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

ridski said:

Again.

“The big take away from the part 1 article is Ukrainian Intelligence was hired as opposition research by Alexandra Chalupa and they hacked the DNC. And they hacked the RNC.”

Ukrainian intelligence was hired as opposition research by Alexandra Chalupa and they hacked the DNC.

Those are his words. From the fourth article, summarizing the third article. He says right there that Ukraine hacked the DNC. Don’t gaslight me on this. Your lazy *** asked us to find someone pushing the first part of Stephanopolous’ three part statement, and I found it, now move on to the rest, because I actually don’t give a **** about this part because it’s just a conspiracy theory, and believe me, I love conspiracy theories. This one just isn’t that interesting.

 Yes he says that, but he's crystal clear that the hacking that you are referring to did not produce the DNC emails provided to Wikileaks -- he believes it was a leak. He says that the DNC was hacked by the Ukrainian group and suggests that many other targets were hacked by the Ukrainian group. That does not equate to hacking that provided the Wikileaks emails.

Eliason says that the DNC emails that Wikileaks published were produced by a leak, not a hack.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/beyond-the-dnc-leaks-hacks-and-treason/247674/
[ August 14, 2018 ]

The reasons supporting a leak are described by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This shows clearly why the leak to Wikileaks is much more plausible than a hack for the files taken in what is commonly called the DNC hack. This leak was one “hack” of many that was going on.

Imagine being this person inside the situations described above with the reality hitting you that things were very wrong. Even if they only saw parts of it, how much is too much? US government secrets were being accessed and we know this because the passwords were given out to the research teams the hackers were on.

It is very possible that giving the files to Wikileaks was the only safe way to be a whistleblower with a Democrat president supporting Team Hillary even as Team Hillary was cannibalizing itself. For detail on how the leak happened, refer to Adam Carter at DisobedientMedia.com and the VIPS themselves.

You are 0 for 3.

paulsurovell said:

Yes he says that, but he's crystal clear that the hacking that you are referring to did not produce the DNC emails provided to Wikileaks -- he believes it was a leak. He says that the DNC was hacked by the Ukrainian group and suggests that many other targets were hacked by the Ukrainian group. That does not equate to hacking that provided the Wikileaks emails.

Eliason says that the DNC emails that Wikileaks published were produced by a leak, not a hack.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/beyond-the-dnc-leaks-hacks-and-treason/247674/
[ August 14, 2018 ]

 I can't speak for anyone else, but I think arguing over what Eliason's fable is, about Ukraine and emails, is a waste of time.

Yes, it's just another rabbit hole down the attempt to show that there is a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC. He says it was a leak.

paulsurovell said:

Yes, it's just another rabbit hole down the attempt to show that there is a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC. He says it was a leak.

 As I said, arguing over exactly what the conspiracy theory is (given that they're all pro-Trump fabulism) is a waste of time.  But that's the point, right?

Meanwhile, from the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"In 2016, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. … The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

nohero said:

Meanwhile, from the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"In 2016, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. … The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

 Thanks nohero.

This goes far beyond what happened in 2016. It's not about collusion. It's about what one of America's chief geopolitical rivals is cotinuing to do, and not enough is being done to curb this activity. 

mrincredible said:

nohero said:

Meanwhile, from the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"In 2016, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. … The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

 Thanks nohero.

This goes far beyond what happened in 2016. It's not about collusion. It's about what one of America's chief geopolitical rivals is cotinuing to do, and not enough is being done to curb this activity. 

 Here's another take on this

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

paulsurovell said:

mrincredible said:

nohero said:

Meanwhile, from the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"In 2016, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. … The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

 Thanks nohero.

This goes far beyond what happened in 2016. It's not about collusion. It's about what one of America's chief geopolitical rivals is cotinuing to do, and not enough is being done to curb this activity. 

 Here's another take on this

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

 It's not "another take" on the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report.  It's a nearly year-old article by Aaron Maté.  

Not only that, but I wasted one of my 5 free article looks at The Nation to learn that.  Thanks for nothing, Paul.

Russia has used social media to turn Paul into a Manchurian poster.  

Paul:  go back to reading MSM.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

mrincredible said:

nohero said:

Meanwhile, from the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"In 2016, Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. … The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

 Thanks nohero.

This goes far beyond what happened in 2016. It's not about collusion. It's about what one of America's chief geopolitical rivals is cotinuing to do, and not enough is being done to curb this activity. 

 Here's another take on this

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

 It's not "another take" on the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report.  It's a nearly year-old article by Aaron Maté.  

Not only that, but I wasted one of my 5 free article looks at The Nation to learn that.  Thanks for nothing, Paul.

 The Senate report is old news.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Here's another take on this

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

 It's not "another take" on the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report.  It's a nearly year-old article by Aaron Maté.  

Not only that, but I wasted one of my 5 free article looks at The Nation to learn that.  Thanks for nothing, Paul.

The Senate report is old news.

Paul, I quoted from the recently-released volume from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It's not "old news".  However, apparently you are.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Here's another take on this

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

 It's not "another take" on the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report.  It's a nearly year-old article by Aaron Maté.  

Not only that, but I wasted one of my 5 free article looks at The Nation to learn that.  Thanks for nothing, Paul.

The Senate report is old news.

Paul, I quoted from the recently-released volume from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It's not "old news".  However, apparently you are.

 What's in the report is old news.

dave said:

Paul:  go back to reading MSM.

 I get an update from @nohero every day.

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

Paul:  go back to reading MSM.

 I get an update from @nohero every day.

 He should charge you a subscription.

dave said:

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

Paul:  go back to reading MSM.

 I get an update from @nohero every day.

 He should charge you a subscription.

 I'll contribute to MOL for making it possible.

Let's review recent developments among some of Venezuela's (capitalist) Latin American neighbors:

Chilean troops have killed 8 protesters over economic inequality (successful capitalism)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/21/chile-protests-santiago-dead-state-emergency/

And Ecuador's regime recently fled the capital because of massive protests by the poor

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/americas/article/3032076/ecuadors-government-flees-thousands-protesters-converge-capital

Honduras faces massive protests led by former Pres Zelayas who was deposed in a military coup supported by Hillary when she was Secretary of State

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-49715598/honduras-protests-clashes-erupt-on-independence-day

(current Honduras President's brother recently convicted of drug trafficking)

https://news.yahoo.com/hondurans-call-president-step-down-184608363.html

Let's add today's right-wing coup attempt in Bolivia to the list.

https://twitter.com/GrayzoneProject/status/1187128516766261248?s=20

paulsurovell said:

Let's add today's right-wing coup attempt in Bolivia to the list.

https://twitter.com/GrayzoneProject/status/1187128516766261248?s=20

 Are we supposed to be for or against this one?

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

Let's add today's right-wing coup attempt in Bolivia to the list.

https://twitter.com/GrayzoneProject/status/1187128516766261248?s=20

 Are we supposed to be for or against this one?

Depends.  What colors are they wearing? 

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

Let's add today's right-wing coup attempt in Bolivia to the list.

https://twitter.com/GrayzoneProject/status/1187128516766261248?s=20

 Are we supposed to be for or against this one?

If you're a British/Yankee imperialist you're for it. If you support democracy and self-determination you're against it.

nohero said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

Let's add today's right-wing coup attempt in Bolivia to the list.

https://twitter.com/GrayzoneProject/status/1187128516766261248?s=20

 Are we supposed to be for or against this one?

Depends.  What colors are they wearing? 

 Same for you without the "British" part.

paulsurovell said:

If you're a British/Yankee imperialist you're for it. If you support democracy and self-determination you're against it.

 What if I support the constitutional term limits created in 2009 promulgated by Morales himself and the democratic result of the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum which should have meant that Morales couldn't run again in 2019, but for a Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice decision which overturned not just the referendum, but the Bolivian constitution itself?

Title II, Chapter I, Section II

Article 168

The period of the mandate of the President or Vice President is five years, and they may be reelected once for a continuous term.

Solidified by referendum 7 years later.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160219103934/http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/bolivias-re-election-referendum-the-case-for-yes-and-no/

And then this, rather undemocratic thing happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/evo-morales-bolivia-president-election-limits

So, to reiterate, are we supposed to be for or against this one?

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

If you're a British/Yankee imperialist you're for it. If you support democracy and self-determination you're against it.

 What if I support the constitutional term limits created in 2009 promulgated by Morales himself and the democratic result of the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum which should have meant that Morales couldn't run again in 2019, but for a Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice decision which overturned not just the referendum, but the Bolivian constitution itself?

 Then you're a British/Yankee imperialist supporting a right-wing coup to overturn an election.

ridski said:

Title II, Chapter I, Section II

Article 168

The period of the mandate of the President or Vice President is five years, and they may be reelected once for a continuous term.

Solidified by referendum 7 years later.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160219103934/http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/bolivias-re-election-referendum-the-case-for-yes-and-no/

And then this, rather undemocratic thing happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/evo-morales-bolivia-president-election-limits

 https://www.dw.com/en/bolivians-protest-after-supreme-court-allows-president-evo-morales-to-run-for-fourth-term/a-46622525

Chilean soldiers trained by Israel Defense Force to shoot to maim protesters, rather than kill them. Capitalist success story, symbol of democracy. Not like Venezuela.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/chile-protests-army-israel-palestine-santiago-pinera-pinochet-mapuche-a9167021.html

Part V, Sole Title Article 411

II. The partial reform of the Constitution may be initiated by popular initiative with the signatures of at least twenty percent of the electorate, or by the Pluri-National Legislative Assembly through a law of constitutional reform approved by two-thirds of the total members present of the Pluri-National Legislative Assembly. Any partial reform shall require approval by constitutional referendum.

That's the procedure for amending the constitution, page 122 of the English translation. This was not followed. Morales running for re-election for a fourth term (even if the first one doesn't count) is unconstitutional. This would be no different than Trump running again in 2024. You're damn right there should be riots in the streets. The democratically enacted constitution of 2009, upheld by democratic referendum in 2016, has been violated and you're calling ME an imperialist?

ridski said:

Part V, Sole Title Article 411

II. The partial reform of the Constitution may be initiated by popular initiative with the signatures of at least twenty percent of the electorate, or by the Pluri-National Legislative Assembly through a law of constitutional reform approved by two-thirds of the total members present of the Pluri-National Legislative Assembly. Any partial reform shall require approval by constitutional referendum.

That's the procedure for amending the constitution, page 122 of the English translation. This was not followed. Morales running for re-election for a fourth term (even if the first one doesn't count) is unconstitutional. This would be no different than Trump running again in 2024. You're damn right there should be riots in the streets. The democratically enacted constitution of 2009, upheld by democratic referendum in 2016, has been violated and you're calling ME an imperialist?

 Yes, you're a British/Yankee imperialist, supporting a right-wing coup attempt in Latin America that follows a long history of right-wing coups supported by the US government (primarily the CIA) in Latin America. The legal arguments that you are citing were rejected by the Bolivian Supreme Court which authorized Morales to run again for President.

Edited to Add: What you are supporting is the violence by right-wing forces to destroy the voting records to prevent a final tally that everyone agrees will show a Morales victory. Imperialism asserts its power through violence or the threat of violence.