Maggie's Farm

The reporting is manipulative.


Ellipses are often a clue. "Russia probably is not (and will not) trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure."

• The ellipsis allows the conflation of Russia didn't hack balloting systems with Russia didn't interfere in the election.
• After the election, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, but found no evidence that voter data was changed.
• Russian agents hacked into the DNC, and then they released the information to help Trump and damage Clinton.
• Russian troll farms linked to Russian Intelligence manipulated social media in an attempt to stir political turmoil surrounding the election.
• The Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference.

Nothing in the article indicates a coup.

Here's a typical example of the media unquestioningly spreading the manipulative narrative, even though the reporters must certainly know that the Trump administration lies as a matter of course.


They use the same ellipsis. They make the same conflation, that Russia not hacking ballot systems means the same as Russia not interfering in the election through other means.

OneGuy: And yet, there will be no trials, no 5:00 am SWATing followed by perp walks.

Of course not, even though Trump controls all the organs of the executive, including having seized direct control of the the Justice Department, plus having a complacent legislature and compliant judiciary. That's because it's just a manipulated narrative meant to distract you while the oligarchy raids the treasury.

B. Hammer: All of them used their power and influence to become multi millionaires.

We'll just take the first on your list. The Obamas' released their complete tax returns. They made most of their money from their published books, Barack being a best-selling author long before he was president. (For instance, Dreams From My Father sold 4 million copies.)

Regardless, the effect of Trump's economic policies is to borrow money from China and other investors for tax breaks for the rich. Later on, either inflation or increased taxes or both will be required, which will be footed primarily by the middle class and by cuts to services for the poor.

ruralcounsel: Obama probably didn't write much of his books.

It's almost certainly his story, though probably somewhat embellished. At the time Dreams From My Father was published, Obama was a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, so he was hardly a major figure. That is not to say he didn't have a ghost writer or significant help with editing. That's not atypical in the memoir business. But you can tell from listening to Obama that he is articulate and well-read.

ruralcounsel: He made his real money selling some nonsense about making content for Netflix, IIRC.

The Obamas were already reasonably rich by then, having made millions of dollars in book sales. But yeah, after they left the White House, they made a lot of money from entertainment deals and still more books. That's allowed.

ruralcounsel: If you look closely at his book deals, I suspect you'll find that it was mostly payola from publishers who wanted to make a camouflaged contribution.

Sure, because book publishers always sell millions of copies of a book written by a Black man with an odd sounding name and aspiring to be elected to the high office of, er, the state Senate. Today, the Obamas are very famous with a strong following, including among women and in the Black community. Of course, they can sell books and movies. That's allowed.

The $65 million deal post-dates Obama's presidency. The Obamas had a proven record of publishing success. Since then, Becoming has sold 14 million copies, while A Promised Land has sold more than 3 million copies. And the deal is not yet done. (Publishers routinely make $5 per copy, so that means Penguin has already recouped their advance, have the prestige of being the Obamas' publisher, and the next books are gravy.)

The question concerned "perp walks" and the corrupt use of "power and influence" to get rich. But the source of the Obamas wealth is public and is due largely to their books, and more recently, their entertainment deals. None of that is corrupt.

ruralcounsel: Those book sale figures are (1) suspect

Just saying so isn't evidence, but just a form of hand waving. "The proof is over there, somewhere."

ruralcounsel: how many were bought in bulk as masquraded political contributions.

Obama was a best-selling author before he had political power.

ruralcounsel: Particularly the post-Presidential ones, where little can be gained in favortism.

Huh? That contradicts your claim that the book purchases were for political influence.