Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Has this been verified?
There weren't 14 mentions of Cohen's being in Prague. Fourteen is the number of times Cohen's name appears in the details of Steele's reports. The dossier contains 17 reports; Cohen is mentioned in four (and in one of those only peripherally).
An example: "Speaking in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend in mid-October 2016, a Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawyer, Michael COHEN, in the ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York tycoon's campaign and the Russian leadership. COHEN’s role had grown following the departure of Paul Manafort as campaign manager in August 2016. Prior to that Manafort had led for the Trump side."
That's two of the 14 right there.
Yes, I counted them myself. (Within a margin of error of 1.)
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, I counted them myself. (Within a margin of error of 1.)
DaveSchmidt said:Has this been verified?
There weren't 14 mentions of Cohen's being in Prague. Fourteen is the number of times Cohen's name appears in the details of Steele's reports. The dossier contains 17 reports; Cohen is mentioned in four (and in one of those only peripherally).
An example: "Speaking in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend in mid-October 2016, a Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawyer, Michael COHEN, in the ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York tycoon's campaign and the Russian leadership. COHEN’s role had grown following the departure of Paul Manafort as campaign manager in August 2016. Prior to that Manafort had led for the Trump side."
That's two of the 14 right there.
Good work. Has the excerpt you quoted been verified?
paulsurovell said:
Good work. Has the excerpt you quoted been verified?
Thank you. As far as I know, the good work on that incidental example in my comment is still under way.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Thank you. As far as I know, the good work on that incidental example in my comment is still under way.
Good work. Has the excerpt you quoted been verified?
Understood. Two years is not enough time for the combined powers of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA and State Department to break the code of the "secret liaison relationship" between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership, and of course Michael Cohen's key role. I suspect there were hand-signals and carrier pigeons that got past the electronic and human assets of our surveillance of such matters.
Maybe in two more years?
It's on an earlier page now, but this is the statement I was commenting on:
paulsurovell said:
Prior to the leaked emails HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele to collude with Russian government officials to create the dirty dossier of unverified dirt on Donald Trump.
So however many "bells and whistles" or extra bling or other tassels and streamers you put on your argument, the foundation is the same as the "Nunes and Hannity Trumpist talking points".
So it's not "McCarthyite". It's descriptive.
I haven't even addressed your Bruce Ohr obsession which can be seen on these pages, which Trump has been on about lately as well.
paulsurovell said:This is a pure McCarthyite smear that makes an association that does not exist on several levels:
Let's look at your statement that I rely on "Nunes and Hannity Trumpist talking points."
(1) In order to defend this statement you will have to show where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have articulated my fundamental argument that Russiagate is promoted by the DNC and corporate media -- and the military-industrial establishment to promote a new Cold War with Russia to justify increased military contracts as exemplified in the Democratic-Trump Defense boondogle lovefest.
Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have made the connection between Russiagate and the obscene defense budget.
(2) Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have challenged the premise -- as I have -- that Russia is attacking our democracy.
(3) Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have challenged the allegations on Facebook, Google and Twitter -- as I have.
(4) And show us where my reliance on the VIPS analyses of alleged Russian hacking are in fact reliance on Nunes, Hannity and Trump. If you are going to say that Hannity and Trump have lauded Bill Binney of VIPS (Nunes has not) after I cited them -- you are going to have to explain through time travel that my reliance on VIPS is reliance on Hannity and Trump.
(5) In general, explain how documented dissent from the Russiagate narrative -- where the documents do not rely on Nunes/Hannity and Trump -- constitute reliance on the talking points of Nunes/Hannity and Trump. Among my hundreds of postings on Russiagate, there might be a handful where I cited the Nunes report. If you want to lay your claim on that, be my guest.
There are many more reasons why your obsessive McCarthyite smearing that dissent from Russiagate (or criticism of Hillary) makes one a "Trumpist" but let's go over these first.
paulsurovell said:
On the matter of Jane Mayer, your quote of her actually supports what I wrote. I said nothing about whether Steele knew who he was working for when he colluded with Russian govt officials:
paulsurovell said:
Prior to the leaked emails HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele to collude with Russian government officials to create the dirty dossier of unverified dirt on Donald Trump. Steele shared the dossier with numerous journalists, including David Corn and Michael Isikoff who ran stories using the dossier's disinformation.
nohero said:
In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work.
Two comments.
1. You keep saying "HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele". They didn't. Their attorneys hired a contractor, Fusion GPS. You keep writing as if they dealt with Steele, which is why the quote undercuts what you keep writing.
2. You keep leaving out sections of my posts, and then declaring that you've refuted them. Here's the entirety of the discussion of Jane Mayer's article, where I said it was the entirety of the article which undercut your theories, and I gave two (not one) examples:
nohero said:
A good read which recounts the circumstances of Steele's work, which doesn't support the conspiracy theory you're adopting, is Jane Mayer's article about him in The New Yorker. If you're going to tell us that Jane Mayer (author of, among other works, "The Dark Side") is a "deep state" tool, that would be laughable. Some portions:
"In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work."
"Indeed, on January 18th, the staff of Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, produced a report purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton. “The truth,” Nunes said, is that Clinton “colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump, to feed it to the F.B.I. to open up an investigation into the other campaign.” Glenn Kessler, who writes the nonpartisan Fact Checker blog at the Washington Post, awarded Nunes’s statement four Pinocchios—his rating for an outright lie. “There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele,” Kessler wrote."
cramer said:
Paul - You're really not worth it.
Good advice I keep not taking.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Two comments.
On the matter of Jane Mayer, your quote of her actually supports what I wrote. I said nothing about whether Steele knew who he was working for when he colluded with Russian govt officials:
paulsurovell said:
Prior to the leaked emails HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele to collude with Russian government officials to create the dirty dossier of unverified dirt on Donald Trump. Steele shared the dossier with numerous journalists, including David Corn and Michael Isikoff who ran stories using the dossier's disinformation.
nohero said:
In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work.
1. You keep saying "HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele". They didn't. Their attorneys hired a contractor, Fusion GPS. You keep writing as if they dealt with Steele, which is why the quote undercuts what you keep writing.
Jane Mayer says there was "an arrangement" between Perkins Coie which represented HFA and the DNC, and Fusion GPS, which had contracted with Steele to collude with Russian govt officials to get dirt on Trump.
So if it makes you happy, I'll modify my statement with these three bold words:
"Prior to the leaked emails HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele through Fusion GPS to collude with Russian government officials to create the dirty dossier of unverified dirt on Donald Trump. Steele shared the dossier with numerous journalists, including David Corn and Michael Isikoff who ran stories using the dossier's disinformation."
nohero said:
2. You keep leaving out sections of my posts, and then declaring that you've refuted them. Here's the entirety of the discussion of Jane Mayer's article, where I said it was the entirety of the article which undercut your theories, and I gave two (not one) examples:
nohero said:
A good read which recounts the circumstances of Steele's work, which doesn't support the conspiracy theory you're adopting, is Jane Mayer's article about him in The New Yorker. If you're going to tell us that Jane Mayer (author of, among other works, "The Dark Side") is a "deep state" tool, that would be laughable. Some portions:
"In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work."
"Indeed, on January 18th, the staff of Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, produced a report purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton. “The truth,” Nunes said, is that Clinton “colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump, to feed it to the F.B.I. to open up an investigation into the other campaign.” Glenn Kessler, who writes the nonpartisan Fact Checker blog at the Washington Post, awarded Nunes’s statement four Pinocchios—his rating for an outright lie. “There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele,” Kessler wrote."
The second half of this quote has nothing to do with what I wrote.
For the record, I don't think Nunes ever said Hillary herself was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities. I think he said she paid Steele, through Fusion GPS, to do that. If you have evidence that Nunes said Hillary was involved in those activities, I'd like to see it.
paulsurovell said:
Two years is not enough time for the combined powers of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA and State Department to break the code of the "secret liaison relationship" between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership, and of course Michael Cohen's key role. I suspect there were hand-signals and carrier pigeons that got past the electronic and human assets of our surveillance of such matters.
Maybe in two more years?
As you’re aware, those agencies have their distractions. Maybe another month or two for Mueller, for a total of 16 or 17. (Again within a margin of error of 1.)
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:As you’re aware, those agencies have their distractions. Maybe another month or two for Mueller, for a total of 16 or 17. (Again within a margin of error of 1.)
Two years is not enough time for the combined powers of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA and State Department to break the code of the "secret liaison relationship" between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership, and of course Michael Cohen's key role. I suspect there were hand-signals and carrier pigeons that got past the electronic and human assets of our surveillance of such matters.
Maybe in two more years?
To be clear, when Mueller started his "investigation" the Russia "investigation" was nearly a year old. So that takes us up to 27 to 28 months of US intelligence assets working to break the code of the "secret liaison relationship" between Trump and the Russian leadership.
Should be noted that the campaign's security advisor Lt. Gen. Flynn (who was appointed head of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Obama) was not aware of the code, since he took the Russian ambassador's call from an obviously wiretapped phone on his cell phone.
The Whitewater investigation lasted 4+ years and wasn't as nearly as complex.
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
There is a media consensus (from Fox, WSJ to AP and CNN) that Bruce Ohr testified this week that he discussed the dirty dossier, as they were being written, in his communications with Christopher Steele.
So it appears -- pending release of the transcript -- that @South_Mountaineer's attack on Byron York's piece, which reasonably inferred such discussions (including the breakfast discussion), was another misguided missile.
South_Mountaineer said:
You're down to "reasonable inference". It's not a "reasonable inference" at all, for reasons I already wrote about above. Steele and Simpson do work for all sorts, including Russians. Byron York is making an assumption - and that's not enough for you to write that it is a fact that there's "a nefarious project of the political establishment, is being censored by the corporate media, which is the mouthpiece of the political establishment."
And by the way, what you call "One of the meetings cited in the emails was between Bruce, Nellie and Steele", was a Saturday morning breakfast.
I can't figure out which way Byron York thinks the information is flowing, by the way. I think the only thing we can be certain of is that the Trumpists have found another public servant they want to ruin so as to deflect from the President.
“Appears” and “pending” are rather flimsy veils for someone who has previously scorned anonymously sourced media consensi. If all it takes is a couple of qualifiers to elevate them, perhaps they aren’t so disreputable to begin with.
Any in favor of creating a sub-sub forum where only Paul can post? It would function like Escher's Drawing Hands, where Paul would feel the need to continuously quote and refute himself -- a series of mirrors reflecting on one another into an infinite, cascading dimness.
DaveSchmidt said:
“Appears” and “pending” are rather flimsy veils for someone who has previously scorned anonymously sourced media consensi. If all it takes is a couple of qualifiers to elevate them, perhaps they aren’t so disreputable to begin with.
However, unlike prior stories based on anonymous reports, no one is contesting these. Still, it is important to emphasize that they are anonymous.
Edited to add: Not sure if obsessed Russiagater Rep. Ted Lieu was in the hearing, but if he was, the reports are no longer anonymous.
dave said:
Any in favor of creating a sub-sub forum where only Paul can post? It would function like Escher's Drawing Hands, where Paul would feel the need to continuously quote and refute himself -- a series of mirrors reflecting on one another into an infinite, cascading dimness.
I'd be honored.
Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton:
Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion
In a thread about collusion with the Russia government to influence elections, this has to be emphasized.
(see full text and link above)
paulsurovell said:
Edited to add: Not sure if obsessed Russiagater Rep. Ted Lieu was in the hearing, but if he was, the reports are no longer anonymous.
No Democratic lawmakers attended Ohr’s private meeting with Republicans.
paulsurovell said:
Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton:
Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billionIn a thread about collusion with the Russia government to influence elections, this has to be emphasized.
(see full text and link above)
A $2.5 billion campaign loan directly from the United States? That was indeed audacious.
So we are back to the defense of Russia didn't do it and America does it too.
paulsurovell said:
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569
The exchange sheds no light on what I wrote (which was on the Magnitsky-palooza thread). It doesn't detract at all from the contemporaneous sources I described:
As I wrote before, Yeltsin had the levers of power, including state media. He also had excessive campaign spending, and the support of the oligarchs against a candidate who represented a return to the Communist system that the oligarchs didn't want to see happen. There are contemporaneous studies which attribute that combination of business support and abuse of government power to Yeltsin's victory, not Bill Clinton. Some examples:
"Russian Election Watch" in "The Russian Elections Compendium"
"Report on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation" by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe "
In pursuit of the Russian presidency: Why and how Yeltsin won the 1996 presidential election"
The last is just an abstract of an article behind an academic paywall, but the abstract sums it up: "This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."
So lots of people have their opinions. The experts and those who were on-the-ground aren't big on the "Bill Clinton did it" theory.
I note (as I did on the other thread) that you seemed not to have bothered to look at the contemporaneous sources, since if you did you would have noted a discussion of IMF funding.
As for the transcript of the call that you rely on, see next post.
paulsurovell said:
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569
So here's what they say in the transcript -
The President: Let me ask this: didn't it help you a lot when the Paris Club rescheduled Russia's debt? I thought that would have caused several billions of dollars to flow into your country.
President Yeltsin: No. It will be coming in the second half of the year. And in the first half of the year, we will only have $300 million due to conditions set by the IMF. You know when Mr. Camdessus was here I talked to him. But he said only $300 million in the first half and $1 billion in the second half. But the problem is I need money to pay pensions and wages. Without resolving this matter of pensions and wages, it will be very difficult to go into the election campaign. You know, if we could resolve this subject in a way with him providing the $2.5 billion in the first half, we could perhaps manage. Or if you could do it under your banks with Russian government guarantees.
The President: I'll check on this with the IMF and with some of our friends and see what can be done. I think this is the only way it can be done, but let me clarify this. I had understood that you would get about $1 billion from the IMF before the election.
President Yeltsin: No, no, only $300 million.
The President: I'll check.
President Yeltsin: Okay.
The President: Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution. I appreciate your flexibility. It seems to me that we're now down to a final set of issues on numbers: total numbers of armored combat vehicles to be allowed ..
"I'll check"? That's the "money quote" which "sheds light"? I think the extensive sources I provided you outweigh the "I'll check".
Did you notice the topic Clinton was moving on to? "Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution." After he finished making friendly talk with Yeltsin, Clinton moved on to a serious arms control issue. The CFE is of interest to anyone concerned about "a new Cold War", with respect to controls on the staging of conventional forces:
The Flank Agreement to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty went into effect in May 1997, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved it and President Clinton signed the resolution of ratification. The agreement retains CFE limits on tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in the Russian and Ukrainian flank zone, but applies them to a smaller area. The regions removed from the original flank zone will be subject to new constraints and additional verification and transparency measures.
Of course, Putin later withdrew from that treaty. But the exchange is important in showing the interests of the United States with respect to who runs Russia. Yeltsin was continuing discussions on conventional arms limits; the old Communist Party, if it took control, would be a problem with respect to that. This is not to say that the United States had influence within Russia (see prior post), but that the interest was more than what some have suggested (helping the oligarchs loot the country, or something like that).
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:A $2.5 billion campaign loan directly from the United States? That was indeed audacious.
Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton:
Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billionIn a thread about collusion with the Russia government to influence elections, this has to be emphasized.
(see full text and link above)
Indeed. Has this been reported by corporate media?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:The exchange sheds no light on what I wrote (which was on the Magnitsky-palooza thread). It doesn't detract at all from the contemporaneous sources I described:
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569
As I wrote before, Yeltsin had the levers of power, including state media. He also had excessive campaign spending, and the support of the oligarchs against a candidate who represented a return to the Communist system that the oligarchs didn't want to see happen. There are contemporaneous studies which attribute that combination of business support and abuse of government power to Yeltsin's victory, not Bill Clinton. Some examples:I note (as I did on the other thread) that you seemed not to have bothered to look at the contemporaneous sources, since if you did you would have noted a discussion of IMF funding.
"Russian Election Watch" in "The Russian Elections Compendium"
"Report on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation" by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe "
In pursuit of the Russian presidency: Why and how Yeltsin won the 1996 presidential election"
The last is just an abstract of an article behind an academic paywall, but the abstract sums it up: "This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."
So lots of people have their opinions. The experts and those who were on-the-ground aren't big on the "Bill Clinton did it" theory.
As for the transcript of the call that you rely on, see next post.
The "experts" you cited didn't have access to the Clinton-Yeltsin conversation, since it was classified as "Secret" until this week so your sources are actually less informed on Clinton's meddling in Russia's election because they were "contemporaneous."
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:So here's what they say in the transcript -
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569
The President: Let me ask this: didn't it help you a lot when the Paris Club rescheduled Russia's debt? I thought that would have caused several billions of dollars to flow into your country."I'll check"? That's the "money quote" which "sheds light"? I think the extensive sources I provided you outweigh the "I'll check".
President Yeltsin: No. It will be coming in the second half of the year. And in the first half of the year, we will only have $300 million due to conditions set by the IMF. You know when Mr. Camdessus was here I talked to him. But he said only $300 million in the first half and $1 billion in the second half. But the problem is I need money to pay pensions and wages. Without resolving this matter of pensions and wages, it will be very difficult to go into the election campaign. You know, if we could resolve this subject in a way with him providing the $2.5 billion in the first half, we could perhaps manage. Or if you could do it under your banks with Russian government guarantees.
The President: I'll check on this with the IMF and with some of our friends and see what can be done. I think this is the only way it can be done, but let me clarify this. I had understood that you would get about $1 billion from the IMF before the election.
President Yeltsin: No, no, only $300 million.
The President: I'll check.
President Yeltsin: Okay.
The President: Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution. I appreciate your flexibility. It seems to me that we're now down to a final set of issues on numbers: total numbers of armored combat vehicles to be allowed ..
Did you notice the topic Clinton was moving on to? "Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution." After he finished making friendly talk with Yeltsin, Clinton moved on to a serious arms control issue. The CFE is of interest to anyone concerned about "a new Cold War", with respect to controls on the staging of conventional forces:
The Flank Agreement to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty went into effect in May 1997, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved it and President Clinton signed the resolution of ratification. The agreement retains CFE limits on tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in the Russian and Ukrainian flank zone, but applies them to a smaller area. The regions removed from the original flank zone will be subject to new constraints and additional verification and transparency measures.Of course, Putin later withdrew from that treaty. But the exchange is important in showing the interests of the United States with respect to who runs Russia. Yeltsin was continuing discussions on conventional arms limits; the old Communist Party, if it took control, would be a problem with respect to that. This is not to say that the United States had influence within Russia (see prior post), but that the interest was more than what some have suggested (helping the oligarchs loot the country, or something like that).
A little more than "I'll check" -- Russian Presidential candidate begs US president for $2.5 billion for his election, and US President says he thought he was getting about $1 billion before the election, but that "I'll check on this with the IMF and with some of our friends and see what can be done."
It's not news that US Presidents discuss matters of national interest with leaders of other countries. What's news in these documents is confirmation that Bill Clinton colluded with Boris Yeltsin to influence Russia's presidential election in a very big way.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:No Democratic lawmakers attended Ohr’s private meeting with Republicans.
Edited to add: Not sure if obsessed Russiagater Rep. Ted Lieu was in the hearing, but if he was, the reports are no longer anonymous.
At least seven Republican House members traveled to Washington over the August recess for the interview. No Democratic lawmakers appeared to attend, though staff were in the room.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
May 6, 2024 at 10:11am
-
Experienced Summer Nanny Available: Thursdays & Fridays ;)
May 6, 2024 at 8:56am
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 5, 2024 at 7:35pm
-
May 5, 2024 at 11:14am
-
May 4, 2024 at 1:08pm
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
Let's look at your statement that I rely on "Nunes and Hannity Trumpist talking points."
This is a pure McCarthyite smear that makes an association that does not exist on several levels:
(1) In order to defend this statement you will have to show where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have articulated my fundamental argument that Russiagate is promoted by the DNC and corporate media -- and the military-industrial establishment to promote a new Cold War with Russia to justify increased military contracts as exemplified in the Democratic-Trump Defense boondogle lovefest.
Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have made the connection between Russiagate and the obscene defense budget.
(2) Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have challenged the premise -- as I have -- that Russia is attacking our democracy.
(3) Show us where Nunes, Hannity and Trump have challenged the allegations on Facebook, Google and Twitter -- as I have.
(4) And show us where my reliance on the VIPS analyses of alleged Russian hacking are in fact reliance on Nunes, Hannity and Trump. If you are going to say that Hannity and Trump have lauded Bill Binney of VIPS (Nunes has not) after I cited them -- you are going to have to explain through time travel that my reliance on VIPS is reliance on Hannity and Trump.
(5) In general, explain how documented dissent from the Russiagate narrative -- where the documents do not rely on Nunes/Hannity and Trump -- constitute reliance on the talking points of Nunes/Hannity and Trump. Among my hundreds of postings on Russiagate, there might be a handful where I cited the Nunes report. If you want to lay your claim on that, be my guest.
There are many more reasons why your obsessive McCarthyite smearing that dissent from Russiagate (or criticism of Hillary) makes one a "Trumpist" but let's go over these first.
Part 2:
On the matter of Jane Mayer, your quote of her actually supports what I wrote. I said nothing about whether Steele knew who he was working for when he colluded with Russian govt officials: