Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

oy, I hate complicated stories like this. There doesn't seem to be any direct line from the DNC to the dossier.

The DNC hired a firm to do oppo research. The firm, for some reason we do not know, hired this guy to put it all together. It's not even clear that the DNC or the campaign signed off on the research.

But of course that's too complicated too explain in a soundbite.

I'm listening to the WaPo reporter right now. He just said there is no connection between the dossier and the campaign that he knows of.

oy

And what's the issue about the dossier anyway? It's become mythic at this point. It contained some good, valid info, and it also contained b.s.

so?

dave23 said:

Clinton campaign and DNC helped fund dossier research. Which means those involved have been lying, it seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.8612bb02dd43

A lot of the dossier has proven to be plausible but not absolute given no investigations have concluded. 

We knew the dossier grew out of oppo research but this is the closest it's come to the actual Clinton campaign.

drummerboy said:

oy, I hate complicated stories like this. There doesn't seem to be any direct line from the DNC to the dossier.

The DNC hired a firm to do oppo research. The firm, for some reason we do not know, hired this guy to put it all together. It's not even clear that the DNC or the campaign signed off on the research.

But of course that's too complicated too explain in a soundbite.

I'm listening to the WaPo reporter right now. He just said there is no connection between the dossier and the campaign that he knows of.

oy

And what's the issue about the dossier anyway? It's become mythic at this point. It contained some good, valid info, and it also contained b.s.

so?

dave23 said:

Clinton campaign and DNC helped fund dossier research. Which means those involved have been lying, it seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.8612bb02dd43

Clinton campaign and DNC paid GPS Fusion to get information from Russian officials to use against Trump in the 2016 election. Maybe the Republican majorities will subpoena members of the Clinton campaign and DNC or call for another special prosecutor to "get to the bottom of it."

Live by the investigation, die by the investigation.

Paying for oppo research is not a new phenomenon. In fact, this work was begun by Republicans in the primary. Oppo research is used to dig up facts, not create fantasies.

The problem is the very Clintonian behavior of how the funding was hidden.

dave23 said:

Paying for oppo research is not a new phenomenon. In fact, this work was begun by Republicans in the primary. Oppo research is used to dig up facts, not create fantasies.

The problem is the very Clintonian behavior of how the funding was hidden.

It also puts the Trump Tower meeting, which was a failed attempt to get dirt on Hillary from Russians, in a new light.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Paying for oppo research is not a new phenomenon. In fact, this work was begun by Republicans in the primary. Oppo research is used to dig up facts, not create fantasies.

The problem is the very Clintonian behavior of how the funding was hidden.

It also puts the Trump Tower meeting, which was a failed attempt to get dirt on Hillary from Russians, in a new light.

No it doesn't.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Paying for oppo research is not a new phenomenon. In fact, this work was begun by Republicans in the primary. Oppo research is used to dig up facts, not create fantasies.

The problem is the very Clintonian behavior of how the funding was hidden.

It also puts the Trump Tower meeting, which was a failed attempt to get dirt on Hillary from Russians, in a new light.

And Watergate, too?

exactly. this is such horseshti.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Paying for oppo research is not a new phenomenon. In fact, this work was begun by Republicans in the primary. Oppo research is used to dig up facts, not create fantasies.

The problem is the very Clintonian behavior of how the funding was hidden.

It also puts the Trump Tower meeting, which was a failed attempt to get dirt on Hillary from Russians, in a new light.

No it doesn't.

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The New York Times weighs in on the Clinton campaign and DNC paying for the dossier:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

exerpt:

" . . .At the time that Democrats began paying for the research, Mr. Trump was in the process of clinching the Republican presidential nomination, and Ms. Clinton’s allies were scrambling to figure out how to run against a candidate who had already weathered attacks from Republican rivals about his shifting policy positions, his character and his business record.

Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a respected former British spy with extensive experience in Russia, to conduct research into any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, campaign team and Russia.

Mr. Steele produced a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, and real estate deals that were intended as bribes."

wow. this is pretty damning. Lock her up!  

nan said:

The New York Times weighs in on the Clinton campaign and DNC paying for the dossier:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur


exerpt:

" . . .At the time that Democrats began paying for the research, Mr. Trump was in the process of clinching the Republican presidential nomination, and Ms. Clinton’s allies were scrambling to figure out how to run against a candidate who had already weathered attacks from Republican rivals about his shifting policy positions, his character and his business record.

Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a respected former British spy with extensive experience in Russia, to conduct research into any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, campaign team and Russia.

Mr. Steele produced a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, and real estate deals that were intended as bribes."

nan said:


" . . .At the time that Democrats began paying for the research, Mr. Trump was in the process of clinching the Republican presidential nomination, and Ms. Clinton’s allies were scrambling to figure out how to run against a candidate who had already weathered attacks from Republican rivals about his shifting policy positions, his character and his business record.

Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a respected former British spy with extensive experience in Russia, to conduct research into any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, campaign team and Russia.

why would the campaign NOT do something like this?  why would ANY campaign not do something like this?

paulsurovell said:
 

nohero said:
 

DaveSchmidt said:
 

dave23 said:

The damning paragraph revealing the writers' bias/ignorance/laziness.

"A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, “the vast majority of ads…didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate” but rather focused “on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum—touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.”"

With these sentences, the writer does not appear to be aware that the 200 accounts were identified by Twitter only in connection to the groups behind the 3,000 Facebook ads. That is, even if Twitter's acknowledgment is taken at face value, it is far from a complete accounting of the entire Twitterverse.

On top of the 3,000 ads identified by Facebook, Twitter has now informed Congress of around 200 accounts “linked to Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Twitter has 328 million users. To suggest 200 accounts out of 328 million could have had an impact is as much an insult to common sense as it is to basic math.

(Also, the algorithms and multipliers of social media math are anything but basic.)

There may be an argument to disregard CLAIMS OF Russian investment in 2016 campaign propaganda, but this article is a feeble and simplistic attempt to build one.  Of course divisive social issues are used to boost turnout among those who get angry about those issues.  And, like it or not, it's that "against" side (be it LGBT rights, or civil rights, or immigration) which gets angrier and more motivated.  Similarly, as pointed out above, the argument comparing the number of Twitter accounts used to total Twitter accounts is really ignorant.  The writer either is that ignorant, or is hoping for enough of an ignorant audience to go along with his claim.  I don't know about other people, but I have a Twitter account mostly as a way to read tweets, as a lot of people probably do - so this guy is counting the "readers" along with the "writers".  It's the same as saying a writer for "The Nation" doesn't have much of a voice, by counting subscribers as "voices" in minimizing the writer's effect.

And what Mr. DaveSchmidt said about the "multipliers of social media math". 

States allegation as fact: "Russian investment in 2016 campaign propaganda."

Sorry to go back a few days with this.  I'm responding to the argument and the technique that takes a minor detail from a post, "refutes" it, and then claims to be a response to the entire post.  My post was on the point in Aaron Maté's article about these online activities:  "But by all indications, if they were used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route."  I thought that was clear, but to clarify I've amended the above (the original language Mr. Survovell didn't like is in bold, and two added words are ALL CAPS). 

So, assuming we're all agreed to discuss these as claims/allegations, and since there's no other criticism of my post, we can agree with the validity of my actual point.  Thankey.

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

I do commend you for finally recognizing the value of journalism. Up until this point, you wouldn't believe stories that didn't have on-the-record quotes from first-person accounts accompanied by verified and published evidence. 

Or else you just change your standards based on who the story seems to implicate.

DaveSchmidt said:
 

paulsurovell said:

What I meant is that the algorithm and multipliers apply to all Tweets so that the percentage of alleged Russian govt Tweets out of the entire body of Tweets doesn't become bigger as a result of multipliers because all Tweets are multiplied by the same factor.  What starts as a relative grain of sand on the beach remains a relative grain of sand on the beach.

Belatedly, I’d reiterate nohero’s point: Not all grains of sand, or beaches, are equal. Some grains get picked up in sandals and blankets (or oysters) to be carried far and wide, while some beaches are visited a lot more than others.

Going back a few days with this one, also, because the premise of Mr. Surovell's response is just wrong.  It is NOT true that "all Tweets are multiplied by the same factor."  I don't see how someone participating in social media could accept or pass along that claim.  For example, while the "twitterverse" is an enormous social media platform, one can say that MOL is a more compact version of that type of communication.  Instead of "retweeting" here, we "quote".  Some posts are "quoted", some not.

Similarly, ideas can be effectively "retweeted" or "quoted" without use of those tools.  Any time someone takes an idea and repeats it to others, that's a multiplier effect.  This thread is an example of that.  Back in July, when this "Who Colluded More" thread was started, the Trump side was pushing the "HIllary colluded with Ukraine" idea all over the place. (For example, that week Sebastian Gorka [then at White House, now gone] was pushing that line on CNN, for the purpose of getting it into the discussion.)  So that's an example of a "multiplier effect".

Mr. Surovell provided another example of the "multiplier effect" on MOL last year, just before the election.  During the whole Weiner-related revival of the email discussions, he wrote, "Interesting question I saw on Twitter this morning: 'What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC, thus the huge batch of recovered emails?' " (Link:  https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clinton-s-private-server?)  It was on "twitter" from someone opposing Hillary (or at least inclined to write nasty things about her and her supporters), and it was "multiplied" by being passed along (albeit not on Twitter).  That doesn't happen with all, or most, "tweets".  So, that "grain of sand" did get bigger.

dave23 said:
 

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

I do commend you for finally recognizing the value of journalism. Up until this point, you wouldn't believe stories that didn't have on-the-record quotes from first-person accounts accompanied by verified and published evidence. 

Or else you just change your standards based on who the story seems to implicate.

Good point.

ml1 said:
 

nan said:

" . . .At the time that Democrats began paying for the research, Mr. Trump was in the process of clinching the Republican presidential nomination, and Ms. Clinton’s allies were scrambling to figure out how to run against a candidate who had already weathered attacks from Republican rivals about his shifting policy positions, his character and his business record.

Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a respected former British spy with extensive experience in Russia, to conduct research into any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, campaign team and Russia.

why would the campaign NOT do something like this?  why would ANY campaign not do something like this?

The quoted article also states, "The representative [of a law firm working for the Democrats] said that neither the Clinton campaign, nor the D.N.C., was aware that Fusion GPS had been hired to conduct the research."

So the campaign hired the law firm, and the law firm hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS hired the guy who wrote the dossier, which may or may not have been finished (apparently, "After the election, [Fusion's owner], a former Wall Street Journal reporter, reportedly spent his own money to continue the investigation.").  Oh, sure, that's EXACTLY THE SAME as personally meeting with a Russian who promises Russian-government dirt on Hillary - Not.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The sources of the dossier are allegedly Russian officials.

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The sources of the dossier are allegedly Russian officials.

who else would an investigator go to if they're trying to get information on Trump's business dealings in Russia?

paulsurovell said:
 

PVW said:
 

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The sources of the dossier are allegedly Russian officials.

I'll quote myself on this.

nohero said:

The quoted article also states, "The representative [of a law firm working for the Democrats] said that neither the Clinton campaign, nor the D.N.C., was aware that Fusion GPS had been hired to conduct the research."

So the campaign hired the law firm, and the law firm hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS hired the guy who wrote the dossier, which may or may not have been finished (apparently, "After the election, [Fusion's owner], a former Wall Street Journal reporter, reportedly spent his own money to continue the investigation.").  Oh, sure, that's EXACTLY THE SAME as personally meeting with a Russian who promises Russian-government dirt on Hillary - Not.

I'll add that the hired guy who wrote the dossier was, in turn, the one who received whatever information "allegedly" came from Russian officials.  I would suggest that a campaign=>law firm=>Fusion=>dossier author=>alleged Russian officials connection is NOT the same as "Hey Junior, lets get together with these Russians with government info."

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The sources of the dossier are allegedly Russian officials.

who else would an investigator go to if they're trying to get information on Trump's business dealings in Russia?

I replied to PVW who implied that Dems were not getting oppo dirt from a foreign government.

You may not have noticed that I don't think there's anything wrong with getting information from foreign governments.

The premise of this thread (see OP) is that Hillary colluded more than Trump with foreign governments. This is further confirmed by today's revelation.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

I do commend you for finally recognizing the value of journalism. Up until this point, you wouldn't believe stories that didn't have on-the-record quotes from first-person accounts accompanied by verified and published evidence. 

Or else you just change your standards based on who the story seems to implicate.

Lots of fantasy in this post.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

You know that we can read, right?

paulsurovell said:

I replied to PVW who implied that Dems were not getting oppo dirt from a foreign government.

Maybe a less fantastical way of putting it:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

My point was that your willingness to accept, for now, Facebook's statement is reminiscent of how others here are willing to accept, for now, the intel report. This is not a criticism -- you, like they, are evaluating information and reaching conclusions with eyes open. But I submit that you're no more immune to self-selecting or dismissing articles, and being guided by a personal compass when choosing which trails to follow or not follow, than the rest of us whose leanings you scorn. It's how we humans go about deciding things for ourselves.

I largely agree with this except for the term "scorn" which is not part of my "thought process." A more accurate term would be "differ with" or some equivalent.

I'll outsource analysis on the dossier to Kevin Drum:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/10/yet-more-hillary-investigations/

The dossier thing is just weird. Let me see if I have the story straight: The DNC and the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to conduct oppo research on Trump. Fusion GPS hired Steele. Steele produced his dossier. It was never used. End of story.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

I do commend you for finally recognizing the value of journalism. Up until this point, you wouldn't believe stories that didn't have on-the-record quotes from first-person accounts accompanied by verified and published evidence. 

Or else you just change your standards based on who the story seems to implicate.

Lots of fantasy in this post.

I wish. 

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I edited the OP in light of tonight's news.

Not sure why you fail to grasp the distinction between getting oppo dirt, and working with a foreign government to get oppo dirt. It's an important distinction.

The sources of the dossier are allegedly Russian officials.

who else would an investigator go to if they're trying to get information on Trump's business dealings in Russia?

I replied to PVW who implied that Dems were not getting oppo dirt from a foreign government.

You may not have noticed that I don't think there's anything wrong with getting information from foreign governments.


The premise of this thread (see OP) is that Hillary colluded more than Trump with foreign governments. This is further confirmed by today's revelation.

I think the key question has been obscured by the endless conspiracy mongering.  The key question to me is -- what kinds of business deals has Donald Trump had in Russia?  How much of it has been with known criminals?  How much of it involves laundering money for criminals?  Is Trump compromised in some way due to his Russian connections?  

These are questions I'd have if Trump was dealing with shady characters from any government.  Is our president pursuing foreign policy goals to advance his own agenda instead of the good of the country?

I think there's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that Trump, his organization, and people who worked on his campaign are up their armpits in criminal activity connected to Russians.  Why else would Trump seem so panicked over investigations into his dealings with Russia?  It deserves a full investigation.

Some more Twitter multiple-effecting.  Ari Fleischer demonstrates the marching orders for spreading the talking point.

"Kremlin gave info to Christopher Steele. His oppo-research was paid for by the Clinton campaign. If that's not collusion, what is?"

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/923156244654968832

paulsurovell said:

The premise of this thread (see OP) is that Hillary colluded more than Trump with foreign governments. This is further confirmed by today's revelation.

Not for nothing, but what you call "today's revelation" is actually old news.  The GOP is really pushing it now, with the support of people like you who are eager to echo it, to support their "Hillary colluded more" argument.  For example, what The Guardian was writing back in May -

Last year, a political intelligence firm in Washington, Fusion GPS, hired Steele to investigate Trump’s dealings with Russia. The DNC paid for the work after its initial funder, a wealthy Jeb Bush supporter, dropped out.