Russian Bot Narrative Completely EXPOSED As Fake News??
Evidence Suggests Massive Smear Against Republicans EXPOSED after new evidence as come to light. The New York Times previously reported that Democratic operatives engaged in a false flag to smear Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race. Initially the Chief executive of the company in question said "it doesn't ring a bell" but later claimed it was just a research project.But in a past tweet he directly pushed the false flag narrative using his "russian bot dashboard" as evidence.If this has been outed as a smear on republicans then what about every other story which cites the Russian bot dashboard as evidence? At the very least ALL of these stories are now questionable and at worst completely fake news and propaganda.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJYkk6xiywE&list=PLxQaod7tWvYLFIEhZprOB5YddTOrZSg1z
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Just about a week ago, the New York Times ran a story about Democratic operatives who engaged in a false flag campaign to create the false impression that Roy Moore was being propped up by Russian bots in the Alabama Senate race.
They called this a small experiment that was likely too small to have a real impact.
In a statement from the chief executive of the company engaged in this behavior, he said it didn't ring a bell, but later goes on to say that it was just a research project.
Upon further investigation, we found past statements made by this man which calls his current statements into question, and show that he may have actually known exactly what his company was doing.
And this is where it gets scary.
His company has been cited dozens of times in various stories smearing conservative news sites and conservatives in general.
I believe this story from the New York Times may actually uncover a massive propaganda campaign to smear conservatives.
But before we get started, please go to TimCast.com forward slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
You can make monthly donations via PayPal.
I accept cryptocurrency.
I have a physical address.
And there's also a shop where you can buy clothes that I've actually designed myself.
I made a video about this a few days ago, where I called this story into question, believing that it was much more severe than they actually paint it to be.
But now I have more evidence that, at the very least, we are looking at questionable stories across the board which probably need to be updated, or A massive misinformation campaign.
The New York Times writes, Secret experiment in Alabama Senate race imitated Russian tactics.
They say a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican Roy S. Moore.
An internal report on the Alabama effort obtained by the New York Times says explicitly that it experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.
The project's operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a right-wing candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore.
It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter.
A development that drew national media attention.
It's fascinating the New York Times would say this was too small to have an impact, but then go on to say that this drew national media attention.
It would seem it was actually more significant than they actually claimed initially.
In fact, one quote from the report says, We orchestrated an elaborate false flag operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.
Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse does not ring a bell, adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report.
He said he saw the project as a small experiment designed to explore how certain online tactics work, not to affect the election.
So you know what?
Sure, maybe they just wanted to try and see what they could do.
They understood how it worked, but wanted to try it for themselves.
However, I think this is absolutely not true.
I believe that they were actually trying to influence the election.
And it's because of this statement made by Jonathan Morgan in 2017.
in 2017. He said, Russian trolls tracked by Hamilton 68 are taking an interest in the
Alabama Senate race. What a surprise. Hamilton 68 is the dashboard they use that tracks a
secret list of 600 alleged Russian bots and other mainstream news accounts that push the
quote Kremlin narrative. But if he is going to claim that this was just a research experiment,
but at the time claimed it was legitimately happening, then it sounds like it wasn't an
It sounds like the chief executive was actively promoting the idea that this was real.
Now, initially he said it doesn't ring a bell, so sure, maybe he just didn't know about it, and his entire company misled him, making him believe this was actually true.
But that would be kind of ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Now, although he did say it didn't ring a bell, he went on to state it was just a research experiment.
But he made another statement in the past few days.
He said, my involvement in the project described in the New York Times was as a cybersecurity researcher and expert with the intention to better understand and report on the tactics and efforts of social media disinformation.
I did not participate in any campaign to influence the public, and any characterization to the contrary misrepresents the research goals, methods, and outcome of the project.
In this statement, he admits to being involved in the project, but states the intention was just to understand.
I'd have to question why he made this tweet then, where he claimed it was actually true.
If he was part of this project, it stands to reason he knew what he was doing.
And this is where it starts to get particularly scary.
He cites Hamilton 68, which I said before is a secret list.
We don't know necessarily who's on it.
He shows this image of the trending topics among his supposed Russian botnet.
If he did work on this project, and the report claims it was a false flag, and he pushed the narrative that Russians were engaging in this behavior as evidenced by his dashboard, it stands to reason that every single story that ever cited his company and Hamilton 68 as evidence may in fact be a propaganda campaign.
There's no definitive evidence necessarily, but I believe there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
At the very least, we can say every news organization that has used Hamilton 68 in the past is pushing out questionable stories with bad citation.
In an interview with Politico, Jamie Fly, who is a colleague of Jonathan Morgan, said the Hamilton 68 dashboard looks at one Russian-linked network on Twitter, roughly 600 accounts.
Reporting from Wired shows that the Hamilton 68 team keeps its list of suspected Kremlin trolls a secret.
So this is where I draw another conspiratorial line.
We can call Hamilton 68 into question because we saw the chief executive of this company push out disinformation, whether intentionally or not.
But if this company admitted to engaging in an elaborate false flag, and then he said, this is the proof, Hamilton 68, it stands to reason that they are the ones creating the fake evidence in many different circumstances.
Why should we assume that it is only this one instance Where they created a false flag campaign.
Where they cited Hamilton 68.
We can only assume, then, every story citing Hamilton 68 is, well, it's probably fake.
Rolling Stone ran this story on January 19th.
Released the memo.
What's the conspiracy behind the right-wing meme?
Republicans claim a secret document reveals a Hillary Clinton plot worse than Watergate.
And they're getting a big boost from Russian bots.
What's their evidence?
None other than Hamilton 68 dashboard.
Debunking website Snopes.
Quartz ran a similar story in February, once again citing Hamilton 68, how it tracks Russian bot operations.
Quartz ran a story about Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.
Russian trolls and bots are flooding Twitter with Ford Kavanaugh disinformation, once again citing Hamilton 68.
Just this month, Mother Jones ran this story.
After Russia attacked Ukrainian ships, these Twitter accounts joined the battle.
And again, Hamilton68.
Just five days before the New York Times revelation, this story was published in the op-ed section of Harrots.
How Putin and the far-right played the Paris Yellow Vests protests.
Russia didn't trigger the Galetz-Jones, but Putin and the far-right want to see Paris burn and Europe weakened and divided, so they jumped at the chance to contaminate and manipulate them.
Their evidence?
Hamilton 68.
But it's not just this story from the New York Times that calls Hamilton 68 into question.
The Columbia Journalism Review said that Hamilton 68 has been called into question in the past.
And in a story from Forbes, they talked about how CNN also cited Hamilton 68, but when they investigated, they couldn't find that any of the evidence was in fact real.
These are only a small handful of the stories I pulled up from the front page of Google News.
I simply did a search for Hamilton 68 in quotes, and these are the stories I pulled up.
You can see that consistently, whenever there is some kind of story that's typically conservative, they make the claim that Russian bots are propagating this narrative.
They make the claim that Russian bots have been promoting Trump and the right and things of this nature.
But now we know, based on New York Times reporting as, in my opinion, shoddy as it was, but still very important, that this organization engages in false flag operations to smear, at least in this instance, Republicans.
Why then should I believe that's the only time they've done it?
Especially when we can see the chief executive admitting on Twitter he was involved in the project for research purposes, but at the time actually pushed this narrative.
Sure, maybe his intention wasn't to mislead the public.
He just wanted to see if he could do it.
But regardless of what his intentions were, he actually did this.
Why then should we believe that any of these news stories citing his organization are in fact true?
And it seems that his organization is typically the main source of evidence as to how Russian bots are influencing the American public and otherwise.
It sounds to me that, at the very least, these stories need to remove Hamilton 68, and without that citation, maybe they don't have a story at all.
The very worst, but the very worst, is that these Democratic operatives have been engaging for over a year in false flag propaganda campaigns for many different news cycle stories.
Even Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford was impacted by their company.
If we don't know who's on their list, they keep it a secret.
I believe that's true for the most part.
Maybe they published it.
But if their list is kept a secret, how do we know they're actually even tracking bots?
Now, it's entirely possible.
This was just a small experiment, and what they're saying is true, and Jonathan Morgan is absolutely incompetent in that he tweeted out a narrative his company was trying to promote in a false flag campaign because he just didn't know they were doing it.
But isn't that silly to assume that he didn't know what his company was doing?
And that after he tweeted this, they didn't inform him that it's actually a false campaign that they created?
None of this is conclusive for the most part.
But some of the criticism against this group is that they're part of a pro-war think tank.
So maybe that's the narrative they're trying to create.
They're trying to bolster a certain warmonger-like, maybe neoliberal mentality in the United States to support war.
Or maybe it's just money.
They've found a lucrative way to manipulate people into paying for their services.
Or maybe they're just completely and utterly incompetent, and their research is shoddy at best.
At the very least, the one thing we can say, all of these news stories citing this organization, most of the stories that cite Russian bots, are probably wrong, at the very least questionable.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Do you think it's as serious as it could be, or do you think it's likely the, you know, the simple solution that they're just incompetent?
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4 p.m.
And I'll have more videos up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
