I think I’m starting to see a pattern here.
The Washington Post is Fake News.
The Washington Post is biased news.
The Washington Post is aligned with and carries the water for Demorats and Leftists across the nation. Of that there is no doubt. They don’t mind attributing stories to completely anonymous sources which means that, essentially, unless challenged in court, an anonymous source could be no more than an artful but unauthenticated fart at lunch.
That is to say: the Russian narrative is dying. The Demorats are discovering the door they insisted be opened is leading primarily back to themselves.
That said, from FoxNews.com:
Embarrassment as Washington Post corrects its ‘scoop’ about Obama, Facebook and Russia
by Brian Flood
The Washington Post has made a correction to an explosive cover story that undermines the entire premise of Monday’s front-page article headlined, “Obama sought to prod Facebook on Russia role.”
The problem, according to a Facebook executive, is that when Obama reached out to the social media giant in 2016 to discuss political disinformation spreading on the site, he didn’t actually call out Russia – essentially making the Post’s headline misleading and inaccurate. Or, as President Trump would call it, “fake news.”
As first reported by Axios, the Post added significant information to the digital version of the story with the disclaimer, “This story has been updated with an additional response from Facebook.” The response from Facebook that didn’t make the paper’s print edition is vital and changed the story enough that the word “Russia” was removed from the updated headline.
The story detailed how then-President Obama gave Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a “wake-up call” regarding fake news spreading on his social media platform. After reporting that Obama “made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously,” the paper has added that Obama “did not single out Russia specifically.”
There might be a problem with that.
Oh but wait; there’s more. And its buttery goodness is both simultaneously salacious and satisfying in terms of, well, schadenfreude.
From ZeroHedge.com:
Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous “Russia Ads” Derail Collusion Narrative “They Showed Support For Clinton”
by Tyler Durden
That was quick.
Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.
Congressional investigators shared the information with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has repeatedly allowed information about its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russian operatives to leak to the press. Once this happened, we knew it was only a matter of time before the ads became part of the public record.
Uh-oh. Are we about to destroy a narrative? A Leftist narrative?
And, shockingly, descriptions of the ads provided to the Washington Post hardly fit the narrative that Democratic lawmakers have spun in recent weeks, claiming the ads – which didn’t advocate on behalf of a specific candidate, but rather hewed to political issues like abortion rights – were instrumental in securing Trump’s victory.
After initially denying the story this spring, Facebook came clean earlier this month, saying its investigators had discovered that the company sold at least $100,000 worth of ads – and possibly as much as $150,000 – to Russia-linked group that bought the ads through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts.
WaPo reports that the ads represented issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum, which would suggest that the buyers didn’t intend to support a specific candidate, but rather their own unique agenda.
Oh damn. Kablooie. Narrative blown up. Insert your favorite sound effect here.
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.
The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to simultaneously send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics – also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.
Of course, support for Hillary Clinton among minority groups was less enthusiastic than it was for Barack Obama, suggesting that the ads perhaps weren’t as effective as some Democratic lawmakers would have voters believe. Despite the innocuous description, WaPo insisted on reporting that the ads were meant to “sow dischord” among different voting blocs that supported Clinton. The paper of record also reported that the targeted messages “highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate US political discourse”…again without explaining exactly how they accomplished this.
With little else to cling to, it appears that investigators – not to mention Trump’s critics – have invested so much in the Facebook interference narrative (not to mention Paul Manafort’s dealings with pro-Russian oligarchs), that admitting they were wrong would just be too damaging.
Thank you.
But wait; there’s more buttery political goodness.
From McClatchyDC.com:
Congress might not be able to protect Mueller from firing
by Brian Murphy
WASHINGTON
Congress may be unable to provide any job protection legislatively for special counsel Robert Mueller, whose wide-ranging investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election continues to anger President Donald Trump.
While Trump confidant Roger Stone was defending himself in front of a separate committee elsewhere on Capitol Hill, legal scholars offered competing views on whether two Senate bills designed to protect Mueller from firing by Trump or someone in the Justice Department would pass constitutional muster during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat.
The Demorats will rue the day they ever began the “Russia” narrative.
They managed to open a door that led not necessarily to Republicans, but to the arcane, deceptive and corrupt machinations of Demorats themselves.
You and I both know that had Mueller found incredibly-damaging material about Donald Trump or associates showing clear and utter linkage with Russia in terms of, say, cash influence or — better yet, just like the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation — influence and decisions for cash or “donations” you know that leak would already have occurred.
Silence in and of itself can sometimes be a massive clue.
BZ
