 reelection effort may be even more fraudulent than previously known
Why are Russian media outlets hyping the Mueller investigation?
Cybersecurity sleuths claim Russia used Pokemon Go to inflame racial tensions and accuse Twitter of deleting crucial data detailing Russian efforts to sow discord during the 2016presidential election. “Russia, Russia Everywhere,” read The New York …
Donald Trump seems to desperately wish he could fire Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for having called him a “moron.” But by now it’s clear that Trump doesn’t have the guts to do it, either because he’s at his politically weakest point in general, or because Tillerson is a personal friend of Vladimir Putin. Regardless of the reason, Tillerson is now flaunting the fact that he apparently can’t be fired. Based on what Tillerson did on Sunday, we’re about to see Trump’s biggest meltdown about him to date.
For reasons known only to him, instead of laying low until “Morongate” blows over, Rex Tillerson decided to appear on CNN State of the Union on Sunday morning. He knew full well that he’d be asked yet again whether or not he really called Trump a moron. Sure enough, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked him the question. Tillerson once again refused to answer – which at this point is an absolute confirmation that he did call him a moron.
Trump has long had insecurities about his intellect. His poorly written and phonetically misspelled tweets suggest that he suffers from some sort of mild learning disability, which may drive his insecurities on the matter, even though learning disabilities are not counter-indicative to intellect. It’s not shocking that Trump responded to the “moron” insult by publicly calling for himself and Tillerson to take IQ tests.
Donald Trump watches the Sunday morning shows, at least when his own people are on, so he saw Rex Tillerson’s interview. He saw Tillerson once again refusing to deny that he called Trump a moron. That’ll be enough to set Trump off yet again, with a round of angry tweets about Tillerson on Monday – or perhaps not til Tuesday, if some other grievance distracts him. But we’re looking at the (supposed) President of the United States publicly attacking his own Secretary of State yet again.
The post Here comes Donald Trump’s biggest meltdown about Rex Tillerson yet appeared first on Palmer Report.
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites)
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, says people were worried about hacking and not election interference before 2016.
But that’s not true. Hillary Clinton and others were warning about Russia’s disinformation campaign as far back as 2011.
Facebook needs to stop talking about what it didn’t do for years and start talking about what it will do from today.In a live interview with the news website Axios on Thursday, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, lamented that the company hadn’t found out about Russia’s use of the platform to spread disinformation and propaganda before the 2016 US elections.
“We were looking at this certainly not as early as we would have liked to, because we wish we had found it before it ever happened,” Sandberg said.
“If you think about 2015, 2016,” she later added, “the threats most people were worried about were hacking, taking down accounts, getting into your email account and sharing all of it.”
Perhaps hacking is what users were worried about, but in national security and press circles, the idea of a Russian information war against the US had been gaining steam since 2011. TV channels like Russia Today and websites like Sputnik have long been unapologetic about towing the Kremlin line – about the fact that they are pushing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s will.
By 2015, Russian propaganda was all over Facebook in forms both formal and informal, and the platform had already helped Russia wreak havoc around the world, especially in Ukraine.
“There are those who claim the warnings are just the work of alarmist neo-conservatives,” Columbia professor Ann Cooper and I said in The Washington Post in 2015. “They’re not. The spread of ideas matters. If it didn’t, Russia wouldn’t be in the idea-spreading business.”
Connecting the dots that Russia may have a plan for the US presidential election would require one to pay attention. So let’s say Facebook wasn’t. That’s gross negligence. To ignore that the people purchasing space on Facebook were pushing lies and distortions, on the other hand, is beyond that – it’s willful ignorance and a stunning display of greed.
They’ll tell you
I know that we’re in an information war with Russia because I asked.
Back in 2015, as an adjunct professor at Columbia’s journalism school, I hosted staffers from RT, and they were very frank about their mission. They informed us that from 2008, when the US was critical of Russia’s annexation of a piece of Georgia, their aim was to show the world that the US was a flawed nation that’s inferior to Russia.
Take a quick look at the topics RT consistently used to prove its anti-American point and you might as well be at a buffet serving Facebook’s garbage media diet from the election. Going back as far as 2011, RT was playing on US racial tensions and shrilly accusing Hillary Clinton of warmongering and criminality.
I say 2011 because that’s when Clinton, then secretary of state, testified before Congress about Russia’s information war against the US. The Kremlin knew she was watching, and so the Kremlin went to war against her. No one who paid attention to this interaction was shocked that Putin favored Donald Trump in 2016.
But again, you had to be paying attention. Or you had to keep paying attention. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Congress again addressed the matter of Russian propaganda in testimony. The former RT journalist Liz Wahl explained how the Kremlin manipulated social media, and it might sound familiar to anyone in the US now.
From Wahl’s testimony (emphasis ours):
“Russian media provides a home for a spectrum of political beliefs as long as they are skeptical of the political establishment. While some of the theories peddled are outright absurd, there are a surprising amount of people prone to being manipulated that think it’s hip to believe in any alternative theory, feeling proud of perceiving themselves to be enlightened and even prouder when they amass sizable social media followers that hang on every misguided and outright false theory that is propagated. Russia is aware of this population of paranoid skeptics and plays them like a fiddle.“
Sound familiar? Maybe it reminds you of a few arguments you had with Facebook-addicted family members over the holidays in 2016.
Another witness, Peter Pomeratsev, a journalist who spent years working in Russian television, was even more explicit mentioning Facebook by name.
“The Kremlin… funds ‘troll farms,’ regime-funded companies which hire people to spread messages on social media, using Facebook, Twitter, newspaper comment sections and many other spaces. Through these networks, Russia propagates conspiracy theories, disinformation and fake news…. Their aim was [is] not so much to persuade a potential viewer of any one version, but to trash the information space with so much disinformation so that a conversation based on actual facts would become impossible.”
Pomeratsev wrote a book about his time working in Russia called “Nothing is Real and Everything is Possible” – about how Russia became a fact-less nation. America now knows what he was talking about, but it’s something Facebook should’ve known before we had to find out.
No one wants to hear it, Sheryl
Facebook says it didn’t have an inkling of what was going on before the election, but we know that it knew the Kremlin’s agents were bullying Ukrainian activists, at the very least. Were Sandberg and Zuckerberg simply so naive they didn’t think that Putin would turn his eye on his most fearsome enemy?
Or were they just so greedy they didn’t care?
In the Axios interview, most of Sandberg’s comments were backward-looking and so, in a word, worthless. The 2018 elections are coming, and the far right has not tried to disguise its affinity for the Kremlin line. Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News is known for spreading its share of fact-melting misinformation that sounds as if it’s straight from the RT newsroom.
And – for so-called anti-globalists – Bannon has shown a willingness to collaborate with other international Putin-philes like the UK’s Nigel Farage and Hungary’s far right. Make no mistake: What they all have in common is not only “nationalism” but also a belief in Putin’s political system – fascism.
Opposing this and stamping it out shouldn’t be a question for Facebook. This isn’t a gray area. This an American value. We are not fascists. Millions of people around the world died not too long ago to reaffirm that. What Facebook (and Twitter and Google) has done – ignoring the spread of fascism, lies, and anti-American propaganda in the digital space – is a disgusting display of moral relativism and intellectual laziness that Silicon Valley has revealed it can wear as easily as a pair of Tevas and some cargo shorts.
We don’t want to hear about what Facebook missed. We want to hear that Facebook will not allow the agents of a fascist movement to continue to manipulate it as a distribution platform. We want to hear how attempts by these agents to engage the platform will be vetted and reported to the US government.
Iraqi army and Kurdish troops are in a standoff in Kirkuk, a city located in the Kurdistan region, which voted for independence from Iraq last month. Kirkuk holds 10 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves. Washington Post reporter Loveday Morris, who is covering the standoff, joins Hari Sreenivasan via Skype from Baghdad.
PBSNewsHour’s YouTube Videos
Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu thanked US President Donald Trump for his decision to deny Iran certification that it is complying with the JCPOA nuclear deal, speaking in Jerusalem, Saturday. Speaking about the nuclear deal, Netanyahu termed it as ‘tremendous danger for our collective future’. READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/8pr8
COURTESY: RT’s RUPTLY video agency, NO RE-UPLOAD, NO REUSE – FOR LICENSING, PLEASE, CONTACT http://ruptly.tv
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
RussiaToday’s YouTube Videos
John Dickerson, host of “Face the Nation,” joined CBSN to discuss the latest on the President’s decision to not recertify the nuclear deal with Iran as well as the top political stories of the day.
Subscribe to the “CBSN” Channel HERE: http://bit.ly/1Re2MgS
Watch “CBSN” live HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7
Follow “CBSN” on Instagram HERE: http://bit.ly/1PO0dkx
Like “CBSN” on Facebook HERE: http://on.fb.me/1o3Deb4
Follow “CBSN” on Twitter HERE: http://bit.ly/1V4qhIu
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get your news on the go! Download CBS News mobile apps HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! http://bit.ly/1OQA29B
CBSN is the first digital streaming news network that will allow Internet-connected consumers to watch live, anchored news coverage on their connected TV and other devices. At launch, the network is available 24/7 and makes all of the resources of CBS News available directly on digital platforms with live, anchored coverage 15 hours each weekday. CBSN. Always On.
CBSNewsOnline’s YouTube Videos
Niall Stanage on reports from the Russian investigation.
FoxNewsChannel’s YouTube Videos
How voters’ perception of trust may have influenced the 2016 presidential election
An analysis of swing states, which were key to Trump’s electoral victory, showed that terrorism/national security was a focal issue. “The trust advantage on this issue for Trump in part contributes to understanding the Electoral College difference from …
Clinton: Brexit vote was a precursor to US election defeatGulf Times
analysis of trump electorate – Google News
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites)
Congressional investigators are homing in on the connections between the 2016 presidential election and social-media giants Facebook and Twitter , a nexus that put Brad Parscale in charge of millions.
Brad Parscale was the Trump campaign’s digital director and his San Antonio company was its highest-paid vendor. Giles-Parscale drew nearly $88 million for about 18 months of work, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures, on top of an additional $4 million since Election Day, which included millions paid to Facebook and other social-media companies. As digital director, Mr. Parscale was responsible for creating and placing ads on social-media platforms such as Facebook, developing the campaign’s website and driving online fundraising efforts.
In July, Mr. Parscale agreed to an interview with the House Intelligence Committee, but later that month the panel postponed it. The committee hasn’t yet set a new date, and, according to a person familiar with the matter, Mr. Parscale hasn’t been contacted by the Senate Intelligence Committee or special counsel Robert Mueller, who, in addition to the congressional panels, is conducting a criminal probe into whether the Trump campaign and its associates colluded with Moscow.
Mr. Trump has denied any collusion by him or any associates, and Russia has said it didn’t meddle in the election.
Mr. Parscale denies any collusion with Moscow. “I am unaware of any Russian involvement in the digital and data operations of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign,” he said in a July statement.
Mr. Parscale’s work was prolific. The campaign tested 40,000 to 60,000 Facebook ads every day, according to a person familiar with the spending. A senior GOP campaign aide said the team would start each day with 70 ads in each target state, such as Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and buy new ads every five minutes, based on what was successful on a range of metrics. Peak days reached nearly 200,000 unique ad combinations, the person said.
The extent of the Trump digital operation’s activity was largely unreported because there are no federal disclosure requirements for online ads. Unlike when they air television and radio ads, campaigns running online ads aren’t required to disclose how much they paid for the ads, whom they paid and where the ads would run.
Now, lawmakers and Mr. Mueller want to know what role activity on Facebook and Twitter played in the election interference, and whether any Russian social-media activity was connected to the Trump campaign. Facebook has estimated that 10 million people saw ads on its website that were paid for by Russia. Mr. Mueller received copies of Russia-backed Facebook ads last month.
“This was a data crime that occurred, carried out at least by Russia, possibly with cooperation with Trump campaign officials, so any Trump campaign official that worked on data, I think, would be relevant to talk to,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Spokesmen for Facebook and Twitter have said they are looking to bolster transparency and toughen safeguards against improper use of their platforms.
Facebook is set to participate in public hearings on Nov. 1 held by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Twitter and Google will take part in the Senate hearing.
The House panel also has contacted Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics company paid $5 million by the Trump campaign last year that worked together with Mr. Parscale’s firm, for information related to the Russia probe, a Cambridge Analytica spokesman said.
The House panel referred questions to the company, whose spokesman said it would fully cooperate with the probe but added that Cambridge Analytica itself isn’t under investigation. “There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the company,” he said.
The White House referred questions to Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, which declined to comment.
While broadcast stations are required to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission how much they earn from political campaigns and groups and where those dollars are directed, social-media companies don’t have to disclose what share of their advertising revenue comes from political ads.
Facebook has turned over the Russia-backed ads to congressional investigators and the House Intelligence Committee has said it will make them public soon. Facebook said in a statement earlier this month that it is “building new tools” that would allow users to see ads run by a specific individual or group, even if those ads aren’t targeted to that particular user.
Steven Passwaiter, vice president at Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks political advertising, said his firm is planning to track digital ads for the first time this year, but won’t be able to include ads on social-media platforms such as Facebook, the primary platform used by the Trump campaign.
“Facebook is a walled garden,” said Mr. Passwaiter. “You really don’t get the ability to look in.”
Candidates have traditionally spent the bulk of their advertising money on television, which is considered more effective in reaching mass audiences. Through late October 2016, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton spent about $140 million on TV ads to Mr. Trump’s $60 million.
The Trump campaign devoted nearly half of its advertising spending to digital ads, according to the person familiar with the spending, much of it for Facebook ads, which helped the campaign and the Republican National Committee build a network of small donors that raised about $250 million in small-dollar donations.
By Election Day, the Trump campaign had spent about $70 million in advertising on Facebook, according to the person familiar with the spending.
“Facebook was the most significant way for the GOP to prospect to find donors,” Mr. Parscale said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week. “It’s a tool which allows you to find people who are supporters easier so you can get them into your campaign.”
Overseeing his efforts was Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law who now serves as a senior White House adviser. Mr. Kushner was interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July. Mr. Kushner has denied colluding with Russia.
A person familiar with the effort said Mr. Kushner wasn’t involved in the day-to-day work of running digital advertising. Instead, Mr. Parscale would keep him apprised of the budget and of which voters the campaign was planning to target, the person said.
Much of the money paid to Mr. Parscale was dispersed to social-media platforms to pay for the advertising, as well as to at least one other vendor: Sprinklr, a social-media management service that allows companies to scale up their online presence.
Every vendor that worked with Mr. Parscale on the campaign signed a nondisclosure agreement, according to the person familiar with the spending, and didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The Trump ads Mr. Parscale purchased on Facebook were largely focused on fundraising, showing users images of Mr. Trump or his family while asking them to donate, said the person. Images and videos of Mr. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, were targeted to mothers. Some contained cartoons attacking Hillary Clinton as corrupt. The campaign also used Facebook to draw large crowds to Mr. Trump’s campaign rallies, the person said.
Images and videos were tested in battleground locations, comparing results by gender and in rural areas and urban areas using a range of metrics. If small ad buys on certain targets performed well, the campaign purchased more, the person said.
The Facebook ads typically bring in fairly small donations and Mr. Parscale’s low rate of financial return on them drew him criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, who questioned the effectiveness of his ads. In response, Mr. Parscale pointed to the high number of small-dollar donors the campaign was attracting.
“Fundraising small dollars literally followed two days ahead of poll data,” Mr. Parscale said of donations raked in through Facebook ads, speaking at a panel hosted by Google in December. “People would vote with their wallets.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign ultimately drew about 65% of its funds from donations of $200 or less. Mrs. Clinton’s share of small-dollar donations: 26%. Mr. Trump’s fundraising was, however, far outpaced by Mrs. Clinton’s. Over the course of the 2016 election cycle, Mr. Trump raised $350 million, to Mrs. Clinton’s $585 million.
Appeared in the October 14, 2017, print edition as ‘The Man on Trump’s Digital Front.’
Wall Street Journal
At the Intersection of Russia Probe and Social Media: Donald Trump’s Digital Chief
Wall Street Journal
Congressional investigators are homing in on the connections between the 2016 presidentialelection and social–media giants Facebook and Twitter , a nexus that put Brad Parscale in charge of millions. Brad Parscale was the Trump campaign’s digital …
New York Post
Shrinks take to streets to demand ‘narcissistic’ Trump’s ouster
New York Post
Some 125 psychologists and other mental health professionals marched along lower Broadway Saturday to demand that President Trump be thrown out of office, based on a constitutional clause allowing presidents to be ousted when their cabinets decide …
Reince Priebus may have been spying on Donald Trump for Robert Mueller last week
Reince Priebus may have played Trump during meeting last week