Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
In light of the debunked criticisms of the investigation that are on THIS thread, you'd think some folks would appreciate a "clean slate".
South_Mountaineer said:
In light of the debunked criticisms of the investigation that are on THIS thread, you'd think some folks would appreciate a "clean slate".
Except that all the tin-foil hat folks will have to re-post all their garbage all over again. How inconvenient.
tjohn said:
You sound a bit like Fox News. Start with an assumption and then overflow with outrage. Try moving away from the political fringes.
paulsurovell said:
When people's ideas are derived from unconditional faith and trust in the CIA, FBI and mainstream media, one can understand why they would be willing to condone the following false and outrageous statements promoted by the media, which I cited in my last two posts:
-- Indictments are Proof.
-- Russian Trolls are Equivalent to Pearl Harbor
-- A Russian SWAT team came to America in 2014, posing as tourists, to throw the election to Donald Trump.
What is your opinion of the three statements that I cited?
This is a powerful, fully-documented indictment of the mainstream media's dishonest Russiagate coverage, focusing on the use of the bogus Hamilton68 website as a source for Russian bot/troll activity.
I'll discuss some of the specifics later.
Logical that you would end up at The Federalist.
Why not respect the moderator's wishes and move this type of content to the other thread?
Better that it's kept here.
dave23 said:
Logical that you would end up at The Federalist.
Why not respect the moderator's wishes and move this type of content to the other thread?
paulsurovell said:
This is a powerful, fully-documented indictment of the mainstream media's dishonest Russiagate coverage, focusing on the use of the bogus Hamilton68 website as a source for Russian bot/troll activity.
I'll discuss some of the specifics later.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/how-the-media-enable-rep-adam-schiffs-russian-bot-conspiracy-theories/?platform=hootsuite
And to stay on topic- this falls into . . . Hillary colluded more?
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
This is a powerful, fully-documented indictment of the mainstream media's dishonest Russiagate coverage, focusing on the use of the bogus Hamilton68 website as a source for Russian bot/troll activity.
I'll discuss some of the specifics later.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/how-the-media-enable-rep-adam-schiffs-russian-bot-conspiracy-theories/?platform=hootsuite
And to stay on topic- this falls into . . . Hillary colluded more?
As I've pointed out, in addition to Mueller's investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, there are investigations by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees into whether the Hillary campaign colluded with Russia by obtaining dirt on Trump from Russian government officials by paying for the Steele dossier.
There are also investigations into whether associates of Hillary worked with Steele through the State Department and whether intelligence officials were involved in the Steele dossier.
In addition, the chair of the House Intelligence committee recently sent the following letter to several former intelligence officials (believed to include John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey) regarding their knowledge and use of the Steele dossier:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:No, you deserve the label. You've been smearing me as being pro-Trump for months, in the tradition of Joe McCarthy. And you know it.
Only because this false claim keeps being made, I'll provide a response.
paulsurovell said:
Nohero's cameo appearance:
Since this is a message board, people can scroll up to see my complete response.
And I like how the "McCarthyism" has morphed from linking Trump apologists to Russia into something that's "all about you".
No, I haven't been "smearing you as being pro-Trump for months", I've commented about your arguments that make excuses for Trump and his apologists who don't want an investigation. Given your reputation for not describing comments or articles accurately, your claim is consistent with that reputation.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:No, you deserve the label. You've been smearing me as being pro-Trump for months, in the tradition of Joe McCarthy. And you know it.
Only because this false claim keeps being made, I'll provide a response.
paulsurovell said:
Nohero's cameo appearance:
Since this is a message board, people can scroll up to see my complete response.
And I like how the "McCarthyism" has morphed from linking Trump apologists to Russia into something that's "all about you".
No, I haven't been "smearing you as being pro-Trump for months", I've commented about your arguments that make excuses for Trump and his apologists who don't want an investigation. Given your reputation for not describing comments or articles accurately, your claim is consistent with that reputation.
Typical obfuscation-garbage.
No, this post by you is typical obfuscation-garbage.
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 6:
Media enables hysterial warmongering.
Rep. Nadler says the indictment -- an unproven allegation -- "proves" we were attacked by Russia and that the attack was the equivalent of "Pearl Harbor."
Should Congress declare war on Russia?
First of all, it's not the complete interview. Second of all, posting partial videos is a strategy to obscure the facts, hoping that people will trust your summary instead of sitting through the video.
As an alterative, people can read the transcript of that broadcast:
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2018-02-16
[Edited to add] I should point out some highlights of that discussion that undercut your representation.
First and most important, it's an analogy. You don't like it, fine, but at least be honest about it. He said, "Imagine if FDR had denied that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and didn`t react. That`s the equivalent."
When asked, "Do you think it's on a par, he responds: "Not in the amount of violence but I think in the seriousness, it is very much on par. This country exists to have a democratic system with a small d. That`s what the country`s all about. This is an attempt to destroy that. And the president`s core, the presidential oath is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This President is refusing to do that."
Your clip stops at that point. The interview with Nadler continued, but your clip doesn't provide what else he said. Just for fun, let's see what else he said that your post didn't provide.
Right after the last quote, he discussed that he wanted sanctions: "The President as far as I can tell is breaking the law by not imposing sanctions. The fact is we should impose very heavy sanctions and we should make sure that the Russians are hurt in some very serious economic way so that they don`t keep doing this. This is not an unserious matter. This is not tit-for-tat. You don`t expel a few diplomats. They tried to destroy our democratic system." When asked for suggestions about other types of deterrence, he said "I'm no expert in cybersecurity". So that's what he was talking about when he used his analogy.
paulsurovell said:
Typical obfuscation-garbage.
The best description of this thread so far. Perhaps you should just change the title of the thread to “Typical Obfuscation Garbage”. And if you could move it to the Education section, too, that would be grand.
Two great pieces exposing the Russiagate fraud in The Nation today:
Stephen Cohen:
‘Russiagate’ Is Revealing Alarming Truths About America’s Political-Media Elites
Its allegations and practices suggest disdain for American institutions, principles, best interests, and indeed for the American people.
And Aaron Mate:
https://www.thenation.com/article/hyping-the-mueller-indictment/
Hyping the Mueller Indictment
Do the charges against Russian individuals and organizations really describe the “second-worst foreign attack on America”?
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
Typical obfuscation-garbage.
The best description of this thread so far.
Is that a mea culpa?
I want to put in another plug for the debate between Glenn Greenwald and James Risen. I think it would help some of you understand why it is important to have skepticism without real evidence. Also, the significance of knowing the real definition of treason. Collusion is also covered.
nan said:
I think it would help some of you understand why it is important to have skepticism without real evidence.
Does it help those who reject evidence that conflicts with wished-for outcomes?
nohero said:
No, this post by you is typical obfuscation-garbage.
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 6:
Media enables hysterial warmongering.
Rep. Nadler says the indictment -- an unproven allegation -- "proves" we were attacked by Russia and that the attack was the equivalent of "Pearl Harbor."
Should Congress declare war on Russia?
First of all, it's not the complete interview. Second of all, posting partial videos is a strategy to obscure the facts, hoping that people will trust your summary instead of sitting through the video.
As an alterative, people can read the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2018-02-16
Nothing in the transcript contradicts Nadler's statement in the video. However, it does include at least one more false statement by Nadler (see bold) not included in the video. So the transcript is even worse than the video.
NADLER: This is beginning to tell American citizens what happened. As someone pointed out on your show earlier, it doesn`t deal with the crime of hacking into the DNC and hacking in to John Podesta and the use that was made. It doesn`t deal with the – we know there was collusion with people in the campaign with Russians, whether the president was involved, we don`t know yet. It doesn`t deal with any of that. But those are clearly crimes.
paulsurovell said:
Nothing in the transcript contradicts Nadler's statement. Although it does include on more false statement (see bold) not included in the video. So the transcript is even worse than the video.
NADLER: This is beginning to tell American citizens what happened. As someone pointed out on your show earlier, it doesn`t deal with the crime of hacking into the DNC and hacking in to John Podesta and the use that was made. It doesn`t deal with the – we know there was collusion with people in the campaign with Russians, whether the president was involved, we don`t know yet. It doesn`t deal with any of that. But those are clearly crimes.
Of course the transcript doesn't contradict Nadler's statement. I didn't say that. It contradicts YOUR claim about what he meant. And you change the subject with the quote you selected.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Of course the transcript doesn't contradict Nadler's statement. I didn't say that. It contradicts YOUR claim about what he meant. And you change the subject with the quote you selected.
Nothing in the transcript contradicts Nadler's statement. Although it does include on more false statement (see bold) not included in the video. So the transcript is even worse than the video.
NADLER: This is beginning to tell American citizens what happened. As someone pointed out on your show earlier, it doesn`t deal with the crime of hacking into the DNC and hacking in to John Podesta and the use that was made. It doesn`t deal with the – we know there was collusion with people in the campaign with Russians, whether the president was involved, we don`t know yet. It doesn`t deal with any of that. But those are clearly crimes.
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.
Of course the transcript doesn't contradict Nadler's statement. I didn't say that. It contradicts YOUR claim about what he meant. And you change the subject with the quote you selected.
If it's because I waste time responding to troll posts like yours, point taken.
It's a big day for stories debunking Russiagate. The latest by Mat Taibbi in Rolling Stone:
Taibbi discusses the attacks on Facebook Ad VP Rob Goldman for having the temerity (some might say patriotism) to point out media omissions in their coverage of alleged Russian activity on social media in connection with the Mueller indictment (I've re-posted Goldman's tweets below).
Taibbi also notes an attack on Blake Hounshell, Politico Magazine's editor-in-chief for having the temerity (some might say journalistic integrity) to suggest reasons to be skeptical about Trump collusion with Russia.
A couple of excerpts from the Rolling Stone piece:
On Goldman
Goldman is the kind of person we should be encouraging to offer information. He's an insider who's in a unique position to assess the scale of the troll farm campaign, having seen a gazillion other political ads pass through his site. If Goldman's takes needed press attention at all, the usual method would have been to just mention them within the framework of a larger story about Mueller's indictment. But the Times, in the person of Sheera Frankel, felt it necessary to completely sanitize every one of Goldman's heretical opinions in the form of a fact-check. They went through all of his tweets, one through eight, deconstructing each.
On the media's role in Russiagate:
This story (Russiagate) has become a kind of media religion, and when Goldman was forced to apologize a day later, it was for the twin #Russiagate-era heresies of a) giving Trump a talking point, and b) suggesting that St. Mueller was punching above his evidence. Skepticism of any kind has become verboten, which is a problem for reporters because it's our job to be skeptical.
dave23 said:
nan said:
I think it would help some of you understand why it is important to have skepticism without real evidence.
Does it help those who reject evidence that conflicts with wished-for outcomes?
You will have to decide for yourself. Great video though and essential if you are interested in this topic. Kind of like MOL for adults.
paulsurovell said:
Taibbi also notes an attack on Blake Hounshell, Politico Magazine's editor-in-chief for having the temerity (some might say journalistic integrity) to suggest reasons to be skeptical about Trump collusion with Russia.
If it’s an attack (which it isn’t), Hounshell invited it. Literally: He published it in his own magazine.
nan said:
I want to put in another plug for the debate between Glenn Greenwald and James Risen. I think it would help some of you understand why it is important to have skepticism without real evidence. Also, the significance of knowing the real definition of treason. Collusion is also covered.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/21/video-glenn-greenwald-and-james-risen-debate-the-trumprussia-investigation/
Debate? More like the Greenwald hour. Risen's 5% of talk time was pretty good.
Nothing is wrong with this thread. We’re all free to take it or leave it, depending on our equilibrium after stumbling over characterizations like the ones below.
But if anyone, especially a moderator, would like an alternative outlet, there’s nothing wrong with starting another, either. I look forward to following the discussion there as well.