Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
jamie said:
Not sure if this has been posted - it's a pretty decent summation:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
To conclude, we return to Carter Page, about whom there is a great deal in the dossier. We will not recount the details here because the allegations have not been corroborated in filings by Mueller’s team. The only nod at confirmation we have from an official source is a heavily-redacted memorandum from the House intelligence committee minority. In it, Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI’s wholly independent basis for investigating Page’s long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information “obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting” with respect to Page.As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.
The article purports to assess the accuracy of the dossier, but it doesn't mention the dossier's mission -- to get dirt on Donald Trump. An honest assessment would have to take into account the dossier's mission, but these author's ignored (omitted) that key factor altogether.
Steele's rendition of the dossier's mission appears in his answers to interrogatories in the Alfa Bank defamation lawsuit (of which you asked me for details). His answer omits the primary purpose of the mission (to get dirt on Trump), but if what he does say is true, Hillary was secretly laying the foundation for challenging the election outcome, while she was publicly pledging to accept the outcome and attacking Trump for refusing to do so
Is it Orbis’ case that Fusion’s client needed the information contained in
Memorandum 112:
(a) For the purposes of prospective legal proceedings?
(b) For the purposes of obtaining legal advice?
(c) For the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.
Response: (b) and (c). Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie
LIP. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to
provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the
legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on
that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC
Inc. (also known as “Hillary for America”) could consider steps they would be
legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that
election. In turn, that may have resulted in legal proceedings within the
meaning of limb (a) above, but the immediate needs of Fusion’s clients fell
with in limbs (b) and (c).
Facebook has banned head of firm that did latest report on Russian trolling for
engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior
Since both topics have come up in this thread - here's some recent info:
White Helmet / Russia related
Max Blumenthal getting sued:
https://medium.com/@sulome/why-im-suing-max-blumenthal-and-benjamin-norton-9357fb68aa31
jamie said:
Since both topics have come up in this thread - here's some recent info:
White Helmet / Russia related
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-disinformation-campaign-targets-syrias-beleaguered-rescue-workers/2018/12/18/113b03c4-02a9-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8373c26ba7d2
Funny, no mention of Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter or Theodore Postol. Is journalism supposed to report one side only?
jamie said:
Max Blumenthal getting sued:
https://medium.com/@sulome/why-im-suing-max-blumenthal-and-benjamin-norton-9357fb68aa31
Do you have any idea what she's going to allege in her lawsuit? Article says nothing.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:The article purports to assess the accuracy of the dossier, but it doesn't mention the dossier's mission -- to get dirt on Donald Trump. An honest assessment would have to take into account the dossier's mission, but these author's ignored (omitted) that key factor altogether.
Not sure if this has been posted - it's a pretty decent summation:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
To conclude, we return to Carter Page, about whom there is a great deal in the dossier. We will not recount the details here because the allegations have not been corroborated in filings by Mueller’s team. The only nod at confirmation we have from an official source is a heavily-redacted memorandum from the House intelligence committee minority. In it, Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI’s wholly independent basis for investigating Page’s long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information “obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting” with respect to Page.As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.
The article appears to assume the reader is familiar with the background of the topic. Your comment doesn't really detract from their assessment of the accuracy of the contents.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Funny, no mention of Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter or Theodore Postol. Is journalism supposed to report one side only?
Since both topics have come up in this thread - here's some recent info:
White Helmet / Russia related
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-disinformation-campaign-targets-syrias-beleaguered-rescue-workers/2018/12/18/113b03c4-02a9-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8373c26ba7d2
The article is about facts on the ground. Your comment is that they should have mentioned other commentators. There's no reason why they should do that, and certainly not because people looking for "red herring" criticisms would pounce on that.
There's a link in that article to a recent report called "Chemical Weapons and Absurdity: The Disinformation Campaign Against the White Helmets", which seems to be something useful to read.
Conclusion
The Syrian Civil Defence is an organisation working under extraordinary circumstances, willingly risking their own lives to save others. As with any organisation operating in such a complex conflict, they sometimes make decisions which others would disagree with. However, one only has to watch a fraction of the hundreds of videos of them pulling victims from under the rubble of bombed buildings to understand that they are genuine first responders who have helped to save many thousands of lives across opposition-held Syria.
The disinformation campaign waged against the SCD has been brutal and unrelenting. It has attempted to cast doubt on their ability to provide evidence, painted them as “terrorists” and ultimately tried to transform them into “legitimate targets.” It is clear that Russia and Syria believe that associating the SCD with chemical weapons is a key part of this narrative. Despite claiming to have “irrefutable information” neither the Russian nor Syrian governments appear to have produced any verifiable evidence that actually supports their accusations.
The extraordinarily low level of evidence supporting these accusations, the absurdity of some of the claims and the continual failure to predict a chemical attack exposes these accusations for what they are: a continuation of a deliberate and planned disinformation campaign against a humanitarian organisation operating in the most difficult of circumstances.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:The article appears to assume the reader is familiar with the background of the topic. Your comment doesn't really detract from their assessment of the accuracy of the contents.
jamie said:The article purports to assess the accuracy of the dossier, but it doesn't mention the dossier's mission -- to get dirt on Donald Trump. An honest assessment would have to take into account the dossier's mission, but these author's ignored (omitted) that key factor altogether.
Not sure if this has been posted - it's a pretty decent summation:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
To conclude, we return to Carter Page, about whom there is a great deal in the dossier. We will not recount the details here because the allegations have not been corroborated in filings by Mueller’s team. The only nod at confirmation we have from an official source is a heavily-redacted memorandum from the House intelligence committee minority. In it, Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI’s wholly independent basis for investigating Page’s long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information “obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting” with respect to Page.As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.
(a) Not "appears to assume." More accurately -- misrepresents the purpose of the document by failing to identify the purpose of the document.
(b) A sound analysis of a document must address potential bias in the document. Otherwise, it's a whitewash.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:The article is about facts on the ground.
jamie said:Funny, no mention of Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter or Theodore Postol. Is journalism supposed to report one side only?
Since both topics have come up in this thread - here's some recent info:
White Helmet / Russia related
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-disinformation-campaign-targets-syrias-beleaguered-rescue-workers/2018/12/18/113b03c4-02a9-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8373c26ba7d2
The "facts" in the article have been disputed by experts and journalists. To report the events as "facts" without acknowledging the dispute misleads the reader.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore.
[ . . . ]
The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Anybody know how much the Russian troll operation cost in the 2016 election and how much was spent overall in the primaries and the general?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Alabama operation was minuscule compared to the Russian trolls. And it was conducted by professionals. Yet, it was "likely too small to have a significant effect on the race?"
Then why all this hype and hysteria over the Russian trolls?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:The "facts" in the article have been disputed by experts and journalists. To report the events as "facts" without acknowledging the dispute misleads the reader.
paulsurovell said:The article is about facts on the ground.
jamie said:Funny, no mention of Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter or Theodore Postol. Is journalism supposed to report one side only?
Since both topics have come up in this thread - here's some recent info:
White Helmet / Russia related
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-disinformation-campaign-targets-syrias-beleaguered-rescue-workers/2018/12/18/113b03c4-02a9-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8373c26ba7d2
The article didn't mention some commentators who criticize from a distance. It doesn't "mislead the reader". You are making an empty complaint that doesn't really amount to anything.
Post edited to add - I just realize that when you "quoted" me, you left only the first sentence, and left out (and ignored) everything which argues against your "response". In other words, pretending that you are giving a substantive response. He's my whole response that you pretend isn't there -
The article is about facts on the ground. Your comment is that they should have mentioned other commentators. There's no reason why they should do that, and certainly not because people looking for "red herring" criticisms would pounce on that.
There's a link in that article to a recent report called "Chemical Weapons and Absurdity: The Disinformation Campaign Against the White Helmets", which seems to be something useful to read.
Conclusion
The Syrian Civil Defence is an organisation working under extraordinary circumstances, willingly risking their own lives to save others. As with any organisation operating in such a complex conflict, they sometimes make decisions which others would disagree with. However, one only has to watch a fraction of the hundreds of videos of them pulling victims from under the rubble of bombed buildings to understand that they are genuine first responders who have helped to save many thousands of lives across opposition-held Syria.
The disinformation campaign waged against the SCD has been brutal and unrelenting. It has attempted to cast doubt on their ability to provide evidence, painted them as “terrorists” and ultimately tried to transform them into “legitimate targets.” It is clear that Russia and Syria believe that associating the SCD with chemical weapons is a key part of this narrative. Despite claiming to have “irrefutable information” neither the Russian nor Syrian governments appear to have produced any verifiable evidence that actually supports their accusations.
The extraordinarily low level of evidence supporting these accusations, the absurdity of some of the claims and the continual failure to predict a chemical attack exposes these accusations for what they are: a continuation of a deliberate and planned disinformation campaign against a humanitarian organisation operating in the most difficult of circumstances.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Your constant prescription has been to end the investigation (as well as repeating insulting comments about Mueller and anyone in law enforcement who Trump considers to be a threat). So your artificial distinction between the investigation and reporting on the investigation is meaningless.
South_Mountaineer said:You are correct on one point: the "investigation" of alleged Russian involvement isn't increasing the threat of nuclear war. It's the hysteria-driving media campaign around the investigation that's increasing the risk of war, by poisoning US-Russian relations, in particular our ability to communicate effectively during a time of crisis -- such a mistaken detection of a missile strike by the other side. And our ability to negotiate reliable systems of nuclear arms control and disarmament.
The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war. Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.
Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.
Even if your stupid "hysteria-driving media campaign" claim is right, that has no effect on communication between governments about "a mistaken detection of a missile strike", or any other professional military activity like that. Your comment is pretty insulting about the men and women who serve in that capacity.
The investigation also has nothing to do with "our ability to negotiate reliable systems of nuclear arms control and disarmament." Trump being President is what makes that a problem. And you didn't contradict my pointing out Putin's preexisting actions to violate the existing treaty - which predate Trump and torpedo your effort to blame the investigation.
Quoting myself from December 21 on this thread. In the news today, Putin and his new missiles, which somebody will probably try to blame on the Mueller investigation.
Russia has said the new missile system, one of several new weapons Putin announced in March, is highly maneuverable, allowing it to easily evade missile defense systems.
Putin remotely observed Wednesday’s test from a Russian defense ministry building in Moscow. The Kremlin described the test in a statement, saying that an Avangard missile, launched from a location in south-west Russia, had successfully hit and destroyed a target in the Russian Far East.
Putin announced an array of new weapons in March, including the Avangard, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield.
South_Mountaineer said:
Quoting myself from December 21 on this thread.
Not a good way to win an argument.
DaveSchmidt said:
Everyone who cares about winning arguments, raise your hand.
Would you stipulate to "debates?"
If you think that'll get more hands raised, sure. It still won't get mine.
DaveSchmidt said:
If you think that'll get more hands raised, sure. It still won't get mine.
Would you stipulate to "make an argument?"
DaveSchmidt said:
If you think that'll get more hands raised, sure. It still won't get mine.
Why are you here, Dave? Are you just trying to avoid internet shopping or cleaning the bathroom?
nan said:
Why are you here, Dave? Are you just trying to avoid internet shopping or cleaning the bathroom?
Glad you asked, nan! Here are five reasons.
No. 1: To learn from others and inform my opinions.
No. 2 (aspirational): To add a thought, a question or some context that might encourage you or anyone else to look at something in a different light.
No. 3: To have a little fun.
No. 4 (also fun): To correct Paul’s math. Oh, and random factual errors from the rest of us that slip onto MOL and catch my eye.
No. 5: To try to avoid internet shopping. (You guessed it.)
How about you, nan?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Glad you asked, nan! Here are five reasons.
Why are you here, Dave? Are you just trying to avoid internet shopping or cleaning the bathroom?
No. 1: To learn from others and inform my opinions.
No. 2 (aspirational): To add a thought, a question or some context that might encourage you or anyone else to look at something in a different light.
No. 3: To have a little fun.
No. 4 (also fun): To correct Paul’s math. Oh, and random factual errors from the rest of us that slip onto MOL and catch my eye.
No. 5: To try to avoid internet shopping. (You guessed it.)
How about you, nan?
Very similar to your list, although I'm not into correcting the little stuff. I do a lot of reading and thinking and find putting some of that online helps me understand in a deeper way since I can include the reactions of others. I like to write but I'm not a writer so this is as close as I get. I'm also on Facebook and Twitter, but you can't have the same kinds of conversations as you can here. Kind of a lost art.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Glad you asked, nan! Here are five reasons.
Why are you here, Dave? Are you just trying to avoid internet shopping or cleaning the bathroom?
No. 1: To learn from others and inform my opinions.
No. 2 (aspirational): To add a thought, a question or some context that might encourage you or anyone else to look at something in a different light.
No. 3: To have a little fun.
No. 4 (also fun): To correct Paul’s math. Oh, and random factual errors from the rest of us that slip onto MOL and catch my eye.
No. 5: To try to avoid internet shopping. (You guessed it.)
How about you, nan?
You left out No.6 --> To win arguments (without being argumentative) 
paulsurovell said:
Not a good way to win an argument.
Not a good way to win ... debates.
Not a good way to ... make an argument.
How about: Not a good way to have a discussion.
No victories. No marshaling of forces in a polemic offensive. No gotchas. A discussion. How about that?
ETA after a delayed cross-posting: In other words, No. 6.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Not a good way to win an argument.
Quoting myself from December 21 on this thread.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:How about: Not a good way to have a discussion.
Not a good way to win an argument.
Not a good way to win ... debates.
Not a good way to ... make an argument.
No victories. No marshaling of forces in a polemic offensive. No gotchas. A discussion. How about that?
ETA after a delayed cross-posting: In other words, No. 6.
Now that you guys have sorted this out, I have a question for @paulsurovell -
When I "quoted myself" yesterday, from a post last week, in order to introduce a post about the following news item that day, what was the meaning of your response? And, is that your sole response to that?
Thanks in advance for clarifying.
South_Mountaineer said:In the news today, Putin and his new missiles, which somebody will probably try to blame on the Mueller investigation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-nuclear/putin-says-russia-is-ready-to-deploy-new-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-idUSKCN1OP0NZ?il=0
Russia has said the new missile system, one of several new weapons Putin announced in March, is highly maneuverable, allowing it to easily evade missile defense systems.
Putin remotely observed Wednesday’s test from a Russian defense ministry building in Moscow. The Kremlin described the test in a statement, saying that an Avangard missile, launched from a location in south-west Russia, had successfully hit and destroyed a target in the Russian Far East.
Putin announced an array of new weapons in March, including the Avangard, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Point taken. Perhaps the "evidence" is the Steele dossier?
paulsurovell said:The necessity of parsing the above description is, like previous parsing, open to dispute. Strictly speaking, however, McClatchy reported that Mueller had evidence, not proof.
You know McClatchy said that Mueller has proof that Cohen was in Prague.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The latest on that from McClatchy (as in, reported today), and it's not "the Steele dossier" that's being cited.
A mobile phone traced to President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen briefly sent signals ricocheting off cell towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, leaving an electronic record to support claims that Cohen met secretly there with Russian officials, four people with knowledge of the matter say.
During the same period of late August or early September, electronic eavesdropping by an Eastern European intelligence agency picked up a conversation among Russians, one of whom remarked that Cohen was in Prague, two people familiar with the incident said.
The phone and surveillance data, which have not previously been disclosed, lend new credence to a key part of a former British spy’s dossier of Kremlin intelligence describing purported coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russia’s election meddling operation.
...
Both of the newly surfaced foreign electronic intelligence intercepts were shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, people familiar with the matter said. Mueller is investigating Russia’s 2016 election interference and whether Trump’s campaign colluded in the scheme. Mueller also is examining whether Trump has obstructed the sweeping inquiry.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/investigations/article219016820.html#storylink=cpy
Mueller had Cohen's cell phones since April 9. If Cohen was in Prague, Mueller knew that when he said that Cohen was very cooperative with the investigation.
Cohen is likely to be one of the five people who had the information from their AT&T phones (or a likely comparable number who probably had information their Verizon phones) obtained back on March 9 in the wake of the Rick Gates plea. In any case, we know that the FBI seized a whole slew of Cohen’s phones on April 9 and were able to fully exploit all of them save an old Blackberry.
So we don’t have to rely on extrapolating from what are often common first steps, because we know that Mueller has already obtained Cohen’s actual phones (to say nothing of his phone records).
If any of Cohen’s phones were in the vicinity of Prague in 2016 — whether August or maybe September — Mueller knew about it when he told Judge William Pauley that,
"Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign."
Cohen has tweeted that he was never in the Czech Republic. Marcy Wheeler has never placed much credibility in the Steele dossier - she thinks much of it is disinformation.
But thus far, Mueller seems to think that Cohen’s role in brokering a Trump Tower deal (including, per BuzzFeed’s reporting, with a banker tied to GRU, the intelligence agency that carried out the election year operation) was a more important lie than anything that got reported in the Steele dossier.
All of which is to say that I still stand by this post, in which I argue that it’s high time for reporters to stop focusing primarily on whether details of the Steele dossier have proven true (particularly if that’s all you do on the Russian investigation, as it substantially is with these reporters), and instead look to laying out the implications of the conspiracy that Mueller has already provided corroboration of.
There is growing evidence that Trump conspired with Russians in 2016. That evidence, however, comes increasingly from Mueller, not from Christopher Steele.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/27/mueller-would-not-have-needed-a-foreign-intelligence-agency-to-geolocate-michael-cohens-phone/
The idea that the CIA has reformed since it lied about Iraq WMDs in 2002-3 has come up repeatedly on this thread and we can "trust them now."
This is the organization we're supposed to trust:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/world/asia/cia-afghanistan-strike-force.html
paulsurovell said:
The idea that the CIA has reformed since it lied about Iraq WMDs in 2002-3 has come up repeatedly on this thread and we can "trust them now."
This is the organization we're supposed to trust:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/world/asia/cia-afghanistan-strike-force.html
I'm glad to see your wholehearted support of that bastion of manufactured consent, The New York Times.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:I'm glad to see your wholehearted support of that bastion of manufactured consent, The New York Times.
The idea that the CIA has reformed since it lied about Iraq WMDs in 2002-3 has come up repeatedly on this thread and we can "trust them now."
This is the organization we're supposed to trust:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/world/asia/cia-afghanistan-strike-force.html
I've cited the NY Times often. Two days ago, for example. I've cited former NY Times reporters (Seymour Hersh and Chris Hedges) on a number of issues and the NY Times former general counsel James Goodale (on the dangers of prosecuting Assange). In general, the Times promulgates the narrative of the establishment, but at the same time, remains a valuable source of information. There are also occasions when the narrative falls apart (as in the Afghan and Kurdish stories) and journalistic intervention becomes necessary. We may even see that happen in Russiagate, although the Times and the MSM overall are so heavily invested that a step-down will be extremely difficult.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
Yard Sale - Lots of great things! Sale Date: Jun 1, 2024
More info
Not sure if this has been posted - it's a pretty decent summation:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective