Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Dennis Berube]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

From the article: Donald Trump has had his sanction removed. He no longer has the stroke to direct the public conversation towards whatever he wants it to be about.

Because of that Russiagate is about to burst over the banks with the full force of three years of pent-up pressure behind it.

It’s finally time for Russiagate.  Russiagate starts now.

 

https://www.madcowprod.com/2019/11/18/cartel-behind-20-ton-drug-move-in-philadelphia-to-skate-on-charges/?fbclid=IwAR3JL4OavYX_jgJngv_GKzbGesivChjsFj9wLldZMTFaUJARaOi0ifaiT1Q

The first article about this said it was a ship owned by JP Morgan. They arent mentioned at all in hopsickers article. Pretty thin on direct evidence too, but im interested to see what happens.

[W. Niederhut]

Looks like the coal miner's daughter pointedly disagrees with Jeff Carter's arguments on this lengthy thread...

Fiona Hill’s opening statement at impeachment hearing

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/read-fiona-hills-opening-statement-at-impeachment-hearing/ar-BBX6MGi

[Ray Mitcham]

I was interested to see Trump's reply to Sondland, when he said

"I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing".

Who apart, apparently from  the whistleblower ,  ever mentioned "quid quo for" before Trump brought it up in his reply just after the exposure?

Shows he only brought up to try to cover his ass. 

[Andrew Prutsok]

What are the odds the similar  "calls" Hill was unwilling to discuss were between Trump and Vlad?

[Cliff Varnell]

As 'DNC Hacked Itself' Conspiracy Theory Collapses, Key Backer Of Claim Exposed As UK T-r-o-l-l

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dnc-hacked-itself-conspiracy-theory-collapses-key-backer-claim-exposed-as-uk-xxxxx.shtml

Edited November 21, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

This thread could use some serious comic relief...  😬

https://thenib.com/a-real-head-scratcher?id=tom-tomorrow&t=author

Jim"s response,----- Nice one. William!

Love Tom Tomorrow W! Thank You!

Jim, I'm puzzled,  why would you find W's Tom Tomorrow comic"nice" . It portrays you, as a Trump denier of culpability as a mindless, ranting,  lemming!

In the comedy strip, you share a few talking points with the Republican deniers, Hunter Biden. and the general hatred of Hillary, 

But I would add as your contributions to their talking points, Deep State, Steele Dossier, who is the  whistle blower? and disgust with Obama.

 

Personally feeling the way I do, if Tom had added Deep State and Steele Dossier, I would have found it even funnier. Maybe he didn't include that because I believe he's a little more in the beltway.

 

What Tom is saying is in essence is, We're not laughing with you Jim, We're laughing at you.

 

I don't get it, how can you find this "nice" (though that's vague, it is positive) when he's obviously making fun of you?

 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Looks like the coal miner's daughter pointedly disagrees with Jeff Carter's arguments on this lengthy thread...Fiona Hill’s opening statement at impeachment hearing

This is the point of disagreement:

Hill: “Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute…”

The “public conclusion” of the intel agent ties was the January 2017 ICA which, it turned out, was the product only of several “hand-picked” analysts from merely three agencies. The report itself makes no claim to accuracy, and admits it might be totally wrong. The “bipartisan Congressional reports”, when not referring to the questionable ICA for confirmation, also lack evidentiary substance, as a close reading will confirm. It is “beyond dispute” in the same manner that the Warren Report was said to be beyond dispute.

 

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

As 'DNC Hacked Itself' Conspiracy Theory Collapses, Key Backer Of Claim Exposed As UK T-r-o-l-l

A year-old entry in a partisan flame-war doesn’t prove anything. Wikileaks, and associated go-betweens such as Craig Murray, have consistently and strenuously refuted the “Russian hack” theory, and they have a long track record of accuracy and integrity. An honest investigation would have sought to hear from them, but that hasn’t happened. Instead, Assange rots in a UK super-max, faced with a dubious legal process which is more properly associated with soviet “dissidents” in the dismal past.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

[Dennis Berube]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

An honest investigation would have sought to hear from them, but that hasn’t happened.

Jeff, didnt Assange offer to testify/ hand over what he had on the whole affair if he was granted immunity. I believe the state department declined him. Thats the kind of investigation Kirk, William, and the forgotten CV, champion. Of course that may have brought up the Seth Rich thing that Assange made comments about.

[W. Niederhut]

Cheggidout, folks...  😬

The Gerasimov political polarization/propaganda strategy that helped propel Putin's candidate, Donald Trump, to the White House is, apparently, booming.

Americans Steal Kremlin’s Playbook, for Clicks and Profit

An investigation found that a former Fox News executive hired Macedonians to write culturally and politically divisive content for his websites.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/technology/LaCorte-edition-news.html?action=click&auth=login-email&login=email&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Americans Steal Kremlin’s Playbook, for Clicks and Profit

An investigation found that a former Fox News executive hired Macedonians to write culturally and politically divisive content for his websites.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/technology/LaCorte-edition-news.html?action=click&auth=login-email&login=email&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

The New York Times story basically confirms what informed people have been saying all along: the Internet Research Agency’s activities more resemble a click-bait marketing scheme than a weaponized deliberate program to “sow division”. The American publisher described in the article wanted to drive traffic to his website and found the best way to do so was by “playing the edgy clickbait game” which depended on “hyper partisan” content: “Exploiting American cultural and political fissures to drive traffic to his websites has worked wonders.” He is using controversial pushbutton content to increase followers for his website. The article notes that these techniques are “mimicking” the IRA campaign from 2016, and near the end, admits that a network of Macedonian teenagers were running a campaign exactly like the IRA in the same time period (2016), featuring similar “divisive” pro-Trump etc material  -  -  except no-one says that Macedonian teenagers “attacked American democracy” as it is generally understood as a campaign to exploit Google ads. The "mimicking" is of common proven techniques to generate money, which were in practice long before 2016.

The real point of the article appears midway as the author laments: “The spreading of politically divisive content or even blatant disinformation and conspiracy theories by Americans is protected free speech.” Those protections make it harder, “security experts” say, to “track” disinformation, and is “normalizing things we would otherwise identify as inauthentic behavior.”

Should security agents be “tracking” presumed disinformation, and should they be trusted or authorized to arbitrate “inauthentic behaviour”? It seems like they are intent on “normalizing” irrational fear over common practices.

[James DiEugenio]

Can you imagine what the Republicans in the senate will do with this during an impeachment trial?

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

The New York Times story basically confirms what informed people have been saying all along: the Internet Research Agency’s activities more resemble a click-bait marketing scheme than a weaponized deliberate program to “sow division”. The American publisher described in the article wanted to drive traffic to his website and found the best way to do so was by “playing the edgy clickbait game” which depended on “hyper partisan” content: “Exploiting American cultural and political fissures to drive traffic to his websites has worked wonders.” He is using controversial pushbutton content to increase followers for his website. The article notes that these techniques are “mimicking” the IRA campaign from 2016, and near the end, admits that a network of Macedonian teenagers were running a campaign exactly like the IRA in the same time period (2016), featuring similar “divisive” pro-Trump etc material  -  -  except no-one says that Macedonian teenagers “attacked American democracy” as it is generally understood as a campaign to exploit Google ads. The "mimicking" is of common proven techniques to generate money, which were in practice long before 2016.

The real point of the article appears midway as the author laments: “The spreading of politically divisive content or even blatant disinformation and conspiracy theories by Americans is protected free speech.” Those protections make it harder, “security experts” say, to “track” disinformation, and is “normalizing things we would otherwise identify as inauthentic behavior.”

Should security agents be “tracking” presumed disinformation, and should they be trusted or authorized to arbitrate “inauthentic behaviour”? It seems like they are intent on “normalizing” irrational fear over common practices.

Jeff,

      Don't you mean, "normalizing rational fear over communist practices?" 😬This kind of polarizing, Putin-esque disinformazia is causing a serious crisis right now in liberal Western democracies-- which is precisely what your fascist hero, Vlad, is trying to do.

     Putin doesn't have to worry about the destructive effects of this kind of dirty, divisive propaganda in his police state, where disobedient journalists can be readily blown up in their cars.  But it is, obviously, a problem in the free world-- especially now that the GOP has abolished the Fairness Act, and Rupert Murdoch has been authorized to establish his disinformazia empire in the U.S.

    

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

A year-old entry in a partisan flame-war doesn’t prove anything. 

Your deflections grow less deft, Jeff.

Are you trying to knock Techdirt?  On what basis? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt

Are you knocking the author, Karl Bode, a contributor to VICE News?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/contributor/karl-bode

I suspect you especially didn't like this bit.

Bode:

Roughly a year ago you might recall that numerous outlets happily parroted claims that the DNC wasn't hacked by Russian intelligence (as latter reports would make clear), but had somehow actually hacked itself. The theory was never particularly well cooked, though outlets like The Nation ran with it anyway, claiming that "forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed" had all collectively unearthed undeniable evidence that the DNC had committed cyber-seppuku.

The widely-circulated report leaned heavily on a published memo by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a collection of former intelligence experts and whistleblowers like William Binney and Ray McGovern. It also leaned heavily on the input of several, anonymous, self-professed "computer forensics investigators" who, the news outlet informed readers, had "split the DNC case open like a coconut," providing incontrovertible evidence that Russian intelligence played no role in the now-legendary breach.

But the entire claim was little more than fluff and nonsense.

As we noted at the time, The Nation story relied heavily on the allegation the stolen files must have been copied locally to USB by a DNC insider because, as The Nation claimed, "no Internet service provider was capable of downloading data at this speed" (22.7 megabytes per second). In reality, 22.7 megabytes per second was simply a 180 Mbps connection, widely available around the world at the time the DNC hack took place. That includes Romania, the country that the Russian cutout Guccifer 2.0 pretended (at the time) to have originated from. </q>

 

Quote

 

 

Wikileaks, and associated go-betweens such as Craig Murray, have consistently and strenuously refuted the “Russian hack” theory, and they have a long track record of accuracy and integrity.  

Assange has continuously denied he got the e-mails from the Russian gov't.

A non-denial denial.

Quote

An honest investigation would have sought to hear from them, but that hasn’t happened. Instead, Assange rots in a UK super-max, faced with a dubious legal process which is more properly associated with soviet “dissidents” in the dismal past.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

Jeff, I'm looking forward to your full-throated denunciation of the Trump Justice Department indicting Assange on 17 additional charges -- charges the Obama DOJ expressly did not make.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637655/julian-assange-criminal-indictment-17-counts-wikileaks-national-defense-justice-department

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Are you trying to knock Techdirt?  On what basis? 

TechDirt claims the necessary downloading speed is achieved with a 180 Mbps connection, while others disagree (there are long rebuttals to the article you linked). So it’s an ongoing dispute. Logically, even if something were possible it doesn’t mean it actually happened that way. Doubts of the alleged Russian hack are not limited to the download speeds, but include. 1) Crowdstrike’s inexplicable delays dealing with the original breaches. 2) Guccifer 2.0’s identity still in dispute.  3) Wikileaks says it ain’t so. 4) refusal of US officials to interview Wikileaks or associates.  5) Crowdstrike only source of allegation, and produced only draft reports  6) no credible evidence of hack in official US reports.

7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Assange has continuously denied he got the e-mails from the Russian gov't.

A non-denial denial.

Assange and associates have consistently said the official “hack” theory is bogus.

 

7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Jeff, I'm looking forward to your full-throated denunciation of the Trump Justice Department indicting Assange on 17 additional charges -- charges the Obama DOJ expressly did not make.

The appropriate denunciation is to any charges whatsoever, and both administrations deserve contempt and admonishment for the recent day in court as described by Craig Murray. Pretty appalling by any measure, and it will continue to be appalling as it continues. 

[W. Niederhut]

        This headline news story* this morning about Bill Barr's DOJ "investigation" of the FBI's 2016 FISA application on Carter Page has all of the hallmarks of a classic Trumpaganda/disinformation campaign.   (It's the same old Trump/"Nunes Memo" PR stunt in the guise of a new DOJ report.)

         The PR methodology reminds me of all of those weekly headline MSM stories prior to the 2016 election about "crooked" Hillary's Emails-- sensational nothing burgers served up to the public by the MSM's anonymous FBI "sources."

       It also reminds me of Trump repeatedly pushing Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation of Biden.  It wasn't about conducting an actual investigation.  It was about Trumpaganda--  creating a false impression that Biden did something "crooked."

      Check out the #1 story* at AOL "news" this morning, then read the excerpt from the same article (italics mine.)

      Conveniently timed to gaslight Trump's delusional cult members during the impeachment hearings.

*A former FBI staffer is reportedly being investigated over an altered document in the Russia probe

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/22/a-former-fbi-staffer-is-reportedly-being-investigated-over-an-altered-document-in-the-russia-probe/23865967/

November 22, 2019

       ... "It is unclear which document was allegedly altered by the FBI lawyer, nor what changes were made, nor what impact the document had on the Russia investigation. "