Tons of info to discuss here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html

Timeline:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-trump-election-timeline.html

I just scanned the Timeline and looked at the

Glossary of People,
Groups and Organizations

Guess who's not included? Christopher Steele.

It's a Soviet-style document that airbrushes out anyone who undermines the narrative.

paulsurovell said:
I just scanned the Timeline and looked at the

Glossary of People,
Groups and Organizations

Guess who's not included? Christopher Steele.
It's a Soviet-style document that airbrushes out anyone who undermines the narrative.

If you didn't read the narrative, how can you criticize it for not mentioning Steele?

What role did Steele play IN THE ELECTION?  What role did Steele play in the events in the timeline?  Where in the timeline would you put Steele, in light of what the timeline is about?  Hint:  see the title of the timeline ("A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia’s Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath") for help in figuring that out.

Wow, those Trump-defending talking points are getting lamer and lamer all the time.  I think Mr. Surovell should complain to the supplier.

[Edited to add nitpicking comment] - When you write that you "scanned" the timeline, which did you mean?  Did you "look at all parts carefully in order to detect some feature" or "look quickly but not very thoroughly"? If it's the latter, less favored definition, your mistake in parroting the talking point is more explainable.

Looks to me like Steele didn't need to "undermine" the narrative.  Trump and his cohorts were able fill in the timeline all by themselves.

paulsurovell said:

Guess who's not included? Christopher Steele.

You gave it away too soon. I was going to guess Bo Belinsky. I always guess Bo Belinsky.

paulsurovell said:
I just scanned the Timeline and looked at the

Glossary of People,
Groups and Organizations

Guess who's not included? Christopher Steele.
It's a Soviet-style document that airbrushes out anyone who undermines the narrative.

 That's not all.  The Timeline ignores how Hillary colluded with the Russians to feed Christopher Steele the material for the dirty dossier, and got him to work with Bruce Ohr to get Oleg Deripaska to engineer the Trump Tower meeting in order to entrap Donald Jr., who only wanted to help the orphans.

The New York Times as Judge and Jury: Seeking to maintain its credibility, The New York Times dispenses with the criminal justice system and basic principles of journalism to weigh in again on Russia-gate

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/09/21/the-new-york-times-as-judge-and-jury/

They claim to have a “mountain of evidence” but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.

With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election—the central Russia-gate charge—the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made—deceptively presented as though it’s all been proven.

This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.

The Times’ unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later:

“What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.”

But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that “no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump’s] campaign conspired with Russia.”

The Times also adds: “There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved.”

This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be “proved or disproved” what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?

Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.

There is a lot of detail in this article so be sure to click on the link.  

On the other hand, I may be missing the forest for the trees, as this article points out the major point of the Times piece is that they finally admitted that there is NO EVIDENCE of Russian Collusion"

NYT Admits “no evidence” of Russian Collusion.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/21/nyt-admits-no-evidence-of-russian-collusion/

The Times article was not about collusion - you only need to read the title: The Plot to Subvert an Election 

jamie said:
The Times article was not about collusion - you only need to read the title: The Plot to Subvert an Election 

 Subverting an election is collusion too:

For proof, and just in case they take it down, here’s the screen cap they took over at Moon of Alabama:

Right there in black-and-white. There are other words, of course, thousands of them, a quarter of a novel. All designed to blow smoke over this para and give the opposite impression without actually lying. But none of the others matter: these 20 words prove Russiagate is fake, and that the NYT knows it and just hopes its readers don’t catch on. That para is basically a full on admission that everything else in the article is filler and pulp and gossip and nonsense.

What we’ve been saying, all along, is finally an admitted fact in the mainstream media.

Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  

The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 That quote is from the article you posted.  Did you not read it?   They don't state that Trump colluded with Russia.  They state that, "Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money. "

They admit they have nothing, which is rare for the MSM, even buried in an article on a related topic.  Of course they publish a huge article anyway on something else they don't have evidence on.  Everything in the article is qualified with phrases like "it appeared" or "plausible case" to try to make it look legit. 

Sad to say, the New York Times is becoming pathetic and more like the National Enquirer circa 1975 every day.  

nan said:

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 That quote is from the article you posted.  Did you not read it?   They don't state that Trump colluded with Russia.  They state that, "Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money. "
They admit they have nothing, which is rare for the MSM, even buried in an article on a related topic.  Of course they publish a huge article anyway on something else they don't have evidence on.  Everything in the article is qualified with phrases like "it appeared" or "plausible case" to try to make it look legit. 
Sad to say, the New York Times is becoming pathetic and more like the National Enquirer circa 1975 every day.  

 "He is right that no public evidence has emerged" is NOT the same as "It didn't happen".  that's why investigations are conducted.  That's why anybody saying, "Nothing found yet, which means there's nothing there, which means it's a witch hunt" should not be listened to.

There is an investigation going on, and we all know that Mueller has not be "leaking" or otherwise showing his hand.  There's not a good reason to stop it.

nohero said:

nan said:

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 That quote is from the article you posted.  Did you not read it?   They don't state that Trump colluded with Russia.  They state that, "Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money. "
They admit they have nothing, which is rare for the MSM, even buried in an article on a related topic.  Of course they publish a huge article anyway on something else they don't have evidence on.  Everything in the article is qualified with phrases like "it appeared" or "plausible case" to try to make it look legit. 
Sad to say, the New York Times is becoming pathetic and more like the National Enquirer circa 1975 every day.  

 "He is right that no public evidence has emerged" is NOT the same as "It didn't happen".  that's why investigations are conducted.  That's why anybody saying, "Nothing found yet, which means there's nothing there, which means it's a witch hunt" should not be listened to.
There is an investigation going on, and we all know that Mueller has not be "leaking" or otherwise showing his hand.  There's not a good reason to stop it.

 Yes, it's possible it happened and let them look all they want.  Kinda not looking good at this point, though. Would not be holding my breath.  Also, don't like the intensification of Cold War 2.0 in the meantime. It allows fake stories like Bill Browder (excuse for unneeded sanctions) and other propaganda (as in huge stories in major newspapers pretending to have evidence) to fester and proliferate. So, there is a down side to this and that needs to be managed.  Also, the Democrats continuing to blame the Russians for Hillary's loss--is not making people want to vote for them. Makes them looks like idiots.  

nan said:

Also, the Democrats continuing to blame the Russians for Hillary's loss--is not making people want to vote for them. Makes them looks like idiots.  

 So don't vote for them if that's your only take-away.  Lots of us aren't agnostic about Democratic vs. Republican policies being put into effect.

nohero said:

nan said:Also, the Democrats continuing to blame the Russians for Hillary's loss--is not making people want to vote for them. Makes them looks like idiots.  

 So don't vote for them if that's your only take-away.  Lots of us aren't agnostic about Democratic vs. Republican policies being put into effect.

 You want them to win, right?  Would help their case better if they focused on the things people need rather than Russia.  Russia is not the reason we have huge wealth inequality and no healthcare. Trump is not responsible for those things either, although he is not going to fix them.

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 Here's the introduction to the Timeline:

It’s easy to lose the larger narrative of the Trump-Russia story given the relentless pace and complexity of the news. Stepping back to view the timeline from beginning to end reveals how these parallel threads — contacts, hacking and social media fraud — often crossed during the election. Campaign aides who denied knowledge of Russian contacts were later revealed to have either known about them or pursued them, though none ever told the F.B.I.

and?

There appears to be a story there.  For those who don’t see that there’s something there are in denial.  

nohero said:

nan said:

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 That quote is from the article you posted.  Did you not read it?   They don't state that Trump colluded with Russia.  They state that, "Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money. "
They admit they have nothing, which is rare for the MSM, even buried in an article on a related topic.  Of course they publish a huge article anyway on something else they don't have evidence on.  Everything in the article is qualified with phrases like "it appeared" or "plausible case" to try to make it look legit. 
Sad to say, the New York Times is becoming pathetic and more like the National Enquirer circa 1975 every day.  

 "He is right that no public evidence has emerged" is NOT the same as "It didn't happen".  that's why investigations are conducted.  That's why anybody saying, "Nothing found yet, which means there's nothing there, which means it's a witch hunt" should not be listened to.
There is an investigation going on, and we all know that Mueller has not be "leaking" or otherwise showing his hand.  There's not a good reason to stop it.

 I'll just mention again that the Steele dossier -- which mainstream media assures us has been verified -- says that Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Manafort has "flipped" and has told all to Mueller, but in Manafort's plea deal, Mueller didn't charge Manafort with managing the conspiracy, or even mention it as part of the factual background of the plea deal.

So shouldn't we demand an apology from every Russia-Trump collusion propagandist who has told his/her audience that the Steele dossier has been verified?

I can't even....

would you like the source(s) from the dossier exposed - even if it endangers the source and his family and jeopardizes cooperation from all future sources?

nan said:

 Subverting an election is collusion too:

Quoted material deserves attribution. The material in the post excerpted above is from a group of media watchdogs called OffGuardian.

jamie said:
There appears to be a story there.  For those who don’t see that there’s something there are in denial.  

But earlier you said

jamie said:

The Times article was not about collusion - you only need to read the title: The Plot to Subvert an Election

But the Timeline says it's about the Trump-Russia story. So are you saying that the Trump-Russia story is not about collusion?  That would be a major breakthrough.

nan said:

jamie said:
Ok, I'm missing it - where in the Times article did they state that Trump colluded with Russia?  
The article documented Russian interference with the election.  True is does mention contact between Russians and Trump associates - but that's about it.

 That quote is from the article you posted.  Did you not read it?   They don't state that Trump colluded with Russia.  

 Again the article wasn't Trump Colluded with Russia - stop putting words in the mouth of me and the Times.

Had this timeline been put out by RT - you would be linking to it to no end.

It's the timeline - that you really need to address, but you can't, so you attack the source.  It's the RT's MO. 

paulsurovell said:

 I'll just mention again that the Steele dossier -- which mainstream media assures us has been verified -- says that Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Manafort has "flipped" and has told all to Mueller, but in Manafort's plea deal, Mueller didn't charge Manafort with managing the conspiracy, or even mention it as part of the factual background of the plea deal.

So shouldn't we demand an apology from every Russia-Trump collusion propagandist who has told his/her audience that the Steele dossier has been verified?

 No, because we're talking in circles, and there's an entire back-and-forth on this on another thread here in the "Russia-related" cornfield, and just moving the same argument to a different thread doesn't make anybody's response to it magically disappear. 

paulsurovell said:

So shouldn't we demand an apology from every Russia-Trump collusion propagandist who has told his/her audience that the Steele dossier has been verified?

Who, MSM or otherwise, has assured us that all of the dossier has been verified?

I personally verified the Steele dossier.

In fact, it was my idea to go with 'dossier' rather than 'report'. 

dave said:
I personally verified the Steele dossier.

It's all more clear now.  Trump was right!  “Hillary Clinton’s Emails, many of which are Classified Information, got hacked by China. Next move better be by the FBI & DOJ or, after all of their other missteps (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA, Dirty Dossier etc.), their credibility will be forever gone!” 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump/trump-without-evidence-blames-china-for-hacking-clinton-emails-idUSKCN1LE0BS