http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/heart-of-texas-russia-event/index.html Who'dathunkit? Just like they purchased targeted facebook ads on both sides of the St. Louis issue.
For all you know, that CNN article may have been written by a CIA ghost writer. Most likely just a stupid fake news story.
It was actually a story from Business Insider. They believed it was Russian because the grammar was awkward on the Heart Of Texas site. Hmm. Have they ever been around Texans before? Hard to say if it's true or not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html?smid=tw-share "An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked."
Yeah, we know how reliable The New York Times is. *snort* I wish these experts would be honest and just say these are their educated guesses.
And people still would rather look at HOW those messages were disseminated rather than focus on the CONTENT of the crap emanating from Shillary. That content was not invented. It came FROM the Clinton side of the equation because it was ON their computers. Instead of focusing on the real reasons the Dems got dusted, they would rather point fingers at some bogeyman...which is why they will continue losing elections.
There was in fact an article from The Nation, hardly a right wing publication, that says that Wikileaks was not a Russian hack. Personally, I don't know but I sure as hell am not going to trust our intelligence's word at face value as much as they have lied to us in the past. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
Based on the information about the grammar, here are two likely explanation. 1. It wasn't the Russian government. They would be a little more sophisticated than to make errors that glaring. 2. The grammar was intentionally distorted in order to provide a rationale to place the blame elsewhere (Russia). At any rate, manipulation of the public is a full time occurrence now. Perpetrators can be individuals, corporations, supposed unbiased media, foreign agents, or the US government. You really can't take anything at face value.
I don't think the Muslims need any Russian help "stoking anti-Islamic sentiment". I guess setting up fake websites is a greater threat than flying planes into buildings or murdering tens of thousands of people over the last decade. CNN raises the possibility that the Rooskies were "even suggesting that Muslims were a threat to the American way of life." Wha whaaaat? I'm shocked! Where would they come up with such tripe? https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30
