Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

Tweet: 1

All-over-the-place 2,500-word article: 0

DaveSchmidt said:
Tweet: 1
All-over-the-place 2,500-word article: 0

 You can drill down on the tweet to more.  The article makes me think they were getting paid by the word. Here is a longer article also if you want one:

Ukraine: “Go West, Young Man” (or Dr. Strangelove’s Revenge)

https://truthout.org/articles/ukraine-go-west-young-man-or-dr-strangeloves-revenge/

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

What did he mean when he said "I looked for it, looked hard?"

 Why don't you tell us instead of always going back to the questions?  You have his entire description.  He didn't find it there during the time he was looking at.  He may have "looked for it hard" within the narrow time frame (Trump in the White House), but he didn't say that it couldn't have happened some other time, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he'd look elsewhere.  Since he's a professional at this, his opinion about that means something.

 I think normal people understand what an investigative reporter says when he says he "looked hard" for Russia collusion but found nothing.

 And I think normal people understand that what I highlighted in my previous response, is the same response to your "I think normal people understand" comment.
He "looked hard", but he was looking "hard" at the goings-on in the White House during the time he was looking at it.  Or are you going to ignore his own explanation of what he meant (would not be the first time for you)?

(a) Bob Woodward says he looked hard for evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia found none. Those words are clear to any normal person. He looked "hard" and found nothing.

(b) The premise of your argument that Woodward limited his investigation -- "within the narrow time frame (Trump in the White House)" -- is false. The first four or five chapters of the book are about the Presidential campaign of 2016.

(c) Woodward added a caveat that a normal person could drive a truck through. Here it is again (a deliberate qualification) a day earlier than the Hewitt interview, in an interview with The Guardian:

Did Woodward himself find any explanation for the very strange relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin?

“No, not really. I’ve obviously looked. But here’s the reporting lesson from this, from doing this for 47 years at the Post. You’ve got to go to the scene. You’ve got to show up and, if you’re really going to do the Russian investigation, I’d move to Moscow. You know, I’d probably be shot or arrested. But the answer is in Russia.

“I think that’s the hardest of targets but that’s that’s what you would do. If I were 30 and unmarried without children and had some way – I don’t know how you would do it. I’ve asked people and they’ve laughed and said you can’t. But ultimately the answer is in Moscow and St Petersburg.”

Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

DaveSchmidt said:
(c) Woodward added a caveat that a normal person could drive a truck through. Here it is again (a deliberate qualification) a day earlier than the Hewitt interview, in an interview with The Guardian:
Did Woodward himself find any explanation for the very strange relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin?
“No, not really. I’ve obviously looked. But here’s the reporting lesson from this, from doing this for 47 years at the Post. You’ve got to go to the scene. You’ve got to show up and, if you’re really going to do the Russian investigation, I’d move to Moscow. You know, I’d probably be shot or arrested. But the answer is in Russia.
“I think that’s the hardest of targets but that’s that’s what you would do. If I were 30 and unmarried without children and had some way – I don’t know how you would do it. I’ve asked people and they’ve laughed and said you can’t. But ultimately the answer is in Moscow and St Petersburg.”

When Woodward talks about the "very strange relationship" between Putin and Trump is he parroting the media canard, or is he thinking of sanctions against Putin allies, closing of Russian consulates, forcing RT to register as a foreign agent, military buildup in Europe, weapons to Ukraine, record military spending, calls for a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy and a Space Force, bombing Putin's ally in Syria, exiting from Putin-supported Iran nuclear deal, calling for Germany to buy US, not Russian gas?

Or was he thinking about this:

DaveSchmidt said:
Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

Yes, to say that collusion could have happened unilaterally in Russia is illogical.

paulsurovell said:

When Woodward talks about the "very strange relationship" between Putin and Trump is he parroting the media canard, or is he thinking of sanctions against Putin allies, closing of Russian consulates, forcing RT to register as a foreign agent, military buildup in Europe, weapons to Ukraine, record military spending, calls for a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy and a Space Force, bombing Putin's ally in Syria, exiting from Putin-supported Iran nuclear deal, calling for Germany to buy US, not Russian gas?
Or was he thinking about this:

Asking questions as if I were a mind-reader — see, I knew you were familiar with rhetorical devices.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

When Woodward talks about the "very strange relationship" between Putin and Trump is he parroting the media canard, or is he thinking of sanctions against Putin allies, closing of Russian consulates, forcing RT to register as a foreign agent, military buildup in Europe, weapons to Ukraine, record military spending, calls for a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy and a Space Force, bombing Putin's ally in Syria, exiting from Putin-supported Iran nuclear deal, calling for Germany to buy US, not Russian gas?
Or was he thinking about this:

Asking questions as if I were a mind-reader — see, I knew you were familiar with rhetorical devices.

 A rhetorical question to ground the discussion in reality.

Well, I was busy over the weekend, so I thought I would pop my head in and see how this thread is going and, oh...

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

Yes, to say that collusion could have happened unilaterally in Russia is illogical.

 Nobody said that.  

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

Yes, to say that collusion could have happened unilaterally in Russia is illogical.

 Nobody said that.  

 Woodward says the answer to Trump's "very strange relationship" with Putin is at "the scene" -- in Russia, not the US. He says you can't find the answer to collusion by interviewing Americans in the US. So there is an implication that collusion happened unilaterally in Russia -- otherwise it could be discovered by interviewing Americans in the US.

I'm admittedly conflating "very strange relationship" with "collusion," but Woodward's answer here is essentially the same he gave when asked about collusion in the Hugh Hewitt interview.

Did Woodward himself find any explanation for the very strange relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin?

“No, not really. I’ve obviously looked. But here’s the reporting lesson from this, from doing this for 47 years at the Post. You’ve got to go to the scene. You’ve got to show up and, if you’re really going to do the Russian investigation, I’d move to Moscow. You know, I’d probably be shot or arrested. But the answer is in Russia.

“I think that’s the hardest of targets but that’s that’s what you would do. If I were 30 and unmarried without children and had some way – I don’t know how you would do it. I’ve asked people and they’ve laughed and said you can’t. But ultimately the answer is in Moscow and St Petersburg.”

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

Yes, to say that collusion could have happened unilaterally in Russia is illogical.

 Nobody said that.  

 Woodward says the answer to Trump's "very strange relationship" with Putin is at "the scene" -- in Russia, not the US. He says you can't find the answer to collusion by interviewing Americans in the US. So there is an implication that collusion happened unilaterally in Russia -- otherwise it could be discovered by interviewing Americans in the US.

I'm admittedly conflating "very strange relationship" with "collusion," but Woodward's answer here is essentially the same he gave when asked about collusion in the Hugh Hewitt interview.

Did Woodward himself find any explanation for the very strange relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin?

“No, not really. I’ve obviously looked. But here’s the reporting lesson from this, from doing this for 47 years at the Post. You’ve got to go to the scene. You’ve got to show up and, if you’re really going to do the Russian investigation, I’d move to Moscow. You know, I’d probably be shot or arrested. But the answer is in Russia.

“I think that’s the hardest of targets but that’s that’s what you would do. If I were 30 and unmarried without children and had some way – I don’t know how you would do it. I’ve asked people and they’ve laughed and said you can’t. But ultimately the answer is in Moscow and St Petersburg.”

 Highlighted portions show a reliance on interpretation, implication, and extrapolation as opposed to what Woodward actually says.

ouch!

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Or don’t take Bob’s word for it, and report it out paulsurovell’s way instead.

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated.

Yes, to say that collusion could have happened unilaterally in Russia is illogical.

 Nobody said that.  

 Woodward says the answer to Trump's "very strange relationship" with Putin is at "the scene" -- in Russia, not the US. He says you can't find the answer to collusion by interviewing Americans in the US. So there is an implication that collusion happened unilaterally in Russia -- otherwise it could be discovered by interviewing Americans in the US.

I'm admittedly conflating "very strange relationship" with "collusion," but Woodward's answer here is essentially the same he gave when asked about collusion in the Hugh Hewitt interview.

Did Woodward himself find any explanation for the very strange relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin?

“No, not really. I’ve obviously looked. But here’s the reporting lesson from this, from doing this for 47 years at the Post. You’ve got to go to the scene. You’ve got to show up and, if you’re really going to do the Russian investigation, I’d move to Moscow. You know, I’d probably be shot or arrested. But the answer is in Russia.

“I think that’s the hardest of targets but that’s that’s what you would do. If I were 30 and unmarried without children and had some way – I don’t know how you would do it. I’ve asked people and they’ve laughed and said you can’t. But ultimately the answer is in Moscow and St Petersburg.”

 Highlighted portions show a reliance on interpretation, implication, and extrapolation as opposed to what Woodward actually says.

 Yes, I commented on what Woodward said.

This is a good thing for the American people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

paulsurovell said:
This is a good thing for the American people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

Selective declassification during an investigation is designed for those allergic to context and truth. Not surprised you support this move by Mr. Mushroom.

Asked for the actual presidential directive or directives referenced in her statement, Sanders told BuzzFeed News, "There isn’t anything else, just the statement."

[...]

"A direct order from the President to declassify something doesn't trigger a declassification review, because it doesn't give the agency any authority to not declassify anything, even 'to ensure the safety of America's national security interests.' It would be an order to declassify, not an order to review," Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, wrote. "In essence, DOJ is treating this as a Mandatory Declassification Review request, which anyone in the country can make."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/trump-orders-declassification-fisa-documents

For a change, it probably won't have the intended effect of changing the subject. (In this case, to divert attention from the Kavanaugh controversies.)

paulsurovell said:
This is a good thing for the American people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

dave23 said:
For a change, it probably won't have the intended effect of changing the subject. (In this case, to divert attention from the Kavanaugh controversies.)

Yes. Releasing some documents that Trump supporters want has nothing to do with informing the American people. It has everything to do with running interference for Trump. 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
This is a good thing for the American people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

Selective declassification during an investigation is designed for those allergic to context and truth. Not surprised you support this move by Mr. Mushroom.

 Fear of Facts.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
This is a good thing for the American people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

Selective declassification during an investigation is designed for those allergic to context and truth. Not surprised you support this move by Mr. Mushroom.

 Fear of Facts.

 Worst band name ever.

Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/graham-stack-everything-you-know-about-paul-manafort-is-wrong.html

Everything You Know About Paul Manafort is Wrong

By Graham Stack.

Published Sept. 17. Updated Sept. 17 at 12:16 pm

[ Excerpt ] It is a huge irony of U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into alleged collusion between U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s 2016 election campaign and the Kremlin, that the biggest fish caught to date is charged with the doing the opposite of colluding with Russia: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, has pled guilty to charges of (undeclared) lobbying for Ukraine in 2012-2013 to sign a political and trade association agreement with the European Union that would rescue it once and for all from the Kremlin’s grasp.

Not that you would be aware of this from the media coverage around the trials of Manafort (he has already stood trial and been found guilty of tax fraud in Virginia in August). Among the huge amount of noise about Manafort, the basic facts about his activity in Ukraine 2010-2015 have been obscured.

There have been scores of media articles about Manafort – and 90 percent regurgitate the simplistic narrative of Manafort as a Kremlin trojan horse. This narrative was developed by Washington commercial intelligence firm Fusion GPS in 2016, as part of their now famous dossier on Trump, distributed widely among major media outlets.

As a contributor to the Fusion GPS research on Manafort, I share the blame. Because we got Manafort almost completely wrong.

[ . . . ]

paulsurovell said:
Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/graham-stack-everything-you-know-about-paul-manafort-is-wrong.html

 What "major allegation" about Manafort is "exposed as falsehood" by that article?  What quotes from the Steele dossier show that allegation?

So Maniford was working in a pro-Western capacity trying to get Ukraine to sign the crappy EU deal?  He is still a scumbag, but not a pro-Russian puppet as broadcasted in the MSM.  Interesting. 

.

Graham Stack?  Did he contribute to the dossier or did Steele?  Should it be called the Steele/Stack dossier?  As of a few hours ago - has there ever been a connection between him and Fusion established anywhere?  Or do you have a full list of dossier authors?

South_Mountaineer said:

 What "major allegation" about Manafort is "exposed as falsehood" by that article?  What quotes from the Steele dossier show that allegation?

I just searched the dossier for references to Manafort. None of them contain this allegation, as far as I could find. Maybe Paul will have better luck.

What we got wrong about Manafort – and what Mueller has got partly right in his indictment – is that Manafort was nothing like a pro-Kremlin influence on the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, as the dossier alleged.

jamie said:
Graham Stack?  Did he contribute to the dossier or did Steele?  Should it be called the Steele/Stack dossier?  As of a few hours ago - has there ever been a connection between him and Fusion established anywhere?  Or do you have a full list of dossier authors?

 He says he was hired by Fusion in July, 2016.  As anyone who has followed the story knows, that's Fusion's business model - they hire reporters and other experts to find information for clients.  Stack styles himself as an expert on Ukraine (although his personal website URL is now defunct, and his supposed blog just has an "About" page and no content).  There's nothing to indicate that he was EVER in contact with Christopher Steele for the preparation of Steele's field notes (what people call the "dossier").  If you read carefully, you can see that he doesn't actually say he worked with Steele - but he'd like to leave that impression.

He may well have been hired to do research.  I don't think any of his work product (if any) has been used in the Russia investigation, so far as we know.

I think his article is just more of the pro-Trump con job.

DaveSchmidt said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 What "major allegation" about Manafort is "exposed as falsehood" by that article?  What quotes from the Steele dossier show that allegation?

I just searched the document for references to Manafort. None of them contain this allegation, as far as I could find. Maybe Paul will have better luck.
What we got wrong about Manafort – and what Mueller has got partly right in his indictment – is that Manafort was nothing like a pro-Kremlin influence on the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, as the dossier alleged.

The dossier says Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that he had a corrupt relationship with "pro-Russian" Yanukovych. Also, that Putin and Yanukovych were worried about US media coverage of that relationship.

The Manafort's role in Ukraine was at the time falsely portrayed as being "pro-Russian" in the media as it is clearly implied in the dossier.

Edited to Add: For those Steele dossier believers -- who took over as "manager" of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?