Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It Wasn’t a Hoax

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/

November 25, 2021

Excerpt

The factual record on Trump-Russia has been set forth most authoritatively by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. I’ll reduce the complex details to a very few agreed upon by virtually everybody outside the core Trump-propaganda group.

  1. Dating back to at least 2006, Trump and his companies did tens of millions of dollars of business with Russian individuals and other buyers whose profiles raised the possibility of money laundering. More than one-fifth of all the condominiums sold by Trump over his career were purchased in all-cash transactions by shell companies, a 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found.
  2. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  3. Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.
  4. Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
  5. The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.
  6. In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
  7. WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
  8. Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
  9. At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.
  10. In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.
  11. At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.
  12. Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.

 

All of these are facts that would be agreed upon even by the latter-day “Russia hoax” revisionists and, for that matter, anybody this side of Breitbart or One America News Network.

In his Atlantic piece, David Frum argues the practice of journalism is essentially partisan, as it invariably serves the interest of one or another party. By this formula, Frum repudiates professional journalism’s codes of ethics and practice, which include the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.  (See https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/commstudies/ethics)   It’s like arguing that seeking the truth of the JFKA should be discouraged because of the potential reputational harm to various institutions.

So why should anyone consider Frum’s version of the “factual record” as anything but a cherry-picked partisan prosecutor’s brief? - which it in fact is.  The Senate Intelligence Committee Report is hardly definitive, and the other linked Atlantic writer concedes as much (“Russiagate was not a Hoax” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/russiagate-wasnt-a-hoax/615373/). While acknowledging the report’s allegations are “incendiary”, the writer also manages to allow that it “doesn’t definitely settle the question”, doesn’t provide a “comprehensive understanding”, only “fills in the gaps somewhat”, is “maddeningly elliptical”, and finally “the truth remains elusive.”

Here’s a take on the poor performance of the MSM by an actual journalist:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/24/five_trump-russia_collusion_corrections_we_need_from_the_media_now_-_just_for_starters_804205.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It Wasn’t a Hoax

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/

November 25, 2021

Excerpt

The factual record on Trump-Russia has been set forth most authoritatively by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. I’ll reduce the complex details to a very few agreed upon by virtually everybody outside the core Trump-propaganda group.

  1. Dating back to at least 2006, Trump and his companies did tens of millions of dollars of business with Russian individuals and other buyers whose profiles raised the possibility of money laundering. More than one-fifth of all the condominiums sold by Trump over his career were purchased in all-cash transactions by shell companies, a 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found.
  2. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  3. Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.
  4. Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
  5. The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.
  6. In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
  7. WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
  8. Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
  9. At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.
  10. In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.
  11. At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.
  12. Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.

 

All of these are facts that would be agreed upon even by the latter-day “Russia hoax” revisionists and, for that matter, anybody this side of Breitbart or One America News Network.

W-

Even if this entire above account was true...the Deep State would have about 10,000 times the resources and influence over the course of US policy as the Trumpers do. 

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., Obama, Trump...they come and go, and the Deep State remains, today more powerful than ever. 

Trump was interesting in that he was an outsider. That does not him a saint or a  criminal. It does mean he lacked allies in the right places. Trump will join the past presidents soon enough. 

From Hillary Clinton to Liz Cheney, that is the red-blue, which is that everyone is purple. Even Tulsi Gabbard has decided to change her tune.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

In his Atlantic piece, David Frum argues the practice of journalism is essentially partisan, as it invariably serves the interest of one or another party. By this formula, Frum repudiates professional journalism’s codes of ethics and practice, which include the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.  (See https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/commstudies/ethics)   It’s like arguing that seeking the truth of the JFKA should be discouraged because of the potential reputational harm to various institutions.

So why should anyone consider Frum’s version of the “factual record” as anything but a cherry-picked partisan prosecutor’s brief? - which it in fact is.  The Senate Intelligence Committee Report is hardly definitive, and the other linked Atlantic writer concedes as much (“Russiagate was not a Hoax” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/russiagate-wasnt-a-hoax/615373/). While acknowledging the report’s allegations are “incendiary”, the writer also manages to allow that it “doesn’t definitely settle the question”, doesn’t provide a “comprehensive understanding”, only “fills in the gaps somewhat”, is “maddeningly elliptical”, and finally “the truth remains elusive.”

Here’s a take on the poor performance of the MSM by an actual journalist:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/24/five_trump-russia_collusion_corrections_we_need_from_the_media_now_-_just_for_starters_804205.html

Jeff,

     Arguing about the M$M here is a bit of a straw man.  I'm the last person around here who would trust M$M coverage of intel or military black ops.  But let's recall that the M$M actually excoriated Buzz Feed for having the audacity to publish the unverified Steele Dossier in (?) January of 2017.   The publication of the Dossier was widely denounced as a journalistic scandal.  Secondly, let's recall that Dean Baquet put the kibosh on any 2016 NYT news stories about Trump's ties to Russia, while publishing weekly front page articles-- usually based on anonymous FBI sources-- about Hillary's Emails.

     Instead of trying to simply kill the messenger here, David Frum, how about addressing the specific facts from the Senate Intelligence Report on Russiagate which Frum has outlined in his recent Atlantic article?

     I would ask Ben Cole the same question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It Wasn’t a Hoax

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/

November 25, 2021

Excerpt

The factual record on Trump-Russia has been set forth most authoritatively by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. I’ll reduce the complex details to a very few agreed upon by virtually everybody outside the core Trump-propaganda group.

  1. Dating back to at least 2006, Trump and his companies did tens of millions of dollars of business with Russian individuals and other buyers whose profiles raised the possibility of money laundering. More than one-fifth of all the condominiums sold by Trump over his career were purchased in all-cash transactions by shell companies, a 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found.
  2. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  3. Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.
  4. Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
  5. The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.
  6. In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
  7. WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
  8. Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
  9. At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.
  10. In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.
  11. At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.
  12. Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.

 

All of these are facts that would be agreed upon even by the latter-day “Russia hoax” revisionists and, for that matter, anybody this side of Breitbart or One America News Network.

W--

I don't understand.  This means what? 

  1. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

OK, Trump staged a beauty contest in Russia. He wanted to build a tower in Russia and make money. That means he is a Russian stooge? A bit of a leap, no? Isn't this the old guilt by association and innuendo standard? 

BTW, my take is that Putin is an ugly murderous thug. 

I will tell you something I think is a lot more serious. 

Fauci was on air over the weekend touting the "wet market" origins of the C19 pandemic. Why? 

I am not a virologist. 

So, of the thousands and thousands of wet markets in China, C19 started at the one in Wuhan, next to the lab where gain-of-function research was being done on thousands of coronaviruses. I may not be a virologist, but I have some minimal detective skills.

Why is Fauci touting to wet market theory of C19?  

If you think Trump's business arrangements in Russia totally compromised him, what do you make of the Donk Party donor class and their gigantic involvement in CCP-dominated China? BlackRock, Apple, Disney, Goldman Sachs, Universal Studios, the NBA, et al? 

The irony? China is last major Communist nation on earth, and becoming more communistic by the day under Xi. 

Russia long ago became a capitalist kleptocracy, affiliated with the Orthodox Church. 

Like I said, what goes on today has little to do with ideology. Ideologues are useful idiots. 

Trump was a Moscow stooge, and C19 came from wet market. And Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. 

Those are M$M narratives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W--

I don't understand.  This means what? 

  1. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

OK, Trump staged a beauty contest in Russia. He wanted to build a tower in Russia and make money. That means he is a Russian stooge? A bit of a leap, no? Isn't this the old guilt by association and innuendo standard? 

Ben,

You conveniently left out the subsequent, damning facts that Frum listed-- from the Senate Intelligence Report on Trump's involvement with Russian officials, and Russian meddling in the 2016 election to put Trump in the White House.  (At the time, the Committee was controlled by Trump supporter, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC.))

Here they are for your careful consideration.

And, in reviewing these FACTS, let's try to stay focused on your claim that Russiagate was a hoax, shall we?

  • Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.
  • Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
  • The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.
  • In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
  • WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
  • Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
  • At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.
  • In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.
  • At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.
  • Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.
Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frum , at best, has assembled a laundry list of “talking points” rather than “facts”. He explicitly bemoans that professional journalists are now carving up the basic premises of “Russiagate”, particularly as new information regarding its origins is uncovered. Looks like the final redoubt - the Alamo of the true believers - is the Senate Subcommittee Report which, as noted at the time of its release, is an extremely poor product characterized by unsupported allegations and weak speculations.

Frum’s “indisputable facts” wither on examination:

1-3. Entirely irrelevant. It was not illegal for Americans to have contact or business with citizens from the Russian Federation. The Trump Tower deal was almost entirely the initiative of Felix Sater - nothing was built, no money was exchanged.

4 - The Committee do not possess any kind of intercept revealing any kind of Putin directive authorizing any kind of operation directed at US politicians. They instead utilize backward reasoning i.e. the emails were purloined by a “GRU hack” (a contentious supposition to begin with), therefore Putin “must have” ordered it.

5 - Papadopoulos allegedly learned of a so-called “active measures campaign” from Josef Misud. Mifsud was not subject to anything but an early cursory interview which did nothing to clarify the issue, and there was no follow up. No follow up, despite the presumed importance of the contact.

6 - The offer of “harmful information” was a pretence to arrange a meeting about other matters. The Trump campaign may have desired “dirt” on their opponent, but clearly so did their opponent want dirt on them, and was much more successful in obtaining it. The Russian lawyer also dined with associates of Clinton (Fusion GPS) at the same time.

7 - Wikileaks has consistently denied receiving the emails from Russians or participating in any kind of “intelligence campaign”. No one from Wikileaks was ever interviewed by representatives of the FBI, the Senate Subcommittee, or the Mueller investigation. Again - no one from Wikileaks was ever interviewed.

8 - Roger Stone had at best extremely limited communications with Wikileaks representatives, and his “predictions” were merely the repetition of publicly available open source information.

9 - Denying something that probably did not ever happen is not exactly a “cover up”.

10 - Manafort’s longtime right-hand man Kilimnik worked over a decade for an offshoot of the NED in Moscow, and was a valued information source for the US Embassy in Kiev. Neither Mueller or the Senate Subcommittee has been able to actually explain what they think he did, not has it been revealed what exactly led to his designation of “Russian intelligence officer”. Kilimnik, as well as most persons who knew or worked with him, denies the allegation.

11 - Policies associated with the Trump campaign “supporting Putin” were based on a notion of turning the Russians towards the US and away from China, so as to better pursue a Cold War against the latter - as was clearly articulated by those involved in promoting these notions in the weeks ahead of the Republican convention.

12 - Yes, but as has been seen since, so have persons “close to Clinton”. Seems like there was a lot of lying going around on both sides of the fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.

 

As the great Gertrude Stein once said "There is no there, there." 

This Papadopoulos-Downer conversation turns out to be less than nothing.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/24/five_trump-russia_collusion_corrections_we_need_from_the_media_now_-_just_for_starters_804205.html

W-

But as I said before, why are you whipping this old dead Trump horse so much? 

Surely, you are aware when it comes to clandestine, subversive resources, and control over M$M narratives, the national-security-state has 10,000 times the power of the Trump crowd? 

Russia? Some websites Moscow operated? Comments made on social media platforms by fakes?  They got simple polling results from Trump people?

This is picayune peanuts. 

Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Well, primarily the US electoral college system. That and she was an uninspiring candidate. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major Russia Gate  suspect Michael Flynn who at one time was a devoted q -anon, is  shown here reciting the Q-Anon oath "where we go one, we go all. .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/michael-flynn-qanon-video/index.html,

But now Ben's claims  of our utter helplessness before  a virtual false flag metaverse created by the NSS "Deep State" takes on a frightening new dimension  as Flynn has now called Q anon "nonsense" and says  it's a CIA disinformation campaign! How could we have been so naive!

https://www.businessinsider.com/flynn-said-he-thinks-qanon-is-disinformation-total-nonsense-2021-11

Which is right up Ben's alley. I'm sure  Ben will prove conclusively that the trail will lead directly to the masterminds, the dreaded "Three MS.kateers, Liz Cheney ,Hillary Clinton, and Amy Klobuchar!

But  if that isn't enough, now Trump ally and member of his legal team, Lin Wood claims the "Stop the Steal" as being yet another  Deep State campaign! The implications of this are stunning. It appears Ben's suspicions that the storming of the Capitol was lead by FBI provocateurs was just the namby pamby tip of the iceberg, and literally everybody who was at the Capitol on 1/6 was a "deep state" operative. Some are claiming it the greatest cinematic assemblage since the filming of "The 10 Commandments" and "Ben Hur" combined!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ally-lin-wood-stop-the-steal-deep-state-campaign-2021-11 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

     You've, obviously, mastered the "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda technique.  I'll try to mop up your Russiagate Denial mess, once again, but this is getting old.  Herewith.  My responses in red.

Frum , at best, has assembled a laundry list of “talking points” rather than “facts”. He explicitly bemoans that professional journalists are now carving up the basic premises of “Russiagate”, particularly as new information regarding its origins is uncovered. Looks like the final redoubt - the Alamo of the true believers - is the Senate Subcommittee Report which, as noted at the time of its release, is an extremely poor product characterized by unsupported allegations and weak speculations.

Bunk.  Frum is calling foul on the latest right wing propaganda about Bill Barr's Durham investigation nothing burger.   And he is, specifically, referring to the documented facts from the Senate Intel Committee Report about Trump's enmeshment with Russian oligarchs, and Kremlin/GRU meddling in the 2016 U.S. election on behalf of their Orange Asset, Donald Trump.

Frum’s “indisputable facts” wither on examination:

1-3. Entirely irrelevant. It was not illegal for Americans to have contact or business with citizens from the Russian Federation. The Trump Tower deal was almost entirely the initiative of Felix Sater - nothing was built, no money was exchanged.

Felix Sater was a long-term business associate of Trump, who said in 2015 that Putin intended to put Trump in the White House.  And, yes, Trump lied publicly about his Moscow Trump Tower plans in 2016.  That, alone, created significant kompromat for Putin-- which could be leveraged for strategic foreign policy concessions by his Orange Asset.  He had Trump over several barrels.

4 - The Committee do not possess any kind of intercept revealing any kind of Putin directive authorizing any kind of operation directed at US politicians. They instead utilize backward reasoning i.e. the emails were purloined by a “GRU hack” (a contentious supposition to begin with), therefore Putin “must have” ordered it.

More bunk.  Let's recall that the Republicans in control of that committee were doing everything in their power to deny and minimize the evidence of Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election-- and they still concluded that it happened.  BTW, how do you know what classified intel they relied on?  Explain.

 

6 - The offer of “harmful information” was a pretence to arrange a meeting about other matters. The Trump campaign may have desired “dirt” on their opponent, but clearly so did their opponent want dirt on them, and was much more successful in obtaining it. The Russian lawyer also dined with associates of Clinton (Fusion GPS) at the same time.

Is it illegal for a U.S. Presidential campaign to seek foreign assistance?  Geez... even Steve Bannon said that the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya was treasonous.

8 - Roger Stone had at best extremely limited communications with Wikileaks representatives, and his “predictions” were merely the repetition of publicly available open source information.

Nice sleight of hand, Jeff.  You managed to dodge the fact that Roger Stone bragged about dining with Assange in London-- around the time that he boasted about Hillary soon being in a barrel.

10 - Manafort’s longtime right-hand man Kilimnik worked over a decade for an offshoot of the NED in Moscow, and was a valued information source for the US Embassy in Kiev. Neither Mueller or the Senate Subcommittee has been able to actually explain what they think he did, not has it been revealed what exactly led to his designation of “Russian intelligence officer”. Kilimnik, as well as most persons who knew or worked with him, denies the allegation.

You're still pushing the canard that Kilimnik is not a GRU agent, eh, Jeff?  If Manafort had nothing to hide about his collusion with Kilimnik, why did he lie about it repeatedly during the Mueller investigation-- even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller, as part of his plea bargain?

Here, you're trying to argue that Manafort stonewalling the investigation of his contacts with Kilimnik is evidence of Kilimnik's innocence!  It's an absurd argument.

11 - Policies associated with the Trump campaign “supporting Putin” were based on a notion of turning the Russians towards the US and away from China, so as to better pursue a Cold War against the latter - as was clearly articulated by those involved in promoting these notions in the weeks ahead of the Republican convention.

The Manafort-led Trump Campaign altered the RNC platform (in Cleveland) on U.S. policy in Ukraine.  Talk about your quid pro quo!  And Trump, repeatedly, kow-towed to Putin during his tenure in the White House-- most notoriously in Helsinki, where he denied before a worldwide audience that Putin had meddled in the U.S. election.  Even before taking office in December of 2016, Michael Flynn conferred with Sergei Lavrov about undermining U.S. sanctions imposed on Putin for meddling in our 2016 election...

 

 

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/joe-biden-expected-10-percent-cut-in-deal-with-a-chinese-giant/
 

I am sure the MSM will be talking about this for 5 years and help congress spend millions on a vigorous criminal investigation, just like they did with Trump….

 

…or they will ignore it completely and continue the mandated ignorance of an entire political party too scared to exercise their fleeting freedom of speech as technocratic slavery marches on in the predictable name of safety through petty puppet criminals like Biden and Fauci. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jeff,

     You've, obviously, mastered the "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda technique.  I'll try to mop up your Russiagate Denial mess, once again, but this is getting old.  Herewith.  My responses in red.

Frum , at best, has assembled a laundry list of “talking points” rather than “facts”. He explicitly bemoans that professional journalists are now carving up the basic premises of “Russiagate”, particularly as new information regarding its origins is uncovered. Looks like the final redoubt - the Alamo of the true believers - is the Senate Subcommittee Report which, as noted at the time of its release, is an extremely poor product characterized by unsupported allegations and weak speculations.

Bunk.  Frum is calling foul on the latest right wing propaganda about Bill Barr's Durham investigation nothing burger.   And he is, specifically, referring to the documented facts from the Senate Intel Committee Report about Trump's enmeshment with Russian oligarchs, and Kremlin/GRU meddling in the 2016 U.S. election on behalf of their Orange Asset, Donald Trump.

Frum’s “indisputable facts” wither on examination:

1-3. Entirely irrelevant. It was not illegal for Americans to have contact or business with citizens from the Russian Federation. The Trump Tower deal was almost entirely the initiative of Felix Sater - nothing was built, no money was exchanged.

Felix Sater was a long-term business associate of Trump, who said in 2015 that Putin intended to put Trump in the White House.  And, yes, Trump lied publicly about his Moscow Trump Tower plans in 2016.  That, alone, created significant kompromat for Putin-- which could be leveraged for strategic foreign policy concessions by his Orange Asset.  He had Trump over several barrels.

4 - The Committee do not possess any kind of intercept revealing any kind of Putin directive authorizing any kind of operation directed at US politicians. They instead utilize backward reasoning i.e. the emails were purloined by a “GRU hack” (a contentious supposition to begin with), therefore Putin “must have” ordered it.

More bunk.  Let's recall that the Republicans in control of that committee were doing everything in their power to deny and minimize the evidence of Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election-- and they still concluded that it happened.  BTW, how do you know what classified intel they relied on?  Explain.

 

6 - The offer of “harmful information” was a pretence to arrange a meeting about other matters. The Trump campaign may have desired “dirt” on their opponent, but clearly so did their opponent want dirt on them, and was much more successful in obtaining it. The Russian lawyer also dined with associates of Clinton (Fusion GPS) at the same time.

Is it illegal for a U.S. Presidential campaign to seek foreign assistance?  Geez... even Steve Bannon said that the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya was treasonous.

8 - Roger Stone had at best extremely limited communications with Wikileaks representatives, and his “predictions” were merely the repetition of publicly available open source information.

Nice sleight of hand, Jeff.  You managed to dodge the fact that Roger Stone bragged about dining with Assange in London-- around the time that he boasted about Hillary soon being in a barrel.

10 - Manafort’s longtime right-hand man Kilimnik worked over a decade for an offshoot of the NED in Moscow, and was a valued information source for the US Embassy in Kiev. Neither Mueller or the Senate Subcommittee has been able to actually explain what they think he did, not has it been revealed what exactly led to his designation of “Russian intelligence officer”. Kilimnik, as well as most persons who knew or worked with him, denies the allegation.

You're still pushing the canard that Kilimnik is not a GRU agent, eh, Jeff?  If Manafort had nothing to hide about his collusion with Kilimnik, why did he lie about it repeatedly during the Mueller investigation-- even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller, as part of his plea bargain?

Here, you're trying to argue that Manafort stonewalling the investigation of his contacts with Kilimnik is evidence of Kilimnik's innocence!  It's an absurd argument.

11 - Policies associated with the Trump campaign “supporting Putin” were based on a notion of turning the Russians towards the US and away from China, so as to better pursue a Cold War against the latter - as was clearly articulated by those involved in promoting these notions in the weeks ahead of the Republican convention.

The Manafort-led Trump Campaign altered the RNC platform (in Cleveland) on U.S. policy in Ukraine.  Talk about your quid pro quo!  And Trump, repeatedly, kow-towed to Putin during his tenure in the White House-- most notoriously in Helsinki, where he denied before a worldwide audience that Putin had meddled in the U.S. election.  Even before taking office in December of 2016, Michael Flynn conferred with Sergei Lavrov about undermining U.S. sanctions imposed on Putin for meddling in our 2016 election...

 

 

 

Every single point in your silly list of speculations, hearsays, boastings , stonewallings, and kowtowings was basically neatly dissected, identified and catalogued in the Aaron Mate piece which was linked but obviously not read by yourself. Mate's dissection is framed by an analysis of the awful now mostly retracted and yet Pulitzer prize winning reporting served up by America's legacy media, the same institution another poster here has praised as the blue ribbon standard for the world. You yourself should get a prize for your faithful regurgitation of these now retracted monuments to credulity over these past five years. Even so, your lack of self-awareness allowed you to write "I'm the last person around here who would trust M$M coverage of intel or military black ops..." And yet...

I'm fairly certain that David Frum doesn't really believe any of his "incontrovertible facts" either, as he is as much an influence peddler as anyone else in this sordid tale and playing a zero sum game where notions of "truth" or accountability can be very malleable depending on the situation. Is this morass of stupidity the "inevitable end result" of this past half century of sinister information management programs? It is and it isn't - i.e. it doesn't have to be. There are methods embedded within our enlightenment frameworks of knowledge and justice which encourage rational disposition, but they must be committed to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Biden tried to make money as a private citizen? Oh the horror! What, does he think this is a capitalist country or something?

Perhaps you prefer he make money Trump-style? Buy a hotel, become President, and then force-sell access to it?

Also LOL at the idea a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper isn't "mainstream media"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...