• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breitbart and Infowars Under FBI Investigation?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HamburgerBoy said:
Does "the hook" mean the code? Because a quick Google shows many results offering the exact same code to be added to websites desiring indexing by Yandex, Russian intelligence was certainly not necessary.

fwiw, from what Archive.org is telling me, the Yandex bit was added on March 31st 2016, which could be conducive with the Russian interference theory:

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160331210419/http://www.breitbart.com/
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be the code if I am reading it correctly.
I am well aware that its not a smoking gun if thats what you're getting at? At best circumstantial. One way or the other though, you have to print out the dots before you can connect them.
What other US media has yandex metadata? I've done a quick roundabout, didnt find any besides breitbart.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Does "the hook" mean the code? Because a quick Google shows many results offering the exact same code to be added to websites desiring indexing by Yandex, Russian intelligence was certainly not necessary.

fwiw, from what Archive.org is telling me, the Yandex bit was added on March 31st 2016, which could be conducive with the Russian interference theory:

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160331210419/http://www.breitbart.com/
Click to expand...
Heh. Manafort officially joined Trumps campaign March 29th.
 
cytg111 said:
Yes, that would be the code if I am reading it correctly.
I am well aware that its not a smoking gun if thats what you're getting at? At best circumstantial. One way or the other though, you have to print out the dots before you can connect them.
What other US media has yandex metadata? I've done a quick roundabout, didnt find any besides breitbart.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll admit I couldn't find any others either that refer to them.

MomentsofSanity said:
Heh. Manafort officially joined Trumps campaign March 29th.
Click to expand...

lol, seems to be a common theme. He's going to be the fall guy no matter how complicit Trump and others are.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Yeah I'll admit I couldn't find any others either that refer to them.



lol, seems to be a common theme. He's going to be the fall guy no matter how complicit Trump and others are.
Click to expand...

Until he is offered fbi witness protection. He better reach out before he ends up dead.
 
Fern said:
I don't see how that's illegal. Is it now illegal to speak with Russians? It sure seems the Left feels that way.

If it's illegal for Breitbart and infowars to communicate or collude with the Russia, how the hell has RT (USA corp) not been busted?

All this Russian fear mongering is insane.

Fern
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This has never been about mere contacts and communications. If we're talking about the Trump campaign, this is about contacts and communications with Russian officials during a time from they were hacking democratic organizations to help Trump win, then lying about said communications.

So far as this particular story, I don't see the illegality here. Not only is talking to Russians not a crime. Seeding false propaganda on the internet isn't either. Deeply immoral, sure. But not illegal. Which is why I'm perplexed that they are under investigation.
 
hal2kilo said:
I agree, the 4th estate for me is the basis of our democracy from the beginning.
Click to expand...

When a working-class person spends time on these sites and SERIOUSLY (as had happened) believes that Clinton performs satanic rituals and eats babies while heading a pedophile rape ring...and then makes voting decision based on this...is it still democracy?

Well, fuck yes,I guess it is, unfortunately.

I guess here it comes down to whether BB and Nutter Alex really collaborated with Russian "intelligence" or the government....as opposed to spamming their crap in other ways via Russia which technically sure isn't illegal per se. So or so this was an extremely dirty campaign with BB and IW and then social media certainly having a big impact, if not ultimately deciding this election. I also personally hope they'd find something actually illegal so that the scumbags are held accountable...but I guess chances are slim for this.

During the campaign, I felt that these sites WAY, WAY crossed the border of what was acceptable with their shit stories...but of course the question here is whether they did something illegal. The stupidity of Americans who visit those sites (IW in particular) and then believe the shit is unfortunately not a crime.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Nonsense. This has never been about mere contacts and communications. If we're talking about the Trump campaign, this is about contacts and communications with Russian officials during a time from they were hacking democratic organizations to help Trump win, then lying about said communications.

So far as this particular story, I don't see the illegality here. Not only is talking to Russians not a crime. Seeding false propaganda on the internet isn't either. Deeply immoral, sure. But not illegal. Which is why I'm perplexed that they are under investigation.
Click to expand...

I used to watch RT (I changed satellite providers and no longer have access) and they were definitely trying to influence US policy. If they weren't during the election I would be surprised.

And influence is what this is about. AFAIK no one is claiming a US person helped Russia hack the DNC.

Fern
 
Breitbard, infowars and anyone else could be working hand in hand with the Russians to spread whatever stories they wanted, and there's nothing illegal about it. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press and all that.

The only thing I could see the FBI investigating is to try and find out if anyone in the new administration was directly involved or might know about Russian propaganda.
 
Fern said:
I used to watch RT (I changed satellite providers and no longer have access) and they were definitely trying to influence US policy. If they weren't during the election I would be surprised.

And influence is what this is about. AFAIK no one is claiming a US person helped Russia hack the DNC.

Fern
Click to expand...
No one is saying that. The investigation is on coordinating the release info from the hacks for the purposes of damaging Hillary Clinton. Unless something comes out the Russians did the actual hacking.

BTW - it is illegal to traffic in stolen property
 
HomerJS said:
No one is saying that. The investigation is on coordinating the release info from the hacks for the purposes of damaging Hillary Clinton. Unless something comes out the Russians did the actual hacking.

BTW - it is illegal to traffic in stolen property
Click to expand...
What?

When you say "no one is saying that" are you agreeing with me that no one is saying that a US person helped with Russian hacking? Your phrasing is odd.

How would one "coordinate the release of info"? What does that even mean? What coordination? Wikileaks released it, so what are you people talking about?

And I don't believe trafficking in stolen property has anything to do with releasing such info, even if it was illegally obtained. (If the info was patents etc, yes it may apply. But that's not relevant here.)

Fern
 
Fern said:
What?

When you say "no one is saying that" are you agreeing with me that no one is saying that a US person helped with Russian hacking? Your phrasing is odd.

How would one "coordinate the release of info"? What does that even mean? What coordination? Wikileaks released it, so what are you people talking about?

And I don't believe trafficking in stolen property has anything to do with releasing such info, even if it was illegally obtained. (If the info was patents etc, yes it may apply. But that's not relevant here.)

Fern
Click to expand...

Experts say Russia has been hacking American political institutions for years. But they've never released any of it to the public, because that was never their strategy. In the past, they used it internally to keep apprised of what was going on and being said inside these institutions. This time, they decided to release the stolen data to the public. The accusation is that this was done in exchange for favorable rhetoric and/or policy changes from Trump.

With that, I'm done educating you. All of this is out there. You can find it yourself.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Experts say Russia has been hacking American political institutions for years. But they've never released any of it to the public, because that was never their strategy. In the past, they used it internally to keep apprised of what was going on and being said inside these institutions. This time, they decided to release the stolen data to the public. The accusation is that this was done in exchange for favorable rhetoric and/or policy changes from Trump.

With that, I'm done educating you. All of this is out there. You can find it yourself.
Click to expand...

Good God, "educating me".

This is the only site I visit promoting such lunacy (meaning I have a reason to not know "what's out there" when it involves such drivel).

Furthermore, "in exchange for" is not "coordination", not close. Are you "coordinating" with McDonald's when you hand them a dollar in exchange for a cheeseburger? And you're the one in another thread trying to tell me that neither I or Clapper understand the definition of " evidence". :rollyeyes:

Fern
 
Fern said:
Good God, "educating me".

This is the only site I visit promoting such lunacy (meaning I have a reason to not know "what's out there" when it involves such drivel).

Furthermore, "in exchange for" is not "coordination", not close. Are you "coordinating" with McDonald's when you hand them a dollar in exchange for a cheeseburger? And you're the one in another thread trying to tell me that neither I or Clapper understand the definition of " evidence". :rollyeyes:

Fern
Click to expand...

Where have you been? The Russians have been doing it forever. They really worked hard to keep that Reagan guy in office despite him helping break up the Soviet Union.
 
Fern said:
Good God, "educating me".

This is the only site I visit promoting such lunacy (meaning I have a reason to not know "what's out there" when it involves such drivel).

Furthermore, "in exchange for" is not "coordination", not close. Are you "coordinating" with McDonald's when you hand them a dollar in exchange for a cheeseburger? And you're the one in another thread trying to tell me that neither I or Clapper understand the definition of " evidence". :rollyeyes:

Fern
Click to expand...

Come on seriously? This site is but a drizzle of what you call lunacy compared to the thousands of others. Even the FBI is investigating exactly what woolfe said.

Obviusly you have internet where you live is it one way? 😛
 
Fern said:
Good God, "educating me".

This is the only site I visit promoting such lunacy (meaning I have a reason to not know "what's out there" when it involves such drivel).

Furthermore, "in exchange for" is not "coordination", not close. Are you "coordinating" with McDonald's when you hand them a dollar in exchange for a cheeseburger? And you're the one in another thread trying to tell me that neither I or Clapper understand the definition of " evidence". :rollyeyes:

Fern
Click to expand...

You do know that Comey said that he is investigating collusion between Trumps associates and Russia. What exactly do you think that means or do you think COmey is promoting lunacy/
 
Thunder 57 said:
Where have you been? The Russians have been doing it forever. They really worked hard to keep that Reagan guy in office despite him helping break up the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Where have I been? What are you referring to?

If you think I said I don't believe the Russians are hacking us I don't know how anybody even remotely familiar with the English language could read that in anything I've posted here.

We're all hacking each other's brains out.

I just recently commented here on the digital war that has been going on for some years and is not reported in the MSM. I referenced a lengthy article in Vanity Fair magazine that covered it some years ago. (STUXNET and what not.)

Fern
 
Thebobo said:
Come on seriously? This site is but a drizzle of what you call lunacy compared to the thousands of others. Even the FBI is investigating exactly what woolfe said.

Obviusly you have internet where you live is it one way? 😛
Click to expand...

I don't hang around the goofy sites you people do. I don't do any social media, which is where a lot of this crap seems to come from.

The sites I visit are BBC, CNN, Fox, and France24. I've seen none of this on those.

I watch the above channel broadcasts plus MSNBC (I can't tolerate their web format so stopped visiting their page). I've only seen rather vague accusations of collusion. But to what end (for Russia)? IDK, that's why I say it's vague.

Fern
 
emperus said:
You do know that Comey said that he is investigating collusion between Trumps associates and Russia. What exactly do you think that means or do you think COmey is promoting lunacy/
Click to expand...

As I've said, it find it rather vague.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top