General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew: Former high-level intel officials including Brennan, Clapper, Morell & Hayden
Link to tweet
... snip
The brief was submitted in support of neither party, and the former officials emphasized in the document that they could not disclose classified information. But their message was clear: The Kremlin uses local actors to help amplify the scope and impact of its influence operations, such as the one it carried out on the US election in 2016.
The cut-outs can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives," the former officials wrote.
Cut-outs can be anyone, they explained, from journalists and academics to "prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
These local actors help the Kremlin further its foreign influence operations and "active measures" campaigns, they wrote. Those operations often involve the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories and cyberattacks all in an attempt to "undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions" and "discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unusual-russia-brief-lawsuit-trump-roger-stone-2017-12
Okay, so the entire article should be in BOLD.
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)The Wizard
(12,542 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Your comment about bolding everything made me laugh. It reminded me of the used text books that I bought in college and almost everything was highlighted.
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)OAITW r.2.0
(24,465 posts)these guys know and they are choosing their words very carefully.
genxlib
(5,524 posts)Or is this an acknowledgement of everything we believe to be true about Russia.
To me, this is a group of patriots that are bound by secrecy to limit what they can say. Yet they are hedging around that by describing the process of a theoretical influence campaign.
In a vacuum, that might not mean much. But specifically filed in a lawsuit accusing Trump/Stone of doing exactly these things seems that the implication is glaringly obvious.
The only question they leave open is whether they were duped into it or did it willingly.