Connect with us

Latest

News

CNN is the Clinton News Network. Wikileaks proves CNN and DNC colluded before Donald Trump interview

CNN and the DNC worked together to formulate the list of questions for a Donald Trump interview according to new emails released by WikiLeaks

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

519 Views

Yesterday Wikileaks announced the release of hacked DNC emails entitled #DNCLeak2.

The new Wikileaks dump has over 8,000 unseen, hacked DNC emails, which will most certainly be attributed to Russian hackers with no evidence backing those claims whatsoever, cue Robby Mook and Donna Brazile.

In one of the emails, DNC members were tipped off, in advance, of a forthcoming Wolf Blitzer interview of Donald Trump. The DNC members were then given the opportunity to prepare the list of questions for Trump.

In the email below Lauren Dillon of the DNC, send out group email asking everyone what questions Wolf Blitzer should ask Trump…

screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-11-46-40-am

“Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow. Thanks!”

Wolf Blitzer is very much in the tank with HRC. He can be seen below drinking and dancing after Hillary Clinton stole the primary election from Bernie Sanders.

The interview was ultimately cancelled, but the DNC made a note that the questions they offered CNN are “Good to have for others as well”…

screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-12-00-12-pm


Here are the questions in full below, as released by Wikileaks.

The DNC focuses their questions for Wolf Blitzer and CNN around Trump’s foreign policy platform and his ability to lead. The questions also cover North and South Korea, the UN and ISIS.


From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] more
Date: 2016-04-25 13:59
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

CNN said the interview was cancelled as of now but will keep the questions for the next one 🙁

Good to have for others as well.

Updated here:

– Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you’re giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you any advice that you chose not to take?

-A number of Republicans and think tanks including the Heritage Foundation have suggested tying defense spending to GDP, most often suggesting defense should be funded at 4 percent GDP. Is that something you would do/we’ll see in your plan?

– You’ve said you look to Ambassador John Bolton for military advice and called him “terrific,” but he was one of the architects of the Iraq war. How do you explain your praise for Bolton if you also claim the war was a mistake? What advice have you taken from him?

* TODD: “Who do you talk to for military advice right now?” TRUMP: “Well, I watch the shows. I really see a lot of great — when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like.” TODD: “But is there somebody — is there a go to for you?” TRUMP: “Probably there are two or three.” TODD: “Every presidential candidate has a go-to.” TRUMP: “Well, probably there are two or three. I like Bolton, I think he’s a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. Jacobs is a good guy.” TODD: “Do you mean Ambassador John Bolton–” TRUMP: “Yes. I think he’s terrific–.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 8/16/15]

– CIA Director Brennan and former CIA Director Hayden have both said that our military and intelligence officers might refuse to follow some of your orders if you were president. You’ve said that the military would in fact listen, but what would you do if the military refused to listen to you? Should they be court-martialed if they refuse to follow orders?

* Asked What He Would Do If The Military Refused To Obey His Illegal Orders, Trump Said “They’re Not Going To Refuse Me. Believe Me.” BAIER: “General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?” TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.” BAIER: “But they’re illegal.” [Republican Primary Debate, Detroit MI, 3/3/16]

* Trump: “If I Say Do It, They’re Going To Do It. That’s What Leadership Is All About.” BAIER: “But targeting terrorists’ families?” (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: “And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.” [Republican Primary Debate, Detroit MI, 3/3/16]

– Do you think American victims of 9/11 should be able to sue Saudi Arabia in court? What role, if any, do you think Saudi Arabia had in the 9/11 attacks?

– You’ve said we should have bombed the “right people” after 9/11 and have suggested that the government has evidence Saudi Arabia was involved. Do you think we should have instead bombed Saudi Arabia?

* Trump Said We Needed To Bomb The “Right People,” The “People That Knocked Down The World Trade Center” And That Was Not Saddam Hussein. TRUMP: “No, I’m saying that, certainly, it would have been nice if the federal government could have given some of the trillion dollars that we’ve spent on Iraq. And by the way, I’m worse of a hawk than anybody. I’m worse than Roger Ailes, and that’s pretty bad, OK? But you’ve got to bomb the right people. You’ve got to bomb the right — the people that knocked down the World Trade Center. It was not the people of Iraq, and it was not Saddam Hussein. It’s sort of interesting. Saddam Hussein used to kill terrorists. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. I mean, that’s the Harvard of terrorism. So it’s a very, very sad situation.” [Cavuto, Fox Business, 12/17/08]

* Trump Suggested The Redacted Pages Of The 9/11 Report Would Reveal That Saudi Arabia Blew Up The World Trade Center. “‘Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi – take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,’ Trump told the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory that George W. Bush was president on September 11. Trump appeared to be referencing the 28 pages that were redacted from the 2002 Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.” [New York Magazine, 2/17/16<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html>]

– Would you order U.S. troops to withdraw from South Korea if they refused to pay us, and if so, how quickly?

* Trump Said He Was Willing To Withdraw U.S. Forces From Japan And South Korea If They Did Not Increase Their Financial Contribution. HABERMAN: “Would you be willing to withdraw U.S. forces from places like Japan and South Korea if they don’t increase their contribution significantly?” TRUMP: “Yes, I would. I would not do so happily, but I would be willing to do it. Not happily. David actually asked me that question before, this morning before we sort of finalized out. The answer is not happily but the answer is yes. We cannot afford to be losing vast amounts of billions of dollars on all of this. We just can’t do it anymore. Now there was a time when we could have done it. When we started doing it. But we can’t do it anymore. And I have a feeling that they’d up the ante very much. I think they would, and if they wouldn’t I would really have to say yes.” [Donald Trump Interview, New York Times, 3/26/16<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– How many military bases do you think the U.S. should have in Southeast Asia?

* Trump Said He Did Not Think The U.S. Gained Anything By Having Military Bases In South Korea And Japan. LANE: “You know, well, they say and I think this is on public record, it’s basically 50 percent of the non-personnel cost is paid by South Korea and Japan.” TRUMP: “50 percent?” LANE: “Yeah.” TRUMP: “Why isn’t it 100 percent?” HIATT: “Well I guess the question is, does the United States gain anything by having bases?” TRUMP: “Personally I don’t think so. I personally don’t think so. Look. I have great relationships with South Korea. I have buildings in South Korea. But that’s a wealthy country. They make the ships, they make the televisions, they make the air conditioning. They make tremendous amounts of products. It’s a huge, it’s a massive industrial complex country.” [Editorial Board Interview, Washington Post, 3/21/16<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/>]

– You’ve said that you would listen to our generals if they called to send 20,000 troops in to fight ISIS, then later said you would find it hard to go along with those troop levels. Which one is it? Would you listen to the troop levels our generals called for? If not, how many troops do you think is appropriate to send in to combat ISIS?

* Trump Said He “Would Listen To The Generals” But Was “Hearing Numbers Of 20,000 To 30,000” Ground Troops To Fight ISIS In Syria. HEWITT: “Mr. Trump, more troops?” TRUMP: “We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them, we have to get rid of it and then we have to come back here and rebuild our country, which is falling apart.” HEWITT: “How many?” TRUMP: “I would listen to the generals but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast. We have to knock them out fast. Look, we’re not allowed to fight. We can’t fight. We’re not knocking out the oil because they don’t want to create environmental pollution up in the air.” [Republican Primary Debate, Miami FL, 3/10/16]

* Trump: “I Find It Hard To Go Along With” The Generals’ Suggestion For 20- To 30,000 Troops “Because It’s So Much.” DIEHL: “And could I ask you about ISIS, speaking of making commitments, because you talked recently about possibly sending 20 or 30,000 troops and–” TRUMP: “No I didn’t, oh no no no, okay, I know what you’re saying. There was a question asked to me. I said that the military, the generals have said that 20- to 30,000. They said, would you send troops? I didn’t say send 20,000. I said, well the generals are saying you’d need because they , what would it take to wipe out ISIS, I said pretty much exactly this, I said the generals, the military is saying you would need 20- to 30,000 troops, but I didn’t say that I would send them.” DIEHL: “If they said that, would you go along with that and send the troops?” TRUMP: “I find it hard to go along with-I mention that as an example because it’s so much. That’s why I brought that up. But a couple of people have said the same thing as you, where they said did I say that and I said that that’s a number that I heard would be needed. I would find it very, very hard to send that many troops to take care of it.” [Editorial Board Interview, Washington Post, 3/21/16<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/>]

– You’ve said that the U.S. disproportionately funded the U.N., should we reduce our funding to the United Nations? How much should we reduce it by? If we get nothing out of the U.N, why should we continue to be a member of it?

* Trump Said We Disproportionately Funded The United Nations And Got Nothing Out Of It. TRUMP: “You know, I’ll give you another one, I talked about NATO and we fund disproportionately, the United Nations, we get nothing out of the United Nations other than good real estate prices. We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don’t respect us, they don’t do what we want, and yet we fund them disproportionately again. Why are we always the ones that funds everybody disproportionately, you know? So everything is like that.” [New York Times Interview, 3/26/16<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– Which international organizations should the U.S. be a member of? Which treaties do you think it is valuable the U.S. remain a part of?

– In 2000, you said you supported a pre-emptive strike against North Korea if it would keep them from getting nuclear weapons. Do you still support that?

* Trump: Am I Ready To Bomb North Korea’s Reactor? “You’re Damned Right.” “What would I do in North Korea? Fair question. It’s easy to point out the problem, but what should we do to solve it? Am I ready to bomb this reactor? You’re damned right.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

* Trump: “A Surgical Strike Would Not Only Put Out The Fire In North Korea, But It Would Also Send A Message Around The World That The United States Is Going To Eliminate Any Serious Threat To Its Security, And Do So Without Apology.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

From: Freundlich, Christina
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:34 AM
To: Roberts, Kelly; Dillon, Lauren; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

Obviously I think these are all great. lauren?

From: Roberts, Kelly
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Dillon, Lauren; Freundlich, Christina; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

This is the list Brinster, Sarge and I came up with:

– Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you’re giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you any advice that you chose not to take?

– CIA Director Brennan and former CIA Director Hayden have both said that our military and intelligence officers might refuse to follow some of your orders if you were president. What would you do if the military refused to listen to you? Should they be court-martialed if they refuse to follow orders?

– You’ve said you look to Ambassador John Bolton for military advice and called him “terrific,” but he was one of the architects of the Iraq war. How do you explain your praise for Bolton if you also claim the war was a mistake? What advice have you taken from him?

* TODD: “Who do you talk to for military advice right now?” TRUMP: “Well, I watch the shows. I really see a lot of great — when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like.” TODD: “But is there somebody — is there a go to for you?” TRUMP: “Probably there are two or three.” TODD: “Every presidential candidate has a go-to.” TRUMP: “Well, probably there are two or three. I like Bolton, I think he’s a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. Jacobs is a good guy.” TODD: “Do you mean Ambassador John Bolton–” TRUMP: “Yes. I think he’s terrific–.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 8/16/15]

– Do you think American victims of 9/11 should be able to sue Saudi Arabia in court? What role, if any, do you think Saudi Arabia had in the 9/11 attacks?

– You’ve said we should have bombed the “right people” after 9/11 and have suggested that the government has evidence Saudi Arabia was involved. Do you think we should have instead bombed Saudi Arabia?

* Trump Said We Needed To Bomb The “Right People,” The “People That Knocked Down The World Trade Center” And That Was Not Saddam Hussein. TRUMP: “No, I’m saying that, certainly, it would have been nice if the federal government could have given some of the trillion dollars that we’ve spent on Iraq. And by the way, I’m worse of a hawk than anybody. I’m worse than Roger Ailes, and that’s pretty bad, OK? But you’ve got to bomb the right people. You’ve got to bomb the right — the people that knocked down the World Trade Center. It was not the people of Iraq, and it was not Saddam Hussein. It’s sort of interesting. Saddam Hussein used to kill terrorists. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. I mean, that’s the Harvard of terrorism. So it’s a very, very sad situation.” [Cavuto, Fox Business, 12/17/08]

* Trump Suggested The Redacted Pages Of The 9/11 Report Would Reveal That Saudi Arabia Blew Up The World Trade Center. “‘Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi – take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,’ Trump told the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory that George W. Bush was president on September 11. Trump appeared to be referencing the 28 pages that were redacted from the 2002 Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.” [New York Magazine, 2/17/16<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html>]

– Would you order U.S. troops to withdraw from South Korea, and if so, how quickly?

– How many military bases do you think the U.S. should have in Southeast Asia?

– President Obama recently announced he’s sending 250 U.S. special operations troops to Syria to help in the fight against ISIS. How many U.S. troops do you think need to be sent to Syria/Iraq and what do they need to do there?

– You’ve said that the U.S. disproportionately funded the U.N., should we cut our funding to the United Nations? How much should we reduce it by? If we get nothing out of the U.N, why should we continue to be a member of it?

* Trump Said We Disproportionately Funded The United Nations And Got Nothing Out Of It. TRUMP: “You know, I’ll give you another one, I talked about NATO and we fund disproportionately, the United Nations, we get nothing out of the United Nations other than good real estate prices. We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don’t respect us, they don’t do what we want, and yet we fund them disproportionately again. Why are we always the ones that funds everybody disproportionately, you know? So everything is like that.” [New York Times Interview, 3/26/16<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– Which international organizations should the U.S. be a member of? Which treaties do you think it is valuable the U.S. remain a part of?

– In 2000, you said you supported a pre-emptive strike against North Korea if it would keep them from getting nuclear weapons. Do you still support that?

* Trump: Am I Ready To Bomb North Korea’s Reactor? “You’re Damned Right.” “What would I do in North Korea? Fair question. It’s easy to point out the problem, but what should we do to solve it? Am I ready to bomb this reactor? You’re damned right.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

* Trump: “A Surgical Strike Would Not Only Put Out The Fire In North Korea, But It Would Also Send A Message Around The World That The United States Is Going To Eliminate Any Serious Threat To Its Security, And Do So Without Apology.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

From: Dillon, Lauren
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:05 AM
To: Freundlich, Christina; Roberts, Kelly; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: Re: Trump Questions for CNN

Reminder

Kelly please take lead. Folks, send your questions and any necessary backup to Kelly.

On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Dillon, Lauren <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.

Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.

Thanks!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

May survives ‘no confidence’ vote as UK moves towards March 29 deadline or Article 50 extension (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 168.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the ‘no confidence’ vote that UK Prime Minister May won with the a slim margin…meaning that though few MPs have confidence in her ‘Brexit withdrawal’ negotiating skills, they appear to have no problem allowing May to lead the country towards its Brexit deadline in March, which coincidently may be delayed and eventually scrapped altogether.

Meanwhile Tony Blair is cozying up to Brussels’ oligarchs, working his evil magic to derail the will of the British people, and keep the integrationist ambitions for the UK and Europe on track.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


The UK government led by Theresa May, has survived to fight another day, after winning a no-confidence vote, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, following parliament rejecting the PM’s Brexit deal, earlier on Tuesday evening.

The no-confidence vote was defeated by 19 votes – the government winning by 325 to 306. It’s a rare positive note for May’s Tory cabinet after the humiliating Brexit defeat.

Speaking immediately after the vote, a victorious May said she was “pleased” that the House expressed its confidence in her government. May said she will “continue to work” to deliver on the result of the Brexit referendum and leave the EU.

May invited the leaders of parliamentary parties to meet with her individually, beginning on Wednesday evening.

“I stand ready to work with any member of this House to deliver on Brexit,” she said.

Responding to the vote, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the House had “emphatically” rejected May’s deal on Tuesday. The government, he said, must now remove “clearly once and for all the prospect of the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit from the EU and all the chaos that would result from that.”

Labour will now have to consider what move to make next. Their official Brexit policy, decided by members at conference in September, states that if a general election cannot be forced, then all options should be left on the table, including calling for a second referendum.

Liberal Democrats MP Ed Davey also called on May to rule out a no deal Brexit.

The way forward for Brexit is not yet clear and May’s options are now limited, given that the Brexit deal she was offering was voted down so dramatically on Tuesday.

Gavin Barrett, a professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law in Dublin, told RT that May will now have to decide if her second preference is a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum. Her preference will likely be a no-deal Brexit, Barrett said, adding that “since no other option commands a majority in the House” a no-deal exit is now “the default option.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Final Steps in Syria’s Successful Struggle for Peace and Sovereignty

The war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The situation in Syria evolves daily and sees two situations very closely linked to each other, with the US withdrawal from Syria and the consequent expansionist ambitions of Erdogan in Syria and the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover in Idlib that frees the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian aviation to liberate the de-escalation zone.

Trump has promised to destroy Turkey economically if he attacks the Kurds, reinforcing his claim that Erdogan will not target the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) once the US withdraws from the area. One of the strongest accusations made against Trump’s withdrawal by his opponents is that no Middle Eastern force will ever trust the US again if they abandon the SDF to its fate, that is, to its annihilation at the hands of the Turkish army and its FSA proxies. This, however, is not possible; not so much because of Trump’s economic threats, but because of Damascus and Moscow being strongly opposed to any Turkish military action in the northeast of Syria.

This is a red line drawn by Putin and Assad, and the Turkish president likely understands the consequences of any wrong moves. It is no coincidence that he stated several times that he had no problems with the “Syrians or Syrian-Kurdish brothers”, and repeated that if the area under the SDF were to come under the control of Damascus, Turkey would have no need to intervene in Syria. Trump’s request that Ankara have a buffer zone of 20 kilometers separating the Kurdish and Turkish forces seems to complement the desire of Damascus and Moscow to avoid a clash between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the SDF.

The only party that seems to be secretly encouraging a clash between the SDF and Turkish forces is Israel, criticizing Ankara and singing the praises of the SDF, in order to try and accentuate the tensions between the two sides, though naturally without success. Israel’s continued raids in Syria, though almost constantly failing due to Syrian air defense, and the divide-and-rule policy used against Turkey and the SDF, show that Tel Aviv is now weakened and mostly irrelevant in the Syrian conflict.

In Idlib, the situation seems to be becoming less complicated and difficult to decipher. Russia, Iran and Syria had asked Erdogan to take control of the province through its “moderate jihadists”, sit down at the negotiating table, and resolve the matter through a diplomatic solution. Exactly the opposite happened. The HTS (formerly al-Nusra/al-Qaeda in Syria) has in recent weeks conquered practically the whole province of Idlib, with numerous forces linked to Turkey (Ahrar al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki) dissolving and merging into HTS. This development puts even more pressure on Erdogan, who is likely to see his influence in Idlib fade away permanently. Moreover, this evolution represents a unique opportunity for Damascus and Moscow to start operations in Idlib with the genuine justification of combating terrorism. It is a repeat of what happened in other de-escalation areas. Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly requested the moderates be separated from the terrorists, so as to approach the situation with a diplomatic negotiation.

In the absence of an effective division of combatants, all are considered terrorists, with the military option replacing the diplomatic. This remains the only feasible option to free the area from terrorists who are not willing to give back territory to the legitimate government in Damascus and are keeping civilians hostages. The Idlib province seems to have experienced the same playbook applied in other de-escalation zones, this time with a clear contrast between Turkey and Saudi Arabia that shows how the struggle between the two countries is much deeper than it appears. The reasons behind the Khashoggi case and the diplomatic confrontation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia were laid bare in the actions of the HTS in Idlib, which has taken control of all the areas previously held by Ankara’s proxies.

It remains to be seen whether Moscow and Damascus would like to encourage Erdogan to recover Idlib through its proxies, trying to encourage jihadists to fight each other as much as possible in order to lighten the task of the SAA, or whether they would prefer to press the advantage themselves and attack while the terrorist front is experiencing internal confusion.

In terms of occupied territory and accounts to be settled, two areas of great importance for the future of Syria remain unresolved, namely al-Tanf, occupied by US forces on the Syrian-Jordanian border, and the area in the north of Syria occupied by Turkish forces and their FSA proxies. It is too early to approach a solution militarily, it being easier for Damascus and Moscow to complete the work to free Syria from the remaining terrorists. Once this has been done, the presence of US or Turkish forces in Syria, whether directly or indirectly, would become all the more difficult to justify. Driving away the US and, above all, Turkey from Syrian territory will be the natural next step in the Syrian conflict.

This is an unequivocal sign that the war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus. Several countries — including Italy in the near future — will reopen their embassies in Syria to demonstrate that the war, even if not completely over, is effectively won by Damascus and her allies.

For this reason, several countries that were previously opposed to Damascus, like the United Arab Emirates, are understood to have some kind of contact with the government of Damascus. If they intend to become involved in the reconstruction process and any future investment, they will quite naturally need to re-establish diplomatic relations with Damascus. The Arab League is also looking to welcome Syria back into the fold.

Such are signs that Syria is returning to normality, without forgetting which and how many countries have conspired and acted directly against the Syrians for over seven years. An invitation to the Arab League or some embassy being reopened will not be enough to compensate for the damage done over years, but Assad does not preclude any option, and is in the meantime demonstrating to the Israelis, Saudis and the US Deep State that their war has failed and that even their most loyal allies are resuming diplomatic relations with Damascus, a double whammy against the neocons, Wahhabis and Zionists.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Breitbart


In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.

“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”

Others were more concerned about the presence of the blacklist. According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”

The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube, and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.

“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.”

The manually downranked items included several videos from Dr. Antony Levatino, a former abortion doctor who is now a pro-life activist. Another video in the top ten featured a woman’s personal story of being pressured to have an abortion, while another featured pro-life conservative Ben Shapiro. The Slate journalist who complained to Google reported that these videos previously featured in the top ten, describing them in her story as “dangerous misinformation.”

Since the Slate journalist’s inquiry and Google’s subsequent intervention, the top search results now feature pro-abortion content from left-wing sources like BuzzFeed, Vice, CNN, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. In her report, the Slate journalist acknowledged that the search results changed shortly after she contacted Google.

The manual adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month: that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.”

A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”

One of the posts in the discussion also noted that the blacklist had previously been edited to include the search term “Maxine Waters” after a single Google employee complained the top YouTube search result for Maxine Waters was “very low quality.”

Google’s alleged intervention on behalf of a Democratic congresswoman would be further evidence of the tech giant using its resources to prop up the left. Breitbart News previously reported on leaked emails revealing the company targeted pro-Democrat demographics in its get-out-the-vote efforts in 2016.

According to the source, a software engineer in the thread also noted that “a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland” had been added to the blacklist – another change with potentially dramatic consequences on the national policies of a western democracy.

youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

At least one post in the discussion thread revealed the existence of a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” which contains a list of YouTube search terms that Google manually curates. In addition to the terms “abortion,” “abortions,” “Maxine Waters,” and search terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, a Google software engineer noted that the blacklist includes search terms related to terrorist attacks. (the posts specifically mentions that the “Strasbourg terrorist attack” as being on the list).

“If you look at the other entries recently added to the youtube_controversial_query_blacklist(e.g., entries related to the Strasbourg terrorist attack), the addition of abortion seems…out-of-place,” wrote the software engineer, according to the source.

After learning of the existence of the blacklist, Breitbart News obtained a partial screenshot of the full blacklist file from a source within Google. It reveals that the blacklist includes search terms related to both mass shootings and the progressive anti-second amendment activist David Hogg.

This suggests Google has followed the lead of Democrat politicians, who have repeatedly pushed tech companies to censor content related to the Parkland school shooting and the Parkland anti-gun activists. It’s part of a popular new line of thought in the political-media establishment, which views the public as too stupid to question conspiracy theories for themselves.

Here is the partial blacklist leaked to Breitbart:

2117 plane crash Russian

2118 plane crash

2119 an-148

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

2121 florida shooting crisis actors

2122 florida conspiracy

2123 florida false flag shooting

2124 florida false flag

2125 fake florida school shooting

2126 david hogg hoax

2127 david hogg fake

2128 david hogg crisis actor

2129 david hogg forgets lines

2130 david hogg forgets his lines

2131 david hogg cant remember his lines

2132 david hogg actor

2133 david hogg cant remember

2134 david hogg conspiracy

2135 david hogg exposed

2136 david hogg lines

2137 david hogg rehearsing

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

The full internal filepath of the blacklist, according to another source, is:

//depot/google3/googledata/superroot/youtube/youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

Contradictions

Responding to a request for comment, a YouTube spokeswoman said the company wants to promote “authoritative” sources in its search results, but maintained that YouTube is a “platform for free speech” that “allow[s]” both pro-life and pro-abortion content.

YouTube’s full comment:

YouTube is a platform for free speech where anyone can choose to post videos, as long as they follow our Community Guidelines, which prohibit things like inciting violence and pornography. We apply these policies impartially and we allow both pro-life and pro-choice opinions. Over the last year we’ve described how we are working to better surface news sources across our site for news-related searches and topical information. We’ve improved our search and discovery algorithms, built new features that clearly label and prominently surface news sources on our homepage and search pages, and introduced information panels to help give users more authoritative sources where they can fact check information for themselves.

In the case of the “abortion” search results, YouTube’s intervention to insert “authoritative” content resulted in the downranking of pro-life videos and the elevation of pro-abortion ones.

A Google spokesperson took a tougher line than its YouTube subsidiary, stating that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”

However, in the leaked discussion thread, a member of Google’s “trust & safety” team, Daniel Aaronson, admitted that the company maintains “huge teams” that work to adjust search results for subjects that are “prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content” – all subjective terms that are frequently used to suppress right-leaning sources.

He also admitted that the interventions weren’t confined to YouTube – they included search results delivered via Google Assistant, Google Home, and in rare cases Google ’s organic search results.

In the thread, Aaronson attempted to explain how search blacklisting worked. He claimed that highly specific searches would generate non-blacklisted results, even controversial ones. But the inclusion of highly specific terms in the YouTube blacklist, like “David Hogg cant remember his lines” – the name of an actual viral video – seems to contradict this.

Aaronson’s full post is copied below:

I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.

When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:

  • Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem
    • E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of
  • Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)
    • E,g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy

These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public

Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).

From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.

While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users”. Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.

Whether we agree or not, user perception of our responses, results, and answers of different products and mediums can change. And I think many people are used to the fact that organic search is a place where content should be accessible no matter how offensive it might be, however, the expectation is very different on a Google Home, a Knowledge Panel, or even YouTube.

These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions – these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but admittedly are also not made in a highly public forum like TGIF or IndustryInfo (as you can imagine, decisions/agreement would be hard to get in such a wide list – image if all your CL’s were reviewed by every engineer across Google all the time). I hope that answers some questions and gives a better layer of transparency without going into details about our “Pepsi formula”.

Best,

Daniel

The fact that Google manually curates politically contentious search results fits in with a wider pattern of political activity on the part of the tech giant.

In 2018, Breitbart News exclusively published a leaked video from the company that showed senior management in dismay at Trump’s election victory, and pledging to use the company’s power to make his populist movement a “hiccup” in history.

Breitbart also leaked “The Good Censor,” an internal research document from Google that admits the tech giant is engaged in the censorship of its own products, partly in response to political events.

Another leak revealed that employees within the company, including Google’s current director of Trust and Safety, tried to kick Breitbart News off Google’s market-dominating online ad platforms.

Yet another showed Google engaged in targeted turnout operations aimed to boost voter participation in pro-Democrat demographics in “key states” ahead of the 2016 election. The effort was dubbed a “silent donation” by a top Google employee.

Evidence for Google’s partisan activities is now overwhelming. President Trump has previously warned Google, as well as other Silicon Valley giants, not to engage in censorship or partisan activities. Google continues to defy him.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to [email protected].

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending