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

jamie said:
For the record - Paul is more concerned about a news story that has been retweeted 2,400 times.

 I'm concerned about a lie that's presented as news to a mass audience. And I'm concerned that someone touted as an "expert" who MSNBC/CNN audiences trust for understanding of Russiagate, is pushing that lie. With no accountability from the networks.

jamie said:
In response to: 

• July 27 2016: He said, “What do I have to do with Russia? You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach.” 

The Trump Organization reportedly welcomed the Russian clientele. For example, a 2013 article in The Nation about the influx of Russian money in Miami real estate noted that Elena Baronoff, a Russian-American socialite once described on the cover of a Russian magazine as “The Russian Hand of Donald Trump,” operated a real-estate company catering to Eastern European buyers out of the lobby of the city’s Trump International Beach Resort. The New Republic has also extensively documented how the Trump Organization actively sought Russian buyers, so much so that the area around Trump Sunny Isles in Florida became known as “Little Moscow.” Within Trump’s Florida licensing developments, Reuters identified a total of twenty units in Trump Towers I, II, and III that were purchased by individuals with Russian passports or addresses. Individuals with Russian passports or addresses also purchased sixteen units in Trump Palace, twenty-seven units in Trump Royale, and thirteen units in Trump Hollywood. Trump accepted Russian money on a personal level, as well; Russian fertilizer magnate Dmitry Rybolovlev’s 2008 purchased of one of Trump’s mansions in Palm Beach for $53 million more than Trump had paid for it four years earlier. Some of these Russian buyers have brought more than just money to the Trump Organization—they’ve also brought links to Russian organized crime. In 1984, a Russian by the name of David Bogatin purchasedfive condos in Trump Tower for a total of $6 million. Bogatin, who was linked to Russian mob boss Semion Mogilevich, pleaded guilty three years later to “evading millions of dollars in state fuel taxes in what state officials called one of the largest gasoline bootlegging operations in the nation.” The five condos were seized by the government, who claimed that he had used the purchase to launder money. Separately, In April 2013, New York police arrested “29 suspects in two gambling rings” run out of condos in Trump Tower. A condo directly below a unit owned by Trump reportedly “served as the headquarters for a ‘sophisticated money-laundering scheme’” run by an individual who worked for Semion Mogilevich. Until he began running for president, Trump not only did not deny his extensive dealings with Russian investors and clients but actually spoke about it frequently, boasting of the amount of Russian money that flowed through his projects in numerous interviews. So, too, did his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric: In 2008, Donald Jr. told investors in Moscow that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” while Eric reportedly told a golf reporter in 2014 that the Trump Organization was able to expand during the financial crisis because “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”

So my question to Paul is - Could Trump's past financial dealings with Russians - possibly affect his political dealings with them?  How much in outstanding loans can be connected to Russian Banks?
And there's always this quote form Eric T: ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’ 
And from Junior: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

 Yes, his past financial dealings could influence his attitude toward Russia, like past financial dealings, or other experiences in other countries.

I don't know how much he owes Russian banks, presumably Mueller will tell us.

The quote from Eric T, reflects the article you posted. Trump, like everyone else in real estate, sells a lot of condos and other properties to wealthy Russians.  It's been well-publicized and well-documented.

None of the above has any connection to whether Trump colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Zero.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
[Post edited to add]  And, as always, lectures about being fearful of nuclear proliferation would be more convincing if coming from someone who had been critical of everybody who didn't support the viable alternative to Trump in 2016.

This discussion belongs in the thread that you created and then fled when it blew up in your face.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/arsonist-s-new-book-i-can-put-out-the-fire?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3431238

Two thoughts -
1.  I wouldn't say, "blew up".  It sounds like it's still having an impact on you.
2.  And what Mr. Sbenois said.

 You posted a nasty anti-Bernie rant and when you were unexpectedly challenged, you slinked away, afraid to try to defend yourself. In other words, your strategy to smear Bernie supporters blew up in your face.

paulsurovell said:

Apart from the threshold for re-tweets, are you suggesting that it doesn't matter that one of MSNBC and CNN's former-prosecutor-experts on Russiagate has promoted an inflammatory, patently false story and has not been held accountable?

I don’t scoff at 3,000 Facebook ads bought by fake pages or accounts. I don’t scoff at 2,400 retweets. I can’t help scratching my head just a little, though, when people dismiss the former but call attention to the latter, or vice versa. That was the clarity I was seeking.

paulsurovell said:

 You just answered your question -- political messaging.

 The political message being that they did not have financial interests and political ties with Russia when in fact they did. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Apart from the threshold for re-tweets, are you suggesting that it doesn't matter that one of MSNBC and CNN's former-prosecutor-experts on Russiagate has promoted an inflammatory, patently false story and has not been held accountable?

I don’t scoff at 3,000 Facebook ads bought by fake pages or accounts. I don’t scoff at 2,400 retweets. I can’t help scratching my head just a little, though, when people dismiss the former but call attention to the latter, or vice versa. That was the clarity I was seeking.

 Cue paulsurovell telling you he never dismissed the 3,000 Facebook ads and asking you to go back through the whole of MOL to show him when he did in...

5... 4... 3...

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
[Post edited to add]  And, as always, lectures about being fearful of nuclear proliferation would be more convincing if coming from someone who had been critical of everybody who didn't support the viable alternative to Trump in 2016.

This discussion belongs in the thread that you created and then fled when it blew up in your face.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/arsonist-s-new-book-i-can-put-out-the-fire?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3431238

Two thoughts -
1.  I wouldn't say, "blew up".  It sounds like it's still having an impact on you.
2.  And what Mr. Sbenois said.

 You posted a nasty anti-Bernie rant and when you were unexpectedly challenged, you slinked away, afraid to try to defend yourself. In other words, your strategy to smear Bernie supporters blew up in your face.

Still living rent free in his head. 

Well done Nohero.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Apart from the threshold for re-tweets, are you suggesting that it doesn't matter that one of MSNBC and CNN's former-prosecutor-experts on Russiagate has promoted an inflammatory, patently false story and has not been held accountable?

I don’t scoff at 3,000 Facebook ads bought by fake pages or accounts. I don’t scoff at 2,400 retweets. I can’t help scratcing my head just a little, though, when people dismiss the former but call attention to the latter, or vice versa. That was the clarity I was seeking.

What is really head-scratching is that you've decided to discuss my consistency, when a day ago you said I wasn't worth it. Glad you changed your mind.

But to the point of the Mariotti Tweets -- Are you not concerned that one of the top legal-former-prosecutor Russiagate pundits on cable television circulated an inflammatory and patently false story without being accountable?

paulsurovell said:

What is really head-scratching is that you've decided to discuss my consistency, when a day ago you said I wasn't worth it. Glad you changed your mind.

 Wrong. My post followed jamie's comment. Then I politely responded to your question.

My bad.

ridski said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Apart from the threshold for re-tweets, are you suggesting that it doesn't matter that one of MSNBC and CNN's former-prosecutor-experts on Russiagate has promoted an inflammatory, patently false story and has not been held accountable?

I don’t scoff at 3,000 Facebook ads bought by fake pages or accounts. I don’t scoff at 2,400 retweets. I can’t help scratching my head just a little, though, when people dismiss the former but call attention to the latter, or vice versa. That was the clarity I was seeking.

 Cue paulsurovell telling you he never dismissed the 3,000 Facebook ads and asking you to go back through the whole of MOL to show him when he did in...

5... 4... 3...

Ridski, let me straighten you out: I've cited three ace Russiagate attorney pundits (Melber, Akerman and Mariotti) have promoted the falsehood that Manafort visited Assange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy in London -- in person, not on Facebook. Facebook is being invoked to divert the discussion because this story speaks volumes about media coverage of Russiagate and the Russiagate story itself.

paulsurovell said:

Facebook is being invoked to divert the discussion because this story speaks volumes about media coverage of Russiagate and the Russiagate story itself.

 Facebook, if you made even half an effort to understand others, was invoked to question those who were pooh-poohing the number of retweets.

Pardon me. My bad again.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 You just answered your question -- political messaging.

 The political message being that they did not have financial interests and political ties with Russia when in fact they did. 

 if by "interests" you mean "they were interested" -- as opposed to existing "business interests" like companies, joint ventures, investments, etc. -- Yes.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Facebook is being invoked to divert the discussion because this story speaks volumes about media coverage of Russiagate and the Russiagate story itself.

 Facebook, if you made even half an effort to understand others, was invoked to question those who were pooh-poohing the number of retweets.
Pardon me. My bad again.

I think you also need to tell Ridski to make even half an effort to understand others, because he seems to have made the same inference as me.

paulsurovell said:

I think you also need to tell Ridski to make even half an effort to understand others, because he seems to have made the same inference as me.

 Think what you wish. Ridski quoted my reply to your question -- which was different from my earlier invocation -- so I don't feel a need to tell him anything. Except maybe: Thanks, ridski, for always making a full effort.

Here's another MSNBC Russiagate icon, Malcolm Nance pontificating on the Luke Harding / Guardian hoax. Yes Malcolm qualifies his remarks with an "if true," but then he runs with it, painting Manafort as the Russian agent who stole the election:

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/msnbc-live-with-ari-melber/2018-11-27

Malcolm Nance, author of The Plot To Hack America.

Malcolm, briefly why is this story important if true?

MALCOLM NANCE, TERRORISM ANALYST, MSNBC: I think that if this story is true, this is the first real definitive evidence that we have of what I call the bridge, the bridge between Russian intelligence, their subcontractor Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and the Trump team. And to tell you the truth, I have to – I`m quite surprised that it would have then involved Paul Manafort. It`s quite possible that they just decided to go to the top with a trusted agent.

Manafort has been very well known to the Russian government for decades but, you know, it`s quite possible also that there`s a – that this is a B team effort that he was going to hand this off to other players. We don`t know right now but what we do know is that this information appears to have come from some very primary sources.

There was a reporting from “The Guardian” back in May about an Ecuadorian intelligence operation which tracked every individual that came in there that had a special activities fund in the millions. And the reporting that I`m seeing here from Luke Harding appears to emanate from Ecuadorian intelligence sources.

MELBER: You`re referring –

NANCE: So it`s probably credible.

MELBER: You`re referring to “The Guardian” reporting . . . 

[ . . . ]

MELBER: Appreciate it. I go back to the panel. Malcolm Nance, I wonder if you could build on the point that Congressman Nadler just made I think quite carefully but I will make even more bluntly which is he`s saying even if you want to give them a pass on the Trump Tower meeting and say ignorance, curiosity, whatever, if Paul Manafort was already conspiring with Assange before that meeting, then boy does it look a lot worse. And boy does it look a lot bigger than just a conspiracy. It gets you closer to the T-word if he went into that meeting trying to get more help from an adversary.

NANCE: He`s absolutely right. If this meeting – and David is correct. We`re prefacing this with if this reporting is accurate, it is –

MELBER: Which is not as close to what you say, obviously.

NANCE: Not at all but just cautious. If it is accurate, what this does is it moves Paul Manafort from just being an applicant for the president`s campaign committee at that time to essentially being a Russian oriented director of dirty tricks, right. That this guy would have been the bridge between Russia`s overall strategic plan to influence the American election, would have met up with the facilitators at WikiLeaks to deploy that information well before it was known. And then would have come on to the president`s campaign and managed an American election in order to facilitate Russia`s goals and bring the Trump team on board.

And it makes the Donald Trump Jr. meeting even more nefarious because he would have sat in that meeting knowing the entire strategic plan to hijack and steal an American election –

MELBER: Yes.

NANCE: – by a foreign intelligence agency.

Conceding that the Guardian article doesn't seem to have a basis (at least based on what we can see and know from our vantage point), the alleged Manafort/Assange meeting story isn't the most relevant or the most important or even the most egregious tale that's in this saga.

Does it make any difference to any of the legal proceedings we're discussing?  Just as a news story, no.  The Special Counsel is basing his work on witnesses and documents, and the fact of this story doesn't affect that.  If there is more to it, it's probably due to information that we don't or can't have access to.  If it's not true, then there isn't such information and it won't matter with respect to the Special Counsel's work.

Does it make a difference for anyone who wants the Special Counsel to continue his work?  I suppose some people may view it as yet another reason he should be able to continue.  However, there are so many more actual facts which support continued investigation that, in the end, this doesn't amount to much.  And as mentioned above, the Special Counsel would know whether this is something to look at or ignore.

Does it make a difference for anyone who wants the Special Counsel's investigation to end?  Of course it does!  It's getting harder and harder for those people to get any political traction, to turn public opinion against Robert Mueller.  If Trump finds a way to hinder the investigation now, even Republicans would find it politically difficult to justify (Devin Nunes wouldn't care, but that sort of proves the point).  So this Guardian story just enrages those people.

paulsurovell said:
Here's another MSNBC Russiagate icon, Malcolm Nance pontificating on the Luke Harding / Guardian hoax. Yes Malcolm qualifies his remarks with an "if true," but then he runs with it, painting Manafort as the Russian agent who stole the election:

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/msnbc-live-with-ari-melber/2018-11-27

 Almost everyone here has expressed skepticism about the Guardian story yet you keep posting old articles about it, as if you had a point.

The point, it seems to me, is to provide more evidence of the MSM delirium (or, worse, mendacity) that infects America’s public discourse and policy. A point that skeptics of this particular Guardian story appear to be beside.

The Guardian story is to Paul as Benghazi was to Republicans as Hillary's emails were/are to Trump.

And in the end, it can be effective to those who aren't aware of EVERYTHING ELSE.  

jamie said:
The Guardian story is to Paul as Benghazi was to Republicans as Hillary's emails were/are to Trump.

Only, maybe, insofar it’s a bone to chew. Paul has more evidence on his side than Republicans and Trump had on theirs, and the larger criticisms he raises are worth airing.

There's a lot more to say about the Luke "Collusion" Harding / Guardian hoax, but since we've been on MSNBC's shameful reporting, I think it's instructive to look at another controversy at MSNBC, which has a Russia connection, as Glenn Greenwald, quoted in the article, has pointed out previously:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted: “Homophobic insults of the kind vomited out this morning by @morningmika have become a completely common and acceptable component of anti-Trump discourse starting from the endless Trump/Putin gay insinuations to trash like this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2018/12/13/mika-brzezinski-described-mike-pompeo-with-homophobic-word-her-non-apology-didnt-help/?utm_term=.400a45f5732a

I'll be back later tonight.

Has Greenwald spoken out on Assange's rape allegations, his support of Trump and his anti-Semitism?

dave23 said:
Has Greenwald spoken out on Assange's rape allegations, his support of Trump and his anti-Semitism?

It's selective outrage and whataboutism and whatever else is needed to deflect. 

Pretty typical Spy vs Spy stuff... except she seemed particularly successful with this administration.

Alleged Russian spy Maria Butina admits to engaging in conspiracy against US

Butina said she acted "under direction of" a Russian official whom CNN has identified as Alexander Torshin. "Butina sought to establish unofficial lines of communication with Americans having power and influence over US politics," the prosecutor said in court.

Today I happened to read this piece on consortiumnews.com, and the comments.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/13/yes-virginia-there-is-a-deep-state-and-bob-parry-exposed-it/

It's as if I stumbled across this thread instead (well, maybe only the nan/paul posts)

It's just very interesting to see where the duo get their talking points from, and it's as frightening as reading any delusional comment thread from some right-wing fever swamp. Luckily this left-wing fringe is pretty marginalized and is kept in a corner for the most part.

but n/p owe a word of acknowledgement to the posters on this thread (not me) who have exhibited infinite patience putting up with their nonsense. By the same token, n/p deserve some credit for coming to MOL and taking their lumps (though I am sure they see it as more of a march to victory as they disseminate The Word of Truth). On forums like consortium news, they get to live in a self-reinforcing echo chamber.

paulsurovell said:
There's a lot more to say about the Luke "Collusion" Harding / Guardian hoax, but since we've been on MSNBC's shameful reporting, I think it's instructive to look at another controversy at MSNBC, which has a Russia connection, as Glenn Greenwald, quoted in the article, has pointed out previously:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted: “Homophobic insults of the kind vomited out this morning by @morningmika have become a completely common and acceptable component of anti-Trump discourse starting from the endless Trump/Putin gay insinuations to trash like this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2018/12/13/mika-brzezinski-described-mike-pompeo-with-homophobic-word-her-non-apology-didnt-help/?utm_term=.400a45f5732a

I'll be back later tonight.

 Glenn says the controversy is over. 

"MSNBC's @morningmika apologizes for 'crass and offensive' remark - an appropriate and seemingly sincere expression of regret"

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1073582125184618496?s=21

I thought Paul would appreciate this one    :

CNN Opens Up 24-Hour Anonymous Tip Line For Anyone With Synonyms For ‘Mueller Closing In’

jamie said:
I thought Paul would appreciate this one    :
CNN Opens Up 24-Hour Anonymous Tip Line For Anyone With Synonyms For ‘Mueller Closing In’

 Thanks, I submitted mine: "Delusion"

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
There's a lot more to say about the Luke "Collusion" Harding / Guardian hoax, but since we've been on MSNBC's shameful reporting, I think it's instructive to look at another controversy at MSNBC, which has a Russia connection, as Glenn Greenwald, quoted in the article, has pointed out previously:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted: “Homophobic insults of the kind vomited out this morning by @morningmika have become a completely common and acceptable component of anti-Trump discourse starting from the endless Trump/Putin gay insinuations to trash like this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2018/12/13/mika-brzezinski-described-mike-pompeo-with-homophobic-word-her-non-apology-didnt-help/?utm_term=.400a45f5732a

I'll be back later tonight.

 Glenn says the controversy is over. 
"MSNBC's @morningmika apologizes for 'crass and offensive' remark - an appropriate and seemingly sincere expression of regret"
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1073582125184618496?s=21

 "Seemingly sincere."

But this doesn't resolve Glenn's larger criticism of repeated homophobic allussions to the alleged Trump-Putin alliance.

But good to see "@South_Mountaineer@" posting Glenn Greenwald. He recently posted Jimmy Dore on Twitter. Who said MOL can't be a learning experience?

drummerboy said:
Today I happened to read this piece on consortiumnews.com, and the comments.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/13/yes-virginia-there-is-a-deep-state-and-bob-parry-exposed-it/

It's as if I stumbled across this thread instead (well, maybe only the nan/paul posts)
It's just very interesting to see where the duo get their talking points from, and it's as frightening as reading any delusional comment thread from some right-wing fever swamp. Luckily this left-wing fringe is pretty marginalized and is kept in a corner for the most part.

but n/p owe a word of acknowledgement to the posters on this thread (not me) who have exhibited infinite patience putting up with their nonsense. By the same token, n/p deserve some credit for coming to MOL and taking their lumps (though I am sure they see it as more of a march to victory as they disseminate The Word of Truth). On forums like consortium news, they get to live in a self-reinforcing echo chamber.

 I've cited Ray McGovern and Robert Parry many times as sources who I rely (and relied) on. I've cited the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) memos on Russia, Syria and Iran that were published in Consortium News.

The fact that you think you just discovered a connection between my views and McGovern and Consortium News (rather than Trump or Putin) is confirmation of the mindlessness of your attacks (they don't deserve to be called "critiques") on my posts. I was about to say that I'll let Nan speak for herself, but I've been told she's banned (?) for now.

Here's a quote of Robert Parry in the McGovern article that goes along way to explain what corporate media publishes on Russiagate:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/13/yes-virginia-there-is-a-deep-state-and-bob-parry-exposed-it/

The U.S. media’s approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read the New York Times’ or the Washington Post’s coverage of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? … The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the ‘other side of the story.’ Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a ‘Putin apologist’ or ‘Kremlin stooge.’