The Russia Hoax - Not

drummerboy said:

 do you have some point here?

 I think she thinks that Clinesmith was involved in the opening of the investigation, which he wasn’t.


ridski said:

 I think she thinks that Clinesmith was involved in the opening of the investigation, which he wasn’t.

 She doesn’t think anything. She just posts stuff up in order to get her daily giggles. 


this is a long thread on a recent release of redacted portions of the Mueller Report. A lot of it has to do with Russian efforts to involve themselves in the election, including hiring someone to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison suit for a Trump rally.

I haven't seen other reporting on this release yet.


Seems it was more than just a hoax after all


The walls are closing in


Anybody care to elaborate?  Is this about the Steel dossier which, as far as I know, nobody has taken seriously for a long time?  On the other hand, the nature of Trump's relationship with Putin was worthy of investigation and still seems a bit odd.  Too bad that Mueller was selected to lead the investigation.  He was well past his prime.

For my part, I think that Trump would have been more than happy to formally collude with the Russians whereas for the Russians, they only needed to create the appearance of collusion to achieve their goal of muddying the waters.


Trumpenstein promised Putin he would build some expensive condos and hotels with casinos on the beach of the dead sea…trumpenstein would get the biggest penthouse, right next to Putin’s. I think he even conned Putin into giving him a few “loans”..


tjohn said:

Anybody care to elaborate?  Is this about the Steel dossier which, as far as I know, nobody has taken seriously for a long time?  On the other hand, the nature of Trump's relationship with Putin was worthy of investigation and still seems a bit odd.  Too bad that Mueller was selected to lead the investigation.  He was well past his prime.

For my part, I think that Trump would have been more than happy to formally collude with the Russians whereas for the Russians, they only needed to create the appearance of collusion to achieve their goal of muddying the waters.

 Its a very difficult case to make when your only evidence came from opposition research funded by the suspect's political opponent.   You are starting to see indictments now of people pushing this stuff..  And this is being done with a democratic AG.  Very interesting.


terp said:

tjohn said:

Anybody care to elaborate?  Is this about the Steel dossier which, as far as I know, nobody has taken seriously for a long time?  On the other hand, the nature of Trump's relationship with Putin was worthy of investigation and still seems a bit odd.  Too bad that Mueller was selected to lead the investigation.  He was well past his prime.

For my part, I think that Trump would have been more than happy to formally collude with the Russians whereas for the Russians, they only needed to create the appearance of collusion to achieve their goal of muddying the waters.

 Its a very difficult case to make when your only evidence came from opposition research funded by the suspect's political opponent.   ...

 that's about the dumbest thing you've ever posted. but explains a helluva lot.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

tjohn said:

Anybody care to elaborate?  Is this about the Steel dossier which, as far as I know, nobody has taken seriously for a long time?  On the other hand, the nature of Trump's relationship with Putin was worthy of investigation and still seems a bit odd.  Too bad that Mueller was selected to lead the investigation.  He was well past his prime.

For my part, I think that Trump would have been more than happy to formally collude with the Russians whereas for the Russians, they only needed to create the appearance of collusion to achieve their goal of muddying the waters.

 Its a very difficult case to make when your only evidence came from opposition research funded by the suspect's political opponent.   ...

 that's about the dumbest thing you've ever posted. but explains a helluva lot.

 Ok.  So what is the evidence?


terp said:

 Ok.  So what is the evidence?

 read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, and all of Mueller (that's been released anyway) and get back to us.


terp said:

tjohn said:

Anybody care to elaborate?  Is this about the Steel dossier which, as far as I know, nobody has taken seriously for a long time?  On the other hand, the nature of Trump's relationship with Putin was worthy of investigation and still seems a bit odd.  Too bad that Mueller was selected to lead the investigation.  He was well past his prime.

For my part, I think that Trump would have been more than happy to formally collude with the Russians whereas for the Russians, they only needed to create the appearance of collusion to achieve their goal of muddying the waters.

 Its a very difficult case to make when your only evidence came from opposition research funded by the suspect's political opponent.   You are starting to see indictments now of people pushing this stuff..  And this is being done with a democratic AG.  Very interesting.

It's not being done by the AG.  It is being done by Durham, a special prosecutor appointed by Barr.

In any case, as I said, I don't know of anyone who has taken the Steel dossier seriously since maybe late 2016.  The MAGAots are just fanning the hysteria in effort to make it look like their boy was framed.


Danchenko's indictment raises some hard questions for news and other media outlets who ran with the Steele dossier, but, as DB and tjohn have noted, doesn't undercut the very issues around Trump and Russia. I think David Folkenflik put it well during an segment on NPR:

Let's be clear. It doesn't fundamentally change our understanding of Trump and his relationship to Russia. This didn't prompt special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigations. He had questionable business dealings there. Trump wanted help from the Russians against Hillary Clinton. The Russians did interfere in the elections and Trump denied it. And you can base that on the bipartisan Senate Intelligence report

This is a media and reporting story, not a "Trump was wronged" story.


Another problem in talking about this is what do Trump defenders actually mean when they say the "Russia Hoax" or Russiagate? I frankly am not very sure, but I think they're referring to whether Trump actually sat down personally with Russians and planned some kind of election subversion. Anything less than that constitutes a hoax.

And maybe my recollection is fuzzy, but I don't recall many mainstream outlets giving unreasonable credit to the Steele dossier.

And I give no credence whatsoever to any indictment coming from Durham, who I wish Garland would have the balls to just fire. Talk about witch hunts.


On the topic of news outlets, here's a story in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html

I don't know that I ever see similar stories from the outlets favored by those claiming things like "Russia hoax." So, either those kinds of media outlets just never make any mistakes, or we can draw some conclusions about what kinds of outlets strive for accountability and integrity in their reporting...


Has anyone seen any reference in Russiagate media to Crowdstrike Pres Shawn Henry's testimony that Crowdstrike never had any concrete evidence that Russia exfiltrated the DNC emails? (p.32)

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

Or Mueller attorney Kravis who said in Federal court that Mueller never claimed that the International Research Agency was controlled by the Russian govt? (p.20)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf

[ Mueller indicted IRA funder Concord Management but when Concord challenged Mueller in Federal court, Mueller withdrew the case ]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-concord/u-s-prosecutors-drop-mueller-era-case-against-russian-firm-idUSKBN21405P

I hope to update the collusion thread when I can put aside enough time. 

It's over people. Been over for a long time.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1461338932797485073?s=20


https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

...

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”



drummerboy said:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

...

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”


I suggest that you shouldn't waste your time pointing out all the facts that weren't debunked. 

I just hope this doesn't get back to Seth Rich conspiracy theories again.


Woe betide digital data exfiltrators who leave behind concrete evidence.


DaveSchmidt said:

Woe betide digital data exfiltrators who leave behind concrete evidence.

This is relevant to . . . ?


paulsurovell said:

This is relevant to . . . ?

Your standard of evidence. In the New Yorker article that I linked to (above and in the past, when you previously made concrete evidence the standard), Kathleen Hall Jamieson addresses why it sets the bar higher than what we normally require when determining what’s going on around us, even in legal contexts.

(And any hacker who leaves behind concrete evidence is an amateur, so good luck there finding it.)


drummerboy said:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

...

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”


Funny, that Russiagate media reports Russian hacking as fact, not as "there were indicators of exfiltration according to Crowdstrike, a firm hired by DNC operative Michael Sussman, who was indicted for lying to the FBI about his role in the fabrication of the Alfa Bank story".

On the ICA "assessment," here's your timely reminder that before Russiagate propaganda reached the point where allegations were reported as fact, the initial NYT reaction to the ICA report (probably its last intellectually honest reporting on Russiagate) was as (see below).

Edited to add: Also, waiting for comments about the Kravis testimony.


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

This is relevant to . . . ?

Your standard of evidence. In the New Yorker article that I linked to (above and in the past, when you previously made concrete evidence the standard), Kathleen Hall Jamieson addresses why it sets the bar higher than what we normally require when determining what’s going on around us, even in legal contexts.

(And any hacker who leaves behind concrete evidence is an amateur, so good luck there finding it.)

Doesn't explain why "Russian hacking" is mis-reported as "fact".


paulsurovell said:

Doesn't explain why "Russian hacking" is mis-reported as "fact".

Or why online commenters state that findings of Russian interference or of, say, Syrian chemical bombings are in fact hoaxes.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!