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

paulsurovell said:

What was your take on the Isikoff interview?

I haven’t read it.


Now I’ve read it. Isikoff’s ripostes to, and respect for, Mate’s skepticism both sound entirely reasonable to me. (“Now, listen. I admire your skepticism, but I do think that if one clings to it too much, you really do miss a very important story that’s staring right in front of your face.”)

One thing I would have asked Mate about if it had occurred to me during the give-and-take: On the indictment, he questions why evidence wasn’t detailed. On the WashPo report that Putin ordered election interference, he questions why evidence was detailed. There’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t aspect to some of the skepticism that gives it a circular inscrutability at times.

I agree it’s an interview worth everyone’s eyeballs here.


House Intelligence chair Devin Nunes says his committee's report of April 27 contains "almost everything" laid out in Mueller's indictment, but those portions were redacted by DOJ / FBI. The report should be declassified now to confirm his claim:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/15/nunes-mueller-indictment/



Rand Paul, like his father, is a voice for peace and a rational foreign policy. I full endorse this statement and I'm glad he's going to Russia in a few weeks.  Paul needs to be heard more to counter the cacophony of Russia hysteria in the media and the halls of Congress.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/16/trump-is-right-to-meet-putin-219012







First two takeaways from Trump-Putin press conference:

(1) Putin gives lesson to US media -- In a democracy, facts are determined by trials, not by allegations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The onus is now on Mueller to present evidence to US-Russia bilateral treaty commission on criminal matters.

(2) Syrian cooperation will be designed to meet needs of Israel [ Putin met with Netanyahu and top adviser to Iran Supreme leader within the last few days ]


Is it also our policy to take Putin at his word over our own intelligence agencies?  Who should Trump be listening to more - the US or Putin?

That was an embarrassing moment in American Presidential history.  


paulsurovell said:

(1) Putin gives lesson to US media -- In a democracy, facts are determined by trials, not by allegations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The onus is now on Mueller to present evidence to US-Russia bilateral treaty commission on criminal matters.

So in future - if our intelligence agencies have firm evidence that Russia is about to strike the US - we shouldn't act on it?  Instead we should send Trump over and ask Putin if it's true or not?


jamie said:
Is it also our policy to take Putin at his word over our own intelligence agencies?  Who should Trump be listening to more - the US or Putin?
That was an embarrassing moment in American Presidential history.  

 I think it's healthy to be skeptical of our intelligence agencies, and I applaud Trump for that.

Putin also did a service to Americans by reminding us that in a democracy, proof comes in a trial, not in an indictment by law enforcement. His offer to Mueller to allow him to interrogate the indictees through the US-Russian Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters is reasonable and should be accepted by Mueller.


jamie said:


paulsurovell said:

(1) Putin gives lesson to US media -- In a democracy, facts are determined by trials, not by allegations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The onus is now on Mueller to present evidence to US-Russia bilateral treaty commission on criminal matters.
So in future - if our intelligence agencies have firm evidence that Russia is about to strike the US - we shouldn't act on it?  Instead we should send Trump over and ask Putin if it's true or not?

 No, I wouldn't launch a nuclear war because the intelligence agencies said Russia "was about to strike the US." This is exactly the moment when direct talks are needed between the leaders of the two countries, and why today's meeting is important in establishing a relationship where that is possible.


paulsurovell said:

I think it's healthy to be skeptical of our intelligence agencies

 Skeptical - yes.  To accuse that there is a deep state conspiracy and to take Putin's word over their's is obscene.


paulsurovell said:


jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

(1) Putin gives lesson to US media -- In a democracy, facts are determined by trials, not by allegations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The onus is now on Mueller to present evidence to US-Russia bilateral treaty commission on criminal matters.
So in future - if our intelligence agencies have firm evidence that Russia is about to strike the US - we shouldn't act on it?  Instead we should send Trump over and ask Putin if it's true or not?
 No, I wouldn't launch a nuclear war because the intelligence agencies said Russia "was about to strike the US." This is exactly the moment when direct talks are needed between the leaders of the two countries, and why today's meeting is important in establishing a relationship where that is possible.

 What I meant was something more imminent - Russia is launching a nuclear missile on NYC in 1 hour.  Putin says "no we're not".  Which one do we believe?


jamie said:


paulsurovell said:


jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

(1) Putin gives lesson to US media -- In a democracy, facts are determined by trials, not by allegations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The onus is now on Mueller to present evidence to US-Russia bilateral treaty commission on criminal matters.
So in future - if our intelligence agencies have firm evidence that Russia is about to strike the US - we shouldn't act on it?  Instead we should send Trump over and ask Putin if it's true or not?
 No, I wouldn't launch a nuclear war because the intelligence agencies said Russia "was about to strike the US." This is exactly the moment when direct talks are needed between the leaders of the two countries, and why today's meeting is important in establishing a relationship where that is possible.
 What I meant was something more imminent - Russia is launching a nuclear missile on NYC in 1 hour.  Putin says "no we're not".  Which one do we believe?

I would never launch a nuclear war based on the prediction of an intelligence agency, regardless of the timeframe.  If such a prediction were made, it would be appropriate to use the hotline to establish direct communications between the two Presidents.

This hypothetical isn't really a concern. The biggest danger of nuclear war is a mistake made by the automatic nuclear warning systems -- radar and satellite -- which can cause a launch of land-based missiles in 10 minutes.  There have been numerous false warnings in the past -- on both sides. An important goal for Trump and Putin would be to eliminate all such launch-on-warning systems, as well as policies of first-use of nuclear weapons.


at what point should we trust anything the intelligence agencies say?  Seems like Trump can do better without them.


When they provide the evidence behind the allegations.


paulsurovell said:
Rand Paul, like his father, is a voice for peace and a rational foreign policy. 

 Is Ron Paul's anti-semitism and racism a bug or a feature for you?


dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
Rand Paul, like his father, is a voice for peace and a rational foreign policy. 
 Is Ron Paul's anti-semitism and racism a bug or a feature for you?

Paul S. has made it clear, at least as far as I have seen, that he does not discriminate when evaluating someone’s statements. If it makes sense, it makes sense, and it doesn’t matter whether the person who said it is Rand Paul or Ayatollah Khamenei. 

The risk of this approach — also as far as I see it — is what happens when those same people say or do things that you don’t think make sense: Does it make you reconsider the other statements? Or (as in the earlier Andrew McCarthy example) your own conclusions? If not, there’s a chance you wind up, consciously or not, cherry-picking in a cycle of self-reinforcement.


DaveSchmidt said:


dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
Rand Paul, like his father, is a voice for peace and a rational foreign policy. 
 Is Ron Paul's anti-semitism and racism a bug or a feature for you?
Paul S. has made it clear, at least as far as I have seen, that he does not discriminate when evaluating someone’s statements. If it makes sense, it makes sense, and it doesn’t matter whether the person who said it is Rand Paul or Ayatollah Khamenei. 
The risk of this approach — also as far as I see it — is what happens when those same people say or do things that you don’t think make sense: Does it make you reconsider the other statements? Or (as in the earlier Andrew McCarthy example) your own conclusions? If not, there’s a chance you wind up, consciously or not, cherry-picking in a cycle of self-reinforcement.

 My approach is to assess statements, regardless of who's making them. I agree with some things that Andrew McCarthy says and disagree with others (check my Twitter feed).

With regard to Ron Paul, Progressive Democrats collaborated with him all the time when he was in Congress. Examples:

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/ron-paul-barney-frank-legalize-it-057616

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/conyers-paul-introduce-quality-health-care-coalition-act-level-playing-field-between

And Progressive Democrats often collaborate with Rand Paul:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article132695224.html

One of [Rand] Paul’s unlikely partnerships involved former California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat. They pushed a bill in 2015 to change the tax code to raise money for infrastructure.
He’s worked with other Democrats who are not ordinarily his ideological soul mates, and they embrace it. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said he’d introduced as many bills with Paul as he had with some of his Democratic colleagues.
Both co-sponsored a bill last year to block an Obama administration arms sale to Saudi Arabia over that country’s airstrike campaign in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians.
“He’s a real conservative firebrand who doesn’t see relationships with Democrats as a sign of ideological weakness,” Murphy said. “He’s always been somebody who reaches out vigorously to Democrats, and that hasn’t stopped since the election of Trump.”
Paul and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker have banded together in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders out of prison and ensure they’re not deprived of civil liberties.
“He’s willing to lean in and work together with us on it,” Booker said. “I’m proud that he’s a partner with me on that.”
Paul has long been a staunch critic of the foreign policy that got the U.S. into a prolonged and costly war in Iraq, and he hasn’t spared either of Trump’s predecessors, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush. It’s a position that endears him to Democrats.
“We are often of like mind when it comes to the hubris America has exhibited in the world,” Murphy said.
That doesn’t have to mean passing a bill, Murphy said. The Senate voted down their legislation to block the weapons sale to Saudi Arabia. However, they forced a debate on the Senate floor, and a few months later, the administration canceled the sale.
“I think the debate we pushed on the floor had something to do with that,” Murphy said.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon shares a passion with Paul for protecting the privacy rights of Americans. When Trump nominated Pompeo to lead the CIA, Wyden and Paul agreed that senators should know about Pompeo’s proposal to expand a bulk data-collection program that alarmed civil liberties advocates.
Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sharply questioned Pompeo about the issue in his confirmation hearing. Though the committee and later the full Senate ultimately confirmed Pompeo, Wyden and Paul voted no.
Wyden said he spoke frequently with Paul and their staffs communicated, as well.
“National security is what we talk most about,” Wyden said. “But our wives like each other.”
Jennings said that in an era when Washington was known for its partisanship, Paul’s work with Democrats and breaking with Republicans and Trump might not be such a bad thing.

Andrew McCarthy's latest on the Russia investigation:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.
I would take this a step further and argue that the Steele dossier is an obvious disinformation product. And if the FBI / DOJ used disinformation in the FISA court filing, why wouldn't they use it in their latest court filing --  Mueller's indictments?


paulsurovell said:
Andrew McCarthy's latest on the Russia investigation:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/


Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.
I would take this a step further and argue that the Steele dossier is an obvious disinformation product. And if the FBI / DOJ used disinformation in the FISA court filing, why wouldn't they use it in their latest court filing --  Mueller's indictments?

 Since the documents are "mostly black, as they are heavily redacted", how can McCarthy just ignore all that material and conclude the Steele dossier "was the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation"?  His latest is ridiculous.

And Sean Hannity was all over your second point about "obvious disinformation product" today.

SEAN HANNITY (HOST):Robert Mueller, this is your collusion story. Robert Mueller, maybe you want to get your pitbull, Andrew Weissman, on this. Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the paid for Russian lies to rig an election and lie to the American people. All done at the highest levels of our government.

Literally using a warrant process, and lying to judges, and the bulk of the information judges are fed so that they can spy on an opposition party candidate associate is full of Russian lies. So maybe you will have a little more time on your hands and go after, if I may, these lies that were bought and paid for by Hillary, to Russia, all designed to propagandize the American people. Let me put it another way, lie to the American people. Mr. Mueller do your job tonight if you care about truth, if you care about justice, if you care about the system of justice in this country being abused at this high level, if you care that somebody actually paid for Russian lies to misinform the American people and that information was spread by some of the highest levels of our government. How do you justify Russian lies being used to get a warrant on an American citizen?

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/07/23/during-unhinged-rant-sean-hannity-calls-mueller-investigate-hillary-clinton-colluding-russia/220762

Really unhinged and desperate. 


South_Mountaineer said:


paulsurovell said:
Andrew McCarthy's latest on the Russia investigation:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/


Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.
I would take this a step further and argue that the Steele dossier is an obvious disinformation product. And if the FBI / DOJ used disinformation in the FISA court filing, why wouldn't they use it in their latest court filing --  Mueller's indictments?
 Since the documents are "mostly black, as they are heavily redacted", how can McCarthy just ignore all that material and conclude the Steele dossier "was the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation"?  His latest is ridiculous.
And Sean Hannity was all over your second point about "obvious disinformation product" today.


SEAN HANNITY (HOST):Robert Mueller, this is your collusion story. Robert Mueller, maybe you want to get your pitbull, Andrew Weissman, on this. Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the paid for Russian lies to rig an election and lie to the American people. All done at the highest levels of our government.

Literally using a warrant process, and lying to judges, and the bulk of the information judges are fed so that they can spy on an opposition party candidate associate is full of Russian lies. So maybe you will have a little more time on your hands and go after, if I may, these lies that were bought and paid for by Hillary, to Russia, all designed to propagandize the American people. Let me put it another way, lie to the American people. Mr. Mueller do your job tonight if you care about truth, if you care about justice, if you care about the system of justice in this country being abused at this high level, if you care that somebody actually paid for Russian lies to misinform the American people and that information was spread by some of the highest levels of our government. How do you justify Russian lies being used to get a warrant on an American citizen?
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/07/23/during-unhinged-rant-sean-hannity-calls-mueller-investigate-hillary-clinton-colluding-russia/220762
Really unhinged and desperate. 


 You certainly are.


I don't know why you complained that this thread had been closed before, if you don't want to discuss responses to your posts.  Either that, or you don't have a good response to the critique of either Byron York or Sean ("I hope Cohen didn't tape me too") Hannity.


Paul,


Doesn't agreeing with Sean Hannity set off warning bells in your head?


South_Mountaineer said:
I don't know why you complained that this thread had been closed before, if you don't want to discuss responses to your posts.  Either that, or you don't have a good response to the critique of either Byron York or Sean ("I hope Cohen didn't tape me too") Hannity.
 

Express what you mean about Byron York and Hannity in a coherent fashion and I'll reply.


drummerboy said:
Paul,

Doesn't agreeing with Sean Hannity set off warning bells in your head?

 Doesn't agreeing with the entire Neocon world set off alarm bells in your head?


This will be interesting, unless they settle first. Has this been reported on MSNBC or NY Times?

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/26/fusion-gps-dossier-buzzfeed-lawsuit/

Judge Orders Fusion GPS to Reveal Dossier Details in BuzzFeed Lawsuit
8:15 PM 07/26/2018
Chuck Ross | Reporter

-- Judge orders Fusion GPS to disclose details of its dossier work.
-- The opposition firm has avoided deposition in a dossier-related lawsuit against BuzzFeed.
-- Lawyer for plaintiff says ruling “gave us everything that we had hoped for.”
Representatives of Fusion GPS must answer a broad array of questions about the opposition research firm’s role in creating, investigating and disseminating the infamous Steele dossier, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro issued the decision Tuesday in a defamation lawsuit a Russian tech executive filed against BuzzFeed News, which published the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017.
The trial is scheduled to begin in Miami in November.
Ungaro ruled that attorneys for the executive, Aleksej Gubarev, can ask Fusion GPS representatives in a deposition about the firm’s dossier clients, its efforts to verify the dossier, its decision to hire dossier author Christopher Steele and its interactions with government officials and media outlets, including BuzzFeed.



Scott Ritter explains why Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian GRU officers is a "politically motivated fraud."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/indictment-of-12-russians-under-the-shiny-wrapping-a-political-act/


again - you and the VIPs guys want to see protected sources and methods.  Which will not be made public anytime soon, thus you can continue your narrative in the near future and continue to help Trump in discrediting the "Witch Hunt".



You know, I respected Scott Ritter back in the Iraq War days, but now he's just a guy on the grift.

I started reading the link that Paul posted.

Ritter says this:

There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn’t prove that which it asserts.


hokay, but then he says this

That’s the point of an indictment, however—it doesn’t exist to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment alone


er, uh, that's kind of what I thought after he said the first thing.

Given this pretty muddled writing, why should I waste my time reading the rest of the article? He's clearly a clown.




drummerboy said:
You know, I respected Scott Ritter back in the Iraq War days, but now he's just a guy on the grift.

I started reading the link that Paul posted.
Ritter says this:
There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn’t prove that which it asserts.

hokay, but then he says this

That’s the point of an indictment, however—it doesn’t exist to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment alone

er, uh, that's kind of what I thought after he said the first thing.

Given this pretty muddled writing, why should I waste my time reading the rest of the article? He's clearly a clown.

 Let me help you. I'll break up Ritter's piece in 3 segments:

https://www.truthdig.com/author/scott_ritter/

Indictment of 12 Russians: Under the Shiny Wrapping, a Political Act

By Scott Ritter

Part 1 of 3

With great fanfare, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Friday released a 29-page indictment, a byproduct of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Ostensibly, this indictment cemented the government’s case against the Russians and punched a hole in the arguments of those, like President Trump, who have been labeling Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt.” This, of course, is precisely what Rosenstein and Mueller hoped to achieve through their carefully timed, and even more carefully scripted, indictment.

The indictment was made public at a time when the FBI is under increasing scrutiny for the appearance of strong anti-Trump bias on the part of some of its senior agents. This purported bias in turn generated rational concerns on the part of the president’s supporters that it possibly influenced decisions related to investigations being conducted by the FBI into allegations of collusion between persons affiliated with the campaign of then-Republican candidate Trump and the Russian government. The goal of this alleged collusion was to interfere in the American electoral processes and confer Trump an advantage against his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

It also comes on the heels of a concerted effort on the part of the president and his political supporters to denigrate the investigation of Mueller and, by extension, the judgment and character of Rosenstein, who, since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Russian investigation, has been giving Mueller his marching orders. Indeed, several conservative members of the House of Representatives are mulling the impeachment of Rosenstein, claiming he is refusing to cooperate with Congress by denying them access to documents related to the investigation that certain members of Congress, at least, deem relevant to their constitutionally mandated oversight function.

While the impeachment of Rosenstein is highly unlikely and the likelihood of the FBI being found guilty of its investigations being corrupted by individual bias is equally slim, in the world of politics, perception creates its own reality and the Mueller investigation had been taking a public beating for some time. By releasing an indictment predicated upon the operating assertion that 12 named Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a series of cyberattacks that resulted in information being stolen from computer servers belonging to the Democratic Party, and then facilitated the release of this information in a manner designed to do damage to the candidacy of Clinton, Rosenstein sought to silence once and for all the voices that have attacked him, along with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Mueller investigation, as a participant in a partisan plot against the president.

There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn’t prove that which it asserts. True, it provides a compelling narrative that reads like a spy novel, and there is no doubt in my mind that many of the technical details related to the timing and functioning of the malware described within are accurate. But the leap of logic that takes the reader from the inner workings of the servers of the Democratic Party to the offices of Russian intelligence officers in Moscow is not backed up by anything that demonstrates how these connections were made [ continued ]



https://www.truthdig.com/author/scott_ritter/

Indictment of 12 Russians: Under the Shiny Wrapping, a Political Act

By Scott Ritter

Part 2 of 3

That’s the point of an indictment, however—it doesn’t exist to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment alone. For that to happen, the government would have to produce the specific evidence linking the hacks to the named Russians, and provide details on how this evidence was collected, and by whom. In short, the government would have to be willing to reveal some of the most sensitive sources and methods of intelligence collection by the U.S. intelligence community and expose, and therefore ruin, the careers of those who collected this information. This is something the government has never been willing to do, and there is much doubt that if, for some odd reason, the Russians agreed to send one or more of these named intelligence officers to the United States to answer the indictment, this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn’t survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the government’s assertions.

Robert Mueller knew this when he drafted the indictment, and Rob Rosenstein knew this when he presented it to the public. The assertions set forth in the indictment, while cloaked in the trappings of American justice, have nothing to do with actual justice or the rule of law; they cannot, and will never, be proved in a court of law. However, by releasing them in a manner that suggests that the government is willing to proceed to trial, a perception is created that implies that they can withstand the scrutiny necessary to prevail at trial.

And as we know, perception is its own reality [ continued ]

 


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