Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Jeff Carter]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

First you said the Mueller report discredited"Russian collusion".  Then you found that claim readily debunked.  So now you try to discredit the Mueller Report yourself?

Your "debunking" of my "discrediting" consisted of an article by an MSNBC reporter which outlined three instances of "collusion" which were not in fact collusion or much of anything at all.

Shortly after The Hill piece on Kilimnik's routine State dept contacts was published, Matt Taibbi noted that the story was barely picked up by any other media outlet, and no denials been issued by either the named individuals in routine contact with Kilimnik, FBI interviewers or the Mueller team.

“It would be one thing if other outlets were rebutting his claims about Kilimnik, as people have with some of this other stories. But this report has attracted zero response from non-conservative media, despite the fact that Kilimnik has long been one of the most talked-about figures in the whole Russiagate drama.

This story matters for a few reasons. If Kilimnik was that regular and important a U.S. government source, it would deal a blow to the credibility of Special Counsel Robert Mueller...

This is one of a growing number of examples of people whose status as documented U.S. informants goes unmentioned in the Mueller report, where they are instead described under the general heading, ‘Russian government links to, and contact with, the Trump campaign.’”

Taibbi notes that the long New York Times piece on Kilimnik seems to confirm him as a routine source: “To American diplomats in Washington and Kiev, [Kilimnik] has been a well-known character for nearly a decade, developing a reputation as a broker of valuable information…”

Taibbi reflects on the mainstream media:

“MSNBC burned up countless hours obsessing over the Manafort-Kilimnik relationship…with Kilimnik routinely described on air as a ‘Russian asset’ with “ties to Russian intelligence,” who even bragged that he learned his English from Russian spies.

CNN has likewise done a gazillion reports on the guy… Some reports said Manafort’s conduct “hints” at collusion, while Chris Cilizza said his meetings with a “Russian-linked operative” were a ‘very big deal.’

I could go up and down the line with the Times, The Washington Post and other print outlets. Every major news organization that covered Russiagate has covered the hell out of this part of the story. But the instant there’s a suggestion there’s another angle: crickets.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/expos-in-the-hill-challenges-mueller

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I wonder whether these polls simply reflect a shrinking number of people identifying themselves as Republicans. Quite possible.

I wonder if these polls reflect shrinking Republican brains.

I find it truly frightening that so many American citizens could actually opine that an amoral, under-educated, sociopath like Donald Trump is a better President than any POTUS in American history, much less Lincoln.

Perhaps this bizarre poll is also related to demographic support for Trump in the former Confederate states, where Lincoln is viewed unfavorably.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Your "debunking" of my "discrediting" consisted of

 

Consisted of myself and others pointing out to you -- apparently to no avail -- that "does not establish" is not the same thing as "discredit" and "conspiracy" is not the same thing as "collusion."

"Does not establish conspiracy" = "discredit collusion" -- is a non sequitur.

That you appear unable to grasp this is astonishing.

Quote

an article by an MSNBC reporter which outlined three instances of "collusion" which were not in fact collusion or much of anything at all.

It was an article by two long-time Fed prosecutors who happen to appear on MSNBC as analysts.  You can't factually challenge anything they wrote, so you wave your magic wand around as if it was actual evidence.

Quote

Shortly after The Hill piece on Kilimnik's routine State dept contacts was published, Matt Taibbi noted that the story was barely picked up by any other media outlet, and no denials been issued by either the named individuals in routine contact with Kilimnik, FBI interviewers or the Mueller team.

“It would be one thing if other outlets were rebutting his claims about Kilimnik, as people have with some of this other stories. But this report has attracted zero response from non-conservative media, despite the fact that Kilimnik has long been one of the most talked-about figures in the whole Russiagate drama.

This story matters for a few reasons. If Kilimnik was that regular and important a U.S. government source, it would deal a blow to the credibility of Special Counsel Robert Mueller...

This is one of a growing number of examples of people whose status as documented U.S. informants goes unmentioned in the Mueller report, where they are instead described under the general heading, ‘Russian government links to, and contact with, the Trump campaign.’”

Taibbi notes that the long New York Times piece on Kilimnik seems to confirm him as a routine source: “To American diplomats in Washington and Kiev, [Kilimnik] has been a well-known character for nearly a decade, developing a reputation as a broker of valuable information…”

Taibbi reflects on the mainstream media:

“MSNBC burned up countless hours obsessing over the Manafort-Kilimnik relationship…with Kilimnik routinely described on air as a ‘Russian asset’ with “ties to Russian intelligence,” who even bragged that he learned his English from Russian spies.

CNN has likewise done a gazillion reports on the guy… Some reports said Manafort’s conduct “hints” at collusion, while Chris Cilizza said his meetings with a “Russian-linked operative” were a ‘very big deal.’

I could go up and down the line with the Times, The Washington Post and other print outlets. Every major news organization that covered Russiagate has covered the hell out of this part of the story. But the instant there’s a suggestion there’s another angle: crickets.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/expos-in-the-hill-challenges-mueller

I already discussed this.  What part of the following can't you get your head around?

Of course Kilimnik briefed the State Department for years!  Just like he briefed the Ukrainian government under Yanukovych and the Putin government in Moscow.

He operated in all three countries, and in order to maintain maximum freedom of movement he had to give every one something.</q>

TrumpSpeak is all about ginning up optics and pretending the optics are real.  In this case the assumption is that since Kilimnik provided valuable information to the US  State Department he was -- therefore! -- precluded from furnishing valuable information (Trump internal polling data) to a Putin-aligned oligarch like Oleg Keripaska.

Right out of the Trumpenlinks playbook:  Gin up an "angle" that only exists in the minds of Trump apologists.  Repeat endlessly.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Taibbi notes that the long New York Times piece on Kilimnik seems to confirm him as a routine source: “To American diplomats in Washington and Kiev, [Kilimnik] has been a well-known character for nearly a decade, developing a reputation as a broker of valuable information…”

We're asked to believe that Kilimnik -- a well-known broker of valuable information -- ONLY did business with Americans!

Astonishing, the naivete...

[Jeff Carter]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Consisted of myself and others pointing out to you -- apparently to no avail -- that "does not establish" is not the same thing as "discredit" and "conspiracy" is not the same thing as "collusion."

"Does not establish conspiracy" = "discredit collusion" -- is a non sequitur.

That you appear unable to grasp this is astonishing.

This is what you said:

You're taking the quote out of context.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller, emphasis added:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>

Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.

That's a long, long way from a "discredit."

 

I responded that no "collusion" had been identified or catalogued. Neither the "series of contacts" or the Campaign's expectation "it would benefit electorally" constitutes an active process of "collusion". The investigation could not find any information "that “reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia.” The paragraph is very clear. Your assertion that "Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion" has no basis of fact.

 

16 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It was an article by two long-time Fed prosecutors who happen to appear on MSNBC as analysts.  You can't factually challenge anything they wrote, so you wave your magic wand around as if it was actual evidence.

I directly challenged the article's assertion that polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or non-existent communications with Wikileaks constituted "collusion". Clearly they did not because the Mueller Report states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."    Despite the author's credentials, it should be obvious. 

 

The point about Kilimnik is that his status as a longtime routine contact with officials representing the US State Department was omitted in favour of playing up an identity as a "GRU operative" which doesn't exist much beyond rumour. The omission allowed an inference that something nefarious was at play, which, as Matt Taibbi noted, led to reams of speculation in the media which was deliberately stoked by Mueller's associate Weissman back in January. So that strongly suggests that the Mueller investigation was deliberately deceptive about Kilimnik. 

[Cliff Varnell]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

This is what you said:

You're taking the quote out of context.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller, emphasis added:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>

Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.

That's a long, long way from a "discredit."

 

Quote

I responded that no "collusion" had been identified or catalogued.

And I responded with long-time Fed attorneys Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance who identified and catalogued the collusion.

Quote

 

Neither the "series of contacts" or the Campaign's expectation "it would benefit electorally" constitutes an active process of "collusion".

Whack-A-Mole!  Pull out the magic wand and wave it around and pretend the resulting hot air is anything other than vapor.

Quote

 

The investigation could not find any information "that “reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia.”

That's "conspiracy," a chargeable crime.

Quote

 

The paragraph is very clear. Your assertion that "Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion" has no basis of fact.

Not any fact you're capable to grasping, evidently.

Quote

 

I directly challenged the article's assertion that polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or non-existent communications with Wikileaks constituted "collusion". 

 Your egregious misrepresentation of fact is not a challenge. 

You ignore the fact that Kilimnik -- a well-known broker of valuable information -- brokered valuable information passing internal polling from the Trump campaign to a Putin-connected oligarch. 

You ignore the fact that Michael Flynn discussed with the Russian ambassador lifting sanctions on Russia, and then lied about it to the FBI. 

You ignore the fact that both Steve Bannon and Rick Gates testified that Roger Stone was regarded as Trump's point of contact with Wikileaks, and many e-mails indicate Stone's foreknowledge of Wikileaks releases.

When Roger Stone bragged that it was soon to be John Podesta's "time in the barrel" -- just a coinkydink that Podesta's e-mails were then released?

Quote

 

Clearly they did not because the Mueller Report states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."    Despite the author's credentials, it should be obvious. 

It should be obvious that "does not establish" isn't the same thing as "discredit" but you will obviously never get off of it.

Quote

 

The point about Kilimnik is that his status as a longtime routine contact with officials representing the US State Department was omitted in favour of playing up an identity as a "GRU operative" which doesn't exist much beyond rumour.

Since he was a well-known broker of valuable information isn't it obvious that he'd also supply valuable information to his homies?

You can't be this naive, can you?

Quote

 

 

The omission allowed an inference that something nefarious was at play, which, as Matt Taibbi noted, led to reams of speculation in the media which was deliberately stoked by Mueller's associate Weissman back in January. So that strongly suggests that the Mueller investigation was deliberately deceptive about Kilimnik. 

No, the fact that this broker of valuable information had more than one client couldn't be more obvious.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Your Psychiatric credentials diminish your credibility with respect to your on-line diagnoses of President Trump and shrunken brained Republicans rather than enhance your credibility. Whether your diagnosis are right or wrong, it comes off as a political rant rather than a professional observation.  Cringy as the kids say. 

By all means, continue. Diagnose me next.

Come now, Robert.  Any reasonably perceptive person, surely, knows by now that Donald Trump is a narcissist and a sociopath.  Have you studied his legal history?  His own former personal attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified in Congress that "Birther" Trump is, "a racist, a con man, and a cheat."

As for comparing Trump favorably to Abraham Lincoln?

It's simply absurd.

Something is terribly wrong in the U.S. at present.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And I responded with long-time Fed attorneys Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance who identified and catalogued the collusion.

I’m sorry, but neither polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or the non-existent communications with Wikileaks constitutes “collusion”. The polling data belonged to the Republican Party not the US government, and if the campaign chair decided to share it with a business associate then that is a private matter and nothing illegal, suspicious or nefarious could be established about the incident. The phone call with the ambassador occurred after the election, the government had full access to transcripts of the call, and nothing illegal, suspicious or nefarious occurred. There were no direct contacts between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. So the “long-time Fed attorneys” neither identified or catalogued anything approaching “secret or illegal cooperation”, nor did they offer explanations why they considered the above incidents as representing “collusion” when they clearly do not.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Whack-A-Mole!  Pull out the magic wand and wave it around and pretend the resulting hot air is anything other than vapor.

Not at all. The wording in the paragraph precisely establishes the basis for the investigation, and suggests that the “series of contacts” and/or benefitting “electorally” served as grounds for suspicion, but the investigation did not ultimately “establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with he Russian government.” Note that the carefully worded paragraph does not associate either the “contacts” or the electoral “benefit” directly with the alleged “election interference activities.”

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You ignore the fact that Kilimnik -- a well-known broker of valuable information -- brokered valuable information passing internal polling from the Trump campaign to a Putin-connected oligarch. 

You ignore the fact that Michael Flynn discussed with the Russian ambassador lifting sanctions on Russia, and then lied about it to the FBI. 

You ignore the fact that both Steve Bannon and Rick Gates testified that Roger Stone was regarded as Trump's point of contact with Wikileaks, and many e-mails indicate Stone's foreknowledge of Wikileaks releases.

I didn’t ignore that Kilimnik was an influence peddler. We agree he is - so what?  Flynn did not discuss “lifting sanctions” and did not materially misrepresent the content of his conversations. Roger Stone had no contact whatsoever with Wikileaks and everything he knew of Wikileaks releases was based on publicly available information such as Wikileaks press releases.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It should be obvious that "does not establish" isn't the same thing as "discredit" but you will obviously never get off of it.

Legally, to be unable to “establish” a case serves to “discredit” an accusation in the sense that the accusation can be said to be unreliable or unsupported by the available evidence.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Since he was a well-known broker of valuable information isn't it obvious that he'd also supply valuable information to his homies?

Who, exactly, are his “homies”? The problem with relying on inference in these matters is that the tactic has been in play since January 2017 and has produced very little except gross misunderstandings. You are welcome, of course, to fantasize whatever you wish, although it doesn’t rise above speculation no matter how “obvious” it may appear.

[Douglas Caddy]

By Jessica Campisi @ The Hill:

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on Friday predicted that public support for President Trump will collapse as House Democrats continue their impeachment inquiry against him.

"It just tells you what deep trouble Donald Trump is in. I mean, when you have 50 percent of the country wanting you not just impeached but removed from office, and the game hasn't even gotten fast yet," Brinkley said Friday morning on CNN, where he serves as a contri...butor. "I think once the vote is taken by Congress to impeach him and he's wearing the 'I' on his chest, you're going to see that movement grow even more," Brinkley predicted. He added of Trump, "It tells you he doesn't have a lot of friends. He's a base politician. He doesn't know how to turn this around." Brinkley noted the successful campaigns of politicians from opposing parties that came after previous presidents faced political fallout.
"I think the Democrats might want to look at the way Jimmy Carter pulled off victory in 1976. He took the high road. He ran on saying, I will never tell a lie to you," Brinkley said. "He didn't have to say Nixon's lies or Lyndon Johnson's lies, just that I am clean, good governance coming your way if you vote for me." Polling on impeachment has fluctuated in the nine weeks since Democrats launched their probe. A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday found a slight shift in the president's direction on impeachment. That survey found 45 percent in favor of Trump's impeachment and removal, with 48 percent against it. That was a reversal from the poll's findings the previous month.
However, a CNN poll conducted after the first week of public hearings in the inquiry found that 50 percent of Americans said Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 43 percent said he should not be - the same margin from a poll conducted in October.

[W. Niederhut]

17 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You’re the professional psychiatrist and I’m a shrunken brained Republican, I’ll defer to you.

Robert,

      Frankly, deference doesn't seem to be your strong suit.   But, in any case, I never implied that you are one of the shrunken-brained 53% of Republicans who actually believe that Donald Trump is a better POTUS than Abraham Lincoln.

     As for "Honest" Abe, Mr. Caddy's references to Donald Trump's habitual, pathological mendacity are on target. 

     No doubt, many Trump supporters are simply ignorant and/or delusional, but a more serious problem with the Trump GOP today, IMO, is dishonesty.

     Yesterday's cartoon at HearaldNet.com pretty much nails it.

    

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/30/2019 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Carter said:

I’m sorry, but neither polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or the non-existent communications with Wikileaks constitutes “collusion”.

col·lu·sion

/kəˈlo͞oZHən/

noun

SECRET or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. <emphasis added>

Why do people lie?  To keep secrets!

Michael Cohen, in the role of Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, lied to Congress about the timeline of negotiations over a Moscow Trump Tower proposal.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/20/michael-cohen-trumps-lawyer-advised-me-to-lie-about-moscow-tower-project

As Trump’s nominee for US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/3/16599426/jeff-sessions-russia-testimony

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner failed to list his contacts with Russians on his security clearance forms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html       

Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/07/george-papadopoulos-ex-trump-aide-sentenced-russian-dirt-lie/1223711002/               

Erik Prince, an informal advisor to Trump, lied about his meeting in the Seychelles with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.

https://thinkprogress.org/did-erik-prince-lie-to-mueller-or-to-congress-58321687dfad/

Donald Trump Jr. and his dad lied about the reason for Junior’s meeting with a Russian government attorney at Trump Tower.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/31/trump-statement-donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting

Roger Stone lied to Congress about the nature of his contacts with Wikileaks.  His lawyers didn’t bother to mount a defense.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-roger-stone-trial-prosecutors-focus-on-contacts-with-trump-campaign-wikileaks-11573077846

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/11/13/roger-stones-lawyers-offer-final-defense-to-jurors-so-what/?slreturn=20191102075944

Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI when he “denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.”

https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3

 At his first sentencing hearing the judge wondered aloud if Flynn should have been charged with treason.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-michael-flynn-judge-emmet-sullivan-sentencings

Paul Manafort’s lawyers inadvertently revealed that the Trump campaign manager shared internal polling data with “a well known broker of valuable information”, GRU-educated Russian citizen Konstantin Kilimnik.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

“Ex-aide Gates said data was intended for Putin ally Deripaska”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/manafort-kilimnik-polling

The Trump campaign colluded with Russians by definition.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/30/2019 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Carter said:

You are welcome, of course, to fantasize whatever you wish, although it doesn’t rise above speculation no matter how “obvious” it may appear.

In Jeff Carter's fantasy world "well known broker of valuable information" Konstantin Kilimnik owed all of his loyalty to the United States.

Astonishing.

[W. Niederhut]

So, first Trump and his GOP Congressional Goon Squad complained that the Ukraine-gate impeachment inquiry was not public.  They even attempted to crash and obstruct the initial, closed door hearings (which always included GOP members on the committee.)

Then they complained when the inquiry became public, and even walked out of Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony en masse.

Next, Trump and the Goon Squad complained that there was no "due process."

Now, Trump is complaining about the due process, and boycotting the proceedings.

'Getting, But Waiving, Due Process': Despite Cries of Unfairness, Trump Refuses Impeachment Hearing Invite

"If he has a defense, we on House Judiciary—along with the American people—are eager to hear it," said. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/02/getting-waiving-due-process-despite-cries-unfairness-trump-refuses-impeachment

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

The forum's own "Deep State 3 Amigos" can be encouraged as gaining another convert for their vilification of Ukraine and their equivocating of Trump and JFK as victims of the government "Deep State".

Ironically, (what are the odds!) it's from none other than Senator from Louisiana John Kennedy! Who first asserted that it was Ukraine that interfered with the 2016 elections, then recanted, but has now doubled down that it was Ukraine and maybe Russia too!

'"Deep State" advocates can take heart that in a  very spooky way, history repeats itself, sort of like Kennedy's secretary being named Lincoln and Lincoln's secretary being named Kennedy!

https://youtu.be/e_F5_S1A3zY

[Douglas Caddy]

New York Times Guide to the impeachment process

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/what-is-impeachment-process.html