Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 On 3/25/2024 at 12:28 AM, Roger Odisio said: Sandy: As I said, I am no expert on this. And I have no intention of becoming one. Because of that I cannot confront what your journalists say. RO: Then maybe you should not have said, several times, that you believe or suspect that the journalists who debunked Russiagate did so only because they were fooled by Russian propagandists. I'm no expert, but I do know what is reported in the news. And I do know what Trump says and what Putin says. And I do have an opinion on Russiagate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your anti-Russiagate journalists are influenced by Russian propaganda in left-wing alternate/fake news sites. On 3/25/2024 at 12:28 AM, Roger Odisio said: Putin recently said he had actually preferred Hillary in the 2016 election, for a very simple reason. He didn't like her. He didn't agree with her. But he had worked with her for a couple of decades and thought he understood her. He could work with her. On the other hand, he saw Trump as utterly unpredictable. That sounds precisely like propaganda designed to deflect from the charge that Putin wanted Trump to win. There can be no doubt that Putin wants Trump to win. Trump has made it clear in his tweets and his speeches that he intend on removing American support from Ukraine. And that he says Putin should do "whatever the hell they want" with non-NATO countries like Ukraine. Without American support, the European support of Ukraine would likely also fade. And Putin would get his wish and take Ukraine. So of course Putin wants Trump to win. And he wanted him to win in 2016 and 2020 s well. Putin is Trump's pal and Trump is Putin's useful idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 9 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: This is why Wikipedia cannot be considered to be a reliable source: Yes, conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia does occur. But on articles of considerable interest, these edits are quickly discovered and removed by other editors. And the accounts of the COI editors are pulled. Wikipedia is more reliable than other sources of information because both sides of an argument will have proponent editors. If no conclusion can be agreed upon, then both views will be given along with a statement that there are differing viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yes, conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia does occur. But on articles of considerable interest, these edits are quickly discovered and removed by other editors. And the accounts of the COI editors are pulled. Wikipedia is more reliable than other sources of information because both sides of an argument will have proponent editors. If no conclusion can be agreed upon, then both views will be given along with a statement that there are differing viewpoints. Your comment is not in any way responsive to the revelations made in the video. Can't you spare just six minutes and 37 seconds to watch the video to allow you to assess the actual information? Jimmy Dore’s Wikipedia Page Edited By CIA! The Jimmy Dore Show | Aug 8, 2023 In 2007 a hacker and tech whiz named Virgil Griffith revealed that the CIA, FBI and a host of large corporations and government agencies were editing pages on Wikipedia to their own benefit (or the benefit of associates). Now Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is reporting that the intelligence agencies are still at it, routinely editing pages relating to the Iraq War body count, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China’s nuclear program. Jimmy and The Convo Couch host Craig Jardula discuss this modern-day version of information warfare taking place on the pages of Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Wikipedia is more reliable than other sources of information because both sides of an argument will have proponent editors. If no conclusion can be agreed upon, then both views will be given along with a statement that there are differing viewpoints. Another great thing about Wikipedia is that citations are plenty. If you're not so sure about something that is written in an article, you can quickly check its source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: Specifically cite the evidence that you maintain proves that "Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was a long-term Kremlin employee who shared sensitive polling data with his Russian colleague, GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 Trump campaign." According to Wikipedia: In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court in response to the allegation that Manafort had lied to investigators. Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, a likely Russian intelligence officer and an alleged operative of the "Mariupol Plan" which would separate eastern Ukraine by political means with Manafort's help.[69] The filing says Manafort gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan with him. Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data. Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's contacts with Kilimnik and other affiliates of Russian intelligence "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" because his "presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."[70][71][34] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I'm no expert, but I do know what is reported in the news. And I do know what Trump says and what Putin says. And I do have an opinion on Russiagate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your anti-Russiagate journalists are influenced by Russian propaganda in left-wing alternate/fake news sites. That sounds precisely like propaganda designed to deflect from the charge that Putin wanted Trump to win. There can be no doubt that Putin wants Trump to win. Trump has made it clear in his tweets and his speeches that he intend on removing American support from Ukraine. And that he says Putin should do "whatever the hell they want" with non-NATO countries like Ukraine. Without American support, the European support of Ukraine would likely also fade. And Putin would get his wish and take Ukraine. So of course Putin wants Trump to win. And he wanted him to win in 2016 and 2020 s well. Putin is Trump's pal and Trump is Putin's useful idiot. Why merely assume that the journalists least sympathetic to the right-wingers are being hoodwinked by right-wing news sources? I've provided links to many of those articles, and it would take only a cursory examination to rule out your hypothesis. With regard to Putin preferring Hillary over Trump, there is some recent reporting on that which appears perfectly legitimate to me: CIA Manipulated Evidence To Hide Evidence Russia Wanted Clinton To Win In 2016, Not Trump: Report By Leif Le Mahieu | Feb 16, 2024 | DailyWire.com | https://www.dailywire.com/news/cia-manipulated-evidence-to-hide-evidence-russia-wanted-clinton-to-win-in-2016-not-trump-report WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016 Russia didn't fear Hillary Clinton. “It was a relationship they were comfortable with,” some CIA analysts believed, but intelligence was suppressed. On the fall of the last great Russiagate myth MATT TAIBBI, MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, AND ALEX GUTENTAG | FEB 15, 2024 | https://www.racket.news/p/wmd-part-ii-cia-cooked-the-intelligence And with regard to Ukraine, will you tell me if it would make any difference to you if the following three propositions are true? 1. That the current Ukrainian government is the product of a 2014 CIA supported coup de ta that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. 2. That areas of the Donbass region in Ukraine inhabited by an overwhelmingly Russian population has sustained many thousands of casualties as the result of Ukranian artillary fire since 2014, and was about to be invaded by NATO supported Ukrainian forces at the time of the Russian intervention. and, 3. Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight. If you dispute the veracity of these propositions, let me know, and we will discuss the precise details further. 'WHY RUSSIA WENT TO WAR NOW' Ted Snider in ANTIWAR [excerpt] In April 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky received 73% of the run-off vote and was elected President of Ukraine on a platform that featured making peace with Russia and signing the Minsk Agreement. The Minsk Agreement offered autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of the Donbas that had voted for independence from Ukraine after the 2014 US backed coup. But despite the massive peace mandate, Zelensky was pushed off the path of diplomacy by ultranationalists who, wielding power beyond their small support, threatened Zelensky "if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin," according to the late Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Politics and director of Russian Studies at Princeton. Under the force of this pressure, Zelensky was, Professor of Russian and European Politics at Kent Richard Sakwa told me, "thwarted by the nationalists." Reversing the campaign promise upon which he was elected, Zelensky now refused to talk to the leaders of the Donbas and implement the Minsk Agreements. Receiving none of the support he needed from the US to be able to stand on his election platform, Zelensky was pushed off it. The US also applied no pressure to push him back on. Sakwa says that "As for Minsk, neither the US nor the EU put serious pressure on Kiev to fulfil its part of the agreement." "They did nothing to push Ukraine into actually implementing it," Anatol Lieven, senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told me. Pushed off the path of diplomacy mapped out by the Minsk Agreement, and receiving no support or pressure to reorient back on it, Zelensky, instead, yielded to the ultranationalists and enacted a decree establishing the Crimean Platform, which, contrary to the mandate he was elected on, promised to de-occupy and reintegrate Crimea, militarily if necessary. The first summit meeting of the Crimea Platform was attended by every member of NATO. Zelensky was threatening war with Russia. And, according to Sakwa, Ukraine had massed 100,000 troops, accompanied by drone missiles, along its eastern border with Donbas. This mobilization preceded the Russian buildup on its western border with Donbas in 2022. There was "genuine alarm in Moscow" that Ukraine was about to escalate the seven year old civil war and invade the largely ethnic Russian Donbas region. At around this time, in February of 2022, the alarm was heightened by dramatically increased Ukrainian artillery shelling into the Donbas that was observed by the Border Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Sakwa told me that most of the ceasefire violations exploded on the Donbas side of Ukraine. According to UN data, 81.4% of civilian casualties occurred in the “self-proclaimed ‘republics’.” Russia feared that the promised military operation had begun. Zelensky wouldn’t talk to the leaders of the Donbas, Minsk was dead and Russia feared an imminent operation against the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas. At the same time, Washington had become a leaky faucet on promises of flooding Ukraine with weapons and open doors to NATO: two red lines Putin had clearly drawn. In the year before the war, the US provided Ukraine with $400 million in security assistance. Biden spoke of "a new strategic defense framework" and promised that “security assistance” would be topped off with a new $60 million package that would, for the first time, include lethal weapons. While flooding Ukraine with lethal weapons, the US and NATO refused to assure Russia that NATO’s door was closed to Ukraine. During his meeting with Biden, Zelensky once again stated that he “would like to discuss with President Biden here his vision, his government’s vision of Ukraine’s chances to join NATO and the timeframe for this accession.” Biden, in barely coded language, spoke of his “support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations” and American support for Ukraine’s “being completely integrated in Europe.” In October, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin again "stressed . . . that there is an open door to NATO" for Ukraine. In November, the US signed the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership that committed to helping Ukraine make the reforms that are necessary for its ascension to NATO. The document says that the US and Ukraine will be guided by the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration. In Bucharest in 2008, the US and NATO guaranteed Ukraine eventual membership in NATO: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO." For well over a decade, Putin had warned of the red line at NATO expansion into Ukraine. Now, with Ukraine knocking on the door and the US and NATO continuing to extend the invitation and refusing to bolt the door, Putin forced diplomacy back onto the menu in February 2022 by serving the US a proposal on mutual security guarantees and a request for immediate negotiations. While Washington showed some flexibility on arms control, responding that "The United States is willing to discuss conditions-based reciprocal transparency measures and reciprocal commitments by both the United States and Russia to refrain from deploying offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent forces with a combat mission in the territory of Ukraine," they simply and firmly refused to discuss the availability of ascension into NATO for Ukraine. The US response was unyielding, reiterating the insistence that “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.” Russia tried to talk; the US was unwilling to talk. And, they had no intention of talking. Derek Chollet, counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has recently admitted that negotiating NATO expansion into Ukraine was never on the table. Talks on the existential threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine and up to Russia’s borders were not on the table. Ukraine was still asking; the US was still firmly committed to the open door. And negotiations were never on the table for the US. That was the end of talks. Ukraine was committed to taking Crimea and the Donbas, they were refusing to talk and now troops were massing at the border and artillery shelling was increasing horrifyingly. Russia feared the imminent invasion and operation against the ethnic Russians of the Donbas. That was the moment Russia chose to invade Ukraine. That doesn’t make it legal. That doesn’t make it moral. But that may explain why, after more than a dozen years of warnings, Russia chose now to go to war. [ ... This is an excerpt. Please support ANTIWAR DOT COM ... ] https://original.antiwar.com/ted_snider/2022/04/25/why-russia-went-to-war-now/ The fascinating thing about the #Ukraine war is the sheer number of top Western strategic thinkers and scholars who have warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the path of demonizing and trying to destroy Russia. No-one listened to them and now we have trigger happy fools putting the blame solely on Russia and Putin. A small compilation of some of these warnings, from #HenryKissinger to #Mearsheimer are presented here (compiled by Rnaud Bertrand). *WESTERN STRATEGIC THINKERS WHO HAD WARNED OF UKRAINIAN CONFLICT* 1. *George #Kennan, America's foreign policy strategist*, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As early as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia". 2. *Henry #Kissinger*, in 2014. He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO" 3. *John Mearsheimer* - arguably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome." 4. *Jack F. Matlock Jr.*, US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed" 5. Clinton's defense secretary *William Perry* explained, in his memoir, that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning". 6. *Stephen Cohen*, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warning in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential" 7. *CIA director Bill Burns* in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests". (He was then Ambassador to Moscow in 2008 when he wrote this memo). He is now director of the CIA. ‘08 memo ‘Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines’ 8. Russian-American journalist *Vladimir Pozner*, in 2018, stated that: NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO." 9. *Malcolm #Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia*, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem". 10. *Paul #Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997*: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]" 11. *Former US defense secretary Bob Gates* in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" 12. *Pat Buchanan*, in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation." 13. In 1997, a group of individuals including *Robert McNamara, Bill Bradley & Gary Hart wrote a letter to Bill Clinton* warning the "US led effort to expand NATO is a policy error of historic proportions" and would "foster instability" in Europe. Today it's fringe, traitorous position. 14. *Dmitriy Trenin* expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the LT, the most potentially destabilizing factor in US-Russian relations, given the level of emotion & neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. 15. *Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia*, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it." 16. Even last year, *famous economist Jeffrey #Sachs*, writing a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia." 17. *Fiona Hill* :"We warned [George Bush] that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded." 18. *Aleksandr Dugin*, in 1997, had predicted everything that Putin has done, in his book "Foundation of Geopolitics." EVERYBODY knew that trying to rope Ukraine into NATO was crossing Russia's red line, but now people would like to hold up Russia as a villain. From https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592 Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 31 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Your comment is not in any way responsive to the revelations made in the video. Can't you spare just six minutes and 37 seconds to watch the video to allow you to assess the actual information? I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. But those CIA edits don't stick. (Unless they are factual.) Other editors remove them. And if the CIA editor keeps making edits that get removed, they are flagged as rogue editors and their accounts are rescinded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: According to Wikipedia: In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court in response to the allegation that Manafort had lied to investigators. Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, a likely Russian intelligence officer and an alleged operative of the "Mariupol Plan" which would separate eastern Ukraine by political means with Manafort's help.[69] The filing says Manafort gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan with him. Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data. Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's contacts with Kilimnik and other affiliates of Russian intelligence "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" because his "presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."[70][71][34] You've presented the above Wikipedia entry to a fragment of a post of mine which read as follows: 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Specifically cite the evidence that you maintain proves that "Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was a long-term Kremlin employee who shared sensitive polling data with his Russian colleague, GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 Trump campaign." This is precisely the problem with reliance on Wikipedia. It is citing allegations made in a responsive pleading that were never adopted as the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Wikipedia doesn't explain that the Judge did not find these allegations to be facts. My post provided the actual answer to this as follows: "Mueller's Office of Special Counsel alleged that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, and of five such allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration." Judge rules Paul Manafort violated Mueller plea deal by lying Zachary Basu | Feb 13, 2019 | https://www.axios.com/2019/02/13/paul-manaforted-plea-deal-mueller-investigation The following are the Court's actual factual findings with regard to the OSC's five allegations which you can see in the actual Order using the link directly above: So as you can see, what Wikileaks is reporting are mere allegations made in a responsive pleading, not actual factual findings made by the Court, and that means you are not specifically citing the evidence that you maintain proves that "Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was a long-term Kremlin employee who shared sensitive polling data with his Russian colleague, GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 Trump campaign." However, I would like to see you actually cite such evidence, rather than mere allegations, which I know you can't because no such actual evidence exists. But please DO try again... Also extremely pertinent to the analysis is the following: "...Kilimnik: ‘Likely’ Channel to Russia? For the record, Kilimnik has steadfastly denied that he is a Russian intelligence officer or has ties to Russian intelligence. Much of the Senate's portrayal of him relies on information gathered by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which prosecuted Manafort on financial and lobbying charges stemming from his work in Ukraine prior to the 2016 campaign. Kilimnik, a 50-year-old political consultant, was born in Soviet Union-era Ukraine, attended a Soviet military academy, and maintains homes in both Ukraine and Russia. Starting in 2005, Kilimnik played a central role in Manafort's political operation in Ukraine, representing powerful oligarchs and helping guide Viktor Yanukovych to the presidency. The Senate committee's claim that Kilimnik is a Russian spy goes far beyond the Mueller report, which stated that the FBI believes Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." (A similarly vague formulation was used about the reported spark for the FBI's Trump-Russia probe, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, whom the Mueller report described as having "connections to Russia.") The SSCI offers no window into how it went further than the Mueller report for its "assessment." Multiple sections purporting to contain supporting information are redacted. The Senate report also tacitly concedes it has no hard proof that Kilimnik shared information from Manafort with anyone, let alone officials in the Russian government. Kilimnik, it speculates, "likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services," an acknowledgment that it has not uncovered definitive proof. A critical disclosure by the Mueller team during its investigation – but unmentioned in both the final Mueller and Senate reports – directly contradicts the Senate’s assessment. After Mueller accused Kilimnik of having unspecified Russian intelligence "ties" in 2017, Manafort's legal team made multiple discovery requests for any communication between Manafort and "Russian intelligence officials." In April 2018, Manafort’s attorneys revealed that the special counsel replied that "there are no materials responsive to [those] requests." The Mueller team's response marked a tacit admission that as of 2019, the FBI did not consider Kilimnik a Russian agent. In recently unsealed notes from the FBI's collusion probe, Peter Strzok – the top FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the investigation – wrote in early 2017: "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." Asked by RealClearInvestigations if the FBI's assessment of Kilimnik has changed, a Department of Justice spokesman said that “the Mueller report speaks for itself,” suggesting that it has not adopted the Senate committee’s determination. The unredacted sections of the Senate report that attempt to show that Kilimnik is a Russian spy rely on an assortment of emails, discussions, and even Twitter posts. The first visible (but still partially redacted) passage attempts to make an issue out of Kilimnik's discussions with his business partner, Sam Patten, about the nature of Russian intelligence work. Kilimnik, the report notes, trained in languages at a Soviet military school that he "himself admitted to colleagues was used by both the GRU and KGB." The SSCI then accuses Kilimnik of misleading Patten – in emails and perhaps some conversations – about "the type of career these intelligence officers followed compared to his own," and in claiming "that his former classmates were not involved in intelligence matters." The next section reports that "in 2017, Kilimnik denied in private communications with Patten that there was Russian interference in the U.S. elections." The evidence to support that assertion is that "Kilimnik emailed Patten a Financial Times article on Russian interference in the U.S. elections," and joked that U.S. intelligence "must be having very little sleep chasing those squirrels who they think exist." Beyond those emails, which prove nothing at all, the Senate report delves extensively into the activity of a Twitter account that it alleges Kilimnik used under the pseudonym "Petro Baranenko" (@PBaranenko). The account's tweets, SSCI says, "centered on efforts to discredit the Russia investigations." The report discloses the email address used to create the Twitter account but does not explain why it believes that Kilimnik is behind it. In a direct message exchange with RealClearInvestigations, the @PBaranenko account user denied being Kilimnik. "I am not Kilimnik and have nothing to do with him," the user wrote. "I have no idea why whoever wrote this report made this allegation." The account user declined requests for an interview to corroborate that denial. Regardless, even if the account does belong to Kilimnik, the SSCI leaves unexplained how these innocuous emails and tweets amount to evidence that he is a Russian spy...." Analysis: That Senate 'Collusion' Report? It's Got No Smoking Gun ... but It Does Have a Fog Machine By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | September 21, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/21/analysis_that_senate_collusion_report_has_no_smoking_gun__but_it_does_have_a_fog_machine_125229.html Leaked NSA Report Is Short on Facts, Proves Little in ‘Russiagate’ Case The document allegedly leaked by whistleblower Reality Winner reinforces assertions made by President Trump that the Russia story is fake news. The chart from the NSA document that allegedly was leaked by Reality Winner. (The Intercept) SCOTT RITTER / TRUTHDIG CONTRIBUTOR | JUN 8, 2017 | https://www.truthdig.com/articles/leaked-nsa-report-is-short-on-facts-proves-little-in-russiagate-case/ Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. But those CIA edits don't stick. (Unless they are factual.) Other editors remove them. And if the CIA editor keeps making edits that get removed, they are flagged as rogue editors and their accounts are rescinded. So a billion Chinese can never be wrong, and the CIA follows the rules? I can guarantee you would never make such claims in the context of the JFK assassination. Do you really believe the CIA of 2024 is now completely reformed, and that the Agency doesn't have backdoor keys to all the machinations of society just as they did in 1963? If so, why does the CIA oppose the release of all the remaining JFK records, and how did the CIA get Trump AND Biden to go against the JFK Records Release Act? Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. But those CIA edits don't stick. (Unless they are factual.) Other editors remove them. And if the CIA editor keeps making edits that get removed, they are flagged as rogue editors and their accounts are rescinded. https://moguldom.com/449978/co-founder-of-wikipedia-cia-and-fbi-manipulate-wikipedia-its-part-of-the-information-battlefield/ Co-Founder Of Wikipedia: CIA And FBI Manipulate Wikipedia, It’s Part Of The Information Battlefield Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and former philosophy professor, is seen, March 9, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato) Written by Ann Brown Aug 17, 2023 SUBSCRIBE The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, is making some serious allegations about the manipulation of information on the platform by intelligence agencies, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a Twitter video, Sanger claimed these agencies use Wikipedia as part of an “information battlefield.” Internet project developer Sanger, 54, and Jimmy Wale, and American-British internet entrepreneur, launched Wikipedia in January 2001. In the three-minute Twitter video, Sanger insists the U.S. intelligence agencies are shaping content on Wikipedia. “It’s been known for a long time that the CIA and the FBI edit Wikipedia articles. That’s not in dispute,” he says in the video. He also said Wikipedia is relying too much on Left-leaning news media outlets. “One also has to remember is that they declare that 80 percent of the sources of news on the right to be unreliable,” he said. “A lot of people don’t realize that, but they really, really color articles and what articles are allowed to say. I guess I’m going to opt for a conspiracy theory now. I think that the Left…very, very deliberately seeks out to take control, but it isn’t just the Left…It’s the establishment. And they have their own agenda…it’s clear that between 2005 and 2015, Wikipedia was on the establishment’s radar. And we do have evidence that the CIA as early of 2006, the CIA and the FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia….a great part of intelligence now is information warfare that is conducted online.” Sprinter, the account that posted the video, is known for sharing information related to intelligence, security, and global affairs. Sanger’s recent statements regarding the influence of intelligence agencies on Wikipedia highlight concerns that the government may use platforms like Wikipedia to shape public perceptions and promote certain narratives. This isn’t the first time Larry Sanger has criticized Wikipedia for biases. In the past, he has accused the platform of having a “leftist” bias and has expressed concerns about its lack of neutrality. In 2021, for example, he complained that the platform had departed from its original commitment to providing unbiased information, The Daily Mail reported. In a February 2021 interview with Fox News, he said, “The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone.” Sanger’s critique of Wikipedia’s bias goes back even further. In 2007, he referred to Wikipedia as being “broken beyond repair” and launched his own project, Citizendium, in an attempt to address the flaws he identified on Wikipedia, The New York Post reported. Sanger, 52, called alleged bias on the site he co-founded in January 2001 with Jimmy Wales ‘disheartening’ in an interview for a Fox News analysis. Among stacks of reference books, Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and former philosophy professor, is seen, March 9, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio. Sanger started a Wikipedia alternative, Citizendium.com, a go-to destination for general information online. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato) Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) FBI Demands 66 YEARS Before Releasing Seth Rich Laptop Data!?! The Jimmy Dore Show | Nov 2, 2022 | https://youtu.be/vzAXfOvlQl4?si=VqPBhO0nhTLVntVF A judge has ruled in favor of a plaintiff suing the FBI to release the data stored on murdered Democratic staffer Seth Rich’s laptop computer. The FBI has asked the judge to reconsider, claiming that the Rich family would be harmed by the release and instead has asked to be allowed to delay the release for – get this – 66 years. Because the FBI has always made its number one priority concern for the family members of crime victims. Jimmy and his panel of Convo Couch host Craig Pasta and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger wonder why the FBI would be so eager to keep hidden the contents of a laptop they initially claimed they didn’t even have. Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: And with regard to Ukraine, will you tell me if it would make any difference to you if the following three propositions are true? 1. That the current Ukrainian government is the product of a 2014 CIA supported coup de ta that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. How do you suppose the CIA got 200,000 Ukrainians to protest against President Yanukovych for his corruption and his decision not to sign the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement... instead, choosing closer ties to Russia? Which the citizens wanted no part of. 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: 2. That areas of the Donbass region in Ukraine inhabited by an overwhelmingly Russian population has sustained many thousands of casualties as the result of Ukranian artillary fire since 2014, and was about to be invaded by NATO supported Ukrainian forces at the time of the Russian intervention. Oh, you mean the region of Ukraine stolen by Russia? 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: and, 3. Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight. Zelenskyy's government agreed with Boris Johnson, that it would be a mistake to sign that agreement. It would allow Putin to invade again, this time better prepared. (Source) If Ukrainian neutrality is what Putin wanted, why didn't he threaten to invade unless Ukraine agreed to it? When his troops were surrounding Ukraine, Putin could have said he wouldn't invade if they agreed not to join NATO. Instead, Putin go right in claiming to be there to protect everyone from the proliferation of neo-Nazis. 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: If you dispute the veracity of these propositions, let me know, and we will discuss the precise details further. No thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. [That the CIA and others edit Wikipedia articles to their liking.] But those CIA edits don't stick. (Unless they are factual.) Other editors remove them. And if the CIA editor keeps making edits that get removed, they are flagged as rogue editors and their accounts are rescinded. 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: So a billion Chinese can never be wrong, and the CIA follows the rules? I can guarantee you would never make such claims in the context of the JFK assassination. Do you really believe the CIA of 2024 is now completely reformed, and that the Agency doesn't have backdoor keys to all the machinations of society just as they did in 1963? If so, why does the CIA oppose the release of all the remaining JFK records, and how did the CIA get Trump AND Biden to go against the JFK Records Release Act? As far as I can tell, none of what you posted relates to what I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: Co-Founder Of Wikipedia: CIA And FBI Manipulate Wikipedia, It’s Part Of The Information Battlefield That's what I said: "I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now