The Russia Hoax - Not

Kind of curious how far down the hole Paul's gone. For instance, how would he describe last January's events at the Capitol?


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Doesn't explain why "Russian hacking" is mis-reported as "fact".

Or why online commenters state that findings of Russian interference or of, say, Syrian chemical bombings are in fact hoaxes.

It couldn't. No New Yorker article has informed its readers about dissenting views on alleged Russian interference (not even the Kravis testimony cited above) or of the OPCW whistleblowers and truth-seekers like Daniel Ellsberg who have challenged the allegation of Syrian chemical weapons use in Douma. That information is censored at the New Yorker.

https://couragefound.org/2021/03/statement-of-concern-the-opcw-investigation-of-alleged-chemical-weapons-use-in-douma-syria/


PVW said:

Kind of curious how far down the hole Paul's gone. For instance, how would he describe last January's events at the Capitol?

Sorry to see that you consider fact-based rebuttal a "hole". You might step outside of your mindset for a second and consider whether you are the one in a "hole".

As far as the January events, they were crimes against democracy. Does that keep me in your imagined "hole"?


paulsurovell said:

Sorry to see that you consider fact-based rebuttal a "hole". You might step outside of your mindset for a second and consider whether you are the one in a "hole".

As far as the January events, they were crimes against democracy. Does that keep me in your imagined "hole"?

Helps set a depth.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Sorry to see that you consider fact-based rebuttal a "hole". You might step outside of your mindset for a second and consider whether you are the one in a "hole".

As far as the January events, they were crimes against democracy. Does that keep me in your imagined "hole"?

Helps set a depth.

Did you become the hole monitor when I was away?


The ground was already pretty unstable while you were here. Since you left, all kinds of chasms have appeared and all sorts of people have fallen in -- some you expect, some you're surprised by. Perilous times.


PVW said:

The ground was already pretty unstable while you were here. Since you left, all kinds of chasms have appeared and all sorts of people have fallen in -- some you expect, some you're surprised by. Perilous times.

Interesting. Who fell in?


paulsurovell said:

Interesting. Who fell in?

Let's see, you were here last... back at the end of 2019 looks like. The pandemic is one of the big, obvious things that's happened since then, and that's caused me to revise some of my understanding human nature. We've long had a problem with polarization and information silos, but I thought, surely, a worldwide event that we are all experiencing together would counter this -- that reality would overwhelm our narratives. It hasn't really worked out that way -- in some of the areas where the pandemic has hit the hardest we also see some of the strongest denials of its reality. So that's one.

And as I already alluded to, we've seen Trump's followers continue their descent to now accepting violent attacks on their political opponents as legitimate. It's one thing to hear Trump claim he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and not lose any votes -- it's quite another to see Trump falsely claim a stolen election and watch a mob of his supporters literally storm the Capitol seeking to capture or kill political enemies. Already with Trump it was surprising to see people jumping on the anti-anti-Trump train; I'm unsure how many of those got off and how many are still riding along in the name of fighting the deep state or whatever.

It's one thing for people to disagree, even strongly, on issues, but now we can't even seem to agree on whether there's actually a deadly virus killing people and many seem fine with deadly violence against their fellow citizens if they vote in a way they don't like.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Interesting. Who fell in?

Let's see, you were here last... back at the end of 2019 looks like. The pandemic is one of the big, obvious things that's happened since then, and that's caused me to revise some of my understanding human nature. We've long had a problem with polarization and information silos, but I thought, surely, a worldwide event that we are all experiencing together would counter this -- that reality would overwhelm our narratives. It hasn't really worked out that way -- in some of the areas where the pandemic has hit the hardest we also see some of the strongest denials of its reality. So that's one.

And as I already alluded to, we've seen Trump's followers continue their descent to now accepting violent attacks on their political opponents as legitimate. It's one thing to hear Trump claim he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and not lose any votes -- it's quite another to see Trump falsely claim a stolen election and watch a mob of his supporters literally storm the Capitol seeking to capture or kill political enemies. Already with Trump it was surprising to see people jumping on the anti-anti-Trump train; I'm unsure how many of those got off and how many are still riding along in the name of fighting the deep state or whatever.

It's one thing for people to disagree, even strongly, on issues, but now we can't even seem to agree on whether there's actually a deadly virus killing people and many seem fine with deadly violence against their fellow citizens if they vote in a way they don't like.

What does this have to do with your suggestion that I've "gone down a hole"?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/the-russia-hoax-not?page=next&limit=60#discussion-replies-3561944


We mainly talk about Russia when Paul is here - otherwise not so much.


jamie said:

We mainly talk about Russia when Paul is here - otherwise not so much.

Well, there's this thread , . . 


ml1 said:

there were people here saying there was ZERO evidence of connections between Russians and the Trump campaign.  Absolutely nothing they said.  A hoax completely made up of whole cloth.

My position was always agnostic.  I never believed and still don't believe that Trump himself was being directed by Russian intelligence.  But I believed there was enough evidence to launch an investigation.  And there were people who didn't even believe the contacts should be investigated.

I think at this point, the minimum is that there was probable cause for an investigation.  So NOT zero evidence, not a fantasy, not a hoax, not made up.

reading through the first page of comments in this thread I just wanted to say I totally agree with this.


Sometimes they just let it slip ... 


Ha.  Like the time Biden let one slip in front of the Royal family!




I would rather hear someone with empathy let one slip or stutter, than speak clearly with malice…


And he's at it again.  But a hoax, no.


Steve said:

And he's at it again.  But a hoax, no.

Let's go to the video - 


paulsurovell said:

Funny, that Russiagate media reports Russian hacking as fact, not as "there were indicators of exfiltration according to Crowdstrike, a firm hired by DNC operative Michael Sussman, who was indicted for lying to the FBI about his role in the fabrication of the Alfa Bank story".

On the ICA "assessment," here's your timely reminder that before Russiagate propaganda reached the point where allegations were reported as fact, the initial NYT reaction to the ICA report (probably its last intellectually honest reporting on Russiagate) was as (see below).

Edited to add: Also, waiting for comments about the Kravis testimony.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/sussmann-verdict/index.html


jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

Funny, that Russiagate media reports Russian hacking as fact, not as "there were indicators of exfiltration according to Crowdstrike, a firm hired by DNC operative Michael Sussman, who was indicted for lying to the FBI about his role in the fabrication of the Alfa Bank story".

On the ICA "assessment," here's your timely reminder that before Russiagate propaganda reached the point where allegations were reported as fact, the initial NYT reaction to the ICA report (probably its last intellectually honest reporting on Russiagate) was as (see below).

Edited to add: Also, waiting for comments about the Kravis testimony.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/sussmann-verdict/index.html

What's Paul going to do with all of his John Durham votive candles now?


And Mtierney.  She must be shattered.


nohero said:

What's Paul going to do with all of his John Durham votive candles now?

According to this lawyer,  Sussmann had the jury stacked in his favor.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/20/tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/


nan said:

According to this lawyer,  Sussmann had the jury stacked in his favor.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/20/tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

LOL - naturally!  And the CIA probably planned it!


nan said:

nohero said:

What's Paul going to do with all of his John Durham votive candles now?

According to this lawyer,  Sussmann had the jury stacked in his favor.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/20/tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

First of all Turley is about the worst legal hack on the planet.

Second of all, I assume you are aware that the jury was approved by Durham's prosecutor, right? If he allowed it to be "stacked", that's only a further example of Durham's incompetence.


Here's a good rundown on why the "Russia Hoax" is just bullshoot.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r

ETA: if I posted this already, sorry.


nan said:

nohero said:

What's Paul going to do with all of his John Durham votive candles now?

According to this lawyer,  Sussmann had the jury stacked in his favor.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/20/tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

Also, how exactly does the defendant in a case manage to stack the jury in his favor?

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard this week.


drummerboy said:

Here's a good rundown on why the "Russia Hoax" is just bullshoot.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r

ETA: if I posted this already, sorry.

Jonathan Rauch??????   Seriously lame Bookings Institute -- not going to get any insight from that guy. 


drummerboy said:

Also, how exactly does the defendant in a case manage to stack the jury in his favor?

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard this week.

Actually that is a good question.  I think there is more to know.  But, even if the guy got "not guilty" it does not prove anything about Trump related to Russia.  It just means the guy who made crap up got away with it. No one was ever able to verify anything he came up with--it was just fodder for Rachel Maddow to earn her high emotional fanfare 30K a day.


nan said:

drummerboy said:

Here's a good rundown on why the "Russia Hoax" is just bullshoot.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r

ETA: if I posted this already, sorry.

Jonathan Rauch??????   Seriously lame Bookings Institute -- not going to get any insight from that guy. 

sure. attack the man instead of what he says. how easy for you. requires no thinking on your part.

and this, from someone (you) who cites Turley, who has been wrong about everything for the past 5 years, at least.

also, the fact that you apparently think that Durham is acting in good faith and not as a political hit man shows exactly how desperate you are. The Sussman case was ridiculous from the beginning. And after 3 years, all Durham's got is a bogus lying to the FBI charge? It's such a joke, but you've bought into it.

This is not a good look for you.


nan said:

Actually that is a good question.  I think there is more to know.  But, even if the guy got "not guilty" it does not prove anything about Trump related to Russia.  It just means the guy who made crap up got away with it. No one was ever able to verify anything he came up with--it was just fodder for Rachel Maddow to earn her high emotional fanfare 30K a day.

Oh look! Our resident crackpot conspiracy theorist is back!


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertisement

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Latest Jobs

Employment Wanted

Help Wanted

Lessons/Instruction