The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified as “Reporter-2” in the Sussmann Indictment

I have a column today in the Hill on the indictment of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by Special Counsel John Durham. The indictment fills in a great number of gaps on one of the Russian collusion allegations pushed by the Clinton campaign: Alpha bank. Sussmann and others reportedly pushed the implausible claim that the Russian bank served as a conduit for communications between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The indictment removes the identity of key actors like a “Tech Executive” who used his connections with an Internet company to help the Clinton campaign (and said he was promised a top cyber security position in the widely anticipated Clinton Administration). One of those figures however may have been identified: “Reporter-2.” Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer wrote an article for Slate that seems to track the account of the indictment and, as such, raises questions over his role as a conduit for the Clinton campaign’s effort to spread the false story.

The indictment discusses how Fusion GPS pushed for the publication of the story, telling Foer that it was “time to hurry” on the story.:

“The Investigative Firm Employee’s email stated, ‘time to hurry’ suggesting that Reporter-2 should hurry to publish an article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In response, Reporter-2 emailed to the Investigative Firm Employee a draft article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, along with the cover message: ‘Here’s the first 2500 words.’”

The indictment states Reporter-2 published the article “on or about the following day, October, 31, 2016.” That is when Slate published a piece written by Foer headlined, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”  The story then was pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Foer has not addressed this close coordination with Fusion, including the showing of an advanced copy of his article. He later stated the following in the Atlantic:

“Every article is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis; each act of publication entails a risk of getting it wrong, and sometimes events force journalists to assume greater risk than they would in other circumstances. Before I published the server story, I asked myself a fairly corny question: How would I sleep the next week if Donald Trump were elected president, knowing that I had sat on a potentially important piece of information? In the end, Trump was elected president, and I still slept badly.”

The cost behind this article is getting it wrong but relying too greatly on a biased source without independent research. Foer states that he was more concerned with missing a chance on the story only to have Trump elected. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools.

In this case, Foer allegedly coordinated with investigators paid by the Clinton campaign to publish a story that had little or no basis. Even the researchers quoted in the indictment objected that the theory was unsupported and could bring public ridicule. Yet, the campaign continued to push the story and Foer ran it after allegedly sending an advance copy of his article to Fusion.

The next question is who is the “Tech executive”?

286 thoughts on “The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified as “Reporter-2” in the Sussmann Indictment”

  1. It says that Tech Executive 1 is with internet company 1 It also says nternet company 1 provides domain name services. That would rule out CrowdStrike, and Facebook.

    It also says Tech Executive has an ownership interest in companies 2 and 3. But it also has another clue. It says companies 2 and 3 have a parent company, so the investment could be in the parent. Surprising, perhaps, but CrowdStrike isn’t one company, it’s THREE. A holding company, a subsidiary named Crowdstrike, Inc. , and another subsidiary Crowstrike Services. Crowdstrike serivces has a president, Shawn Henry.

    Who or what company has an ownership interest in Crowstrike? Wny, Google does.

  2. OT: Democrat politicians don’t care about the people.
    Amid homeless surge, California spent only $2M of $316M homeless COVID relief allocation: audit
    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state housing arm “did not take critical steps to ensure” that federal pandemic relief aid for the homeless “promptly benefited the vulnerable population for which it was intended,” the auditor found.

    This week’s Golden Horseshoe is awarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for failing to disburse hundreds of millions of dollars in federal COVID relief funds earmarked for the homeless in time to help the “vulnerable population for which it was intended,” according to a scathing report compiled by the state’s auditor.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state housing department received $316 million from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) through the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program, but “as of early August 2021, the federal government reported that the State had spent only $2 million of the $316 million it was allocated — less than 1 percent,” according to the California state auditor’s report.


  3. Glenn Greenwald:

    Spurred on by Hillary Clinton herself, the liberal sector of the corporate media used this fake claim to bolster their narrative that Trump and the Russians were secretly in cahoots. And the story of how they spread this disinformation involves not just the potential criminality outlined in this indictment of Hillary’s lawyer but, even more seriously, a rotted and deeply corrupted media.

    The indictment reveals for the first time that the data used as the basis for this fraud was obtained by another one of Sussman’s concealed clients, an “unnamed tech executive” who “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump.” There will, presumably, be more disclosures shortly about who this tech executive was, which internet companies had private data that he accessed, and how that was used to spin the web of this Alfa Bank fraud. But the picture that emerges is already very damning — particularly of the Russiagate sector of the corporate press.

    This particular hoax got a major boost when the candidate herself, Hillary Clinton, posted a tweet on the same day …….

    Hillary Clinton
    Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

    8:36 PM · Oct 31, 2016

    1. Someone who wishes sadly to remain anonymous says:

      “The Volokh Conspiracy, by contrast, had no problem writing about it despite their conservative leanings.”

      I read the article. Thanks. To be fair, I have speculated that Turley may not be at liberty to comment on these Fox cases because he could be deposed as a witness. Unlike the Fox prime time hosts, Turley was more circumspect in his opinion of the merits of the election fraud claims. As is his wont, Turley did not dismiss these dubious claims, but he stated that the Trump lawyers had better show the evidence. He therefore may be questioned whether he advised Fox producers/hosts not to be reckless in their broadcasts since he was much more responsibly guarded in his analysis.

      Bottom line- Turley has a conflict of interest clearly. I would not be surprised if he regrets signing-on with Fox. And he will suffer a stain on his reputation for aligning himself with Fox’s hate-mongers like Mark Levin.

  4. Of course Foer knew the story was a fraud the whole time. Like CNN’s Tapper, Foer was part of the conspirators to promulgate and add tentacles to the Russian Collusion fable.

  5. A typical ends justifies the means story. If I don’t publish this story that I have not confirmed something bad might happen and all my friends at the cocktail party won’t pet me on my little head. In the company meeting the boss won’t tell me what a noble lier I am. My chance at a Pulitzer Prize might disappear. I’m going to say whatever is necessary because the continuation of my means justifies whatever imaginary truth I wish to employ even if I have to find my pen at the bottom of a cesspool. Oh well, all in a days work!

    1. Durham’s final report is going to absolve Hillary, Perkins-Coie, Sussmann, and EVERYONE involved in the Russian collusion hoax. If not, Biden’s AG would have shut down Durham in the first month of the Biden Regime.

      1. Hey Barry, you should figure out what independent investigator means. Trump couldn’t shut down the Mueller investigation and Biden can’t shut down the Durham investigation. The end result of the Durham investigation is not yet known but considering the current indictment by Durham if you were a betting man where would yo put your money. Be honest.

        1. It will go like all investigations when the target is Democrat. Straight to the round file.

      2. The indictment means it’s going to trial for criminal prosecution. It isn’t a report. I really should have slapped you more as a child.

        1. Barry, your original statement said that no one was going to be prosecuted under the Biden administration brought about by the Durham investigation. An indictment is the first requirement toward a prosecution. Speaking of slapping, why don’t you slap your money down against any Durham indictment. Why? Because an indictment has already happened and your not stupid enough to invest in your own assumption. I think?

      3. Biden has the ability to keep the report classified with little public backlash. He does not have the ability to fire a special prosecutor without sever public backlash. Possibly not even the legal standing either.

        1. “Severe public backlash”? Does this administration care about the public or their backlash? This party, with their women and soy boys, managed to commit the biggest fraud in American history. They then shoved a dementia patient in our faces and installed the most radical, lying communists into the administration to implode our rights and nation. I believe they did this, with the full cooperation of the gop, to demoralize us.

          Do you think they care about the peons backlash? Nah. They’ll just send psaki out there, with her doublespeak, to tell us how it was necessary to unify the country, during a war on covid or misinformation or some other ridiculous reason. Enough said, then she’ll walk off with her evil smirk. The media will immediately parrot how good it is for the government to put this behind us “for the good of the American people”. Mitch and McCarthy will do their perfunctory blurbs along with the other gop grifters, adnausem.

    2. There is no such thing as a “Noble Liar”. He is just a liar and more of his lies will be exposed along with a multitude of other lowlife liars that contributed to this clown show that is still in progress today.

      1. I just realized that when you give somebody power – like some stranger suddenly matters enough to affect your waking hours and your sleep, that kind of power, or affect what you do, you open yourself to attack from them. When I realized that, I immediately thought of a host of
        people in my past and of myself these last two years, seeing what I researched as much as I could and thought and prayed and tested my thoughts, and decided what seemed so true kept seeming so true, and objecting so often to strangers who were not very responsive, or never responded, and never would argue the facts, or consider my ideas. And then today I realized I gave them power.

        People often utter two phrases, 1) Speak truth to power. 2) Take the power back.

        I think what I have decided, and I don’t why it’s difficult for me, is to refuse to give them any more power, and just see what I can do.
        Even cleaning the house seems hard. I don’t know why. But these days, I stay in to stay away from liars and evidence of their lies
        that seem to be all around, even on every face that does or doesn’t wear a mask 4 months after the “emergency order” was lifted in the
        state I live in. I will try this.

        I every bit have believed an informed populace and a thoughtful one is fundamental to a good state. But now I have to practice this new
        idea. I don’t affect the world by speaking out. I don’t have power there. And it makes me look foolish to myself that I don’t want to let
        go the delusion that knowing about it is as important as building my strength back to focus only on what I can do.

        I can’t argue that anyone else should do this. I have argued against it so hard for so long. But I think I have to. The fact that I still
        came on here today is proof I guess I need to build my power back up.

        I appreciate all these comments, though. It looks like you and a lot of people are also very concerned and see even more than me
        the workings of what is going on.

    3. It worked for Walter Duranty and the NY Times, who covered up Stalin’s planned starvation of the Kulaks.

      Duranty won a Pulitzer prize for hiding the intentional murder by starvation of 5 million innocent men,women, and children.

      The current crop of propagandists,opportunists, traitors, and liars masquerading as “journalists” are equally despicable.

      One can only hope that there is karmic justice.

  6. Re the 301:

    ” it was shocking for me to read the newly released text messages between Peter Strzok, then deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Lisa Page. They show that after Mr. Strzok and Agent Joe Pientka interviewed Mr. Flynn, Mr. Strzok heavily edited Mr. Pientka’s FD-302—to the point that he told Ms. Page he was “trying not to completely re-write” it. Even more shocking, Ms. Page, an FBI attorney who wasn’t an agent and wasn’t at the interview, provided edits.”

    “Worse still, the FD-302 that was eventually provided to the court wasn’t that of the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn. It was instead a FD-302 of an interview of Mr. Strzok, conducted months later, about his recollections of the original interview. Truly bizarre.”

    “But in the past lying was seldom prosecuted as a stand-alone crime. “

    “In the Flynn case it was a perversion. Rather than using the 1001 warning to get to the truth, agents set a trap for a lie to manufacture a violation. That would be unimaginable in my time at the FBI.”

    From an agent writing in the WSJ

    Anonymous the Stupid should be ashamed of his lack of honesty and his gullibility. He will not recognize how foolish this editorial makes hims sound even though we may never know the complete truth.

    1. “Worse still, the FD-302 that was eventually provided to the court wasn’t that of the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn. It was instead a FD-302 of an interview of Mr. Strzok, conducted months later, about his recollections of the original interview. Truly bizarre.”

      That’s false. And you were already been provided evidence last night that it’s false. So you’re dishonest to quote it here and pretend it’s true.

      Not only was the court AND Flynn’s attorneys given copies of the 302 from “the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn,” but the court AND Flynn’s attorneys were also given copies of the agents’ handwritten notes from the interview, which I linked to this morning in a response to Young.

      “agents set a trap for a lie to manufacture a violation.”

      They did not.

      “From an agent writing in the WSJ”

      Then he should know better than to make false statements about other FBI agents.

      “Anonymous the Stupid should be ashamed of his lack of honesty”

      YOU should be ashamed of YOUR lack of honesty. You should also be ashamed of your incessant denigration of most of the people you disagree with.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, I have repeatedly stated I cannot be sure what is true or false. In my last response, I said, “even though we may never know the complete truth.”

        I’m honest, and you are not. I didn’t pretend anything or definitively conclude anything as you did. I copied parts of an article from the WSJ that not only makes sense but tells us an ugly truth about the FBI, “agents set a trap for a lie to manufacture a violation.”.

        We saw that with Flynn though you wish to deny it. Some charges laid at the feet of Flynn should have been laid at the feet of Podesta since he did the same thing. But, Podesta was left alone.

        “That’s false. And you were already been provided evidence last night that it’s false. ”

        You provided evidence that material was sent to the court, material supposedly lost. When the FBI plays these games, one can no longer trust that the games didn’t continue. I don’t know for sure, but you are gullible and a fool. You are also a liar since you don’t know either, so you can’t call the claim false.

        “Then he should know better than to make false statements about other FBI agents.”

        Maybe more FBI agents should be coming forward because of the lies that have come from the FBI. Imagine, the FBI is willing to lie to the FISA Court. Take a look at the emails sent by the various parties in charge of this fiasco. Take a look at the biased way the FBI acted concerning the Steele Dossier.

        You like to compartmentalize each item when a complete view of what went on shows that the FBI acted improperly. Of course, you think Comey acted correctly, but that is because you are a fool.

        I will repeat you should be ashamed of yourself and your lack of honesty. I denigrate you because you deserve to be trashed based on your deceit and dishonesty. When another falsely libels people I like or paints people I also like, with a false brush of hate, I will react to them as well.
        You have had your way with the blog for all too long. Everyone now knows you are Anonymous the Stupid or ATS, and they should point that out whenever they refer to you. They are too polite to do so. I am not.

        Why am I not polite? Because garbage permits the burning and looting of cities by those working with the left. Because the left assassinates people on the right, and the right seldom responds with similar strength.
        Babbit can be shot, even against police protocol, because she is on the right, but we see riots when someone from the left is legally shot. On and on, all of this is permitted by many on the right.

        We should stop being polite and target the left like the left targets the right. You should be known as Anonymous the Stupid or ATS so that people start to learn that the right is developing a backbone. Impolite? Yes, however, it is totally justified.

        I want you and others to know that I am known for my politeness and responsibility in the real world. But I am also known to stick up for what is right even if I have to go to your sewer to do so.

        1. “an ugly truth about the FBI, “agents set a trap for a lie to manufacture a violation.””

          Flynn was not trapped, and the violation wasn’t manufactured. Based on the agents’ handwritten notes from the interview and additional evidence collected later, like Flynn’s email and text exchanges with the Trump Transition team, Flynn lied to the FBI about some of the same things he lied to Pence and Priebus about. They were material lies that affected the FBI’s investigation.

          “I cannot be sure what is true or false.”

          We can all be sure about whether some things are true or false. For example, we can go to the Court docket for the case,, and check the dates and content (unless redacted) of the documents there. If someone says “the handwritten notes were submitted as an exhibit in a reply on Nov. 1, 2019,” we can be certain whether that claim is true or false. It’s true, and this document shows that it’s true: That reply also contains a copy of the 302 from the agents’ interview of Flynn.

          We can all be sure that “Baker’s op-ed was published in 2020” is true, by looking at the publication date on the op-ed: May 3, 2020.
          We can all be sure that “2019 is before 2020” is true.
          Therefore, we can all be sure that “the FD-302 that was eventually provided to the court wasn’t that of the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn. It was instead a FD-302 of an interview of Mr. Strzok, conducted months later, about his recollections of the original interview” is false, and that Baker should have known it was false, because the evidence that his claim was false existed long before he wrote his op-ed.

          That you claim you cannot be sure doesn’t imply that an informed and honest person cannot be sure.

          You quoted that dishonest op-ed anyway, and even now you cannot bring yourself to admit that Baker’s claim is false. Instead you falsely claim “You are also a liar since you don’t know either, so you can’t call the claim false.” I do know. Because I actually read the documents and checked the dates.

          Everybody who reads the documents in the court docket and pays attention to the dates on them knows that Baker’s claim is false.

          But you do you: insult me instead of focusing on the facts of the dates and contents of the documents.

          Your many insults reflect on you, not me. You are no more honest about me than Baker was with his false claim about what was provided to the court.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, the lies were BS. You can’t defend the FBI’s actions and spout nonsense, forgetting process crimes are all over Washington.

            Flynn was not even notified of what the discussion was all about. Essentially the FBI violated his rights at word one. The FBI had transcripts of Flynn’s conversations, so that he couldn’t remember specific details that the FBI already had is meaningless.

            Go ahead, make your case. You tried to do that on this blog when the Flynn case was hot. You were severely beaten and couldn’t defend yourself. Do you want to try again?

            “We can all be sure about whether some things are true or false.”

            BS. We can only be sure that something printed was printed, not that the words accurately portray the discussions.

            As usual, you are spouting a lot of rhetoric with little or no evidence. I’m not going to waste my time proving you wrong again unless you decide to make a case based on fact and evidence. That is something you don’t know how to do.

            I see you are whining and crying in rebuttal. Face it. You are a liar and deceitful.

            1. Notice how you attempt to change the topic from your choice to repeat Baker’s false claim, and the evidence that Baker’s claim was false.

              I’m not going to waste my time responding if you cannot even admit that Baker’s claim was false.

              Can you admit that?

              Can you even admit that his column was printed in 2020, but the court document I linked to was submitted to the court in 2019?

              1. “Notice how you attempt to change the topic ”

                Anonymous the Stupid, the topic exists unchanged. You lie too much and are deceitful. None of your questions are on topic. Flynn was horribly treated and, in my estimation, illegally treated by the FBI. You propose a lot of cr-p that you have given us before. It didn’t hold water then, and it doesn’t hold water now.

                The WSJ article is there for anyone to read and judge for themselves. Your history of lies and deceit are also in black and white for anyone to see as well.

                Do you think I care if you respond? You are a waste of time, and most of what you write is untrue. Please, don’t respond to me, but don’t expect me to not respond to your nonsense.

                  1. “Allan, your endless insults only reflect on you.”

                    Let my insults reflect how I feel when dealing with lying and deceitful people. It is time for conservatives to stop being so polite and do to others what they are doing to us while acting lawfully, something that the left is not concerned with.

                    You have earned your title of Anonymous the Stupid. Live with it. You should be separated from the anonymous group and forced to live with whatever name anyone assigns you.

        2. The only offense that Gen. Flynn may have committed was not registering under FARA as a lobbyist for Turkey.

          1. A material lie to the FBI is also an offense. He lied to the FBI when they interviewed him to figure out why he lied to Pence.

          2. Thank you, Adam, for pointing out how foolish Anonymous the Stupid is being. If I remember correctly, John Podesta was guilty of process violations as well. Was he charged? Of course, not because Democrats do not support freedom or the rule of law.

            Since Anonymous the Stupid ran out of Stupid comments involving the FBI and Flynn, he is acting more Stupid. Now he claims Flynn lied to Pence. We don’t know if Flynn lied to Pence or not, and one has to ask why the FBI would be involved in that? Indeed, the VP and President can handle that without Anonymous the Stupid trying to create charges that should never exist.

            How much more BS from Anonymous the Stupid can this blog tolerate?

      2. Anonymous just overlooks the FBI agent who changed a document that fomented a lie to the FISA Court. The agent was found guilty. What say you now Mr. Anonymous.

      3. Anonymous el stupido ; The original 302 was NEVER SUPPLIED. The media at the time was abuzz for months on this…that is why the oddly later “written” 302 had such a stench about it…because the original was AWOL !. The agents were sent in to manufacture a case. Remember comrade comey’s glee filled boast of how easy they used the confusion of a new admin and twisted it all with the intent to fish hook and fabricate. Damn you are a tunnel visioned partisan rat. There is a reason it is now called the FB(lie). The handwritten notes were not dated , and oddly the lead agent whom was quietly shuffled form that DC office to the san fran office and was never cross examined. It all smells to sewer kingdom…but apparently you love the stench of the swamp in your nostrils.
        Your stance is so dishonest and misinformed it is on purpose which of course makes one wonder what tentacle of the swamp you work for.

        1. Phergus- “dishonest and misinformed it is on purpose which of course makes one wonder what tentacle of the swamp you work for.”

          I’ve been wondering about that too. I imagine others are as well.

      4. As I recall, the FBI agents were not interviewing Flynn to obtain new information. No. They had already had a wiretap of Flynn’s conversations. They knew everything about the calls before they had the interview. The purpose of the Flynn interview was to entrap him.

        1. No, it was not to entrap him. It was to find out why he lied to Pence THAT was not in the phone calls with Kislyak, so you are misremembering the purpose of the interview. They wanted to find out why Flynn, then the incoming NSA, lied to VP-Elect Pence about his communications with an adversary’s ambassador.

          Flynn lied to Pence, denying that he’d spoken about expelling diplomats and sanctions with Kislyak.
          Trump: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
          Pence: “I knew that he [Flynn] lied to me, and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.”

  7. From Durham’s indictment I think it would be wise for the Republicans to start pounding the table on Perkins Coie in almost every speech on any subject.

    Cartago delenda est or, more to the point, Perkins Coie delenda est.

    They have put up with it too long.

  8. Facebook’s Own Investigation Revealed Extensive Manipulation By Russian Trolls During 2016.

    Yet Facebook Executives Deliberately Played-Down Findings

    In December 2016, after Mr. Zuckerberg publicly scoffed at the idea that fake news on Facebook had helped elect Mr. Trump, Facebook’s Security Chief, Alex Stamos — alarmed that the company’s CEO seemed unaware of his team’s findings — met with Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Sandberg and other top Facebook leaders.

    Ms. Sandberg was angry. Looking into the Russian activity without approval, she said, had left the company exposed legally. Other executives asked Mr. Stamos why they had not been told sooner.

    Still, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg decided to expand on Mr. Stamos’s work, creating a group called Project P, for “propaganda,” to study false news on the site, according to people involved in the discussions. By January 2017, the group knew that Mr. Stamos’s original team had only scratched the surface of Russian activity on Facebook, and pressed to issue a public paper about their findings.

    But Lobbyist Joel Kaplan and other Facebook executives objected. Washington was already reeling from an official finding by American intelligence agencies that Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, had personally ordered an influence campaign aimed at helping elect Mr. Trump.

    If Facebook implicated Russia further, Mr. Kaplan said, Republicans would accuse the company of siding with Democrats. And if Facebook pulled down the Russians’ fake pages, regular Facebook users might also react with outrage at having been deceived: His own mother-in-law, Mr. Kaplan said, had followed a Facebook page created by Russian trolls.

    Ms. Sandberg sided with Mr. Kaplan, recalled four people involved. Mr. Zuckerberg — who spent much of 2017 on a national “listening tour,” did not participate in the conversations about the public paper. When it was published that April, the word “Russia” never appeared.

    But inside the company, employees were tracing more ads, pages and groups back to Russia. That June, a Times reporter provided Facebook a list of accounts with suspected ties to Russia, seeking more information on their provenance. By August 2017, Facebook executives concluded that the situation had become what one called a “five-alarm fire,” said a person familiar with the discussions.

    Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg agreed to go public with some findings, and laid plans to release a blog post on Sept. 6, 2017, the day of the company’s quarterly board meeting.
    On that day, the company’s abbreviated blog post went up. It said little about fake accounts or the organic posts created by Russian trolls that had gone viral on Facebook, disclosing only that Russian agents had spent roughly $100,000 — a relatively tiny sum — on approximately 3,000 ads.

    Just one day after the company’s carefully sculpted admission, The Times published an investigation of further Russian activity on Facebook, showing how Russian intelligence had used fake accounts to promote emails stolen from the Democratic Party and prominent Washington figures.

    After stalling for weeks, Facebook eventually agreed to hand over the Russian posts to Congress. Twice in October 2017, Facebook was forced to revise its public statements, finally acknowledging that close to 126 million people had seen the Russian posts.

    Edited from:

    NOTE TO READERS: The text above is carefully edited from a very long, feature piece. Yet these paragraphs accurately reflect the story’s thrust. Facebook was mortified when it learned the extent of Russian manipulation.

    1. Yeah, the Easter Bunny told ’em and it was verified by Santa … after “careful” edits. Two sources, ya know. hahahaha You make Bozo look like Socrates.

    2. You write “Facebook was forced to revise its public statements, finally acknowledging that close to 126 million people had seen the Russian posts.”

      That is not what was acknowledged. What the company was saying is that maybe 126,000,000 times a little squib out of my sight up in the left or down the right hand side of my Facebook page flashed on the screen for a second while I was looking at photos of my grandkids.. Or, one time each,126,000,000 grandparents looking at heir grandkids’ photos had a little squib out of sight up in the left or down the right hand side of their Facebook page flash on the screen for a second. That little squib showed something like Hillary in boxing gloves punching Jesus. Did that turn the election against Hillary, or was it the fact that James Comey announced on October 31 that Carlos Danger kept Hillary’s emails on his now ex-wife’s laptop. (or was it Hillary falling down drunk in September at the 9/11 ceremony?)

  9. When in doubt, Shakespeare will do

    All: God save your majesty!

    Cade: I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

    Dick: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

    Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.


    1. Los Tres Chiflados?

      Is this yet another episode of “cultural appropriation” by Senior Estovir?

      Every person in the world is an American-in-waiting.

      The Afghans wouldn’t stay in their country and fight for it.

      There is an Obama Expeditionary Force African Division forward deployed and rolling over the border, invading America at Del Rio, Texas, as we speak (who is funding that?).

      The American Founders must be rolling over in their graves.

      Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  10. Turley says:

    “The cost behind this article is getting it wrong but relying too greatly on a biased source without independent research.”

    That’s comical considering that Turley’s employer, Fox News, is being accused of precisely the same thing in propagating the Big Lie. This just in:

    “Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs Job Reviews Sought in Election Lawsuit”

    “These documents are relevant to Fox’s oversight of its on-air personalities and Fox’s knowledge of whether they were prone to lie and mis-inform the public on their shows,” Dominion said in the Delaware court filing.”

    Still no comment from “independent” legal analyst and law Professor Turley on the billion dollar defamation lawsuits by Dominion and Smartmatic notwithstanding their precedent setting potential on the Constitutional law of freedom of speech.


    1. It must be difficult and frustrating to climb a ladder when one’s only ability is to try and pull the guy ahead down, especially when he is so far up the ladder and you haven’t reached the first rung.

      1. Yesterday’s Catholic Lectionary reading for Friday of the Twenty-fourth Week in Ordinary Time applies

        Reading I

        1 Timothy 6: 2c-12

        Beloved: Teach and urge these things.
        Whoever teaches something different
        and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ
        and the religious teaching
        is conceited, understanding nothing,
        and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes.
        From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions,
        and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds,
        who are deprived of the truth,
        supposing religion to be a means of gain.

        1. It continues “pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.”

          I’m not Christian, but since you’ve said you are, then you might take those words more seriously.

      1. It’s too bad you can’t put your money where your big mouth is. How about we agree that the loser has to depart this blog never to return? If there is an out of court settlement, it’s a wash.

        You yella?

    2. Whataboutism. YAWN.

      Same crap from the same crapper every single article posted.

      Are you another of david brock’s c*$k hols#@!rs? Freaking low-rent Krastenstein.

      The entire DNC-media complex lied for years and you think that Lou Dobbs and Tucker swayed the election?

      Face it, hillary is an unelectable criminal and Trump was feeding the people what they wanted, not Tucker, not Dobbs. His rallies and TV ratings were through the roof.

      He was popular, she is not, deal with it.

        1. She lost the election and Trump didn’t try to garner votes in those populous states that he knew he would lose. That makes Trump’s approach smart and Hillary’s dumb.

          1. Even if you believe that, it’s irrelevant to bobthere’s false claim “He was popular, she is not, deal with it.” He was never popular. He never won the popular vote, and in his entire presidency, he never had majority approval in an average of the polls.

            He was never popular. Deal with it.

            1. “He was never popular. “

              He is popular in a real sense. Those that support Trump support him, not a party or other people. Those that support Hillary are supporting a political machine, party or just pushing a lever. Look at the way the crowds flock to Trump. That is popularity. Deal with it.

        2. she won the popular vote in large part because of slanted mainstream media coverage, watched by all the moms and pops in America. Even Google was caught elevating and prioritizing anti-Trump, anti-Republican articles.

      1. Bobthere says:

        “The entire DNC-media complex lied for years and you think that Lou Dobbs and Tucker swayed the election?”

        Fox News is being sued for defaming Smartmatic and Dominion for lying about their companies’ voting systems’ integrity. Whatever else you may conjure in your fevered mind, that’s a fact, Jack.

    3. FoxNews, like CNN, caters to audiences interested in Fox (or/CNN) perspectives. It is mainstream media (NBC, ABC, PBS) that should be called out for slanted, false, or fact-selective reporting

      1. Lin says:

        “FoxNews, like CNN, caters to audiences interested in Fox (or/CNN) perspectives. It is mainstream media (NBC, ABC, PBS) that should be called out for slanted, false, or fact-selective reporting.”

        NBC, ABC, PBS or CNN are not being sued for lying about the election being stolen. FOX is being sued by two companies for billions of dollars for defamation in pushing that Big Lie.

        Do you see that? Can you understand?

        1. apparently YOU don’t understand NYT v. Sullivan. Please contact me when the “defamation” suits are decided.

        2. Yes, I clearly see and understand your limited grasp of defamation law. By the way, my comment above was about “calling out” mainstream media, -not suing. My statement about Fox and CNN stands on all fours. Do you see that? Do you understand? Good night, sir.

          1. Lin says:

            “Yes, I clearly see and understand your limited grasp of defamation law.”

            The Dominion and Smartmatic cases against Fox News could redefine the current state of defamation law- that is how significant they are. And yet, Turley won’t discuss the free speech merits of the case!

            It’s understandably embarrassing for a Constitutional law Professor to have partnered with a media company alleged in perpetrating the lie that the election was rigged by hackable or otherwise malign voting software by recklessly broadcasting the unfounded statements by lawyers who have been sanctioned by at least one court for fraud and stand to have their law licenses revoked!

            No wonder Turley does not want to bring it up…

        3. Now, why would CNN be sued by Dominion? CNN would not dream of – did not permit – any questions to be explored concerning Dominion’s machines. Carlson (I’ve never seen Dobbs) questioned them, implied that they might have provided an avenue for changing vote tallies – and did it in the way all news outlets do to avoid libel charges: by phrasing everything as a question. “Is it possible that [whatever the desired implication is]? We’ll see if anyone has the guts to investigate.”

          What was the effect of Carlson’s implied critiques? And was his tactic sufficient to protect him from the defamation claim? I dunno. But it’s non-to claim that because MSNBC isn’t being sued by a company they didn’t criticize or question, they don’t participate in advocacy journalism.

          The kid who sued for defamation and won against, what was it, the WaPo? The NYT? over his supposed “smirk” in the face of the Noble Native American Man who was trying to incite an altercation? Does the fact that that news outlet was sued – but in this case the NY Post was not – mean that the NY Post doesn’t have an editorial position?

  11. OT —

    U.S. Capitol Police reports that at today’s “Justice for J6” rally in DC, they’ve arrested 4 people so far, including “two people for felony extraditable warrants out of Texas. One was for Possession of a Firearm. The other was for a probation violation.” The other two were also weapons violations.

    1. What were the other two weapons? If firearms they would be yelling about it. Instead they may be nothing but penknifes commonly carried for odd jobs.

        1. The one gun issue mentioned was on a warrant for possession in Texas, not for possession in DC.

          Trump was right, this looks like a setup to fake another Reichstsg Fire

          1. You asked “What were the other two weapons?,” and that’s the question I answered.

          1. Thanks. I was going to post it but you beat me to it. Looked like there were enough agents there to plot to kidnap Whitmer. Warren and Deblasio and blame it on a janitor wearing a MAGA hat

            1. Who told you? You seem to claim information that an ordinary citizen normally doesn’t have.

      1. Stephen L. Miller
        200 journalists for an event that lasted 30 minutes and only a 100 or so attendees.

        Great work everyone.

        1. Don’t forget the 2,000 armed agents looking to shoot Trump supporters when they aren’t arresting each other.

          In the future Trump supporters should wave a BLM and Antifa flag and everyone who takes a knee is your FBI agent

    2. Anonymous has no link to prove what he says is true or expand what was actually found. How do we even know the weapons violations occurred at the capitol? He likes to deceive and lie so one cannot attach any meaning to his OT.

  12. Jonathan: After over 2 years of his investigation John Durham has indicted Michael Sussmann for allegedly lying to the FBI’s general counsel. Besides the guilty plea of Kevin Clinesmith for altering an E-mail is that all Durham has to show for his efforts? Remember that when Barr announced Durham’s appointment in 2019 Trump said it would be “one of the most important investigations in the history of our country”. Trump hoped the Durham probe would disprove claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election and would indict high level members of the Clinton campaign–maybe Clinton herself. In several columns you joined the Trump chorus in trying to smear Clinton. If Sussmann is the strongest stuff Durham has, it’s pretty slim pickings!

    1. Perhaps Durham has something more up his sleeve, maybe indictments of other Clinton campaign lawyers or campaign managers, but it looks like he is not pursuing ANY government officials. Indeed, this indictment positions the FBI as innocents who were duped by the lying Clinton operatives. This narrative is absurd, since Obama was warned by the CIA in late July, even before the FBI officially opened Crossfire Hurricane, that Clinton was making up a collusion conspiracy theory to pin on Trump to distract from her emails. The FBI itself received a similar warning in early September. Yet they plowed ahead despite mounting exculpatory evidence and no credible incriminating evidence.

      One of the new things in the indictment is its highlighting Sussman’s continuing efforts in February 2017 to interest a second government agency in what he knew to be a completely false theory. This is AFTER the election and EVEN AFTER Trump took office. So this went well beyond election dirty tricks and extended to disrupting a newly established administration.

    2. You indict up, not down. This will probably loosen the tongues of those suspects who thought nothing would happen. First domino.

      1. Dvessar says:

        “You indict up, not down. This will probably loosen the tongues of those suspects who thought nothing would happen. First domino.”

        Just exactly why the NY prosecutors are going after Trump’s accountant to get him to cooperate to tell the truth about his boss’ knowledge of the criminal tax evasions. First domino indeed.

  13. The Biden administration must hate Christians. Some of the bullet points are followed by a link to the article.
    Biden Administration Blocks Rescue of Persecuted Christians from Afghanistan
    by Raymond Ibrahim • September 17, 2021 at 5:00 am

    “The State Department has blocked us every step of the way. The State Department and the White House have been the biggest problem.  Everyone else, everyone else, has been working together, putting aside differences and trying to get these people to safety. “ …

    Although nearly 80 percent of all persecution Christians experience around the globe is committed in the Islamic world, Afghanistan is actually the worst of all Muslim nations.

    According to the World Watch List, which ranks the 50 nations in which Christians are most persecuted for their faith, Afghanistan is the second-worst nation in the world, followed on the heels of the worst nation, North Korea…. That report was published nine months ago — when a U.S.-supported government ran Afghanistan. Since then, matters have only significantly worsened for Christians….

    Even worse, because U.S. and Western leadership are careful not to show any interest in Christian minorities — a sentiment that goes hand in hand with Western acquiescence to “Islamic sensibilities” — they are more prone to turn a blind eye to the persecution of Christians than even some Muslim governments.

    Continue Reading Article

    1. “The Biden administration must hate Christians.”

      Biden is Catholic. Last I checked, Catholics were Christians.

      1. Biden says he is a Catholic. That’s not the same as being one. One could probably make a better case that he is a nihilist, immoral crook than that he is any variety of Christian or Jew.

        He does seem to like jihadists though. They are a Religion of Peace which is why he left all the weapons for them.

      2. Being a Catholic doesn’t mean you don’t hate Catholics or other Christians. Don’t you know that? Where were you taught logic? There is something wrong with how you think.

        1. Is that an argument anonymous?

          I didn’t say Biden wasn’t a Catholic because he hates Catholics.

          I said he isn’t a Catholic because he is an immoral, dishonest slime ball.

          Catholics have standards and Biden meets few of them.

          1. If you were referring to my argument, that was not an argument against you. That was an argument against ATS.

          2. Tomas de Torquemada was also Catholic. Alas, Biden, Pelosi, Rep. Ted Lieu, et al would likely fear him if he were alive today to wager the Catholic Inquisition.

Comments are closed.