Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
Wow paul, your question to nohero sounds defensive and similar to our president* I'm afraid to say. Without responding to the OLD NEWS statement you went on the offensive rather than just take what was said at face value: you are among that group of people - FOR WHATEVER REASON OR REASONS - who believe and argue that Hillary colluded more. Sheesh.
wendy said:
Wow paul, your question to nohero sounds defensive and similar to our president* I'm afraid to say. Without responding to the OLD NEWS statement you went on the offensive rather than just take what was said at face value: you are among that group of people - FOR WHATEVER REASON OR REASONS - who believe and argue that Hillary colluded more. Sheesh.
If it would help, I would revise "with the support of people like you who are eager to echo it" to read: "with support of people who are eager to echo it, as you are doing here".
People of all kinds may modify their notes accordingly ...
Anyone who buys into this latest b.s. about the dossier is nothing more than a useful idiot for the right. It takes about 7 brain cells to realize it's crap. Unless you hate Hillary of course, in which case even those 7 brain cells take a nap.
To summarize:
The RNC began the oppo research during the primaries (standard operating procedure) > the DNC and Clinton campaign picked it up once it was clear Trump would be the nominee (standard operating procedure) > the DNC stopped the funding the day before the election (standard operating procedure) > the FBI continued the funding because of what Steele had found (highly, highly unusual).
Yes, it's not out of the ordinary to pursue oppo research that extends beyond our borders. This is especially relevant for a candidate that has a lot of overseas business and myriad complicated financial ties around the world.
The only news is that Clinton's lawyer helped with some of the funding and that they weren't open about that.
even this is some weak tea news, since it was reported a long time ago that the Dems had provided funding for this.
dave23 said:
,,,
The only news is that Clinton's lawyer helped with some of the funding and that they weren't open about that.
dave23 said:
To summarize:
The RNC began the oppo research during the primaries (standard operating procedure) > the DNC and Clinton campaign picked it up once it was clear Trump would be the nominee (standard operating procedure) > the DNC stopped the funding the day before the election (standard operating procedure) > the FBI continued the funding because of what Steele had found (highly, highly unusual).
Yes, it's not out of the ordinary to pursue oppo research that extends beyond our borders. This is especially relevant for a candidate that has a lot of overseas business and myriad complicated financial ties around the world.
The only news is that Clinton's lawyer helped with some of the funding and that they weren't open about that.
Your summary omits a key fact:
British spy Christopher Steele was hired by GPS Fusion in June 2016, two months after the oppo research payments were taken over by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
So the dossier, compiled in collusion with Russian government officials, was started and carried out under the Democratic oppo research contract, not under the original Republican contract.
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
I guess they didn't hold Greenwald against them.
paulsurovell said:
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
paulsurovell said:
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
Content is at least one of the criteria.
My favorite judge: Seth Rogan (Nucleus Marketing Solutions). Missing: The Maplewoodian (former E&P staffer).
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
Content is at least one of the criteria.
My favorite judge: Seth Rogan (Nucleus Marketing Solutions). Missing: The Maplewoodian (former E&P staffer).
http://www.eppyawards.com/Content/Judges-4-.aspx
They even spelled his name wrong. It's Seth Rogin, former Chief Revenue Officer for Mashable and VP of Advertising for NYT.
I have mostly avoided this thread because the premise of the question which is the title of the topic does not make a lot of sense to me.
Trump won. The issue is (1) whether the Russians interfered with the election process to help him and (2) whether anyone in the Trump campaign helped the Russians to do so. The fact that either the Clinton campaign or the Trump campaign obtained opposition research from the Russians is not relevant because, as pointed out by a number of posters, is not unusual. Given that, the question is why so many in the Trump campaign lied about meeting with the Russians.
Now there is another reason I have avoided this thread. Given everything else that is going on who gives a ****!
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Content is at least one of the criteria.
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
My favorite judge: Seth Rogan (Nucleus Marketing Solutions). Missing: The Maplewoodian (former E&P staffer).
http://www.eppyawards.com/Content/Judges-4-.aspx
Thanks, Dave, I hadn't looked at that.
For those who don't have the time to check the link, here is the complete list of judges:
Dustin Barnes - The Clarion-Ledger
Peter Bhatia - The Cincinnati Enquirer
Jak Boumans - Electronic Media Reporting
Meredith Broussard –New York University
Clytie Bunyan – The Oklahoman & NewsOK.com
Neil Burk – The Paper of Montgomery County
Matt Carroll – Northeastern University
Neil Chase – The Mercury News and the East Bay Times
Paul Cheung – NBC News Digital
Chris Coates – Herald & Review
Linda Corcoran – Cape Cod Times
Kevin Dale – Cronkite News at Arizona PBS/ASU
Kristen DelGuzzi – The Arizona Republic
Matt DeRienzo – LION Publishers
Roberto Escardo – Content and Marketing Specialist
Tim Gallagher – The 20/20 Network
Dr. Mario Garcia – Columbia University
Andrew Green – Thomson Reuters
Erik Hall – The Roanoke Times
Sam Hall – The Clarion-Ledger/USA TODAY
Chris Harper – Temple University
Rich Jackson – Times-News
Keith Jordan – Upstream Digital Media
Colleen Kelly – Star Tribune
Laura Lane – The Times of Northwest Indiana
Ross Lasley – Ross Lasley Academy
Yvonne Latty – New York University
Robert Long – Kiplinger Washington Editors
David Lucas – Thomson Reuters
Mark Mahoney – The Daily Gazette
Meg Martin – Minnesota Public Radio
Laura McAdoo – The Seattle Times
Jeremy McBain – Petoskey News-Review
Christine McKenna – Lehman College, CUNY
Bob Moser – GrowthSpotter
Javier Moya – The Tab Gang, Revista Don
Paul Myers – The Foothills Sun-Gazette
Bernie Oravec – Williamsport Sun-Gazette
Antonio Pasagali – Prodigioso Volcan, Spain
Emily Passer – NBC News Group
Allison Petty – Herald & Review
Autumn Phillips – Quad-City Times
Troy Piekarski – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Ed Pikulski – Times-Shamrock Communications
Tomari Quinn – The Topeka Capital Journal
John Reidy – Herald & Review
Seth Rogin* – Nucleus Marketing Solutions
Bridget Sibthorp-Moecker – Herald & Review
Chris Sosa – Chicago Tribune
Jamie Stockwell – San Antonio Express-News
Otto Strong – ESPN
Josh Sweigart – Dayton Daily News
Annika Toernqvist – Sonoma Media Investments
Liz White – Record Journal
Lance Williams – USA TODAY/TENNESSEE
Hannah Wise – Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/CBCNews.ca
Jim Zachary – The Valdosta Daily Times
John Zaktansky – The Daily Item/Inside Pennsylvania
Jose Zamora - Univision
*Thanks, Ridski
LOST said:
Now there is another reason I have avoided this thread. Given everything else that is going on who gives a ****!
Is it correct to assume you have avoided Rachel Maddow for the same reason?
paulsurovell said:
British spy Christopher Steele was hired by GPS Fusion in June 2016, two months after the oppo research payments were taken over by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
So the dossier, compiled in collusion with Russian government officials, was started and carried out under the Democratic oppo research contract, not under the original Republican contract.
Your slippery standards for evidence of "collusion" are something to behold. That was covered by "Yes, it's not out of the ordinary to pursue oppo research that extends beyond our borders..." You defend the likes of Putin and Assad, but Hillary...
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
British spy Christopher Steele was hired by GPS Fusion in June 2016, two months after the oppo research payments were taken over by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
So the dossier, compiled in collusion with Russian government officials, was started and carried out under the Democratic oppo research contract, not under the original Republican contract.
Your slippery standards for evidence of "collusion" are something to behold. That was covered by "Yes, it's not out of the ordinary to pursue oppo research that extends beyond our borders..." You defend the likes of Putin and Assad, but Hillary...
Does this mean that you believe that the investigations and media obsession with alleged Trump "collusion" are based on "slippery standards?"
paulsurovell said:
Does this mean that you believe that the investigations and media obsession with alleged Trump "collusion" are based on "slippery standards?"
Nope. Just your demands for explicit, first-person, on-the-record proof when it comes to Trump's shady behavior are much higher than those for Hillary. And just as you've had trouble distinguishing a leak from a theft, you don't seem to grasp the difference between investigation and collusion.
Anyway, for me, it's less about collusion--which I've stated repeatedly would be very difficult to prove, even if it did occur--than what Trump is hiding with Russia.
paulsurovell said:
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
So The Intercept won an "Eppy" for best news website among online sources. They also won "Best Investigative/Enterprise Feature on a Website" for "The Drone Papers" ("The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents ... provided by a whistleblower ...") and "Best News or Event Feature on a Website" for "The Citizens United Playbook: How a Top GOP Lawyer Guided a Chinese-Owned Company into U.S. Presidential Politics". I can't disagree that those are very informative pieces of reporting (especially the latter about the GOP and foreign influence, which are related to this discussion).
I searched The Intercept for stories about "Trump" and "Clinton" and "dossier" and "Ukraine". They don't appear to be eager to adopt your point with this whole thread, which you described: "The premise of this thread (see OP) is that Hillary colluded more than Trump with foreign governments." They do have recent articles which support the concerns of "people like me", including "Russian Oligarch Who Plotted to Aid Trump Was Named in Private Intelligence Dossier", and "Decades Ago, Paul Manafort Played a Leading Role in a Pioneering Operation to Secretly Funnel Foreign Money into U.S. Politics". I certainly can't disagree that those are very informative pieces of reporting.
That searched also yielded this report about Trump's collusion: "Russian-American Lobbyist Paid to Fight Sanctions Was at 2016 Trump Tower Meeting". As stated in that article:
The presence of the lobbyist, and his rumored ties to Russian intelligence, undercut claims of transparency by Donald Trump Jr. who somehow failed to mention it in any of his accounts of the meeting, which was also attended by his father’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, whose legal team disclosed it to the FBI recently.
But the fact that Akhmetshin was granted an audience with senior campaign officials could be another indication that Russian attempts to help elect Donald Trump president of the United States might have been part of a broader effort to get sanctions lifted without acceding to American pressure to make democratic reforms at home or withdraw support from separatist rebels in Ukraine.
After email correspondence setting up the meeting was leaked to the New York Times this week, the president’s son admitted that he had agreed to it because a Russian business partner had passed on word that a senior Kremlin official wanted to help the Trump campaign by providing intelligence on Hillary Clinton.
So The Intercept's reporting on collusion is about allegations of Trump collusion. Now, since their article uses the phrase, "another indication that Russian attempts to help elect Donald Trump president", you might attempt to dismiss the whole report with the same approach you tried with me, "States allegation as fact" without addressing any of the reported facts.
Whatever point you thought you were making with the post "for the benefit of 'people like' nohero and drummerboy", I don't think you succeeded.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm posting this Editor & Publisher announcement for the benefit of "people like" nohero and drummerboy:
So The Intercept won an "Eppy" for best news website among online sources. They also won "Best Investigative/Enterprise Feature on a Website" for "The Drone Papers" ("The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents ... provided by a whistleblower ...") and "Best News or Event Feature on a Website" for "The Citizens United Playbook: How a Top GOP Lawyer Guided a Chinese-Owned Company into U.S. Presidential Politics". I can't disagree that those are very informative pieces of reporting (especially the latter about the GOP and foreign influence, which are related to this discussion).
I searched The Intercept for stories about "Trump" and "Clinton" and "dossier" and "Ukraine". They don't appear to be eager to adopt your point with this whole thread, which you described: "The premise of this thread (see OP) is that Hillary colluded more than Trump with foreign governments." They do have recent articles which support the concerns of "people like me", including "Russian Oligarch Who Plotted to Aid Trump Was Named in Private Intelligence Dossier", and "Decades Ago, Paul Manafort Played a Leading Role in a Pioneering Operation to Secretly Funnel Foreign Money into U.S. Politics". I certainly can't disagree that those are very informative pieces of reporting.
That searched also yielded this report about Trump's collusion: "Russian-American Lobbyist Paid to Fight Sanctions Was at 2016 Trump Tower Meeting". As stated in that article:
The presence of the lobbyist, and his rumored ties to Russian intelligence, undercut claims of transparency by Donald Trump Jr. who somehow failed to mention it in any of his accounts of the meeting, which was also attended by his father’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, whose legal team disclosed it to the FBI recently.
But the fact that Akhmetshin was granted an audience with senior campaign officials could be another indication that Russian attempts to help elect Donald Trump president of the United States might have been part of a broader effort to get sanctions lifted without acceding to American pressure to make democratic reforms at home or withdraw support from separatist rebels in Ukraine.
After email correspondence setting up the meeting was leaked to the New York Times this week, the president’s son admitted that he had agreed to it because a Russian business partner had passed on word that a senior Kremlin official wanted to help the Trump campaign by providing intelligence on Hillary Clinton.
So The Intercept's reporting on collusion is about allegations of Trump collusion. Now, since their article uses the phrase, "another indication that Russian attempts to help elect Donald Trump president", you might attempt to dismiss the whole report with the same approach you tried with me, "States allegation as fact" without addressing any of the reported facts.
Whatever point you thought you were making with the post "for the benefit of 'people like' nohero and drummerboy", I don't think you succeeded.
Glad to see that I succeeded in putting you to work and that you learned that the Intercept is a great website.
dave23 said:
Nope. Just your demands for explicit, first-person, on-the-record proof when it comes to Trump's shady behavior are much higher than those for Hillary. And just as you've had trouble distinguishing a leak from a theft, you don't seem to grasp the difference between investigation and collusion.
Still hanging on to your fantasies.
If that's your view, you should read it some time.
paulsurovell said:
Glad to see that I succeeded in putting you to work and that you learned that the Intercept is a great website.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
Nope. Just your demands for explicit, first-person, on-the-record proof when it comes to Trump's shady behavior are much higher than those for Hillary. And just as you've had trouble distinguishing a leak from a theft, you don't seem to grasp the difference between investigation and collusion.
Still hanging on to your fantasies.
Not really. I've watched you run in circles around Crowdstrike, Assange VIPs, thumbdrives, men meeting in woods, etc. On this recent story, you've taken the GOP talking points brayed them without a moment's thought.
Just in:
https://twitter.com/search?q=twitter%20rt&src=typd
Twitter has made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned by Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, effective immediately. This decision was based on the retrospective work we've been doing around the 2016 U.S. election and the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government. We did not come to this decision lightly, and are taking this step now as part of our ongoing commitment to help protect the integrity of the user experience on Twitter.
Early this year, the U.S. intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter. This decision is restricted to these two entities based our internal investigation of their behavior as well as their inclusion in the January 2017 DNI report. This decision does not apply to any other advertisers. RT and Sputnik may remain organic users on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.
Twitter has also decided to take the $1.9 million we are projected to have earned from RT global advertising since they became an advertiser in 2011, which includes the $274,100 in 2016 U.S.-based advertising that we highlighted in our September 28 blog post, and donate those funds to support external research into the use of Twitter in civic engagement and elections, including use of malicious automation and misinformation, with an initial focus on elections and automation. We will have more details to share on this disbursement soon.
Comment by Marcy Wheeler on emptywheel:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Not really. I've watched you run in circles around Crowdstrike, Assange VIPs, thumbdrives, men meeting in woods, etc. On this recent story, you've taken the GOP talking points brayed them without a moment's thought.
dave23 said:
Nope. Just your demands for explicit, first-person, on-the-record proof when it comes to Trump's shady behavior are much higher than those for Hillary. And just as you've had trouble distinguishing a leak from a theft, you don't seem to grasp the difference between investigation and collusion.
Still hanging on to your fantasies.
Maybe it's more projection than fantasy.
I'm glad that you're reading the tweets of emptywheel. Marcy Wheeler, the owner of emptywheel.net, has zero doubts that Russia attempted to influence the election. She also thinks that it is likely that Mueller will eventually show evidence that senior people in Trump's campaign attempted to and may have coordianted with people working for Russia, and people more tangential to the campaign sought out Russians for help. She thinks that if the full story of Russian involvement comes out, it will be worse than people imagine.
eta - I highly recommend https://www.emptywheel.net/
cramer said:
I'm glad that you're reading the tweets of emptywheel. Marcy Wheeler, the owner of emptywheel.net, has zero doubts that Russia attempted to influence the election. She also thinks that it is likely that Mueller will eventually show evidence that senior people in Trump's campaign attempted to and may have coordianted with people working for Russia, and people more tangential to the campaign sought out Russians for help. She thinks that if the full story of Russian involvement comes out, it will be worse than people imagine.
eta - I highly recommend https://www.emptywheel.net/
Sounds like Mr. Surovell is batting 1.000 today in posts that undercut his thesis in this thread.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Not really. I've watched you run in circles around Crowdstrike, Assange VIPs, thumbdrives, men meeting in woods, etc. On this recent story, you've taken the GOP talking points brayed them without a moment's thought.
dave23 said:
Nope. Just your demands for explicit, first-person, on-the-record proof when it comes to Trump's shady behavior are much higher than those for Hillary. And just as you've had trouble distinguishing a leak from a theft, you don't seem to grasp the difference between investigation and collusion.
Still hanging on to your fantasies.
Maybe it's more projection than fantasy.
That's weird.
Anyhoo, Twitter confirms RT and Sputnik were up to no good.
The first and only Wall Street Journal editorial I have ever agreed with:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-russians-and-the-fbi-1508971759?mod=trending_now_5
Democrats, Russians and the FBI
Did the bureau use disinformation to trigger its Trump probe?
The Editorial Board
Oct. 25, 2017 6:49 p.m. ET
[ Excerpt ] It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI. This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation.
The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee jointly paid for that infamous “dossier” full of Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. They filtered the payments through a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie), which hired the opposition-research hit men at Fusion GPS. Fusion in turn tapped a former British spook, Christopher Steele, to compile the allegations, which are based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.
Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say “collusion”?
[ . . . ]
The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work in the runup to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians.
Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?
[ . . . ]
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
With regard to your language "people like you" -- what kind of people are you like?