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


paulsurovell said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455426/steele-dossier-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-trump-russia-investigation

Other opinions of McCarthy - Waterboarding is not torture - "I believe that the issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists, should have been disqualifying."  And he was an attorney for Giuliani.

This piece was pure fluff - "thorough explanation"?  Maybe according to you and him - there was nothing factual to it - pure spin.  




jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455426/steele-dossier-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-trump-russia-investigation

Other opinions of McCarthy - Waterboarding is not torture - "I believe that the issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists, should have been disqualifying."  And he was an attorney for Giuliani.

This piece was pure fluff - "thorough explanation"?  Maybe according to you and him - there was nothing factual to it - pure spin.  

With regard to your quote, I agree that it's scurrilous. But it's just a sharper-edged version of similar attacks by Hillary on Obama for his left-wing associations in 2008:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1  

CLINTON: . . . But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me. And, therefore, I would have not been able to stay in the church . . .
[ . . . ]
CLINTON:  I think in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright . . . it is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.
[ . . . ]

STEPHANOPOULOS:
. . . And I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.
And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly."
Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
[ . . . ]

CLINTON: . . . I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And, if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
And what they did was set bombs. And in some instances, people died. So it is -- I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.
And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.


Great interview with Aron Mate, the journalist who interviewed that dippy Guardian author; the one who wrote the best selling book, "Collusion" despite having no proof of any.



I suggest that Mr. Surovell update the thread title, like Mr. GL2 does for his "GOP2018" thread, to reflect current news.  For example, today it could be renamed "Deafening Silence on Release of Fusion Transcript by House Committee".  For some reason, it's not being talked about. 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4355529/TranscriptFusion.pdf

Here's a funny bit for those conspiracy-minded Trump defenders out there (pp. 60-62) -

MR. SIMPSON: It's a quick story. So he said he needed -- that we needed to do this or he needed to do this. And I didn't - couldn't think -- first of all, he didn't volunteer that he had a relationship that he could do it. He just raised the issue. And at some point he did say -- I said: Well, I wouldn't know who to talk to and I don't know -- I just didn't know - feel qualified to do that. And he said: I know people at the FBI and I can do it. And I said: So you're telling me that you think this is serious enough that it needs to be reported to law enforcement, and that you're confident enough in your sources, it's your professional judgment and your professiqnal obligation, that'you should report this to the FBI? And he said yes.

MR. ROONEY: It sounds like you weren't sure if it was serious enough.

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, I don't- he's the spy and I'm the ex-journalist. So basically, he's the one who is a security official by profession. And I wasn't going to substitute my judgment for his, that's correct. So he then went to report it to the FBI. And I didn't tell him to do it. I didn't tell him not to do it. I assented in it.


MR. ROONEY: Were Perkins Coie, Mark Elias, and the DNC or the Hillary team aware that the dossier was being briefed to intelligence officials or the FBI? Do you know that?

MR. SIMPSON; I'm going to - I can't talk about communications with my client, but I can give you what I think is a useful answer, which is that we did not. At least I can tell you about generally what I -- what my -- what I did. So Chris went and reported this to the Bureau. And he came back and said: I reported this to the Bureau. And we did not ask permission from the client to do that. The client didn't instruct us to do that. It was -- he was -- you know, it was viewed as reporting a crime in progress, sort of a citizenship obligation.

By the way, for "coming attractions" for this thread, Sean Hannity is always a useful source.  A sample from Wednesday-

Also, tonight, we have major breaking news. This is important tonight about the phony fake news Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian propaganda document and dossier. Sara Carter reporting that longtime Clinton aide adviser Sid Vicious Blumenthal apparently was interviewed by the FBI in 2016 about this fake news anti-Trump dossier.

And that's not all, according to The Washington Examiner's Byron York, congressional investigators are now working to determine whether or not the Obama State Department was involved in gathering and circulating fictitious and totally fake information that was found in that dossier. It's getting deeper every night.

And according to another new report, an FBI agent exchanged information about the bureau's Russia investigation with the former spy that was getting the phony Russian information, Christopher Steele. He's the guy that put the dossier together.

So, you have Steele being told by our FBI about their Russia investigation at the same time Steele is getting paid by Hillary Clinton to dig up phony Russian propaganda source dirt on Donald Trump. You can't make this up.

And we also know from Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, his testimony, that Steele briefed the FBI about the dossier before the election. This is corruption at the highest levels.

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:


Sean Guillory's second Tweet on Glenn Simpson's anti-Semitic remarks at the House Intel committee:

2 of 2:


People should be uncomfortable with defending Trump with the tactic of labeling other people as religious bigots. 


Is the comment antisemitic, or was he just explaining the relationship?  I think you need more in order to make that charge. 

paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:



It comes as little surprise that there are people out there combing through the testimony looking for a brush to tar Simpson with so they can instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with their prior beliefs.



South_Mountaineer said:

People should be uncomfortable with defending Trump with the tactic of labeling other people as religious bigots.

Is the comment antisemitic, or was he just explaining the relationship?  I think you need more in order to make that charge. 
paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:

I think this is a reasonable criticism.



ridski said:

It comes as little surprise that there are people out there combing through the testimony looking for a brush to tar Simpson with so they can instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with their prior beliefs.

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.


Why is it reasonable to make a charge like that?  

paulsurovell said:



South_Mountaineer said:

People should be uncomfortable with defending Trump with the tactic of labeling other people as religious bigots.

Is the comment antisemitic, or was he just explaining the relationship?  I think you need more in order to make that charge. 
paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:

I think this is a reasonable criticism.



I have read almost the same things he said in the Forward.

To me it's not anti-Semitic. I'm Jewish. Is Mr. Guillory?


paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:



paulsurovell said:

Sean Guillory's second Tweet on Glenn Simpson's anti-Semitic remarks at the House Intel committee:

2 of 2:



paulsurovell said:
 
ridski said:

It comes as little surprise that there are people out there combing through the testimony looking for a brush to tar Simpson with so they can instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with their prior beliefs.

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.

Do you have an example of someone "combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior"? 



paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:

The tweet has a picture of part of a page of the transcript.  It cuts off the first part of Simpson's response. Here's the relevant Q&A, showing context:

MR. CASTRO: In all of your research and your review of Trump assets,
did you come across any reason to believe that any Kushner assets had been
used to pay off Trump debts or there was any mixing of the businesses by the two
families and companies?

MR. SIMPSON: Well, the Jersey City project was - I remember there was
some Trump involvement in the Jersey City project, which was kind of a Kushner
branded project. So there clearly was things that they were doing together.

What we heard from people familiar with the story was that the Kushner
family and their connections were a big attraction for Trump before the marriage
and that, you know -- I mean, I don't want to -- I'm trying to be polite about it, but, I
mean, there was a business element to the whole, you know, connection. And I
will hasten to add that I was not able --

: One minute.

MR. SIMPSON: -- to confirm any of this, and I didn't share this widely,
certainly not in any kind of formal way with anyone.
You know, the Kushners are ethnic Russian and they, we were told, had
relationships of their own with Russian capital. And, you know, the exact story I
think was that their relationships were with the Russian diaspora in the New York
area.

So more broadly speaking, during the '7Os, in the Refusenik era, there was
a lot of Russian Jewish immigration to the New York area. And a lot of those
people had -- well, I'll just say there was a lot of immigration, and that community
is very large, and a Jot of people became very successful and wealthy. And, as I
understand it, those are the connections that the Kushners have to outside capital.

He's describing his understanding of Trump's interest in the Kushner family.  It might not be a complementary description of Trump, and interestingly enough was cut off the quote used in the "tweet".

I think that the guy who "tweeted" this claim was being misleading, and I think you should have looked at the transcript, for context, instead of just accepting his claim and spreading it.



nohero said:


paulsurovell said:
 
ridski said:

It comes as little surprise that there are people out there combing through the testimony looking for a brush to tar Simpson with so they can instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with their prior beliefs.

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.

Do you have an example of someone "combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior"? 


Take your pick:

https://news.google.com/news/story/d9fqgFu_90hpoCMrTLDfKgu728pDM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US



nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:

The tweet has a picture of part of a page of the transcript.  It cuts off the first part of Simpson's response. Here's the relevant Q&A, showing context:


MR. CASTRO: In all of your research and your review of Trump assets,
did you come across any reason to believe that any Kushner assets had been
used to pay off Trump debts or there was any mixing of the businesses by the two
families and companies?

MR. SIMPSON: Well, the Jersey City project was - I remember there was
some Trump involvement in the Jersey City project, which was kind of a Kushner
branded project. So there clearly was things that they were doing together.

What we heard from people familiar with the story was that the Kushner
family and their connections were a big attraction for Trump before the marriage
and that, you know -- I mean, I don't want to -- I'm trying to be polite about it, but, I
mean, there was a business element to the whole, you know, connection. And I
will hasten to add that I was not able --

: One minute.

MR. SIMPSON: -- to confirm any of this, and I didn't share this widely,
certainly not in any kind of formal way with anyone.
You know, the Kushners are ethnic Russian and they, we were told, had
relationships of their own with Russian capital. And, you know, the exact story I
think was that their relationships were with the Russian diaspora in the New York
area.

So more broadly speaking, during the '7Os, in the Refusenik era, there was
a lot of Russian Jewish immigration to the New York area. And a lot of those
people had -- well, I'll just say there was a lot of immigration, and that community
is very large, and a Jot of people became very successful and wealthy. And, as I
understand it, those are the connections that the Kushners have to outside capital.

He's describing his understanding of Trump's interest in the Kushner family.  It might not be a complementary description of Trump, and interestingly enough was cut off the quote used in the "tweet".

I think that the guy who "tweeted" this claim was being misleading, and I think you should have looked at the transcript, for context, instead of just accepting his claim and spreading it.

I made my point in two parts. The second part, which builds on the first, includes Simpson's statement that "Putin essentially took over the Jewish community," which has little to do with Trump's interest in the Kushner family, but has a lot to do with how Simpson views Jews in Russia.



paulsurovell said:


I made my point in two parts. The second part, which builds on the first, includes Simpson's statement that "Putin essentially took over the Jewish community," which has little to do with Trump's interest in the Kushner family, but has a lot to do with how Simpson views Jews in Russia.

I am so glad you wrote that.  Since we've established that the first part of your point wasn't a "point" at all, and doesn't actually show anti-Semitism on the part of Simpson, let's look at the context of the second excerpt.  Again, we'll look at more than just the part used by the "tweeter" you relied on.


MS. SPEIER: All right. Let me move onto another property, the Soho
property. What do you know about Tamir Sapir?
MR. SIMPSON: I used to know a lot. I don't remem.ber. I think he is of
Central Asian background. I believe he is deceased now. And I believe he is - I
guess there is some inter-marriage. l can't remember how it is. But I remember
something about weddings and them being socially connected. That's about all I
remember. I am sort of thinking back to one of the other questions that
Congressman Schiff asked about, things to look at. And it's kind of an
uncomfortable - I don't know really how to put it, but there is a lot of - Putin
seems to be very interested in the Jewish Diaspora. And there seems to be,
especially, the sort of Orthodox or ultra religious or conservative, and there is a
definitely something interesting to all that. Chabad, in particular, is a subject that
is curious and interesting.

And Putin essentially took over the Russian Jewish community and the
leadership of the Russian Jewish community. And appears, for reasons I can't
fully explain to be -- this appears to be a very interesting route for the Russians.
And again, I think there are many routes for the Russians. They use trade
groups, they use ethnic association groups, and at least -- and they use religious
groups.

The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian State now. And when I
used to do terrorism reporting, the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the
Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and that it
was intelligence operations. So -

MS. SPEIER: So the extent to which they are funding persons within let's
say the Russian Orthodox church or funding the church, is the expectation then
that those who are here in the United States, members of the Russian Orthodox
church are doing something on behalf of Russia?

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I think -- I mean the thing that I have looked at is
more in Europe, but It's using the Orthodox church as a cover to move money and
for operational cover reasons, to give people, agel"!ts jobs. A lot of the senior
people in the church are ex-KGB, or maybe still KGB. And so -

MS. SPEIER: And very religious, I guess.

MR. SIMPSON: These are actually quite well documented. The other
thing is the history of Russian espionage, a lot of the stuff they have been doing
lately is really out of the old playbook. So from my background, as I don't have
sort of any great investigative powers, so I read a lot. And a lot of what you read
in the history of Soviet espionage is what you have been seeing lately. In any
case, oh, and the classic one of course is Kompromat. So, you know, that
obviously is something that harkens back.

Obviously, he is describing what he has learned about how Russia uses religious groups with respect to funding.  Some of his information is what "the Mossad guys used to tell" him.

So your second point isn't a "point", either. 



nohero said:

paulsurovell said:


I made my point in two parts. The second part, which builds on the first, includes Simpson's statement that "Putin essentially took over the Jewish community," which has little to do with Trump's interest in the Kushner family, but has a lot to do with how Simpson views Jews in Russia.

I am so glad you wrote that.  Since we've established that the first part of your point wasn't a "point" at all, and doesn't actually show anti-Semitism on the part of Simpson, let's look at the context of the second excerpt.  Again, we'll look at more than just the part used by the "tweeter" you relied on.

MS. SPEIER: All right. Let me move onto another property, the Soho
property. What do you know about Tamir Sapir?
MR. SIMPSON: I used to know a lot. I don't remem.ber. I think he is of
Central Asian background. I believe he is deceased now. And I believe he is - I
guess there is some inter-marriage. l can't remember how it is. But I remember
something about weddings and them being socially connected. That's about all I
remember. I am sort of thinking back to one of the other questions that
Congressman Schiff asked about, things to look at. And it's kind of an
uncomfortable - I don't know really how to put it, but there is a lot of - Putin
seems to be very interested in the Jewish Diaspora. And there seems to be,
especially, the sort of Orthodox or ultra religious or conservative, and there is a
definitely something interesting to all that. Chabad, in particular, is a subject that
is curious and interesting.

And Putin essentially took over the Russian Jewish community and the
leadership of the Russian Jewish community. And appears, for reasons I can't
fully explain to be -- this appears to be a very interesting route for the Russians.
And again, I think there are many routes for the Russians. They use trade
groups, they use ethnic association groups, and at least -- and they use religious
groups.

The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian State now. And when I
used to do terrorism reporting, the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the
Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and that it
was intelligence operations. So -

MS. SPEIER: So the extent to which they are funding persons within let's
say the Russian Orthodox church or funding the church, is the expectation then
that those who are here in the United States, members of the Russian Orthodox
church are doing something on behalf of Russia?

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I think -- I mean the thing that I have looked at is
more in Europe, but It's using the Orthodox church as a cover to move money and
for operational cover reasons, to give people, agel"!ts jobs. A lot of the senior
people in the church are ex-KGB, or maybe still KGB. And so -

MS. SPEIER: And very religious, I guess.

MR. SIMPSON: These are actually quite well documented. The other
thing is the history of Russian espionage, a lot of the stuff they have been doing
lately is really out of the old playbook. So from my background, as I don't have
sort of any great investigative powers, so I read a lot. And a lot of what you read
in the history of Soviet espionage is what you have been seeing lately. In any
case, oh, and the classic one of course is Kompromat. So, you know, that
obviously is something that harkens back.

Obviously, he is describing what he has learned about how Russia uses religious groups with respect to funding.  Some of his information is what "the Mossad guys used to tell" him.

So your second point isn't a "point", either. 

The fact that Simpson casts negative aspersions on the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't negate his negative aspersions on Russian Jews. Nor does anything he was allegedly told by the Mossad.



paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:


paulsurovell said:

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.

Do you have an example of someone "combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior"? 
Take your pick:

https://news.google.com/news/story/d9fqgFu_90hpoCMrTLDfKgu728pDM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US

That's a list of articles.  You expect someone to read the articles, and find one with an example of what you're claiming?  If you had actually seen "an example of someone combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior", you could have quoted it.  But you didn't quote anything.



nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:


paulsurovell said:

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.

Do you have an example of someone "combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior"? 
Take your pick:

https://news.google.com/news/story/d9fqgFu_90hpoCMrTLDfKgu728pDM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US

That's a list of articles.  You expect someone to read the articles, and find one with an example of what you're claiming?  If you had actually seen "an example of someone combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior", you could have quoted it.  But you didn't quote anything.

Simpson is the latest "savior" of sputtering Russiagate, as his allegations on money laundering have become the latest "bombshells" of the proponents.

From the first link on the list:

(CNN) California Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, is making the accusation that past Trump Organization real estate deals show evidence of money laundering."I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there has been money laundering going on in many of the real estate deals that were done by the Trump Organization," Speier said in an interview Thursday on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time." "If you start tracking these various projects, you can see a connection, you can see a relationship," she said later in the interview.

The Democratic congresswoman asserted that "money laundering is a huge component" of the closed-door interview the House Intelligence Committee had with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson in November.



The FBI "lost" key emails requested by Congress between FBI agents Strzok and Page:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-congress-seeks-answers-after-fbi-claims-texts-missing-in-trump-russia-probe/article/2646644?platform=hootsuite

This comes two days after the NSA announces it "lost" data it was required to preserve in Federal lawsuits:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/nsa-deletes-surveillance-data-351730

Is this just another occasion to trust what the Intel agencies tell us?


paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:
 
paulsurovell said:

Also a lot of people combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior.
Do you have an example of someone "combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior"? 
Take your pick:

https://news.google.com/news/story/d9fqgFu_90hpoCMrTLDfKgu728pDM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US
That's a list of articles.  You expect someone to read the articles, and find one with an example of what you're claiming?  If you had actually seen "an example of someone combing the testimony to make Simpson a savior", you could have quoted it.  But you didn't quote anything.
Simpson is the latest "savior" of sputtering Russiagate, as his allegations on money laundering have become the latest "bombshells" of the proponents.

From the first link on the list:
(CNN) California Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, is making the accusation that past Trump Organization real estate deals show evidence of money laundering."I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there has been money laundering going on in many of the real estate deals that were done by the Trump Organization," Speier said in an interview Thursday on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time." "If you start tracking these various projects, you can see a connection, you can see a relationship," she said later in the interview.

The Democratic congresswoman asserted that "money laundering is a huge component" of the closed-door interview the House Intelligence Committee had with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson in November.

You know, people can read the posts and the article, so they can know that you didn't back up your response.  Sorry to point that out, but it seems to be the only "point" of this thread, that is, a lot of unsupported claims and misleading descriptions to support the "stop the investigation" theme.


paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:

Obviously, he is describing what he has learned about how Russia uses religious groups with respect to funding.  Some of his information is what "the Mossad guys used to tell" him.

So your second point isn't a "point", either. 
The fact that Simpson casts negative aspersions on the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't negate his negative aspersions on Russian Jews. Nor does anything he was allegedly told by the Mossad.

The "fact" is not what you say it is.  Look, I do not know how much of what Simpson says is accurate.  However, I do know that his point is not anti-Semitic.  He's describing what organizations of people have been doing under Putin.  It's not a criticism of a religion or of people who are part of a particular religious or ethnic group as a whole.  You're using a cheap diversion, and one that doesn't work in a forum like this with mostly well-informed people who can see through that.



nohero said:
You know, people can read the posts and the article, so they can know that you didn't back up your response.  Sorry to point that out, but it seems to be the only "point" of this thread, that is, a lot of unsupported claims and misleading descriptions to support the "stop the investigation" theme.

Yes I know, you've been pushing the "stop the DOJ investigation of Steele" theme for a while.


paulsurovell said:

Part of Glenn Simpson's testimony before the House Intel committee was anti-Semitic, according to Russian expert Sean Guillory. I agree:

1 of 2:


paulsurovell said:

Sean Guillory's second Tweet on Glenn Simpson's anti-Semitic remarks at the House Intel committee:

2 of 2:

Sean Guillory has written about Jewish émigrés from the former Soviet Union, including those who emigrated to Israel.  Some of his articles highlight critical issues, such as "The Russian Diaspora in Israel"  ("According to my unscientific survey, the Russian diaspora in Israel is an under reported topic in blogs on Russia. I present excerpts from two articles from Haaretz in hopes of beginning a discussion. The first tells of Russian anti-Semitism toward Orthodox Jews in the form of neo-Nazis, while the second reports on the Israeli oppression of Russians because of their adherence to the Orthodox faith. Both point to the contradictions the post-Soviet aliyah to Israel that began in the 1990s."), and "(Russian) Israelis run anti-Jewish Web sites".  He discusses actions taken by certain members of the Russian Jewish émigré community, and I wouldn't call his articles "anti Semitic".  I don't know why he chose to label Simpson's statements as anti Semitic, given that Simpson is doing the same thing, that is, describing actions taken by certain members of a community.



paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:
You know, people can read the posts and the article, so they can know that you didn't back up your response.  Sorry to point that out, but it seems to be the only "point" of this thread, that is, a lot of unsupported claims and misleading descriptions to support the "stop the investigation" theme.
Yes I know, you've been pushing the "stop the DOJ investigation of Steele" theme for a while.

People can also recognize a statement that is unsupported and a non sequitur.

[Edited to add] And fwiw, there is no "DOJ investigation of Steele", but a couple of Republican senators asked for that about two weeks ago.  I fail to see how I could have been "pushing" anything for a while if that only recently happened.  In fact, I don't think you can even find me "pushing" any "stop the DOJ investigation". 


Anyway, some more "coming attractions".  This is Rush Limbaugh on Friday.  His arguments may be coming soon to a "Who Colluded More" thread near you.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m here to tell you that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that whole investigation, because of something I read today that I consider to be blockbuster… It’s by Lee Smith at TabletMag.com, and I’ll be telling you about it as the program unfolds. Not just because of this. I actually think that they’re no longer investigating Russia collusion. I think the dossier has now been totally exposed for what it is: A fraudulent document.

I believe now people understand that Russian agents actually wrote it. Do you know this Christopher Steele guy who was the supposed author of the Trump dossier? Do any of you know…? Do any of you remember the name Alexander Litvinenko? I’m sure you don’t. But he was a Soviet/Russian agent who at one time became very vocally anti-Putin. He was poisoned to death in a London hotel lobby. He was with some friends and ordered some tea and he ended up consuming polonium-235, which is basically an offshoot of uranium radiation.

And he died a slow, ugly, painful death in the hospital. It turns out Christopher Steele, when he worked at MI6, ran that guy. It was his agent. Christopher Steele, we have learned, has run so afoul of Russian intelligence services, he has been banned from Russia for 20 years! He’s not permitted in the country. Yet this guy is the source authority for the Trump dossier?
...
This Trump dossier, the actual truth is that it’s a lie. The actual truth is there’s nothing in it that’s factual. And it may be the biggest political scandal in the history of the country if that dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate and his transition, if that actually happened, that’s the biggest political scandal that you and I will have ever encountered in our lifetimes and maybe ever.

That is the kind of thing that can shake the foundations of a country to its core. To take an opposition research document bought and paid for by the Democrat candidate for president, created by a guy who let Russian agents literally write the thing. And then it’s presented to the FBI and the CIA as legitimate intel, and then taken to a judge at the FISA court and presented as evidence that Trump has colluded and conspired with Russia to steal an election and a FISA warrant is granted, do you realize the earth-shaking scope, if that actually happened?


nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:

Obviously, he is describing what he has learned about how Russia uses religious groups with respect to funding.  Some of his information is what "the Mossad guys used to tell" him.

So your second point isn't a "point", either. 
The fact that Simpson casts negative aspersions on the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't negate his negative aspersions on Russian Jews. Nor does anything he was allegedly told by the Mossad.

The "fact" is not what you say it is.  Look, I do not know how much of what Simpson says is accurate.  However, I do know that his point is not anti-Semitic.  He's describing what organizations of people have been doing under Putin.  It's not a criticism of a religion or of people who are part of a particular religious or ethnic group as a whole.  You're using a cheap diversion, and one that doesn't work in a forum like this with mostly well-informed people who can see through that.

I previously conceded that it's not fair to say that Simpson's remarks are anti-Semitic, so your point is -- as you like to say -- a red herring.

However, my comment that Simpson casts negative aspersions on Russian Jews is a reasonable interpretation of his remarks, especially his remark that "Putin essentially took over the Russian Jewish community," which  has negative connotations because it suggests that Russian Jews -- as a group -- are acting on Putin's behalf.

That Simpson's description of the Russian Jewish community's relationship with Putin has negative connotations can be understood if one compares it to the statement that I cited earlier by World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder:

MOSCOW - World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder on Tuesday thanked Russia for its efforts to crack down on anti-Semitism and make Jews feel welcome in the country, after a long history of hostility and hardship. “Right now we are witnessing one of the most stunning changes in Russia’s long history,” Lauder said, speaking at the first Moscow International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism.  World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder speaking at the Moscow International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism
“At a time when global terrorism singles out Jews around the world, at a time when we see the impact of intolerance and hate on every continent, here in Russia, the Jewish community is thriving. Jewish kindergartens and Jewish schools are filled to capacity, synagogues are crowded on Shabbat. But Jews in Western Europe are seriously thinking of leaving,” Lauder said.

“President [Vladimir] Putin has made Russia a country where Jews are welcome. And that’s not just a good thing for Jews. It is good for Russia as well,” Lauder said. “It is because of this unprecedented change that the World Jewish Congress looks to continue to work with Russia. We want to be able to count on Russia as a solid friend.”


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:
You know, people can read the posts and the article, so they can know that you didn't back up your response.  Sorry to point that out, but it seems to be the only "point" of this thread, that is, a lot of unsupported claims and misleading descriptions to support the "stop the investigation" theme.
Yes I know, you've been pushing the "stop the DOJ investigation of Steele" theme for a while.

People can also recognize a statement that is unsupported and a non sequitur.

[Edited to add] And fwiw, there is no "DOJ investigation of Steele", but a couple of Republican senators asked for that about two weeks ago.  I fail to see how I could have been "pushing" anything for a while if that only recently happened.  In fact, I don't think you can even find me "pushing" any "stop the DOJ investigation". 

Right, you didn't call for "stopping the (proposed) investigation," you denied that the (proposed) investigation was justified, by calling it a "red herring."


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