Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
Yikes!
dave23 said:
At least some of the Putin's defenders are dropping the act and revealing their true selves.
drummerboy said:
Yikes!
dave23 said:
At least some of the Putin's defenders are dropping the act and revealing their true selves.
Recently, a Russian Orthodox Church bishop, who is close to Putin, said that the killing of Czar Nicholas II was a "ritual murder" by the Jews. There is an election coming up and it's always about the Jews, isn't it?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
the reports we received from alleged Russian sources are patently false
Please provide proof.
I've posted several times that the FBI, after 20 months, has not been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier, except for what is in the public record. Neither Steele nor Simpson has said the allegations are true, they've admitted nothing was verified. The dossier was written to find dirt, not to publish the truth.
After 20 months of 90% of the media devoting vast resources to this, scouring every intelligence source they've got and coming up empty, I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that the reports in the dossier are false.
And you have seen all of the classified information that can’t be made public? Should they give up sources and methods to make you happy?
For this case, these are the only sources and methods that can help:
So your answer to this was a joke?
What are your thoughts in regards to the White House essentially silencing Bannon's testimony?
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:So your answer to this was a joke?
jamie said:For this case, these are the only sources and methods that can help:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:I've posted several times that the FBI, after 20 months, has not been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier, except for what is in the public record. Neither Steele nor Simpson has said the allegations are true, they've admitted nothing was verified. The dossier was written to find dirt, not to publish the truth.
paulsurovell said:Please provide proof.
the reports we received from alleged Russian sources are patently false
After 20 months of 90% of the media devoting vast resources to this, scouring every intelligence source they've got and coming up empty, I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that the reports in the dossier are false.
And you have seen all of the classified information that can’t be made public? Should they give up sources and methods to make you happy?
What are your thoughts in regards to the White House essentially silencing Bannon's testimony?
I posted Boris and Natasha because, as fictional characters, they have the appropriate sources and methods to investigate a work of fiction (the dossier).
I don't like the CIA/NSA/FBI/DOJ withholding information. I feel the same way about the White House and Bannon. They should not interfere.
With regard to what Bannon might say, the media has been silent about his 60 Minutes interview after exiting the White House:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-breitbart-steve-bannon-declares-war-on-the-gop/
STEVE BANNON: There's nothing to the Russia investigation. It's a waste of time.
CHARLIE ROSE: What do you believe? You know what the National Security-- Institution believes. What do you believe--
STEVE BANNON: What do you mean, what they believe? We don't really. I mean, that there may have been-- I-- I think-- look, I was there--
CHARLIE ROSE: No, no, no, you were-- you--
STEVE BANNON: --it's a total and complete farce. Russian collusion is a farce.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, I didn't say collusion. Did the Russians try to influence the election?
STEVE BANNON: If you consider maybe something they did that at the DNC-- who-- who--
CHARLIE ROSE: Maybe something they did--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe someone that did--
CHARLIE ROSE: That's not what the CIA believes. That's not what the FBI believes--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe-- maybe what they-- have you seen-- have you seen the intelligence reports?
CHARLIE ROSE: No.
STEVE BANNON: OK, fine. So you don't know--
CHARLIE ROSE: Have you seen intelligence reports--
STEVE BANNON: I have seen the intelligence reports--
CHARLIE ROSE: And are you saying to me those intelligence reports do not suggest that the Russians tried to influence the election--
STEVE BANNON: I don't-- I would never devolve classified information on this show. But let me tell you, I think it's far from conclusive that the Russians had any impact on this election.
paulsurovell said:
With regard to what Bannon might say, the media has been silent about his 60 Minutes interview after exiting the White House:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-breitbart-steve-bannon-declares-war-on-the-gop/
STEVE BANNON: There's nothing to the Russia investigation. It's a waste of time.
CHARLIE ROSE: What do you believe? You know what the National Security-- Institution believes. What do you believe--
STEVE BANNON: What do you mean, what they believe? We don't really. I mean, that there may have been-- I-- I think-- look, I was there--
CHARLIE ROSE: No, no, no, you were-- you--
STEVE BANNON: --it's a total and complete farce. Russian collusion is a farce.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, I didn't say collusion. Did the Russians try to influence the election?
STEVE BANNON: If you consider maybe something they did that at the DNC-- who-- who--
CHARLIE ROSE: Maybe something they did--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe someone that did--
CHARLIE ROSE: That's not what the CIA believes. That's not what the FBI believes--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe-- maybe what they-- have you seen-- have you seen the intelligence reports?
CHARLIE ROSE: No.
STEVE BANNON: OK, fine. So you don't know--
CHARLIE ROSE: Have you seen intelligence reports--
STEVE BANNON: I have seen the intelligence reports--
CHARLIE ROSE: And are you saying to me those intelligence reports do not suggest that the Russians tried to influence the election--
STEVE BANNON: I don't-- I would never devolve classified information on this show. But let me tell you, I think it's far from conclusive that the Russians had any impact on this election.
Two thoughts -
1. The interview is IN "the media", that's where you find it, read it and watch it. Hardly "silent".
2. Rather than guess, may I ask what you want said by "the media"? In other words, please complete the thought.
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
jamie said:
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
More important, did Charlie have his pants on?
paulsurovell said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-breitbart-steve-bannon-declares-war-on-the-gop/
STEVE BANNON: There's nothing to the Russia investigation. It's a waste of time.
CHARLIE ROSE: What do you believe? You know what the National Security-- Institution believes. What do you believe--
STEVE BANNON: What do you mean, what they believe? We don't really. I mean, that there may have been-- I-- I think-- look, I was there--
CHARLIE ROSE: No, no, no, you were-- you--
STEVE BANNON: --it's a total and complete farce. Russian collusion is a farce.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, I didn't say collusion. Did the Russians try to influence the election?
STEVE BANNON: If you consider maybe something they did that at the DNC-- who-- who--
CHARLIE ROSE: Maybe something they did--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe someone that did--
CHARLIE ROSE: That's not what the CIA believes. That's not what the FBI believes--
STEVE BANNON: --maybe-- maybe what they-- have you seen-- have you seen the intelligence reports?
CHARLIE ROSE: No.
STEVE BANNON: OK, fine. So you don't know--
CHARLIE ROSE: Have you seen intelligence reports--
STEVE BANNON: I have seen the intelligence reports--
CHARLIE ROSE: And are you saying to me those intelligence reports do not suggest that the Russians tried to influence the election--
STEVE BANNON: I don't-- I would never devolve classified information on this show. But let me tell you, I think it's far from conclusive that the Russians had any impact on this election.
You know what else - other than that quotation - is long and green and is filled with hedges?
cramer said:
drummerboy said:Recently, a Russian Orthodox Church bishop, who is close to Putin, said that the killing of Czar Nicholas II was a "ritual murder" by the Jews. There is an election coming up and it's always about the Jews, isn't it?
Yikes!
dave23 said:
At least some of the Putin's defenders are dropping the act and revealing their true selves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/28/russian-orthodox-church-suggests-tsars-death-jewish-ritual-murder/
Putin needs to condemn this statement.
With regard to the article linked by dave23, my response on Twitter to the author below.
Here's the Lauder link: http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/ronald-s-lauder-russias-fight-against-anti-semitism-isnt-just-good-for-jews--its-good-for-russia-as-well-11-2-2016
jamie said:
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
I posted the Bannon interview to show the sharp contrast with his "Fire and Fury" interview, which the media pushed for several days 24/7, which was not under oath.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:I posted the Bannon interview to show the sharp contrast with his "Fire and Fury" interview, which the media pushed for several days 24/7, which was not under oath.
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
What are we to conclude from this comparison of his private statements while working in the White House, vs. this public statement after he left but was hoping to be a political influence?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Who says you don't have a sense of humor?
Putin needs to condemn this statement.
It's too subtle for you. But that post wasn't a joke.
The memory of the courage demonstrated by Wajspapir and his comrades will live on for posterity and the Jewish community of Russia will continue to do every possible effort to make sure this happens, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia wrote in a statement.
Later this month, the Moscow Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center is scheduled to host an international symposium in memory of the uprising ahead of its 75th anniversary. Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to attend the event.
nohero said:paulsurovell said:What are we to conclude from this comparison of his private statements while working in the White House, vs. this public statement after he left but was hoping to be a political influence?
jamie said:I posted the Bannon interview to show the sharp contrast with his "Fire and Fury" interview, which the media pushed for several days 24/7, which was not under oath.
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
When the record is more complete, our conclusions are better informed, which is why I posted the interview.
Why do you think the media has not referenced the 60 Minutes interview in their 24/7 coverage of Bannon?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Who says you don't have a sense of humor?
Putin needs to condemn this statement.
Surely, you can't be serious that Putin would issue any sort of public rebuke over this.
Now those words have come from Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov, during a speech on Nov. 27 at a church-sponsored conference convened to re-examine the circumstances of the Romanovs’ murder. Sitting next to Patriarch Kirill, the head of the church, the bishop insisted that his claim was shared by many members of a committee that has been investigating the czar’s murder since 2015. A representative of the President’s Investigative Committee, the government’s top crime agency, quickly agreed to seek out more expert opinions and “to conduct a psychological and historical analysis” of the matter.
The incident could have been dismissed as a fantasy from some anti-Semitic members of the church who have close links to ultraright Russian groups. But Bishop Tikhon is no ordinary churchman. Besides being a top aide of Patriarch Kirill, he is widely thought to be a spiritual adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin. And the suggestion of a ritual murder is so laden with traditional anti-Semitism that the next day, the spokesman for the Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, Borukh Gorin, said it was reminiscent of “the darkest ages.”
I wonder if Ronald Lauder will give a smackdown to Rabbi Gorin.
Why resurrect the idea of ritual murder now? Has Bishop Tikhon become President Putin’s Rasputin? In today’s Russia, where transparency is rare, speculation abounds. One possibility is that reigniting traditional anti-Semitism is a Kremlin ploy intended to tap into ultraright Russian nationalism ahead of the presidential elections in March. After all, stoking Russian nationalism worked well for Mr. Putin during the 2012 presidential campaign. Why not try again?
The fact is that the Kremlin has been relying on the church more than ever, unleashing fundamentalist forces and turning a political campaign into a moral crusade. And at the center of the Kremlin’s efforts, promoting patriotic causes, is Bishop Tikhon, the chairman of the Patriarchal Council for Culture and a member of the Presidential Council for Culture.
"Reviving Old Lies to Unite a New Russia", NY Times, January 11, 2018.
After giving other examples, the article concludes: "Mr. Putin seems determined to ride a wave of Russian nationalism, Christian fundamentalism and anti-Semitism like the one 100 years ago that helped bring the Russian empire to the cataclysm of war and revolution."
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:paulsurovell said:What are we to conclude from this comparison of his private statements while working in the White House, vs. this public statement after he left but was hoping to be a political influence?
jamie said:I posted the Bannon interview to show the sharp contrast with his "Fire and Fury" interview, which the media pushed for several days 24/7, which was not under oath.
Was Bannon under oath in the Charlie Rose interview? I didn't think you'd have more faith in Bannon then the IC.
When the record is more complete, our conclusions are better informed, which is why I posted the interview.
Why do you think the media has not referenced the 60 Minutes interview in their 24/7 coverage of Bannon?
What do you want them to write or say in reference to the interview? Or are you just not going to use simple declarative sentences to make whatever point you think you're making?
nohero said:
What do you want them to write or say in reference to the interview? Or are you just not going to use simple declarative sentences to make whatever point you think you're making?
Maybe you're not aware of it, but when someone contradicts him/herself the media usually points that out. But in this case, the media didn't do it because the 60 Minutes interview contradicts their narrative so it doesn't get mentioned.
paulsurovell said:
When the record is more complete, our conclusions are better informed, which is why I posted the interview.
Why do you think the media has not referenced the 60 Minutes interview in their 24/7 coverage of Bannon?
I'm not sure why the media gives Bannon any coverage. Especially for a guy who's all for a “deconstruction of the administrative state.”
I'm more concerned as to what Trump barred Bannon from saying to the House Intelligence committee? Are you concerned about this? Do you want Bannon to testify under oath or not?
nohero said:
The incident could have been dismissed as a fantasy from some anti-Semitic members of the church who have close links to ultraright Russian groups. But Bishop Tikhon is no ordinary churchman. Besides being a top aide of Patriarch Kirill, he is widely thought to be a spiritual adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin. And the suggestion of a ritual murder is so laden with traditional anti-Semitism that the next day, the spokesman for the Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, Borukh Gorin, said it was reminiscent of “the darkest ages.”
I wonder if Ronald Lauder will give a smackdown to Rabbi Gorin.
I hope you're not suggesting that Lauder disagrees with what Gorin said.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
When the record is more complete, our conclusions are better informed, which is why I posted the interview.
Why do you think the media has not referenced the 60 Minutes interview in their 24/7 coverage of Bannon?
I'm not sure why the media gives Bannon any coverage. Especially for a guy who's all for a “deconstruction of the administrative state.”
I'm more concerned as to what Trump barred Bannon from saying to the House Intelligence committee? Are you concerned about this? Do you want Bannon to testify under oath or not?
Yes, I think I already said that.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I hope you're not suggesting that Lauder disagrees with what Gorin said.
The incident could have been dismissed as a fantasy from some anti-Semitic members of the church who have close links to ultraright Russian groups. But Bishop Tikhon is no ordinary churchman. Besides being a top aide of Patriarch Kirill, he is widely thought to be a spiritual adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin. And the suggestion of a ritual murder is so laden with traditional anti-Semitism that the next day, the spokesman for the Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, Borukh Gorin, said it was reminiscent of “the darkest ages.”
I wonder if Ronald Lauder will give a smackdown to Rabbi Gorin.
I hope you're not suggesting that is your only response to my entire post.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Maybe you're not aware of it, but when someone contradicts him/herself the media usually points that out. But in this case, the media didn't do it because the 60 Minutes interview contradicts their narrative so it doesn't get mentioned.
What do you want them to write or say in reference to the interview? Or are you just not going to use simple declarative sentences to make whatever point you think you're making?
That requires several assumptions. One is about Bannon's veracity in the Charlie Rose interview, especially since disclosures AFTER Bannon spoke to Rose, made that particular meeting seem more significant. A real contradiction would have been a Q & A about the meeting itself, not the very general comments by Bannon to Rose. Again, rather than assume what you were trying to claim, I asked.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Who says you don't have a sense of humor?
Putin needs to condemn this statement.
It's too subtle for you. But that post wasn't a joke.
Oy vey. You see, I was making a joke that Putin would condemn in any serious way this or the many other anti-Semitic musings from the power corridors of Russia.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I hope you're not suggesting that Lauder disagrees with what Gorin said.
The incident could have been dismissed as a fantasy from some anti-Semitic members of the church who have close links to ultraright Russian groups. But Bishop Tikhon is no ordinary churchman. Besides being a top aide of Patriarch Kirill, he is widely thought to be a spiritual adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin. And the suggestion of a ritual murder is so laden with traditional anti-Semitism that the next day, the spokesman for the Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, Borukh Gorin, said it was reminiscent of “the darkest ages.”
I wonder if Ronald Lauder will give a smackdown to Rabbi Gorin.
I hope you're not suggesting that is your only response to my entire post.
Yes, that's the only part of the post that you wrote, except for the snide remark at the top.
jamie said:
no conspiracy theory is too moronic, too demented, too self-evidently laughable to disqualify its advocates from being taken seriously
This can be applied to both sides of the aisle.
Both sides of the aisle are colluding in presenting these conspiracy theories in order to keep the people confused and divided so they can continue to rule over us.
cramer said:Recently, a Russian Orthodox Church bishop, who is close to Putin, said that the killing of Czar Nicholas II was a "ritual murder" by the Jews. There is an election coming up and it's always about the Jews, isn't it?
I thought it was the Clintons, which of course begs the question of whether the execution of the Czar was a good thing or a bad thing.
Speaking of the Clintons why did Manning take the name of their daughter when she transitioned?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Yes, that's the only part of the post that you wrote, except for the snide remark at the top.
paulsurovell said:I hope you're not suggesting that is your only response to my entire post.
nohero said:I hope you're not suggesting that Lauder disagrees with what Gorin said.
I wonder if Ronald Lauder will give a smackdown to Rabbi Gorin.
The incident could have been dismissed as a fantasy from some anti-Semitic members of the church who have close links to ultraright Russian groups. But Bishop Tikhon is no ordinary churchman. Besides being a top aide of Patriarch Kirill, he is widely thought to be a spiritual adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin. And the suggestion of a ritual murder is so laden with traditional anti-Semitism that the next day, the spokesman for the Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, Borukh Gorin, said it was reminiscent of “the darkest ages.”
In other words, you will ignore the rest of article and its contents, other than the part you quoted.
Fusion head Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee in November 2017 will be posted online today.
The House Intel committee's Republican majority report on the dossier and FISA warrant will be available to House members in a secure room in the Capitol.
For a thorough explanation of how the media and intel agencies created and sustained Russiagate for a year and a half without facts or evidence, read this:
Jimmy Dore review of Intercept article on Chelsea Manning's candidacy features effusive praise for Manning by Daniel Ellsberg at 9:08: