Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
Active Measures is one of the best documentaries I've seen this year and really ties everything together with Trump's money laundering empire and ties with the Russian mafia. Lots of primary source interviews. A must see.
nan said:
nohero said:Not surprised you can't figure this out by yourself.
nohero said:
I'm waiting for "plaid shirt guy" to be linked to Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Bruce McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr (and, of course, the Russian oligarchs that Bill Browder is working with), as part of the grand conspiracy against Trump.
nan said:Which of the others does he have "nothing to do with", or can't you say?
Plaid shirt guy is a social democrat and has nothing to do with Bill Browder.
[Edited to add] I understand completely if you can only speak to the Bill Browder conspiracies, and are leaving the conspiracies involving the others for Mr. Surovell to update us on. There are just too many conspiracies for only one person to be responsible for here on MOL.
Remember this the next time you accuse someone of personally attacking you
dave said:
Active Measures is one of the best documentaries I've seen this year and really ties everything together with Trump's money laundering empire and ties with the Russian mafia. Lots of primary source interviews. A must see.
Yes, lots of interviews. I'm about half way through and so far this is how they rack up:
LIst of Speakers in the film who are neocons or intelligence community or anti-Putin authors.
Alina Polyakova (Brookings)
Evan McMullin (CIA)
Clint Watts (FBI)
Hillary Clinton, neocon
Jeremy Bash (CIA)
Steven Hall (CIA)
Richard Fontaine (Center for American Security)--worked for McCain, neocon
Heather Conly, Author of Kremlin Playbook (philosphy behind neo-McCarthysism; https://www.truthdig.com/articles/beware-of-the-new-mccarthyism/)
Jonathan Winer (guy who got the anti-Browder film and book suppressed) neocon
Amb. Daniel Fried (1977-1917) neocon
Toomas Hendrik Ilves (Presid Estonia 2006-2016) - a neocon
Michael McFaul (U.S Ambassador to Russia 2012-2014) - neocon assoc. with Hoover Instiut.
Steven Pifer (U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine 1997-2000) - neocon
James Woolsy (CIA head, 1993-1995)
John McCain, neocon
Molly McKew (war lobbyist) - neocon
Sheldon Whitehouse, (democratic senator and neocon--pall bearer at McCain’s funeral
Craig Unger, anti-Putin author, who has not traveled to Russia and uses 3rd hand info to write scandalous book: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/aug/20/house-of-trump-house-of-putin-by-craig-unger-review (not calling it fake, but questionable)
Michael Isakov, author of dumb Russiagate book that accepts Browder story as true and other things without evidence (see interview of him with Aron Mate).
Erik Swawell (D,House, from California) Russiagate nut who thinks Russian behavior is an act of war.
Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, 2004-2013 - presenting disputed version of Russia-Georgia invasion.
Jeremy Bash (CIA, Chief of Staff, 2009-2011)
Asha Rangappa (FBI)
LIst of Speakers (2) in the film who are not neocons or intelligence community talking heads (at least that I tell--they might be).
Scott Horton (International Law professor and Human Rights - Columbia Law School) Says Russia poisoned a journalist--has been disputed.
Nina Burleigh, Newsweek correspondent (giving overview of Trump’s history and has theory that the Czechoslovakian government (Ivanka’s country) wanted him to run for president in 1988.
This movie, which should be viewed with extreme skepticism, presents Russia as the intelligence community wants you to see it. It also tries to increase anxiety about Russia in general and tells you that there are thousands of Russian agents infiltrating us and that anyone could be one. That's an old tactic, updated.
Yes - heaven forbid members of the "intelligence community" speak about Russia.
We need more voices of reason - like Sputnik News.
How many of them are conspiracy theorists?
I meant how many of the speakers in the film are known conspiracy theorists?
Not how many at Sputnik.
paulsurovell said:
The FBI had an ongoing relationship with Steele during the creation of his dossier, with information going in both directions. Ohr was part of that.
There's a good theory about why Bruce Ohr is a target, and it's not because of the dossier. A column in this morning's New York Times discusses Trump's business dealings and how they relate to his attacks on law enforcement officials - "The Urgent Question of Trump and Money Laundering: How Bruce Ohr, President Trump's latest Twitter target, fits a suspicious pattern of behavior on Russia."
Trump’s affinity for Russia, after all, is causing problems for him. It has created tensions with his own staff and his Republican allies in Congress. Most voters now believe he has something to hide. And the constant talk of Russia on television clearly enrages Trump.
He could make his life easier if only he treated Vladimir Putin the way he treats most people who cause problems — and cast Putin aside. Yet Trump can’t bring himself to do so.
This odd refusal is arguably the biggest reason to believe that Putin really does have leverage over Trump. Maybe it’s something shocking, like a sex tape or evidence of campaign collusion by Trump himself. Or maybe it’s the scandal that’s been staring us in the face all along: Illicit financial dealings — money laundering — between Trump’s business and Russia.
The latest reason to be suspicious is Trump’s attacks on a formerly obscure Justice Department official named Bruce Ohr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Ohr and called for him to be fired. Ohr’s sin is that he appears to have been marginally involved in inquiries into Trump’s Russian links. But Ohr fits a larger pattern. In his highly respected three-decade career in law enforcement, he has specialized in going after Russian organized crime.
It just so happens that most of the once-obscure bureaucrats whom Trump has tried to discredit also are experts in some combination of Russia, organized crime and money laundering.
It’s true of Andrew McCabe (the former deputy F.B.I. director whose firing Trump successfully lobbied for), Andrew Weissmann (the only official working for Robert Mueller whom Trump singles out publicly) and others. They are all Trump bogeymen — and all among “the Kremlin’s biggest adversaries in the U.S. government,” as Natasha Bertrand wrote in The Atlantic. Trump, she explained, seems to be trying to rid the government of experts in Russian organized crime.
Paul - I know I've asked this before - but can you provide an example that shows that Steele hasn't been a valuable asset to US intelligence in the past and reason why he should be discredited?
What in the dossier has been debunked?
The FBI has substantiated at least some of the material but there are no public details as to how much or which aspects — nor which aspects have been debunked.
You do have Trump saying it's fake - so we can trust our president to some degree.
jamie said:
Yes - heaven forbid members of the "intelligence community" speak about Russia.
We need more voices of reason - like Sputnik News.
How many of them are conspiracy theorists?
Right, the same people who disposed the Democratically elected leader of Iran and put the Shah back in power so US corporations could get the oil. The same people who interfered in 81 elections. The same people who worked with Nazis during World War II and saved them from the trials at Nuremberg. The same people who told Martin Luther King, Jr. to kill himself. The same people who ordered the head bashing of people at Occupy Wall Street. The same people who overthrew Ukraine and blamed it on Putin (not presented that way in the film--that's for sure). Yeah, heaven forbid we don't take them at their word.
They make sure to warn us about RT (and presumably Sputnik News), as though that were a grave threat. They tell you what to believe and try to make you afraid. This film assumes that the US is just good and plays by the rules and would never use "Active Measures" of their own. It's basically a lie, with some facts about Trump's shady business deals thrown in by Craig Unger. But, it is hard to pick out the facts cause there are so many lies and misrepresentation. And so many oligarchs- more than the orcs in Lord of the Rings. Some of the people, like Jonathan Winer, go on and on about Putin and oligarchs and never reveal how they work for oligarchs too. He's the guy who works for Khordorkovsky and wrote the letters to get the anti-Browder film banned and the book taken off Amazon. He's a walking, breathing "Active Measure."
Just one example of what you see a lot of in this movie: people projecting their own questionable views and actions on to Putin. They are talking about him, but the thing they are talking about can also apply to them. Putin may be horrible, but no worse than them.
And now I have go back and watch the rest of the movie. Maybe the second half is better? . . .
So, Jamie - Have you started watching Stone's Ukraine on Fire, yet?
You mean the film by Oliver "Conspiracy Theory" Stone? No thanks - I have enough connections in Ukraine to know what's been happening. Does he cover the shooting down of MH17?
I know - US is worse then the rest of the world. We live in a horrible place.Stone is working on a Putin - 4 hour documentary - should be GREAT!
jamie said:
You mean the film by Oliver "Conspiracy Theory" Stone? No thanks - I have enough connections in Ukraine to know what's been happening. Does he cover the shooting down of MH17?I know - US is worse then the rest of the world. We live in a horrible place.
Stone is working on a Putin - 4 hour documentary - should be GREAT!
Sad, that you seem to lack curiosity and are not open to anything not endorsed by the CIA. Probably you won't read the Devil's Chessboard either (that one has given me nightmares). I was glad to watch the movie you recommended and spent much of the day watching it slowly and taking notes. Although I don't agree with most of it, I still found it interesting to watch and there were some things about Trump I did not know. I also enjoyed seeing some of these people I have been reading about related to Browder such as Jonathan Winer and Michael McFaul talking in person. I was also shocked at how they covered Ukraine and Crimea; so blatantly distorted, as though they were just watching these events happen on the news and they were all fired up about the desire for democracy. If you want to know how to spot American propaganda, this film could be the guide to that.
I think the Stone movie on Putin was already done--they are hours of interviews with Putin, available on YouTube. I have watched about half of them and they are interesting to see, especially because it is so odd to see a big clumsy American film director following Putin around and asking him random questions. You hear some more about his life what he thinks about. Not quite the cardboard cut out Boris Badenov that the CIA provides.
jamie said:
Paul - I know I've asked this before - but can you provide an example that shows that Steele hasn't been a valuable asset to US intelligence in the past and reason why he should be discredited?
What in the dossier has been debunked?
The FBI has substantiated at least some of the material but there are no public details as to how much or which aspects — nor which aspects have been debunked.You do have Trump saying it's fake - so we can trust our president to some degree.
Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
Steele admits he never tried to confirm what he wrote in the dossier, so why should anyone believe it? (apart from the portions that were in the public record before they appeared in the dossier)
nan said:
jamie said:Sad, that you seem to lack curiosity and are not open to anything not endorsed by the CIA. Probably you won't read the Devil's Chessboard either (that one has given me nightmares). I was glad to watch the movie you recommended and spent much of the day watching it slowly and taking notes. Although I don't agree with most of it, I still found it interesting to watch and there were some things about Trump I did not know. I also enjoyed seeing some of these people I have been reading about related to Browder such as Jonathan Winer and Michael McFaul talking in person. I was also shocked at how they covered Ukraine and Crimea; so blatantly distorted, as though they were just watching these events happen on the news and they were all fired up about the desire for democracy. If you want to know how to spot American propaganda, this film could be the guide to that.
You mean the film by Oliver "Conspiracy Theory" Stone? No thanks - I have enough connections in Ukraine to know what's been happening. Does he cover the shooting down of MH17?
I know - US is worse then the rest of the world. We live in a horrible place.
Stone is working on a Putin - 4 hour documentary - should be GREAT!
I think the Stone movie on Putin was already done--they are hours of interviews with Putin, available on YouTube. I have watched about half of them and they are interesting to see, especially because it is so odd to see a big clumsy American film director following Putin around and asking him random questions. You hear some more about his life what he thinks about. Not quite the cardboard cut out Boris Badenov that the CIA provides.
Can provide the list of speakers in the Stone documentary?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
Paul - I know I've asked this before - but can you provide an example that shows that Steele hasn't been a valuable asset to US intelligence in the past and reason why he should be discredited?
What in the dossier has been debunked?
The FBI has substantiated at least some of the material but there are no public details as to how much or which aspects — nor which aspects have been debunked.You do have Trump saying it's fake - so we can trust our president to some degree.
Steele admits he never tried to confirm what he wrote in the dossier, so why should anyone believe it? (apart from the portions that were in the public record before they appeared in the dossier)
So Lanny and Cohen testified to this under oath? Is this all you have?
jamie said:
nan said:Can provide the list of speakers in the Stone documentary?
jamie said:Sad, that you seem to lack curiosity and are not open to anything not endorsed by the CIA. Probably you won't read the Devil's Chessboard either (that one has given me nightmares). I was glad to watch the movie you recommended and spent much of the day watching it slowly and taking notes. Although I don't agree with most of it, I still found it interesting to watch and there were some things about Trump I did not know. I also enjoyed seeing some of these people I have been reading about related to Browder such as Jonathan Winer and Michael McFaul talking in person. I was also shocked at how they covered Ukraine and Crimea; so blatantly distorted, as though they were just watching these events happen on the news and they were all fired up about the desire for democracy. If you want to know how to spot American propaganda, this film could be the guide to that.
You mean the film by Oliver "Conspiracy Theory" Stone? No thanks - I have enough connections in Ukraine to know what's been happening. Does he cover the shooting down of MH17?
I know - US is worse then the rest of the world. We live in a horrible place.
Stone is working on a Putin - 4 hour documentary - should be GREAT!
I think the Stone movie on Putin was already done--they are hours of interviews with Putin, available on YouTube. I have watched about half of them and they are interesting to see, especially because it is so odd to see a big clumsy American film director following Putin around and asking him random questions. You hear some more about his life what he thinks about. Not quite the cardboard cut out Boris Badenov that the CIA provides.
No, you will have to watch it and find out. It is an Oliver Stone movie, not a series of fast paced sound-bites. Even if you hate it, you can tell he is a skillful filmmaker (actually he just produced it but you can see his influence). It's not just some kid making a movie. The film goes into the history of Ukraine which is important for understanding how change affects the people there based on what they have experienced. Here is some detailed information: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/
You really should watch it, if only for contrast with what you know.
paulsurovell said:
Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
Anyone else you accuse of lying gets shown the door. But not Mr. Davis, who admittedly lied. I welcome this less restrictive gate for information to consider.
I'm a bit pissed, actually, as I paid $3,99 to watch Active Measures on Amazon, not realizing it was available on Hulu for free. I could have saved the money and watched Ukraine In Flames for $4.99 instead.
Or I could have watched The Ice Pirates for $2.99.
nan said: Here is some detailed information: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/
You really should watch it, if only for contrast with what you know.
You know what I said about you're connection with conspiracy theories and propaganda sites - the guy you're quoting who's article is: A Documentary You'll Likely Never See - main focus has been the JFK ASSASSINATION:
https://kennedysandking.com/content/author/294-jamesdieugenio
Do you think that by interviewing Putin and Yanukovych is showing both sides of situation? I only glanced through parts of it and saw he part of interviews with them. Did he interview Yulia Tymoshenko?
jamie said:
nan said: Here is some detailed information: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/You know what I said about you're connection with conspiracy theories and propaganda sites - the guy you're quoting who's article is: A Documentary You'll Likely Never See - main focus has been the JFK ASSASSINATION:
You really should watch it, if only for contrast with what you know.
https://kennedysandking.com/content/author/294-jamesdieugenio
Do you think that by interviewing Putin and Yanukovych is showing both sides of situation? I only glanced through parts of it and saw he part of interviews with them. Did he interview Yulia Tymoshenko?
I'm old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination and I also remember when the conspiracy theories first started coming out in the mainstream. I thought they were nuts at the time, although I had friends who could argue in detail. Well, after living through the next few decades and all that has happened I now see that the original story is BS and the reality is probably closer to the conspirators version. I don't know who killed JFK, but I no longer think of people who don't follow the lone gunman story to be crazy. I think most people feel that way also--think I've seen a poll on that in fact.
Anyway, you should watch the Ukraine on Fire film. It's more truthful depiction of the events than what is shown in your film. Not claiming it as the one real TRUTH, but closer than what you have. He examines Yulia Tymoshenko in detail--and goes over her history and how she came to power. It will add to your knowledge.
ridski said:
I'm a bit pissed, actually, as I paid $3,99 to watch Active Measures on Amazon, not realizing it was available on Hulu for free. I could have saved the money and watched Ukraine In Flames for $4.99 instead.
Or I could have watched The Ice Pirates for $2.99.
I watched Active Measures for $1.99 on YouTube through Google Play. Ukraine in Flames is only available on Amazon, but free for Prime members (do you know one who can log you in?). Ice Pirates is not an option for me.
jamie said:
Did they interview anyone on Yulia's side?
Why don't you watch the movie and find out? I gave you a detailed synopsis. What are you afraid of? Clearly you are interested in the topic. I enjoyed your movie although it pissed me off to no end. Better than ice pirates for sure.
Jamie is contending with both "Scully" and "Mulder" of this message board today.
jamie said:
nan said:Can provide the list of speakers in the Stone documentary?
jamie said:Sad, that you seem to lack curiosity and are not open to anything not endorsed by the CIA. Probably you won't read the Devil's Chessboard either (that one has given me nightmares). I was glad to watch the movie you recommended and spent much of the day watching it slowly and taking notes. Although I don't agree with most of it, I still found it interesting to watch and there were some things about Trump I did not know. I also enjoyed seeing some of these people I have been reading about related to Browder such as Jonathan Winer and Michael McFaul talking in person. I was also shocked at how they covered Ukraine and Crimea; so blatantly distorted, as though they were just watching these events happen on the news and they were all fired up about the desire for democracy. If you want to know how to spot American propaganda, this film could be the guide to that.
You mean the film by Oliver "Conspiracy Theory" Stone? No thanks - I have enough connections in Ukraine to know what's been happening. Does he cover the shooting down of MH17?
I know - US is worse then the rest of the world. We live in a horrible place.
Stone is working on a Putin - 4 hour documentary - should be GREAT!
I think the Stone movie on Putin was already done--they are hours of interviews with Putin, available on YouTube. I have watched about half of them and they are interesting to see, especially because it is so odd to see a big clumsy American film director following Putin around and asking him random questions. You hear some more about his life what he thinks about. Not quite the cardboard cut out Boris Badenov that the CIA provides.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:So Lanny and Cohen testified to this under oath? Is this all you have?
jamie said:Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
Paul - I know I've asked this before - but can you provide an example that shows that Steele hasn't been a valuable asset to US intelligence in the past and reason why he should be discredited?
What in the dossier has been debunked?
The FBI has substantiated at least some of the material but there are no public details as to how much or which aspects — nor which aspects have been debunked.You do have Trump saying it's fake - so we can trust our president to some degree.
Steele admits he never tried to confirm what he wrote in the dossier, so why should anyone believe it? (apart from the portions that were in the public record before they appeared in the dossier)
nan said:
ridski said:I watched Active Measures for $1.99 on YouTube through Google Play. Ukraine in Flames is only available on Amazon, but free for Prime members (do you know one who can log you in?). Ice Pirates is not an option for me.
I'm a bit pissed, actually, as I paid $3,99 to watch Active Measures on Amazon, not realizing it was available on Hulu for free. I could have saved the money and watched Ukraine In Flames for $4.99 instead.
Or I could have watched The Ice Pirates for $2.99.
Oh yeah, it's free on Prime. When I checked on Sunday it said it was $4.99 to rent it so I went with the cheaper one.
I need to watch Ice Pirates for practical research purposes as I'm writing and directing a science fiction spoof show. Active Measures and Ukraine On Fire (apologies for that, Ukraine In Flames is very different film from 1943) I only need to watch to keep up with this thread.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:So Lanny and Cohen testified to this under oath? Is this all you have?
jamie said:Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
Paul - I know I've asked this before - but can you provide an example that shows that Steele hasn't been a valuable asset to US intelligence in the past and reason why he should be discredited?
What in the dossier has been debunked?
The FBI has substantiated at least some of the material but there are no public details as to how much or which aspects — nor which aspects have been debunked.You do have Trump saying it's fake - so we can trust our president to some degree.
Steele admits he never tried to confirm what he wrote in the dossier, so why should anyone believe it? (apart from the portions that were in the public record before they appeared in the dossier)
Are you suggesting you think the dossier's story about Cohen in Prague is true? If so, why?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Anyone else you accuse of lying gets shown the door. But not Mr. Davis, who admittedly lied. I welcome this less restrictive gate for information to consider.
Well you also have Lanny Davis saying the dossier's story about Cohen being in Prague is fake (see below). Do you think it's true?
One thing to consider is a statement against interest. Lanny Davis, who is tied to the hip with Hillary Clinton and who's a supporter of Russiagate, denied that Cohen was ever in Prague and then went beyond the call of duty to point out that the false accusation that he was in Prague came from the Steele dossier (that was paid for by Hillary).
At 8:52
I'm just a bit leery that someone wants to share their passport as proof that they were never in Prague. You can land anywhere in Europe and go to Prague without it showing up on your passport. I've driven all over Europe through many countries - passport only gets stamped where you land.
I would feel better if Cohen could offer proof of where he was during that Italy trip - seems like that would be much better proof then his passport. Photos - receipts - what hotel he stayed at, etc. Maybe this has been provided - I haven't looked for it yet.
paulsurovell said:
One thing to consider is a statement against interest.
OK. Davis is Cohen’s lawyer. The duty of loyalty requires Davis to put Cohen’s interests above his own, or even those of pelvic appendages.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:OK. Davis is Cohen’s lawyer. The duty of loyalty requires Davis to put Cohen’s interests above his own, or even those of pelvic appendages.
One thing to consider is a statement against interest.
If Cohen was in Prague, Davis would shout it from the rooftops and his pelvis would be rotating like Elvis's on steroids.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Advertisement
These days, it's safer not to assume that something is not part of the conspiracy, until the experts say so.