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

Excellent profile of Glenn Greenwald and his critique of Russiagate:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/glenn-greenwald-russia-investigation.html

paulsurovell said:
 

nohero said:

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."

So we can agree that my position wasn't "stop", it was that it was a "red herring".  "Red herring is an appropriate term.  The same people who are supposed to be overseeing the investigation of Trump and Russia decide to say, in effect, "No, look over there!"  It has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump/Russia investigation, but they're pushing it as a distraction.

From the Greenwald article you posted, which shows the way that term is used.

And even if claims about Russian meddling are corroborated by Robert Mueller’s investigation, Greenwald’s not sure it adds up to much — some hacked emails changing hands, none all that damaging in their content, maybe some malevolent Twitter bots. In his eyes, the Russia-Trump story is a shiny red herring — one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.

Nice to see that Mr. Greenwald concedes that the possible Trump-Russia connection may not be a "wild goose chase".

paulsurovell said:

Excellent profile of Glenn Greenwald and his critique of Russiagate:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/glenn-greenwald-russia-investigation.html

Fun fact I learned from that article -

Greenwald supported the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but in 2005, when it became clear that the war on terror had produced a massive suspension of civil liberties — warrantless wiretapping, Guantánamo Bay — Greenwald abandoned his law practice and devoted himself to calling out the administration on his website, Unclaimed Territory.

2005! And all this time I thought it was Hillary who was evil, because she voted for the use of force resolution in 2002, even though she criticized the invasion. 

More fun facts from the Greenwald article.  These are just two samples, in case anyone wants to respond to me by writing, "You missed ____ ", because I read the whole thing. 

First, apparently he cares less than some of us about the fact that Russia may have tried something to interfere.

When it comes to what the investigation was designed to focus on, Greenwald says he’s still waiting for hard evidence that the Trump campaign aided Russian operatives in hacking the Clinton-campaign emails — or struck some other corrupt bargain. Absent that, he’s not impressed. “Some Russians wanted to help Trump win the election, and certain people connected to the Trump campaign were receptive to receiving that help. Who the **** cares about that?”

And his defensiveness means he'll hold on to irrelevant "trees" and ignore everything else in the "forest".

Journalistically, the problem with this dynamic is there’s virtually no revelation in the Russia story that could get Greenwald to change his mind. Which means that while Scahill and other Intercept colleagues tend to evaluate each new revelation at face value, Greenwald focuses disproportionately on debunked or overblown Russia stories. Ever the lawyer, he curates evidence that suits his argument. More than a year ago, the Washington Post published an erroneous story alleging that Russia had hacked into a U.S. electrical grid in Vermont. Greenwald continues to bring this up. To him, it’s not just a random piece of bad reporting but a crucial exhibit in a case he’s building.

paulsurovell said:
 

nohero said:

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.

I scrolled back, and couldn't find where you "conceded that it's not fair to say that Simpson's remarks are anti-Semitic". 

If you want to parse the difference between "anti Semitic" and "negative aspersions on Russian Jews" as a group, that's more "word games" - as I sometimes like to say.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 

nohero said:

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."

So we can agree that my position wasn't "stop", it was that it was a "red herring".  "Red herring is an appropriate term.  The same people who are supposed to be overseeing the investigation of Trump and Russia decide to say, in effect, "No, look over there!"  It has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump/Russia investigation, but they're pushing it as a distraction.

From the Greenwald article you posted, which shows the way that term is used.

And even if claims about Russian meddling are corroborated by Robert Mueller’s investigation, Greenwald’s not sure it adds up to much — some hacked emails changing hands, none all that damaging in their content, maybe some malevolent Twitter bots. In his eyes, the Russia-Trump story is a shiny red herring — one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.

Nice to see that Mr. Greenwald concedes that the possible Trump-Russia connection may not be a "wild goose chase".

If you actually read his work you would have known that many months ago.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 

nohero said:

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.

I scrolled back, and couldn't find where you "conceded that it's not fair to say that Simpson's remarks are anti-Semitic". 

If you want to parse the difference between "anti Semitic" and "negative aspersions on Russian Jews" as a group, that's more "word games" - as I sometimes like to say.

It's accurate to say that I think Simpson cast negative aspersions on Russian Jews.  It's dishonest to say that I think that Simpson is anti-Semitic.

If I ban someone for obsessive compulsive word parsing - would that be McCarthyism?

nohero said:

More fun facts from the Greenwald article.  These are just two samples, in case anyone wants to respond to me by writing, "You missed ____ ", because I read the whole thing. 

First, apparently he cares less than some of us about the fact that Russia may have tried something to interfere.

This is the best thing you've posted so far.

A confession that everything you've posted has been to promote and defend something for which no evidence exists.

jamie said:

If I ban someone for obsessive compulsive word parsing - would that be McCarthyism?

It would be McParsyism.

paulsurovell said:

A confession that everything you've posted has been to promote and defend something for which no evidence exists.

Just because *you* don't see or acknowledge something does not mean it doesn't exist. 

paulsurovell said:

It's accurate to say that I think Simpson cast negative aspersions on Russian Jews.  It's dishonest to say that I think that Simpson is anti-Semitic.

Now you're gaslighting us.  Look back a page -

LOST said:

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:
 

nohero said:

More fun facts from the Greenwald article.  These are just two samples, in case anyone wants to respond to me by writing, "You missed ____ ", because I read the whole thing. 

First, apparently he cares less than some of us about the fact that Russia may have tried something to interfere.

This is the best thing you've posted so far.

A confession that everything you've posted has been to promote and defend something for which no evidence exists.

I "confessed" to care that Russia may have tried something?  I thought that was kind of obvious.

I think Paul said what Simpson "said" was anti-Semitic - but Simpson he himself is not necessarily anti-Semitic?

jamie2 said:

I think Paul said what Simpson "said" was anti-Semitic - but Simpson he himself is not necessarily anti-Semitic?

Well, his remark was a response to my statement, "I scrolled back, and couldn't find where you 'conceded that it's not fair to say that Simpson's remarks are anti-Semitic'. 

So maybe he can clarify.

He supported the Iraq war? I didn't know that.

By Paul's metrics, we should not trust a word that he says.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Excellent profile of Glenn Greenwald and his critique of Russiagate:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/glenn-greenwald-russia-investigation.html

Fun fact I learned from that article -

Greenwald supported the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but in 2005, when it became clear that the war on terror had produced a massive suspension of civil liberties — warrantless wiretapping, Guantánamo Bay — Greenwald abandoned his law practice and devoted himself to calling out the administration on his website, Unclaimed Territory.

2005! And all this time I thought it was Hillary who was evil, because she voted for the use of force resolution in 2002, even though she criticized the invasion. 

"The truth lies somewhere between Trump being a Manchurian Candidate and Greenwald’s insistence that the Russia story is a fabrication of a fevered, Russo-phobic liberal mind. And for all its nuances, it’s still a powerful, important story. We’ve discovered that social media giants may be the weak underbelly through which all kinds of adversaries, foreign and domestic, can exercise toxic influence. We can see that Vladimir Putin is having increasing success at filling a vacuum of credibility in Western countries, especially in Europe, created by recent American failures. But when we talk about the Russia story, we aren’t talking about the dangerous concentration in Silicon Valley or partisan outlets like Breitbart or the way the Iraq War undermined the United State’s legitimacy around the world. We’re talking about Glenn Greenwald and the pee tape." 

https://newrepublic.com/article/146725/glenn-greenwalds-women

The entire article is worth a read. There's something for both "sides" in it. Marci Wheeler is the owner of https://www.emptywheel.net/ and has done the most in-depth and objective analysis of the Russia story.

jamie2 said:

I think Paul said what Simpson "said" was anti-Semitic - but Simpson he himself is not necessarily anti-Semitic?

I said it, but then I retracted the statement in response to South_Mountaineer's criticism. This has appeared at least 4 times:

The GOP drops two "bombshells" to challenge the Dems' Russia narrative: "Secret Society" reported by "FBI informant" and "FBI frame-up of Donald Trump." The FBI as sacred cow is no more.

You really buy what diGenova is selling?  His goal in the past few years has been smearing Hillary.  I couldn't get too far in the video (Posted by Reasonable Insanity) - can't believe you're buying his propaganda.

Joseph diGenova Was An Early Benghazi Misinformer. In 2013, Joseph diGenova appeared on Fox News with his wife, Victoria Toensing, and alleged the Obama administration was threatening Benghazi whistleblowers to keep quiet. However, by that time Benghazi witnesses had already reportedly testified to the FBI, an independent review board, and spoken to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) regarding the events of September 11, 2012. DiGenova also pushed the falsehood that soldiers were “relieved of their duty because they insisted there be a military response” to the Benghazi attacks, even though a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. 

jamie said:

You really buy what diGenova is selling?  His goal in the past few years has been smearing Hillary.  I couldn't get too far in the video (Posted by Reasonable Insanity) - can't believe you're buying his propaganda.

Joseph diGenova Was An Early Benghazi Misinformer. In 2013, Joseph diGenova appeared on Fox News with his wife, Victoria Toensing, and alleged the Obama administration was threatening Benghazi whistleblowers to keep quiet. However, by that time Benghazi witnesses had already reportedly testified to the FBI, an independent review board, and spoken to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) regarding the events of September 11, 2012. DiGenova also pushed the falsehood that soldiers were “relieved of their duty because they insisted there be a military response” to the Benghazi attacks, even though a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. 

No. Both videos are mostly allegations that need to be confirmed. I posted them to bring the thread up to speed on the state of play in what has become two competing narratives of the collusion story.

.

you're trolling us, right?

paulsurovell said:

The GOP drops two "bombshells" to challenge the Dems' Russia narrative: "Secret Society" reported by "FBI informant" and "FBI frame-up of Donald Trump." The FBI as sacred cow is no more.

Paul, I think your dealer gave you some bad s*** last night.

Can we talk more about Hillary's collusion?  I mean the purpose of this thread is that Paul has concluded that she has been more complicit then Trump when it comes to Russia collusion.  Paul - please share update, I'm pretty Fox has new reports on the subject - or is the DiGenova interview your latest piece of evidence?  Let's focus on Hillary!!!  

Yes, he's definitely "trolling".  He posted, not even without comment, but with something that could be read as an endorsement.  Then he "backs away", in a later post ("I posted them to bring the thread up to speed on the state of play in what has become two competing narratives of the collusion story.")  If you post sleazy Fox content without comment or stating up front how sleazy it is, that looks like you're joining their side.

drummerboy said:

you're trolling us, right?

paulsurovell said:

The GOP drops two "bombshells" to challenge the Dems' Russia narrative: "Secret Society" reported by "FBI informant" and "FBI frame-up of Donald Trump." The FBI as sacred cow is no more.

jamie said:

Can we talk more about Hillary's collusion?  I mean the purpose of this thread is that Paul has concluded that she has been more complicit then Trump when it comes to Russia collusion.  Paul - please share update, I'm pretty Fox has new reports on the subject - or is the DiGenova interview your latest piece of evidence?  Let's focus on Hillary!!!  

Every revelation about the Steele dossier is news about Hillary's collusion with Russian officials to get dirt on Trump.

South_Mountaineer said:

Yes, he's definitely "trolling".  He posted, not even without comment, but with something that could be read as an endorsement.  Then he "backs away", in a later post ("I posted them to bring the thread up to speed on the state of play in what has become two competing narratives of the collusion story.")  If you post sleazy Fox content without comment or stating up front how sleazy it is, that looks like you're joining their side.

Your deployment of "nohero-talk" is very impressive.

ok, let's go back to the start - the 2 big factors for Paul's Hillary collusion argument is the Fusion GPS funding and Ukraine's involvement.  

1) If you hire and pay a fusion like Fusion GPS for opposition research - this is not colluding with a foreign government - period!  Please show improper measures via the Simpson testimonies.

2) Ukraine collusion - here's a fairly simplistic overview: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/12/did-ukraine-try-help-clinton-way-russia-helped-tru/

"Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."

So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.

I already posted on the "hashtag" thread about how I realized what your posting style is trying to do, including about your reaction when others point to your "Fox-talk".  I guess your post below is another "avoiding the point" post.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Yes, he's definitely "trolling".  He posted, not even without comment, but with something that could be read as an endorsement.  Then he "backs away", in a later post ("I posted them to bring the thread up to speed on the state of play in what has become two competing narratives of the collusion story.")  If you post sleazy Fox content without comment or stating up front how sleazy it is, that looks like you're joining their side.

Your deployment of "nohero-talk" is very impressive.