SUMMARY: The growing popularity of FaceApp, a photo filter app that allows users to transform their features by adding or removing wrinkles, is sounding alarm bells among privacy advocates and lawmakers. There are questions about how the images of people's faces could be used, especially as the app's company is based in Russia. Amna Nawaz talks to the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Joseph Jerome.
SUMMARY: In Japan, President Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin and his staff not to meddle in the 2020 election, but he did so with a grin. Although G-20 summits have historically been calm conferences, President Trump has made them less predictable. He will finish his trip to Osaka with a pivotal meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: While Facebook remains one of the world's largest companies, it has lost some public trust in recent years, due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Russian influence campaigns during the 2016 election and privacy issues. Now, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is embarking upon a major shift to the platform’s basic design and approach. Jeffrey Brown talks to The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
SUMMARY: There is no doubt that Russia’s government attempted to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As William Brangham reports, once the U.S. intelligence community reached that consensus, as well as high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the cyber and social media “disinformation” campaigns, a major investigation and dozens of indictments followed.
SUMMARY: From Pizzagate to George Soros conspiracies, “fake news” has become a noxious presence in public discourse, especially since the 2016 presidential election. A recent New York Times video series explores the long history of Russian disinformation and its origins in what the Soviets dubbed “active measures.” Nick Schifrin speaks to Adam Ellick, who created the series, for more.
SUMMARY: A New York Times investigative report published this week details how Facebook reacted to the discovery of massive disinformation campaigns run by Russian operatives. Sheera Frenkel, who helped write the story, joins William Brangham to explain what the social network’s leadership knew before the 2016 presidential election and what, if anything, they did to address the problem.
SUMMARY: Did the involvement of Russian trolls and hackers swing the 2016 presidential election? Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author of “Cyberwar,” believes it is “highly probable” that they did. She joins Judy Woodruff to discuss her research on how the Russians found the right messages and delivered them to key audiences using social media--as well as how we can manage foreign election meddling in the future.
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein of Vox join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the contrast between President Trump’s lambasting of the Russia investigation and his administration’s heightened warnings about election threats, plus a fringe internet conspiracy theory surfaces at a Trump rally and the rift between Trump and the influential Koch network.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Now back to Presidential politics and the rally President Trump attended last night in Northeastern Pennsylvania to boost Republican Congressman Lou Barletta’s run for the U.S. Senate.
The President’s freewheeling remarks included his characterization about his summit last month with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
President Donald Trump: I had a great meeting with Putin. We discussed everything. I had a great meeting.
Now, we’re being hindered by the Russian hoax. It’s a hoax, OK? I will tell you what. Russia’s very unhappy that Trump won. That, I can tell you.
Judy Woodruff: Of course, Putin said in Helsinki last month that he favored Mr. Trump’s election. And U.S. intelligence officials have said repeatedly that Russia’s efforts in 2016 were intended to help Mr. Trump and hurt the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
The President’s remarks last night also stood in contrast to this warning from his own director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, yesterday in the White House Briefing Room.
Dan Coats: In regards to Russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging — messaging campaign by Russia to try to weaken and divide the United States.
These efforts are not exclusive to this election or future elections, but certainly cover issues relevant to the election.
Judy Woodruff: And that brings us to the analysis of Brooks and Klein. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein, editor-at-large for the news site Vox.com. And Mark Shields is away this week.
Hello to both of you.
David, to you first.
So, on the same day that his leading national security and intelligence officials are saying, we must take this Russia threat seriously, the President is out a few hours later saying, it’s all a hoax.
Do we take this government effort seriously or not?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, the head of the opposition now uses the White House Briefing Room to oppose the administration policy. I have never seen anything like it.
I have never seen an administration where a President says one thing or emphasizes one thing, and his entire staff basically emphasizes the complete opposite.
And so what’s the effect? I think the deep state is still doing its work to try to head off Russian interference. The Trump apparatus understands there is that interference, and they can do some prophylactic measures to try to head it off, which is what they seem to be doing.
But unless you have the President involved, it’s going to be microactivity, not macroactivity. And so it’s hard to imagine the Russians, let alone Putin, being at all intimidated by U.S. policy.
And so it’s reasonable to expect that interference will continue, as it seems to be continuing to this day.
Judy Woodruff: Ezra, do we take seriously that the Trump administration is working diligently to fend off any Russian interference this year?
Ezra Klein, Vox: No, of course not.
I’m fascinated by the kind of lying Donald Trump did in that clip. It’s one thing to say, hey, I had a great meeting with Vladimir Putin and the problem is, the opposition, they don’t want us to talk, right?
It’s one thing to shave the truth, or it’s another thing to try to say, hey, look, people are just impeding me, and they’re wrong about it.
But to then go and say, I will tell you what, Russia never wanted Donald Trump to win, Russia hates the idea that Donald Trump won, there’s something about his belief that reality can be that completely manipulated that I find different. It’s different than the way politicians normally lie.
It’s a different level of confidence in one’s ability to shape reality. But then, on the other side, to your point, of course Vladimir Putin doesn’t think this would be a problem to do again, because it’s clear Donald Trump on some level welcomed it.
Putin helped him when he needed help. He’s tried ever since have a great relationship with Vladimir Putin. And it’s just not credible to say that, if more Russian efforts are uncovered in the future in American politics, that, as long as Donald Trump is in office, that will redound to Putin’s disadvantage.
David Brooks: There’s one issue of how Republican Party foreign policy has changed.
And so Donald Trump said, I had a great meeting with Vladimir Putin, one of the most anti-democratic, anti-American dictators in the world today, and a Republican rally cheers. And that’s just a weird, jarring moment.
But then, in Congress, within the Trump administration themselves, and among even John Bolton, the foreign policy apparatus of the Republican Party is still pretty much where it was.
And so which is the future of the party? Is it a party that looks a lot more like Donald Trump in the foreign policy realm? Or is it one that looks like the rest of his administration? I don’t know. But I suspect it’s a little more like Trump.
Ezra Klein: There’s another thing on that side I think is interesting, and it’s a flip of what you just said.
The Democratic Party is so angry at Russia that the stakes for Putin in the election get that much higher. If Trump wins in 2020, he retains an ally. If he loses, then he’s got a Democratic Party that has spent four years blaming him personally for everything that they believe has gone wrong in the country.
And so when you’re thinking about Russian engagement in the 2012 election, I feel like that’s a dimension of this too, that the parties have polarized on how they treat Russia in a way that has made the incentives for Russia to try to keep their ally in and their enemies out all the higher.
David Brooks: Rabid anti-communist Democrats now.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: Well, before we get to 2020, Ezra, you were just talking about manipulating reality.
David, you mentioned the deep state.
At the Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania rally last night, and then at a rally earlier in the week in Tampa, Florida, there were in the crowd fans cheering wildly the President, people wearing T-shirts QAnon or holding up the letter Q.
And we have looked into this. We interviewed our reporter P.J. Tobia this week, who explains it’s this conspiracy theory. It’s grown. It’s been out there for months. But it’s now at the point where it’s come out into the open. Essentially, what they believe is, there’s a group of people supported by the Clintons, by President Obama, even by President George W. Bush, who are trying to overthrow this President, and they’re going to stop that from happening.
How did we get to this place?
(LAUGHTER)
David Brooks: Well, I used to say, we tried to bring democracy to the Middle East, and we ended up Middle Easternizing our democracy, because we now have become a realm of suspicion and conspiracy theories.
Remember the alleged child pornography ring that was happening in a pizzeria on Connecticut Avenue here in D.C.? These things come and go. The John Birch Society back in the ’50s, they were filled with conspiracy theories. These things come and go.
The question is, is there a William F. Buckley, is there a Ronald Reagan, is there a Democratic establishment that can quash them? And now it’s quite the opposite.
And so what’s happened is, the mainstream — a lot of us mainstream journalists have become delegitimized in the eyes of a lot of Trump supporters, sometimes for our own fault. We — if — it turns out if you don’t hire from large segments of American society, you becomes attached from them, and they write you off. And a lot of that’s happened.
But then the fans have been — the fires have been fan by Trump himself. And, basically, what seems to be happening is a complete inversion of where information comes from. And the those of us in the mainstream media who used to provide information are now discounted in large sections.
And this new thing has arisen.
Judy Woodruff: How worried should we be about all that, Ezra?
Ezra Klein: About the…
Judy Woodruff: Do we take it — do we take it seriously? I mean, I’m asking the same question, in a way.
Ezra Klein: The QAnon conspiracy itself, which is — which is a fascinating conspiracy, right — the argument of the QAnon conspiracy is it Donald Trump, on some level, has this all in hand, that we’re seeing a lot of chaos, but the chaos is all carefully orchestrated, and that, at some point, there’s going to be this big reveal, and Donald Trump and the people he’s working with are going to come out and basically root out all the corruption that has been endemic in Washington for so long.
There’s comfort in believing something like this.
It is hard for me to tell if QAnon is a more profound or wide-reaching conspiracy theory than the ones we have had in the past. I mean, I think back, even in the Clinton years, to the widespread belief that the Clintons killed Vince Foster, that they were running cocaine out of Arkansas.
I mean, this kind of thing in American politics is not new. It does have a lot of salience in social media. It’s a kind of thing that we cover more aggressively nowadays than we used to.
The thing that I do find strange about it is, I tend to associate this kind of conspiracy theorizing with the folks who are out of power. That’s when you tend to see this stuff take hold.
But Donald Trump and a lot of his supporters act like an out-of-power group, despite being in power. There’s this talk of the deep state. There’s as an alienation from a government that they actually have to some degree authority over. And that’s a weird piece of it that could lead it to go in unusual directions.
Judy Woodruff: But it’s thriving under a President who’s in office, David.
David Brooks: Yes, the underlying feature is social distrust, tremendous distrust of institution, dismissal of any institution; so an assumption that every institution, whether it’s a hospital, a newspaper, they’re all corrupt, they’re all in it for themselves. It’s all a con on the American people.
And once you embrace that as your fundamental truth, this is sort of what happens.
SUMMARY: “Russian trolls were different from normal trolls,” says Clint Watts, a former U.S. government intelligence analyst who observed how Russia deployed a campaign of disinformation to discredit Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. Nick Schifrin talks with Watts, author of "Messing With the Enemy," about what Americans can do to withstand future attempts by Russia to meddle in democracy.
