Denise Hazelwood Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 I will also say that I am glad that so many participants on this site have been paying attention to Trump’s obvious Russian connections. It goes to show that the site is populated by serious researchers and not the baseless Q-anonsense crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Sandy, This is getting ridiculous... We have a new, sophomoric forum member who doesn't know the difference between journalistic fecal material and shinola. And he loves to flood the zone with fecal material. IMO, Kevin Hofeling's MAGA spam belongs at the Education Forum's MAGA Water Cooler. Hofeling just posted the following ridiculous comment about Spencer Hsu's excellent February 2019 Manafort article at WaPo (at the top of this page.) "Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Geez... I've forgotten more about Russian history, culture, and politics than Hofeling will ever know. Spencer Hsu is a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist at America's top-ranked political newspaper. The facts in his article about Manafort's trial and sentencing (above) will be evident to any informed reader. Notice that Hofeling didn't refute a single fact that Hsu documented about Manafort and the Mueller investigation. Hofeling, basically, ignored the well-documented facts in Spencer Hsu's WaPo account of Paul Manafort's perjury and witness-tampering during the Mueller investigation. Then Hofeling posted a steaming pile of fecal material from the Trump/MAGA propagandists at Real Clear Politics.* Incidentally, Hofeling's Real Clear MAGA propagandists are affiliated with such right-wing American "luminaries" as The Federalist, Dick Uihlein, and the Scaife family. These Real Clear Robber Barons are, basically, only interested in one thing, as we all know-- Trump/GOP tax cuts! If nothing else, Hofeling has unwittingly given us a good example of what is so terribly wrong with American political discourse in the age of Trump. Here's the skinny on Hofeling's latest Trump/MAGA propaganda site, Real Clear Politics (italics mine.) *RealClearPolitics Rightward turn during Trump's presidency[edit] In 2020, The New York Times noted that since 2017, when many of its "straight-news" reporting journalists were laid off, RealClearPolitics showed a pro-Trump turn with donations to its affiliated nonprofit increasing, much from entities supported by wealthy conservatives. [25] The New York Times also said that "Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president's political opponents, through a mix of its own content and articles from across conservative media...." and that for days after the election, "Real Clear Politics gave top billing to stories that reinforced the false narrative that the president could still somehow eke out a win."[25] An October 2019 article in The Daily Beast reported that RealClear Media manages a Facebook page of "far-right memes and Islamophobic smears". Anand Ramanujan, chief technology officer for RealClear Media, responded that the company created the website that was affiliated with the Facebook page "as part of an effort to understand the flow of traffic from social media—particularly Facebook—to political websites."[26] Real Clear Politics heavily promotes content by The Federalist, a conservative website which draws funding from the same pool of donor money as Real Clear Politics.[25] In 2016, RealClearInvestigations was launched,[27] backed by foundations associated with conservative causes, such as the Uihlein Family Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation.[28] In 2019, the site published an article by a conservative author, Paul Sperry, containing the supposed name of a U.S. intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[28] The article's publication came as part of a month-long effort by Trump allies on media and social media to "unmask" the whistleblower, whose identity was kept confidential by the U.S. government, in accordance with whistleblower protection (anti-retaliation) laws.[28] Most publications declined to reveal the whistleblower's identity; Tom Kuntz, editor of RealClearInvestigations, defended the site's decision to publish the article.[28] 25 Peters, Jeremy W. (2020-11-17). "A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-20. 26 ^ Poulse, Kevin; Maxwell, Tani (October 8, 2019). "RealClear Media Has a Secret Facebook Page to Push Far-Right Memes". Retrieved October 8, 2019. 27 ^ "A New Destination for Investigative Journalism". RealClearInvestigations. Retrieved 2019-11-12. 28 ^ Jump up to:a b c d Isaac Stanley-Becker & Craig Timberg, Trump's allies turned to online campaign in quest to unmask Ukraine whistleblower, Washington Post (November 7, 2019). @Sandy Larsen@Roger Odisio@Benjamin Cole@W. Niederhut W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Sandy, This is getting ridiculous... We have a new, sophomoric forum member who doesn't know the difference between journalistic fecal material and shinola. And he loves to flood the zone with fecal material. I presented the definitive primary sources which your yellow journalism Washington Post article misrepresented, THE ACTUAL PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE ITSELF, AND INSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING THOSE PRIMARY SOURCES YOU ARE DISSEMBLING, PROPAGANDIZING AND DISSEMINATING OUTRIGHT DISINFORMATION. BY DOING SO YOU ARE IMPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR OWN AWARENESS OF THE FACT THAT THE RUSSIAGATE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE ARTICLE ARE FRAUDULENT... The author of your yellow journalism Washington Post article, Spencer Hsu, obviously DID NOT consult the case pleadings himself, and there is simply no better source for the subject matter than the pleadings of the Office of Special Counsel ("OSC"), Defendant Paul Manafort and the actual Order of U.S. District Court Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, herself. Out of desperation, you are now resorting to outright lies, fraud and deception. W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote IMO, Kevin Hofeling's MAGA spam belongs at the Education Forum's MAGA Water Cooler. Obviously, you want the post moved because it demolishes the Russiagate narrative as it pertains to Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik who, the ACTUAL PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE ITSELF disclose, were being investigated, charged and sentenced regarding matters pertaining to their business dealings in Ukraine, all of which predated the Russiagate hoax. You so desperately want to bury my post which so effectively demolished your Russiagate narrative that YOU DID NOT EVEN QUOTE IT IN YOUR RESPONSE SO THAT READERS CANNOT COMPARE IT TO YOUR UNRESPONSIVE MISSIVE. For readers of these posts who want to see what W. Neiderhut is attempting to conceal from you, the following is the link to the post he purports to be responding to, but does not want you to see: W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Hofeling just posted the following ridiculous comment about Spencer Hsu's excellent February 2019 Manafort article at WaPo (at the top of this page.) "Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? You've failed to rebut my very clear demonstration of the fact that Spencer Hsu's February 2019 Washington Post Manafort article is an exercise in yellow journalism in that it insinuates that the investigation, charging and sentencing of Paul Manafort was related to matters concerning Russian collusion when the fact is, as I demonstrated with the ACTUAL PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE THEMSELVES, the Court proceedings in truth concerned Manafort's business dealings in Ukraine which predated the Russiagate hoax. The burden is now on you, W. Neiderhut, to prove that the yellow journalism sensationalist allegations of Spencer Hsu's Washington Post article should, for some reason, be accepted as a more legitimate source than the ACTUAL PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE THEMSELVES. Your mere characterization of this fact as "ridiculous" does nothing to rebut their veracity. W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Geez... I've forgotten more about Russian history, culture, and politics than Hofeling will ever know. Yaa right, Mr. Neiderhut, you are clearly a legend in your own mind... W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Spencer Hsu is a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist at America's top-ranked political newspaper. The facts in his article about Manafort's trial and sentencing (above) will be evident to any informed reader. Notice that Hofeling didn't refute a single fact that Hsu documented about Manafort and the Mueller investigation. Hofeling, basically, ignored the well-documented facts in Spencer Hsu's WaPo account of Paul Manafort's perjury and witness-tampering during the Mueller investigation. Notice the sleight of hand parlor trick Mr. Neiderhut is attempting to perpetrate here? He refers you to my post yet did not quote it in order to prevent you from actually assessing my post and Neiderhut's claims about it. My post conclusively demonstrates that Washington Post reporter Spencer Hsu engaged in sensationalist yellow journalism by injecting into his article insinuations that the cases against Paul Manafort involved the Russia collusion allegations, WHEN IN FACT, the ACTUAL PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE THEMSELVES show that the Court proceedings in truth concerned Manafort's business dealings in Ukraine which predated the Russiagate hoax. In order that you may conduct the analysis that Mr. Neiderhut is so desperate to prevent, the following is the link to my post which Neiderhut deliberately failed to quote in his post: W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Then Hofeling posted a steaming pile of fecal material from the Trump/MAGA propagandists at Real Clear Politics.* Incidentally, Hofeling's Real Clear MAGA propagandists are affiliated with such right-wing American "luminaries" as The Federalist, Dick Uihlein, and the Scaife family. These Real Clear Robber Barons are, basically, only interested in one thing, as we all know-- Trump/GOP tax cuts! If nothing else, Hofeling has unwittingly given us a good example of what is so terribly wrong with American political discourse in the age of Trump. Neirderhut, you've made it clear in some of your previous posts to Sandy Larsen that you are well aware of the difference between MAGA journalism and left-wing journalism such as that conducted by Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthall, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore, etc. The implications of this are that you are recklessly, though very deliberately, throwing around allegations that Aaron Maté and Real Clear Investigations is associated in some way with MAGA propagandists when you are well aware that they are in fact not associated with MAGA in any way. Clearly, by doing so, you are attempting to manipulate the prejudices of the readers of these posts. What you are doing is no different than Joseph McCarthy waiving around his contrived lists of communists to get liberals blacklisted; but what makes this particularly egregious, is that you are doing so knowingly and deliberately, and it is unconscionable. W. Neiderhut wrote: Quote Here's the skinny on Hofeling's latest Trump/MAGA propaganda site, Real Clear Politics (italics mine.) *RealClearPolitics Rightward turn during Trump's presidency[edit] In 2020, The New York Times noted that since 2017, when many of its "straight-news" reporting journalists were laid off, RealClearPolitics showed a pro-Trump turn with donations to its affiliated nonprofit increasing, much from entities supported by wealthy conservatives. [25] The New York Times also said that "Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president's political opponents, through a mix of its own content and articles from across conservative media...." and that for days after the election, "Real Clear Politics gave top billing to stories that reinforced the false narrative that the president could still somehow eke out a win."[25] An October 2019 article in The Daily Beast reported that RealClear Media manages a Facebook page of "far-right memes and Islamophobic smears". Anand Ramanujan, chief technology officer for RealClear Media, responded that the company created the website that was affiliated with the Facebook page "as part of an effort to understand the flow of traffic from social media—particularly Facebook—to political websites."[26] Real Clear Politics heavily promotes content by The Federalist, a conservative website which draws funding from the same pool of donor money as Real Clear Politics.[25] In 2016, RealClearInvestigations was launched,[27] backed by foundations associated with conservative causes, such as the Uihlein Family Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation.[28] In 2019, the site published an article by a conservative author, Paul Sperry, containing the supposed name of a U.S. intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[28] The article's publication came as part of a month-long effort by Trump allies on media and social media to "unmask" the whistleblower, whose identity was kept confidential by the U.S. government, in accordance with whistleblower protection (anti-retaliation) laws.[28] Most publications declined to reveal the whistleblower's identity; Tom Kuntz, editor of RealClearInvestigations, defended the site's decision to publish the article.[28] 25 Peters, Jeremy W. (2020-11-17). "A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-20. 26 ^ Poulse, Kevin; Maxwell, Tani (October 8, 2019). "RealClear Media Has a Secret Facebook Page to Push Far-Right Memes". Retrieved October 8, 2019. 27 ^ "A New Destination for Investigative Journalism". RealClearInvestigations. Retrieved 2019-11-12. 28 ^ Jump up to:a b c d Isaac Stanley-Becker & Craig Timberg, Trump's allies turned to online campaign in quest to unmask Ukraine whistleblower, Washington Post (November 7, 2019). You know damned well that Aaron Maté is not associated with any MAGA propagandists. He is a journalist of the same left of center political caliber as Max Blumenthall, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore, etc., and is also a contributor to The Nation, and his work has appeared in Democracy Now!, Vice, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, The Intercept, and Le Monde Diplomatique. Maté is the host of the news show Pushback with Aaron Maté. What you are attempting to do is to invalidate Maté's investigative journalism by attacking one of the many platforms he has been published on. This can only mean that you are unable to rebut any of Maté's actual investigative reporting. THIS IS JUST MORE OF YOUR BASELESS CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS, PER YOUR USUAL STYLE OF HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. Aaron Maté @aaronjmate Aaron Maté has provided extensive coverage of corruption within federal intelligence agencies as a contributor to RealClearInvestigations. He is also a contributor to The Nation, and his work has appeared in Democracy Now!, Vice, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, The Intercept, and Le Monde Diplomatique. Maté is the host of the news show Pushback with Aaron Maté. For media inquiries, please contact media@realclear.com. Author Archive 20232022202120202019201820172016 June 5, 2023 Russiagate Prober Durham Neglected DNC Hack Claim, Despite Evidence It Too Was a Democrat Sham By Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigationsJune 6, 2023 Special Counsel John Durham’s final report faults the FBI for opening the Trump-Russia collusion investigation on... February 14, 2023 Unchastened by Russiagate, the NY Times Doubles Down in Its Special Counsel Coverage Special Counsel John Durham, leading a multi-year probe of how U.S. intelligence officials conducted the Russia investigation, has yet to issue his final report. But according to... January 4, 2023 Taibbi Explains How Rep. Schiff Worked to Censor RCI's Paul Sperry: Jimmy Dore Show Rep. Adam Schiff tried to get RealClearInvestigations journalist Paul Sperry suspended from Twitter and to have “any and all content” related to House Intelligence... Edited March 31 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Document on Paul Manafort's Work for Russia* 1) Manafort worked for years as a lobbyist and political consultant for Kremlin psy-ops in Ukraine, on behalf of Putin's Ukrainian puppet, Victor Yanukovych. 2) Manafort's long-term Russian military intelligence (GRU) associate was Konstantin Kilimnik. 3) Manafort also worked with Putin's oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. 4) Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. 5) Manafort went to great lengths to conceal his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik from Mueller-- even committing perjury. * report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov) Edited March 31 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: This is getting ridiculous... We have a new, sophomoric forum member who doesn't know the difference between journalistic fecal material and shinola. And he loves to flood the zone with fecal material. Indeed W. It's really Koch ll, communicatively brought up in a cesspool of social media with zero real social skills of dialog, but unlimited time for narcissistic all night rantings.and now militant homage to perceived vanguard cliques of conspiracy superheroes. There's probably more hope there than with Koch, but there will be a massive deprogramming and long tedious, painstaking hours to reconstruct for the many lost years of culturation, and he, nor his parents could probably pay us,. So the age old question, whose got the time? h h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Indeed W. It's really Koch ll, communicatively brought up in a cesspool of social media with zero real social skills of dialog, but unlimited time for narcissistic all night rantings.and now militant homage to perceived vanguard cliques of conspiracy superheroes. There's probably more hope there than with Koch, but there will be a massive deprogramming and long tedious, painstaking hours to reconstruct for the many lost years of culturation, and he, nor his parents could probably pay us,. So the age old question, whose got the time? Listen up, keyboard warrior, your verbose drivel reeks of intellectual impotence. You prance around like a self-appointed gatekeeper, wielding your thesaurus like a blunt weapon. But let's dissect your pitiful attempt at wit, shall we? First, you label our new forum member as "sophomoric." Ah, the classic move of the insecure intellect: belittle those who dare challenge your echo chamber. Perhaps you should take a break from your pretentious soliloquies and engage in some actual critical thinking. It might do wonders for that intellectual constipation you're suffering from. Next, you invoke the illustrious "Koch ll." A name dropped with the reverence of a cult leader, as if it grants you access to the inner sanctum of enlightenment. But let's be real: your knowledge of Koch is about as deep as a kiddie pool. You're like a flat-earther trying to explain quantum physics—utterly out of your depth. And what's this about "militant homage" to conspiracy superheroes? Are you auditioning for the role of Captain Obvious in the next Marvel movie? Newsflash: your tin-foil hat isn't a fashion statement; it's a cry for help. Maybe spend less time concocting elaborate Russiagate hoax theories and more time learning basic manners. You know, like saying "please" and "thank you." As for the deprogramming saga, spare us the melodrama. Your grandiose vision of saving lost souls is laughable. It's like watching a hamster attempt brain surgery—adorable, but ultimately futile. And don't even get me started on the parental payment plan. Are you running a cult rehab center or a lemonade stand? So, my dear rhetorician, when you ask, "Whose got the time?"—the answer is simple: not you. Your clock is stuck in perpetual pseudo-intellectual twilight, where arrogance masquerades as wisdom. But fear not, for I've got a solution: self-awareness therapy. It's time to detox from your own verbosity and embrace the real world. Now, go forth, my misguided friend, and remember: opinions are like assholes—everyone has one, but yours is particularly full of s##t. Edited March 31 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 It's why I come here to get people's political opinions. It's boring and useless for JFKA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 4 hours ago, Paul Cummings said: It's why I come here to get people's political opinions. It's boring and useless for JFKA. Honestly, Paul, Kevin's latest rant about Kirk the "keyboard warrior" is one of the funniest things I've read in a great long while. I couldn't stop laughing while reading it, and I'm sure that Kirk enjoyed the humor as well... 😂 As for political opinions, let's distinguish them from political facts-- e.g., about Paul Manafort's distinguished career as a Kremlin lobbyist and political consultant, before and after becoming Trump's campaign manager in 2016. It's astonishing to see how much time and effort the MAGA pundits have invested in manipulating public awareness and understanding of Manafort's sordid career and Trump's Russiagate scandal. Trump has always had a knack for coining and repeating catchy MAGA jingles-- like "Sleepy Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas"-- and two of his most effective were, " No Collusion," and "Russia Hoax." Edited April 1 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) 10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Document on Paul Manafort's Work for Russia* 1) Manafort worked for years as a lobbyist and political consultant for Kremlin psy-ops in Ukraine, on behalf of Putin's Ukrainian puppet, Victor Yanukovych. 2) Manafort's long-term Russian military intelligence (GRU) associate was Konstantin Kilimnik. 3) Manafort also worked with Putin's oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. 4) Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. 5) Manafort went to great lengths to conceal his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik from Mueller-- even committing perjury. * report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov) My comments below are in dark blue: NOTE: Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence. You are wasting my time with your persistent failures to produce any real evidence of your Russian collusion claims... U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Document on Paul Manafort's Work for Russia* 1) Manafort worked for years as a lobbyist and political consultant for Kremlin psy-ops in Ukraine, on behalf of Putin's Ukrainian puppet, Victor Yanukovych. You have the same problem here as you have with everything else, Mr. Neiderhut. You have no evidence. The innuendo and speculation of the Senate Committee Report on Collusion is not evidence, it is mere speculation and innuendo. As you can see in the following, the government never had any evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of members of the Senate Committee just doesn't make the cut. You are shooting blanks again. On page 8 of Defendant Paul Manafort's pleading entitled "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REQUIRE A HEARING REGARDING IMPROPER DISCLOSURES RELATING TO CONFIDENTIAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION AND POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 30, 2018, Manafort's attorneys represented to the Court, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that: "...Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the Special Counsel has not produced any materials to the defense-no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort's requests..." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html The Mueller team's response marked a tacit admission that as of 2019, the FBI did not consider Kilimnik a Russian agent. And in early 2017, FBI agent Peter Strzok interviewed the Steele dossier’s main source, now known to be Igor Danchenko. Danchenko said he passed on “rumors and speculation” and that he couldn’t back up the claims made in the dossier. Strzok said Steele “may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.’’ Strzok then printed out a copy of a New York Times report that claimed there was evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian agents and wrote in the margin, “we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary republication of the Wall Street Journal Editorial "The FBI’s Dossier Deceit." https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/icymi-the-fbis-dossier-deceit 2) Manafort's long-term Russian military intelligence (GRU) associate was Konstantin Kilimnik. There is no evidence that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian military intelligence officer or any other kind of Russian intelligence official. The Mueller Office of Special Counsel indicted Kilimnik in 2018 for obstruction of justice, unrelated to the 2016 election, but the case has never gone forward. When asked by investigative journalist Aaron Maté in 2020 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. Again, the speculation and innuendo of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion does not constitute evidence. If you think there is such evidence in the Report, or anywhere else, then state exactly what you think that evidence consists of. 3) Manafort also worked with Putin's oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. The Mueller Office of Special Counsel obtained convictions against Paul Manafort for illegal activities related to his lobbying business in Ukraine, but none of those convictions had anything to do with the Russian collusion allegations, for which Manafort was not even charged by the Office of Special Counsel. See above regarding the total absence of evidence of any communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. 4) Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. You evidently don't even know the actual details of the Senate Report, as at the bottom of volume iv, page 29, it states that Manafort and Kilimnik met secretly "in the United States and Spain in early 2017," not in 2016, meaning that your claim that the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion found that "Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign" is patently false. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf 5) Manafort went to great lengths to conceal his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik from Mueller-- even committing perjury. Paul Manafort was never charged with or convicted of "perjury." Manafort was convicted of three of the five counts of breaching the cooperation agreement that he had with the Office of Special Counsel. This does not constitute evidence that Manafort was in communication with Russian intelligence officials, or that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official. You need to present evidence of your claims in this regard, which neither Mueller's Office of Special Counsel or the Senate Select Intelligence Committee ever did. Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism, and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence. 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 three, 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 Kilimnik'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. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf * report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov) Edited April 1 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 There has, certainly, been no dearth of MAGA propaganda in the U.S. media, since 2017, promoting Trump's bogus "Russiagate Hoax" trope. People interested in the disinformation should consult Kevin Hofeling's lengthy posts. We all owe Kevin Hofeling a special word of thanks for keeping us apprised of the MAGA Russiagate disinformation. Partisan Claims of 'Russia Hoax' Revived Ahead of 2020 Election - FactCheck.org Partisan Claims of ‘Russia Hoax’ Revived Ahead of 2020 Election By Saranac Hale Spencer Posted on October 9, 2020 Quick Take President Donald Trump and his supporters on social media are citing unverified “Russian intelligence” from 2016 as evidence that Hillary Clinton “was behind the entire Russian collusion hoax.” But that so-called intelligence is largely a reflection of publicly available information at the time. Federal investigations since then have documented multiple links between Trump associates and individuals tied to the Russian government. Full Story Hillary Clinton ran for president four years ago, but dubious claims about her continue to churn as the Trump administration rekindles allegations that ties between the president’s 2016 campaign and Russia are part of a “hoax.” One such claim arose shortly before the first presidential debate on Sept. 29. Clinton, of course, is not a candidate. But Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe wrote a one-page letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on the day of the debate that said “Russian intelligence” in July 2016 had claimed that Clinton “approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.” Ratcliffe followed with an important caveat, writing that the U.S. intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Despite that unverified and questionable provenance, partisan websites and social media pages seized on the claim as proof that Clinton was responsible for the appearance of links between the Trump campaign and Russia. President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was among those who initially spread it on social media, saying, “The Russia hoax was Hillary’s plan.” In reality, the connections between Trump campaign associates and individuals tied to the Russian government during the 2016 election have been well documented in reports from special counsel Robert S. Mueller and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Both found evidence that justified the investigation into those ties, although neither report found evidence of a criminal conspiracy. “In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away,” the Mueller report said. “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” The Senate report, which was released Aug. 18, detailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s connections to Russia and Ukraine, and found “his high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat.” Manafort was one of six men involved with Trump’s 2016 campaign who have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of crimes uncovered during the Mueller probe. It is also well documented that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered computer networks and accounts related to the Democratic Party to be hacked in order to leak damaging information about Clinton and help Trump’s campaign. A joint assessment by the CIA, FBI and the National Security Agency resulted in a 2017 report that detailed the extent of the Russian influence campaign. WikiLeaks released the information hacked by Russian government intelligence operatives and, according to the final volume of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, “the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral prospects.” The committee report said: “Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release, and encouraged further leaks.” Campaign officials looked to Trump’s longtime associate and adviser Roger Stone for insights about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information, and Stone would relay his purported knowledge to Trump or senior aides, according to the report. The committee, however, couldn’t “reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained.” Neither the Mueller report nor the Senate Intelligence Committee report suggest that Clinton orchestrated any of this. But on Oct. 6, a week after his letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ratcliffe, who served as a Republican congressman from Texas until he became the director of national intelligence on May 26, said the president instructed him to declassify “additional documents.” Trump took to Twitter the same day, announcing: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” So far, this has included a heavily redacted memorandum from the CIA to the FBI and two pages of heavily redacted notes that former CIA director John Brennan had taken in 2016. According to Ratcliffe’s letter, Brennan’s notes said that the Russian intelligence analysis included the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” Brennan dismissed the publication of those documents as being politically motivated. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, he called Ratcliffe’s move “selective declassification” that is “designed to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who are aligned with him.” Brennan explained, “These were my notes from the 2016 period when I briefed President Obama and the rest of the national security council team about what the Russians were up to and I was giving examples of the type of access that the US intelligence community had to Russian information and what the Russians were talking about and alleging.” But what “the Russians were talking about” in late July 2016 merely reflected what was playing out in public at that time. In mid-June of 2016, the Democratic National Committee disclosed its servers had been hacked and the firm it hired to analyze the breach traced the hack to Russia. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 DNC emails, and two days later Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in an interview with CNN that the timing of the release — shortly before the Democratic National Convention — suggested that Russia was trying to help Trump’s campaign. At a July 27, 2016, press conference, Trump said he doubted that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC computer network, but invited Russia to find Clinton’s personal emails that had been deleted before she left office. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. Four days later, Clinton suggested in an interview on Fox News Sunday that Russia was helping Trump. “We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin,” she said. Clinton’s campaign also criticized Trump’s call for the Russian government to “find” her emails. But that’s not a scandal that Clinton “stirred up.” She was responding to Russia’s actions and Trump’s words. There is no evidence that she was responsible for the federal counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign ties with Russia. The fact is, multiple federal reports, including the Mueller and Senate reports, trace the origins of the investigation to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. As we have written, the Department of Justice’s inspector general said the FBI launched its investigation after Papadopoulos told a “Friendly Foreign Government” (an Australian diplomat in London, according to the New York Times) that the campaign had received information about Russia having dirt on Clinton. So, claims like this one — “Hillary Clinton was behind the entire Russian collusion hoax all along” — made by Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, along with a call to “#LockHerUp,” are unfounded. But that hasn’t stopped such claims from spreading. Collins’ original tweet was shared more than 14,000 times, and a conservative group called FreedomWorks made the quote into a meme that’s been shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook. Other major Trump allies are spreading similar messages. Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, wrote on Facebook, with a link to the Fox News story about Brennan’s declassified notes, “CROOKED Hillary denied our country a peaceful transition of power. SHE concocted the Russia hoax!” Anti-Muslim activist Brigitte Gabriel asked for “nationally televised hearings about how the Russian probe was a HOAX.” And Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida claimed on Facebook, “The Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton regime completely fabricated the Russia hoax. It was all FAKE.” All of those assertions ignore the findings of multiple federal investigations and they eschew confirmed U.S. intelligence in favor of unverified Russian intelligence. Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. This fact check is available at IFCN’s 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. Sources Ratcliffe, John. Director of National Intelligence. Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham. Judiciary.senate.gov. 29 Sep 2020. Trump, Donald Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr). “OMG JUST DECLASSIFIED: The Russia hoax was Hillary’s plan, and the Obama-Biden White House was briefed on it.” Twitter. 29 Sep 2020. Mueller, Robert S. III. “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.” U.S. Department of Justice. Mar 2019. U.S. Senate. Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Russian Active Measures, Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election. 2020. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. 6 Jan 2017. Singman, Brooke. “DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on Hillary Clinton ‘stirring up’ scandal between Trump, Russia.” Fox News. 6 Oct 2020. Trump, Donald (@realDonaldTrump). “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” Twitter. 6 Oct 2020. Cohen, Zachary and Alex Marquardt. “Former CIA director accuses intel chief of selectively declassifying documents to help Trump.” CNN. 6 Oct 2020. Kiely, Eugene. “Timeline of Russia Investigation.” FactCheck.org. Updated 20 Feb 2020. C-SPAN (@cspan). “Donald Trump: ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.’” Twitter. 27 Jul 2016. Kiely, Eugene, et al. “How Old Claims Compare to IG Report.” FactCheck.org. 10 Dec 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Now, go forth, my misguided friend, and remember: opinions are like assholes—everyone has one, but yours is particularly full of s##t. "It might do wonders for that intellectual constipation you're suffering from." Take a break Keven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Well, this will be changing the discussion from here on out... holy sh*t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 hours ago, Matt Allison said: Well, this will be changing the discussion from here on out... holy sh*t An interesting and disturbing article Matt. I've lived from what's a microwave to I couldn't afford one to how did we ever live without this. Now microwave "guns" (?) are causing brain damage. Useful knowledge. But I have to wonder how related this thread is anymore to trump releasing JFK records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 hours ago, Matt Allison said: Well, this will be changing the discussion from here on out... holy sh*t Matt- This is interesting. I am keeping an open mind on this topic. I am glad I am an unimportant person. It seems almost anyone could be targeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: My comments below are in dark blue: NOTE: Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence. You are wasting my time with your persistent failures to produce any real evidence of your Russian collusion claims... U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Document on Paul Manafort's Work for Russia* 1) Manafort worked for years as a lobbyist and political consultant for Kremlin psy-ops in Ukraine, on behalf of Putin's Ukrainian puppet, Victor Yanukovych. You have the same problem here as you have with everything else, Mr. Neiderhut. You have no evidence. The innuendo and speculation of the Senate Committee Report on Collusion is not evidence, it is mere speculation and innuendo. As you can see in the following, the government never had any evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of members of the Senate Committee just doesn't make the cut. You are shooting blanks again. On page 8 of Defendant Paul Manafort's pleading entitled "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REQUIRE A HEARING REGARDING IMPROPER DISCLOSURES RELATING TO CONFIDENTIAL GRAND JURY INFORMATION AND POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 30, 2018, Manafort's attorneys represented to the Court, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that: "...Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the Special Counsel has not produced any materials to the defense-no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort's requests..." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html The Mueller team's response marked a tacit admission that as of 2019, the FBI did not consider Kilimnik a Russian agent. And in early 2017, FBI agent Peter Strzok interviewed the Steele dossier’s main source, now known to be Igor Danchenko. Danchenko said he passed on “rumors and speculation” and that he couldn’t back up the claims made in the dossier. Strzok said Steele “may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.’’ Strzok then printed out a copy of a New York Times report that claimed there was evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian agents and wrote in the margin, “we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary republication of the Wall Street Journal Editorial "The FBI’s Dossier Deceit." https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/icymi-the-fbis-dossier-deceit 2) Manafort's long-term Russian military intelligence (GRU) associate was Konstantin Kilimnik. There is no evidence that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian military intelligence officer or any other kind of Russian intelligence official. The Mueller Office of Special Counsel indicted Kilimnik in 2018 for obstruction of justice, unrelated to the 2016 election, but the case has never gone forward. When asked by investigative journalist Aaron Maté in 2020 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. Again, the speculation and innuendo of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion does not constitute evidence. If you think there is such evidence in the Report, or anywhere else, then state exactly what you think that evidence consists of. 3) Manafort also worked with Putin's oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. The Mueller Office of Special Counsel obtained convictions against Paul Manafort for illegal activities related to his lobbying business in Ukraine, but none of those convictions had anything to do with the Russian collusion allegations, for which Manafort was not even charged by the Office of Special Counsel. See above regarding the total absence of evidence of any communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. 4) Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. You evidently don't even know the actual details of the Senate Report, as at the bottom of volume iv, page 29, it states that Manafort and Kilimnik met secretly "in the United States and Spain in early 2017," not in 2016, meaning that your claim that the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion found that "Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign" is patently false. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf 5) Manafort went to great lengths to conceal his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik from Mueller-- even committing perjury. Paul Manafort was never charged with or convicted of "perjury." Manafort was convicted of three of the five counts of breaching the cooperation agreement that he had with the Office of Special Counsel. This does not constitute evidence that Manafort was in communication with Russian intelligence officials, or that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official. You need to present evidence of your claims in this regard, which neither Mueller's Office of Special Counsel or the Senate Select Intelligence Committee ever did. Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism, and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence. 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 three, 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 Kilimnik'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. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf * report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov) KE- Keep on truckin.' I think dissent from legacy-establishment media narrative is valuable, especially as we see so much mushing together of legacy media and the two major parties, and the intel state. Remember: COVID-19 did not come from a lab, and Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation story. The JFKA was carried out by LHO alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: KE- Keep on truckin.' I think dissent from legacy-establishment media narrative is valuable, especially as we see so much mushing together of legacy media and the two major parties, and the intel state. Remember: COVID-19 did not come from a lab, and Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation story. The JFKA was carried out by LHO alone. Ben, I see that you're still inordinately fond of the logical fallacy of overgeneralization, rather than studying the actual facts about Donald Trump, Russian ops for Trump, and Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In fact, your erroneous post here goes to the very heart of the dispute on this thread (above) about reality vs. alternate reality in the case of Paul Manafort's career as a Kremlin lobbyist and Trump's Russiagate scandal. I would describe your MAGA logic thusly. The Deep State persecuted a POTUS, JFK, and Operation Mockingbird covered it up. Donald Trump was a POTUS. Therefore, the Deep State persecuted Donald Trump, and Operation Mockingbird covered it up. 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