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

dave23 said:
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.

 She wasn't accused of spying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/butina-guilty.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-14/the-maria-butina-case-is-not-about-russian-spying

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

You're parroting canards again.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
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.

 She wasn't accused of spying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/butina-guilty.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-14/the-maria-butina-case-is-not-about-russian-spying

 Yes, I know. It was a shorthand way of saying that it's the type of thing that countries try to do to one another, but that she got pretty far. Given your lack of humor, I'm not surprised you didn't catch onto the reference.

paulsurovell said:

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

You're parroting canards again.

 No, this is parroting a canard -

"Le Quack.  Le Quack."

paulsurovell said:

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

You're parroting canards again.

 The Forward - "Why Does Wikileaks Have a Reputation for Anti-Semitism?"

The organization, which routinely publishes large caches of confidential or otherwise private emails, cables and government documents, has employed a Holocaust denier and tweeted anti-Semitic jibes. Assange, who some believe runs the Wikileaks Twitter account, has also suggested that Jewish journalists targets him specifically.

Paul,

I happen to be quite a fan of Robert Parry. I used to read Consortium News regularly when he first established it. I drifted away from it and only came back to it again in the past few years - and the stuff that he allowed to be published just got to be embarrassing. Very disappointing. And you can tell from the comment section that he has attracted an audience of sycophantic,  unthinking sheep.

Even in this recent article, McGovern is no more than a quack. The things he thinks are true are ridiculous. Take this:

No, it was deeper than that. It turns out a huge part of the motivation behind Russia-gate was to hide how the Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA (affectionately known as the Deep State) — with their co-opted “assets” in the media — interfered in the 2016 election in a gross attempt to make sure Trump did not win.

Russia-gate: Cui Bono?

This would become crystal clear, even to cub reporters, when the text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok and girlfriend Lisa Page were released exactly a year ago. Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether miss the importance of the text-exchanges.

Anyone who thinks the Strzok texts are dispositive about ANYTHING is either a liar or a moron - the sort of inevitable question when you venture into crackpot-land. That doesn't mean everything McGovern claims is wrong - but it does mean one should waste no time with him. He doesn't deserve it. He's playing you Paul - just as much as Sean Hannity plays his audience.

Parry, unfortunately, rode on the back of his great Iran-Contra reporting for the rest of his career and was not a significant journalist after that.

drummerboy said:
Paul,
I happen to be quite a fan of Robert Parry. I used to read Consortium News regularly when he first established it. I drifted away from it and only came back to it again in the past few years - and the stuff that he allowed to be published just got to be embarrassing. Very disappointing. And you can tell from the comment section that he has attracted an audience of sycophantic,  unthinking sheep.

Even in this recent article, McGovern is no more than a quack. The things he thinks are true are ridiculous. Take this:


No, it was deeper than that. It turns out a huge part of the motivation behind Russia-gate was to hide how the Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA (affectionately known as the Deep State) — with their co-opted “assets” in the media — interfered in the 2016 election in a gross attempt to make sure Trump did not win.



Russia-gate: Cui Bono?



This would become crystal clear, even to cub reporters, when the text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok and girlfriend Lisa Page were released exactly a year ago. Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether miss the importance of the text-exchanges.



Anyone who thinks the Strzok texts are dispositive about ANYTHING is either a liar or a moron - the sort of inevitable question when you venture into crackpot-land. That doesn't mean everything McGovern claims is wrong - but it does mean one should waste no time with him. He doesn't deserve it. He's playing you Paul - just as much as Sean Hannity plays his audience.


Parry, unfortunately, rode on the back of his great Iran-Contra reporting for the rest of his career and was not a significant journalist after that.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that drummerboy was open to challenging the deep state -- and often did -- before Trump won, but something changed after that. You were a lot smarter then.

paulsurovell said:

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that drummerboy was open to challenging the deep state -- and often did -- before Trump won, but something changed after that. You were a lot smarter then.

 Yeah, you're wrong. I never uttered the phrase "deep state" until it started coming up out of the Trumpist fever swamps.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that drummerboy was open to challenging the deep state -- and often did -- before Trump won, but something changed after that. You were a lot smarter then.

 Yeah, you're wrong. I never uttered the phrase "deep state" until it started coming up out of the Trumpist fever swamps.

Mr. Surovell's post has a backhanded swipe at the intelligence of anyone who doesn't swallow the whole fable about how Trump is being targeted by the "Deep State".

Responses pointing to any circumstances not involving Trump aren't useful for defending the attack on people's intelligence.  Just in case anyone was considering that stratagem.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that drummerboy was open to challenging the deep state -- and often did -- before Trump won, but something changed after that. You were a lot smarter then.

 Yeah, you're wrong. I never uttered the phrase "deep state" until it started coming up out of the Trumpist fever swamps.

The deep state is comprised of the institutions of political power, especially the national security apparatus, that exist independently of who's elected President or to Congress. Some of those institutions, like Wall Street and Defense contractors, are outside the government. So you don't have to use the term "deep state" to challenge the deep state.

If you've challenged surveillance of Americans, drones, torture or undeclared wars, you've directly or indirectly challenged the deep state.

https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that drummerboy was open to challenging the deep state -- and often did -- before Trump won, but something changed after that. You were a lot smarter then.

 Yeah, you're wrong. I never uttered the phrase "deep state" until it started coming up out of the Trumpist fever swamps.

Mr. Surovell's post has a backhanded swipe at the intelligence of anyone who doesn't swallow the whole fable about how Trump is being targeted by the "Deep State".
Responses pointing to any circumstances not involving Trump aren't useful for defending the attack on people's intelligence.  Just in case anyone was considering that stratagem.

 The fable is the children's story in @nohero's head that the flow of leaks from anonymous intelligence sources fabricating the Russia conspiracy are coincidental and in good faith.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

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

You're parroting canards again.

 The Forward - "Why Does Wikileaks Have a Reputation for Anti-Semitism?"

The organization, which routinely publishes large caches of confidential or otherwise private emails, cables and government documents, has employed a Holocaust denier and tweeted anti-Semitic jibes. Assange, who some believe runs the Wikileaks Twitter account, has also suggested that Jewish journalists targets him specifically.

 If the allegation were true, there would be a lot more and a lot better evidence than what's in the article.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
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.

 She wasn't accused of spying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/butina-guilty.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-14/the-maria-butina-case-is-not-about-russian-spying

 Yes, I know. It was a shorthand way of saying that it's the type of thing that countries try to do to one another, but that she got pretty far. Given your lack of humor, I'm not surprised you didn't catch onto the reference.

 I just pointed out that you used the word "spy" to refer to her activities, despite the fact that she wasn't accused of spying.

NPR cites Trump Tweet:

“Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @FoxNews That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...

And then says:

There's an important kernel of truth in that argument — not only is there no smoking gun, the Russia case appears to have been weakening, not strengthening, while America's eyes have been on the payments.

There's more:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I must have missed it - did the Mueller report come out?

Can we talk more about the Hillary collusion since that with this thread title is about?   We’re 4,000+ posts in and we still haven’t answered the main question,

jamie said:
Can we talk more about the Hillary collusion since that with this thread title is about?   We’re 4,000+ posts in and we still haven’t answered the main question,

I was about to do that. There's a great court document about the Steele dossier -- which was the product of Hillary's collusion with Russian government officials (thru her contractor Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump.

I'll be citing details from this when I get a chance:

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_154490825703616&key=e7609c039c08d3ae00aebd97e6f0bffd&libId=jppygfv1010110e3000DAou1jyv90&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2018%2F12%2F11%2Fstrobe-talbott-steele-dossier-clinton%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5513...

For those who don't think the Luke Harding / Guardian / Manafort-visited-Assange-three-times-article is worth discussing, you should know that the Democratic Party leadership disagrees.

Is there a 25th amendment to remove Members of Congress for mental incapacitation?

paulsurovell said:

There's more:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yes, there is more. Namely, an echo of what some of us have been saying: If Mueller “has evidence about a geopolitical conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia's active measures, the public probably won't learn about it until the moment the special counsel's office wants that to happen.” Kind of puts all of the analysis by a national security editor (a.k.a. “NPR”) of “what is visible today” (a.k.a. “Swiss cheese”) into perspective.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

There's more:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yes, there is more. Namely, an echo of what some of us have been saying: If Mueller “has evidence about a geopolitical conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia's active measures, the public probably won't learn about it until the moment the special counsel's office wants that to happen.” Kind of puts all of the analysis by a national security editor (a.k.a. “NPR”) of “what is visible today” (a.k.a. “Swiss cheese”) into perspective.

 But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries.  NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The charges they didn't make

Item: Cohen ostensibly played a key role in the version of events told by the infamous, partly unverified Russia dossier. He denied that strongly to Congress. He also has admitted lying to Congress and submitted an important new version of other events.

But that new story didn't include a trip to Prague, as described in the dossier. Nor did Cohen discuss that in his interview on Friday on ABC News. Could the trip, or a trip, still be substantiated? Yes, maybe — but if it happened, would a man go to prison for three years without anyone having mentioned it?

Item: Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is on track to be sentenced early next year after his conviction in the Eastern District of Virginia and his guilty plea in Washington, D.C.

Prosecutors say that Manafort shouldn't get any consideration for the information he's given the feds because he's been lying to them; Manafort's lawyers say he gave the government valuable information.

Nonetheless, the crimes for which the feds want Manafort to be locked up aren't a Russian conspiracy to throw the election.

Moreover, Manafort took part in at least one event that has attracted endless discussion: the June 2016 meeting at which he and other top campaign leaders hosted the delegation of Russians following an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But Manafort's role in that meeting hasn't figured into either of his federal cases nor been the subject of court documents. Maybe the feds are holding all that back for some kind of big reveal — or maybe there's no conspiracy here.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Can we talk more about the Hillary collusion since that with this thread title is about?   We’re 4,000+ posts in and we still haven’t answered the main question,

I was about to do that. There's a great court document about the Steele dossier -- which was the product of Hillary's collusion with Russian government officials (thru her contractor Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump.
I'll be citing details from this when I get a chance:
https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_154490825703616&key=e7609c039c08d3ae00aebd97e6f0bffd&libId=jppygfv1010110e3000DAou1jyv90&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2018%2F12%2F11%2Fstrobe-talbott-steele-dossier-clinton%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5513...

 It appears that these guys really want to "out" Steele's source.

Did Hillary release the dossier?  What proof do you have that it was used for anything?

paulsurovell said:

 But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries.  NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
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.

 She wasn't accused of spying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/butina-guilty.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-14/the-maria-butina-case-is-not-about-russian-spying

 Yes, I know. It was a shorthand way of saying that it's the type of thing that countries try to do to one another, but that she got pretty far. Given your lack of humor, I'm not surprised you didn't catch onto the reference.

 I just pointed out that you used the word "spy" to refer to her activities, despite the fact that she wasn't accused of spying.

 You are a badly programmed robot.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries.  NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?

 Give me a couple of examples, please.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries.  NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?

 Give me a couple of examples, please.

 Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be. 

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Can we talk more about the Hillary collusion since that with this thread title is about?   We’re 4,000+ posts in and we still haven’t answered the main question,

I was about to do that. There's a great court document about the Steele dossier -- which was the product of Hillary's collusion with Russian government officials (thru her contractor Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump.
I'll be citing details from this when I get a chance:
https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_154490825703616&key=e7609c039c08d3ae00aebd97e6f0bffd&libId=jppygfv1010110e3000DAou1jyv90&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2018%2F12%2F11%2Fstrobe-talbott-steele-dossier-clinton%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5513...

 It appears that these guys really want to "out" Steele's source.

Yes, it's normal for people who are defamed to want the sources of the defamation to be cross-examined in their defamation lawsuit.

jamie

saidid Hillary release the dossier?  What proof do you have that it was used for anything?

It was shopped around to mainstream media and politicians during the. Articles were written by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. A letter to FBI Director Comey by Harry Reidmade public was likely based on part on the dossier. The dossier was used by the FBI as "evidence" to obtain a FISA court warrant. It became part of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign. It was used by Comey to intimidate Trump right after he was inaugurated.

And it was/is used by the media to perpetuate a hoax on the American people.

where’s the proof it was used for a fisa warrant

and for the millionth time , please provide proof that shows Steele providing phony intelligence in the past.

Show us a pattern of Steele’s deceptive ways and why he shouldn’t be trusted.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?

 Give me a couple of examples, please.

 Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be. 

Yep. When someone starts off a discussion by stipulating that there was no collusion, and is emphatic in maintaining that position, what are the options for someone who isn’t convinced of no collusion but wants to join the discussion? I can think of one: Offer reasons for not being convinced.

If that discussion starter were less emphatic, however, and more like Philip Epstein — highlighting the lack of public evidence so far and its possible or even likely implications while also granting the caveats — it would open up more avenues for a give-and-take. We could compare how much weight one of us or the other gave to this or that development, what the potential implications were (as Epstein does), and so on. But, Paul, your stand here, whatever the percentage of certainty it’s built on, makes that impossible. It was set up from the get-go as a discussion of no-collusion scenarios on all-or-nothing terms. That, in a nutshell, is my beef with emphaticism.

You can continue to mock waiting-and-seeing, Paul, but by definition it acknowledges the possibility that Russiagate may all end up just the way you see it. For a lot of people, spelling that out would add nothing new to the discussion, but you appear to need to hear it, so let me spell it out: You may be right, and Russiagate may all end up just the way you see it.

Now that that’s out the way, the discussion remains as you’ve established it: reasons to be certain of that conclusion versus reasons not to be (and to wait and see).

And in anticipation of a follow-up question: A discussion of no-collusion scenarios includes offering reasons not to accept them as givens at this time. If copious examples of this aren’t already apparent — to quote Mrs. Robinson, I don’t know what.