講開Manafort, 佢近排仲有單好爆. Filibuster_HK巴打係上一個thread都有post, 我順便recap下, 話說一如上述文件, 當敘述涉及未完成調查/機密資料, 咁就是刪左佢嘅, 即係變▉▉▉▉▉▉▉, 但佢代表律師入紙辯護嗰時, 佢份pdg就勁喇, 啲▉▉▉▉▉▉▉係c&p完會出返字, 即係純粹將底色校做黑色
文件:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf
就因為咁, 又爆左新料出黎, 其中一句係「The same is true with regard to the
Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign.」
SCO指控Manafort涉嫌將總統大選嘅民調數據, 交畀疑似俄佬特務Kilimnik
呢度指嘅應該係Trump競選團隊嘅內部民調數據, 換言之, SCO指控前Trump競選主席將內部民調數據交畀疑似俄佬特務
咁民調有咩用?華盛頓郵報有篇短文有解:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-value-of-paul-manaforts-polling-data/2019/01/11/0f05c672-15e4-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html
The goal of advertising, like politics, is to persuade someone somewhere to buy something, whether it’s a product or a candidate.
(...)
Polling data is the same contextual business intelligence that big brands use in their marketing activities, including advertising. It’s the raw material we use in the battle to win hearts and minds, and to get people to choose one product or service over another — to vote with their wallets.
(...)
Cambridge Analytica manipulated the Facebook platform with a fake app that it used to harvest personal data from up to 87 million users . Each of these individuals became a data stream of actions they took on Facebook: what they liked, watched, shared and bought.
In the political context, this created highly detailed profiles of voters with whom a campaign could speak in their language and according to their interests, their fears, their behaviors and their values.
(...)
Passing on this kind of information gives a partner the ability to reach audiences in a very personalized way. And if that partner is a foreign country intent on influencing voters, exploiting divisions and disrupting elections, the data is priceless. It gives them the tools to get pretty close to the holy grail of marketing: to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right message.
以呢單case黎講, 即係對方就可以用呢份數據, tailor made propaganda去干預選民
最盞鬼係, 「The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign.」呢句入面「The same is true with regard」係refer緊前面, 嗰段基本上解釋緊, 點解Manafort唔記得同探員講某啲嘢係嘢, 換言之, 佢認左佢將民調數據交畀Kilimnik
咁你會問, Trump嗰邊到底仲可以點拗無collusion/conspiracy
答案係:
Giuliani: I never said there was no collusion in the campaign
https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1085725959653871616
我google左陣, 發現已經有人整理左搬龍門紀錄
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-rudy-giuliani-just-contradicted-nearly-all-the-trump-team%E2%80%99s-past-collusion-denials/ar-BBSncnm
基本上個思路係:
無同俄佬接觸
v
有接觸但唔關選舉事
v
關事但"Collusion isn't a crime"(p.s. 因為正式名係conspiracy), 而且無collusion
v
競選團隊有人有collusion但唔關Trump事
嘩屌