Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless

jamie said:

I think Paul believes that there is Russian interference - but it's not too different from what we do in other elections.


I think his point of view is very similar to Trumps when Trump said the following:

O’Reilly: “He’s a killer, though…Putin’s a killer.”

Trump: “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Just substitute hacker for killer.

Got it.

DaveSchmidt said:

I was referring to all who have reached their own conclusions before the investigators have done their jobs. For cases like those, I say keep the dissenting views coming, no matter which side they come from. Toes that need to be kept on, and all that -- the opposite of accepting "no need to investigate anything." (A claim that Paul, for one, hasn't made, as far as I can recall.)

Paul has questioned why there is an investigation. 

"The only investigation that is rational and makes sense is an investigation about why there is an investigation." 

https://twitter.com/paulsurove...

paulsurovell said:

I would think that if the investigation was based on evidence of collusion then James Clapper and Diane Feinstein, who have access to classified evidence would not have said they haven't seen evidence of collusion.

As previously discussed, you are reading too much into Senator Feinstein's actual words, especially as her actual words, in response to a question, were "Not at this time".

As for Clapper, don't put your eggs in that basket.

Now we have former director of national intelligence James Clapper telling NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in an interview that he never exonerated Trump of collusion, as Trump claimed. Morale at the FBI was high, contrary to Trump’s claim. And he could not conceive of Comey telling Trump about the status of an investigation while discussing his job. “I would find that very inconsistent with what I know of Jim Comey,” Clapper said.”Moreover, anyone who’s in a position that’s subject to Senate confirmation — presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, which his is, mine was — understands that you serve at the pleasure of,” Clapper said, trailing off.  “And it would really be, I think, inappropriate, and certainly in Jim’s case, out of character, for him to ask to stay on,” he continued. “I couldn’t imagine doing that myself, nor can I imagine him doing that either.”

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

I would think that if the investigation was based on evidence of collusion then James Clapper and Diane Feinstein, who have access to classified evidence would not have said they haven't seen evidence of collusion.

As previously discussed, you are reading too much into Senator Feinstein's actual words, especially as her actual words, in response to a question, were "Not at this time".

As for Clapper, don't put your eggs in that basket.

Now we have former director of national intelligence James Clapper telling NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in an interview that he never exonerated Trump of collusion, as Trump claimed. Morale at the FBI was high, contrary to Trump’s claim. And he could not conceive of Comey telling Trump about the status of an investigation while discussing his job. “I would find that very inconsistent with what I know of Jim Comey,” Clapper said.”Moreover, anyone who’s in a position that’s subject to Senate confirmation — presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, which his is, mine was — understands that you serve at the pleasure of,” Clapper said, trailing off.  “And it would really be, I think, inappropriate, and certainly in Jim’s case, out of character, for him to ask to stay on,” he continued. “I couldn’t imagine doing that myself, nor can I imagine him doing that either.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Nothing in your post detracts from the facts that:

(a) Feinstein said she was not aware of any evidence of collusion

(b) Clapper said he was not aware of any evidence of collusion.

In fact, there have been no examples of collusion provided by anyone. Unless you can tell us about some.  Or even one.

It's a bit early for evidence of collusion. That's what investigations are for, after all.

Does the focus on collusion mean we've accepted Russian meddling in the election? Even Tillerson has accepted it.

paulsurovell said:

Nothing in your post detracts from the facts that:

(a) Feinstein said she was not aware of any evidence of collusion

(b) Clapper said he was not aware of any evidence of collusion.

In fact, there have been no examples of collusion provided by anyone. Unless you can tell us about some.  Or even one.

My comment was about your statement:  "I would think that if the investigation was based on evidence of collusion then James Clapper and Diane Feinstein, who have access to classified evidence would not have said they haven't seen evidence of collusion."  Obviously, Clapper specifically said that nobody should make that assumption.  And Feinstein's actual statement doesn't support your assumption, either.

As I've written, I think the investigation should continue, and my opinion is valid without providing you with an example of collusion.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

Nothing in your post detracts from the facts that:

(a) Feinstein said she was not aware of any evidence of collusion

(b) Clapper said he was not aware of any evidence of collusion.

In fact, there have been no examples of collusion provided by anyone. Unless you can tell us about some.  Or even one.

My comment was about your statement:  "I would think that if the investigation was based on evidence of collusion then James Clapper and Diane Feinstein, who have access to classified evidence would not have said they haven't seen evidence of collusion."  Obviously, Clapper specifically said that nobody should make that assumption.  And Feinstein's actual statement doesn't support your assumption, either.

As I've written, I think the investigation should continue, and my opinion is valid without providing you with an example of collusion.

In other words, it's a fishing expedition, not an investigation about something that happened.

Paul - should Trump have kept Flynn?  Was that a nothing Russian connection?

The Russians interfered in the election much in the same way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

jamie said:

Paul - should Trump have kept Flynn?  Was that a nothing Russian connection?

I'm glad that Flynn is gone because we'd probably be at war with Iran now. As far as his conversation with the Russian ambassador, I'd like to see the transcript before opining on whether it was improper.

hmmmm - the opposite of right. anti-correct. negated-truth.

terp said:

The Russians interfered in the election much in the same way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

terp said:

The Russians interfered in the election much in the same way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

The Russians have interfered in every US election since the 1920s. It's the idea that the Russians wouldn't interfere in the US election that's ridiculous.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

As I've written, I think the investigation should continue, and my opinion is valid without providing you with an example of collusion.

In other words, it's a fishing expedition, not an investigation about something that happened.

Those are other words, which are your words.  My post had different words and a different meaning.

Remember the old "Columbo" series?  The plot had a basic formula.  The criminal was always some rich, connected guy who thought he had committed the perfect crime.  His ego usually made him think he was toying with Lieutenant Columbo, who keeps coming around with questions, although he doesn't have any evidence.  At some point the murderer wants Columbo to stop with the questions, and then complains that Columbo is on a "fishing expedition", or words to that effect.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

Paul - should Trump have kept Flynn?  Was that a nothing Russian connection?

I'm glad that Flynn is gone because we'd probably be at war with Iran now. As far as his conversation with the Russian ambassador, I'd like to see the transcript before opining on whether it was improper.

It was something that Flynn himself did not not want to mention, whatever a "transcript" might have on it.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

As I've written, I think the investigation should continue, and my opinion is valid without providing you with an example of collusion.

In other words, it's a fishing expedition, not an investigation about something that happened.

Those are other words, which are your words.  My post had different words and a different meaning.

Remember the old "Columbo" series?  The plot had a basic formula.  The criminal was always some rich, connected guy who thought he had committed the perfect crime.  His ego usually made him think he was toying with Lieutenant Columbo, who keeps coming around with questions, although he doesn't have any evidence.  At some point the murderer wants Columbo to stop with the questions, and then complains that Columbo is on a "fishing expedition", or words to that effect.

You know, fishing expeditions do exist in the real world, as well as in fiction.

ridski said:

terp said:

The Russians interfered in the election much in the same way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

The Russians have interfered in every US election since the 1920s. It's the idea that the Russians wouldn't interfere in the US election that's ridiculous.

And vice versa.

I'm having a little trouble comparing anyone in the cast in Washington to Patrick McGoohan.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Remember the old "Columbo" series?  The plot had a basic formula.  The criminal was always some rich, connected guy who thought he had committed the perfect crime.  His ego usually made him think he was toying with Lieutenant Columbo, who keeps coming around with questions, although he doesn't have any evidence.  At some point the murderer wants Columbo to stop with the questions, and then complains that Columbo is on a "fishing expedition", or words to that effect.

You know, fishing expeditions do exist in the real world, as well as in fiction.

Sure, and just as in fiction, in the real world an investigation derided as a "fishing expedition" can be on to something.

Post edited to add "just one more thing" -

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

terp said:

The Russians interfered in the election much in the same way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

The Russians have interfered in every US election since the 1920s. It's the idea that the Russians wouldn't interfere in the US election that's ridiculous.

And vice versa.

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

paulsurovell said:
And vice versa.

At least you finally acknowledge that it happened.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
And vice versa.

At least you finally acknowledge that it happened.

It depends on what you mean by "it."

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
And vice versa.

At least you finally acknowledge that it happened.

It depends on what you mean by "it."

Yes I suppose it does.

photo from the recent closed door Russian delegation visit to the WH:

Excellent article by Paul Mulshine in today's Star-Ledger:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/inde...

paulsurovell said:

Excellent article by Paul Mulshine in today's Star-Ledger:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/inde...

"It's our No. 1 threat as well, he said. There's no reason to think terrorists aren't plotting to attack our subways. Yet politicians of both parties are obsessed with ginning up hatred of the Russians."

But ginning up fear of terrorism? No problem with that, apparently.

bub said:

photo from the recent closed door Russian delegation visit to the WH:

Scene from Dr. Strangelove is a great parody on Russia paranoia then and now:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

photo from the recent closed door Russian delegation visit to the WH:

Scene from Dr. Strangelove is a great parody on Russia paranoia then and now:

Of course, for those of us who have watched and enjoyed the movie (multiple times), we know that in the end the Russian did have a little camera, down by his ankle as I recall.

What "Dr. Strangelove" was satirizing has nothing to do with discussions of this investigation.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

photo from the recent closed door Russian delegation visit to the WH:

Scene from Dr. Strangelove is a great parody on Russia paranoia then and now:

Of course, for those of us who have watched and enjoyed the movie (multiple times), we know that in the end the Russian did have a little camera, down by his ankle as I recall.

What "Dr. Strangelove" was satirizing has nothing to do with discussions of this investigation.

Putin and Oliver Stone watched "Dr Strangelove" as part of Stone's upcoming 4-hour interview with Putin.

And there's this:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Of course, for those of us who have watched and enjoyed the movie (multiple times), we know that in the end the Russian did have a little camera, down by his ankle as I recall.

What "Dr. Strangelove" was satirizing has nothing to do with discussions of this investigation.

Putin and Oliver Stone watched "Dr Strangelove" as part of Stone's upcoming 4-hour interview with Putin.

And there's this:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

If Oliver Stone thought that sharing "Dr. Strangelove" with a former KGB agent who served in East Germany during the Cold War, to get his reaction, that's interesting.  Nothing to do with the topic.

As for your "newsbusters.org" reference to support yourself - the article was mocking a newspaper about a different issue.  Sure, Russians with cameras invited into an "inner sanctum" (in this case, the Oval Office) does prompt that reference.  Sure, it's a funny reference, but that's all it is.  Nothing to do with the investigation, which started before that.

As you know, "newsbusters.org", which is run by Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, proudly proclaims their mission as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias".  They are trying all sorts of ways to dismiss criticism of Trump.

I am glad that you found them as someone supporting your efforts.  I am sure they would appreciate your small contributions, if they knew.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Of course, for those of us who have watched and enjoyed the movie (multiple times), we know that in the end the Russian did have a little camera, down by his ankle as I recall.

What "Dr. Strangelove" was satirizing has nothing to do with discussions of this investigation.

Putin and Oliver Stone watched "Dr Strangelove" as part of Stone's upcoming 4-hour interview with Putin.

And there's this:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

If Oliver Stone thought that sharing "Dr. Strangelove" with a former KGB agent who served in East Germany during the Cold War, to get his reaction, that's interesting.  Nothing to do with the topic.

As for your "newsbusters.org" reference to support yourself - the article was mocking a newspaper about a different issue.  Sure, Russians with cameras invited into an "inner sanctum" (in this case, the Oval Office) does prompt that reference.  Sure, it's a funny reference, but that's all it is.  Nothing to do with the investigation, which started before that.

As you know, "newsbusters.org", which is run by Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, proudly proclaims their mission as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias".  They are trying all sorts of ways to dismiss criticism of Trump.

I am glad that you found them as someone supporting your efforts.  I am sure they would appreciate your small contributions, if they knew.

You've been in denial from Day One of the Russia story (when Hillary's team scrambled to distract attention from the contents of the DNC emails) that demonization of Russia increases the risk of nuclear war.  Dr. Strangelove is a parody that portrays American arrogance, paranoia toward Russia and indifference to the risk of nuclear war.  These same qualities are driving today's Russia story, and parallels with Dr. Strangelove are manifest.

I'll give you credit for consistency -- you've attacked every rebuttal or question of the Democratic-Neocon-MSM-Russia-story with the same diversion -- you are "helping Trump," "helping Putin," or (as in this case) "helping Brent Bozell's Media Center."

There's a Democratic/Neocon/MSM campaign to promote a new Cold War that employs the methods of the old Cold War and McCarthyism to intimidate dissent. Unfortunately, you've swallowed it -- hook, line and sinker.