Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Got it. Readers can mentally add “exposes what appears to be a nefarious project” and “the nefarious Steele disinformation dossier appears to have involved collusion.” And in the future, depending on how they phrase their posts, there may even be room to grant commenters their “reasonable inferences” about this thread’s topic without dismissing them out of hand as not being a fact. (I have a feeling we may not have seen the last of that phrase.)
So in summary, I think I had already addressed S_M's criticism's prior to your post.
You seem to have missed what I wrote in respose to S_M:
In the second sentence I concede my language erroneously states as fact what I had previously indicated was an allegation.In light of this, do you still think that I'm suggesting readers should "mentally add . . ." to my post?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I'm glad you want to discuss this. Later, I'll list Aaron Mate's points to make it easy for you to explain why they're "really not as accurate" as the fact that Papadopoulos was not a smoking gun.
paulsurovell said:He's right that Papadopoulos wasn't the bearer of the "smoking gun" that some people speculated he would be. The rest of what Mate asserts, to undercut Mueller, is really not as accurate. I'd recommend this article from yesterday, instead.
Aaron Mate dismantles Mueller's Papadopoulos sentencing memo in 4 Tweets, starting here. Another Russiagate "bombshell" that turned into a dud https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1030834109822713857
https://www.lawfareblog.com/myth-busting-papadopoulos-sentencing-memo
Especially, the conclusion:
"The bottom line is that the George Papadopoulos story should be neither blithely dismissed nor inflated into more than it likely is. It appears to have been the trigger for the Russia investigation. It does not appear to hold the key to what we don’t yet know about L’Affaire Russe."
Emphasis added, because of other speculation and accusations about how and why the investigation started.
This will be fun.
No, I'm going to have to disappoint you. I have no interest in typing out responses to his points. People can read them if they want to. Or, you can write one of your "what this really means" posts to provide him with support.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:No, I'm going to have to disappoint you. I have no interest in typing out responses to his points. People can read them if they want to. Or, you can write one of your "what this really means" posts to provide him with support.
nohero said:I'm glad you want to discuss this. Later, I'll list Aaron Mate's points to make it easy for you to explain why they're "really not as accurate" as the fact that Papadopoulos was not a smoking gun.
paulsurovell said:He's right that Papadopoulos wasn't the bearer of the "smoking gun" that some people speculated he would be. The rest of what Mate asserts, to undercut Mueller, is really not as accurate. I'd recommend this article from yesterday, instead.
Aaron Mate dismantles Mueller's Papadopoulos sentencing memo in 4 Tweets, starting here. Another Russiagate "bombshell" that turned into a dud https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1030834109822713857
https://www.lawfareblog.com/myth-busting-papadopoulos-sentencing-memo
Especially, the conclusion:
"The bottom line is that the George Papadopoulos story should be neither blithely dismissed nor inflated into more than it likely is. It appears to have been the trigger for the Russia investigation. It does not appear to hold the key to what we don’t yet know about L’Affaire Russe."
Emphasis added, because of other speculation and accusations about how and why the investigation started.
This will be fun.
Gee, I thought you'd be eager to prove your claim that what Aaron asserts "is really not as accurate" as his point that Papadopoulos was not the "smoking gun." Important to note that when you agree that Papadopoulos is not the smoking gun you are admitting that after more than two years of the Russia investigation there is no smoking gun -- as any rational person knows.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Gee, I thought you'd be eager to prove your claim that what Aaron asserts "is really not as accurate" as his point that Papadopoulos was not the "smoking gun." Important to note that when you agree that Papadopoulos is not the smoking gun you are admitting that after more than two years of the Russia investigation there is no smoking gun -- as any rational person knows.
No, I'm going to have to disappoint you. I have no interest in typing out responses to his points. People can read them if they want to. Or, you can write one of your "what this really means" posts to provide him with support.
See, that's one of your famous "what this really means" posts.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
I'm not eager to prove anything. I have an opinion, and recommended an article which I think is from a better source with better analysis. Take or leave it, or "fisk" that article if that's how you want to spend the afternoon.
These are Aaron Mate's four Tweets on Mueller's sentencing memo on Papadopoulos
1/ Mueller confirms what some of us predicted at the start, that George Papadopoulos won't offer up a smoking gun (or anything, really). According to Mueller, GP "did not provide 'substantial assistance,'" & whatever he gave, the FBI mostly already had:
2/ Not entirely, however: Mueller also confirms it was GP who volunteered info on Professor Mifsud, the supposed Kremlin intermediary (whom Mueller doesn't actually say is a confirmed Kremlin agent). And as some have pointed out, it appears GP only misled agents about *timing*: 
3/ Mueller confirms FBI interviewed Mifsud but strangely blames GP for undermining FBI's ability to properly "challenge" him "or potentially detain or arrest him." Say what? GP volunteered info on Mifsud months into your probe & it's his fault you can't challenge or detain him?
4/ in sum "Mueller Time" not looking so good:
- George P, aide who supposedly sparked Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, has given Mueller nothing to use
- GP informed FBI of supposed Kremlin cutout, Mifsud
- FBI interviewed Mifsud in DC - & now blames GP for them not arresting him!
- - - - - - - - -
Mueller claims that he was undermined from arresting or detaining Mifsud in February 2017 (the Maltese professor who told Papadopoulos about "Clinton emails") because Papadopoulos allegedly lied to the FBI in his January 2017 interview.
In response to this claim, Aaron writes: "Say what? GP volunteered info on Mifsud months into your probe & it's his fault you can't challenge or detain him?"
Nohero, what's not accurate about this?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:See, that's one of your famous "what this really means" posts.
nohero said:Gee, I thought you'd be eager to prove your claim that what Aaron asserts "is really not as accurate" as his point that Papadopoulos was not the "smoking gun." Important to note that when you agree that Papadopoulos is not the smoking gun you are admitting that after more than two years of the Russia investigation there is no smoking gun -- as any rational person knows.
No, I'm going to have to disappoint you. I have no interest in typing out responses to his points. People can read them if they want to. Or, you can write one of your "what this really means" posts to provide him with support.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
I'm not eager to prove anything. I have an opinion, and recommended an article which I think is from a better source with better analysis. Take or leave it, or "fisk" that article if that's how you want to spend the afternoon.
Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
paulsurovell said:
In light of this, do you still think that I'm suggesting readers should "mentally add . . ." to my post?
I didn’t need a suggestion. I was reviewing your original post on my own, which the light you later shed gave me the impetus to do.
That light will also guide me, I hope, in reading your future posts as well. We can’t always count on another commenter to elicit clarifications or concessions.
Now, if you’ll pardon me. I’m expecting Patrick Melrose any minute.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:I didn’t need a suggestion. I was reviewing your original post on my own, which the light you later shed gave me the impetus to do.
In light of this, do you still think that I'm suggesting readers should "mentally add . . ." to my post?
That light will also guide me, I hope, in reading your future posts as well. We can’t always count on another commenter to elicit clarifications or concessions.
Now, if you’ll pardon me. I’m expecting Patrick Melrose any minute.
I've always assumed that you read my posts (and all others) with a critical eye, knowing that we are all capable and guilty of making errors. Not sure why my post would change anything in this regard.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:With regard to my central comment:
paulsurovell said:Paul, as someone who is usually so meticulous about separating allegation from fact, do you think South_Mountaineer’s main critique here has no merit? His or her aside, after all, was just an aside.
South_Mountaineer said:I didn't realize that breakfast meetings are not allowed to discuss dirty dossiers.
You're down to "reasonable inference". It's not a "reasonable inference" at all, for reasons I already wrote about above. Steele and Simpson do work for all sorts, including Russians. Byron York is making an assumption - and that's not enough for you to write that it is a fact that there's "a nefarious project of the political establishment, is being censored by the corporate media, which is the mouthpiece of the political establishment."
And by the way, what you call "One of the meetings cited in the emails was between Bruce, Nellie and Steele", was a Saturday morning breakfast.
I can't figure out which way Byron York thinks the information is flowing, by the way. I think the only thing we can be certain of is that the Trumpists have found another public servant they want to ruin so as to deflect from the President.
paulsurovell said:In my first (umbrella) sentence I used the term "appears," indicating that I was making an assertion, or allegation, not stating a fact.
The Department of Justice appears to have been involved in the creation of the Steele dossier, which would be a real attack on our democracy.
This story, which exposes a nefarious project of the political establishment, is being censored by the corporate media, which is the mouthpiece of the political establishment.
In the second sentence I concede my language erroneously states as fact what I had previously indicated was an allegation. In response to South_Mountaineer's criticism, I conceded his criticism by calling my statement a "reasonable inference." So I conceded that it has not been established as fact that Ohr's many communications and (several?) meetings with Steele during the creation of the dirty dossier involved collusion on the dossier. But I maintain that it is a reasonable inference to reach that conclusion. The facts that Ohr's wife was working for Steele's supervisor during the creation of the dossier, and that Bruce and Nellie Ohr or met with Steele during that period reinforce that reasonable inference.
With regard to the second half of the second sentence, Yes, it is a fact, that at the time of the post, the story of Ohr's numerous communications with Steele, was being censored by the corporate media.
So in summary, I think I had already addressed S_M's criticism's prior to your post.
You may well be psychic, and addressed what DaveSchmidt wrote before he wrote it, but you're not finished. You didn't address this claim.
paulsurovell said:
The article reveals that the nefarious Steele disinformation dossier involved collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr, who ranked number four in the DOJ.
Is that covered by your revisionist reading of your other statements, or do you have to add another explanation that it doesn't actually say what the plain meaning of the words say.
The only reason I'm commenting on this is that you're making this the reason for an attack on the media. According to you, they should have reported this. But there's no facts to report, just allegations.
Also (and this is a second point, so if you respond please note that this is a second point) there's the whole issue of "reasonable inference", which you didn't address. In my posts above, I pointed out that the "reasonable inference" is that they had other topics to talk about, not Trump. Byron York is the one who adds the Trump ingredient, without any real basis. So unless you have more, there's no "reasonable inference" that they were working on the Steele Trump notes together.
I was driving on Friday, and listened to a little Rush Limbaugh. He had one rant about Bruce Ohr and his wife and Steele and the whole "Deep State" that would fit in perfectly with the arguments made by paulsurovell here. You should listen to him for some inspiration. Here's the transcript online from Rush.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/08/17/this-is-what-pushing-back-looks-like/
Some great lines you probably could use -
The Deep State tricked George W. Bush into invading Iraq: "And there’s a part of me that still thinks that that might have been a sabotage of George W. Bush. I mean, every intelligence agency in the Free World was assuring us that there were weapons of mass destruction in there, and we get in there, and there aren’t any. I know we got stories of them being packed up on trucks and moved over to Syria and that kind of thing. But that was a humongous embarrassment. That set the table… Remember that’s 2003. That set the table for destroying George W. Bush’s election in 2004."
And, of course, the Ohrs: "How is denying that somehow infringing on his freedom of speech? And the answer is that it isn’t. Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr, they’re thick as thieves with Fusion GPS. They’re thick as thieves with Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr’s wife is a longtime Soviet apologist disguised as a Soviet expert analyst. I think that this is so simple to see what’s going on. It’s very clear that Donald Trump has a distinct view of the United States of America and who should be allowed — who is qualified — to have a role in the official position of defending and protecting the United States."
I think what Rush did there is called "McCarthyism", so congratulations on being on that side.
And, of course, the grand collusion conspiracy: "The intelligence community, the executive branch, the sitting president, a former president, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin all came together for the purposes of electing Hillary Clinton back in 2016! Let me say this again. The intelligence community, the Obama executive branch, Obama himself, Bill Clinton, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin… His operatives were trying to smear Trump. I made this point yesterday."
Of course, all those conspirators never managed to reveal any of the material against Trump we're looking at now, before the election, but I guess that's a minor detail.
Anyway, read the whole thing, and keep checking Rush's website, because it will help you if you need more things to put into this thread.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:You may well be psychic, and addressed what DaveSchmidt wrote before he wrote it, but you're not finished. You didn't address this claim.
DaveSchmidt said:With regard to my central comment:
paulsurovell said:Paul, as someone who is usually so meticulous about separating allegation from fact, do you think South_Mountaineer’s main critique here has no merit? His or her aside, after all, was just an aside.
South_Mountaineer said:I didn't realize that breakfast meetings are not allowed to discuss dirty dossiers.
You're down to "reasonable inference". It's not a "reasonable inference" at all, for reasons I already wrote about above. Steele and Simpson do work for all sorts, including Russians. Byron York is making an assumption - and that's not enough for you to write that it is a fact that there's "a nefarious project of the political establishment, is being censored by the corporate media, which is the mouthpiece of the political establishment."
And by the way, what you call "One of the meetings cited in the emails was between Bruce, Nellie and Steele", was a Saturday morning breakfast.
I can't figure out which way Byron York thinks the information is flowing, by the way. I think the only thing we can be certain of is that the Trumpists have found another public servant they want to ruin so as to deflect from the President.
paulsurovell said:In my first (umbrella) sentence I used the term "appears," indicating that I was making an assertion, or allegation, not stating a fact.
The Department of Justice appears to have been involved in the creation of the Steele dossier, which would be a real attack on our democracy.
This story, which exposes a nefarious project of the political establishment, is being censored by the corporate media, which is the mouthpiece of the political establishment.
In the second sentence I concede my language erroneously states as fact what I had previously indicated was an allegation. In response to South_Mountaineer's criticism, I conceded his criticism by calling my statement a "reasonable inference." So I conceded that it has not been established as fact that Ohr's many communications and (several?) meetings with Steele during the creation of the dirty dossier involved collusion on the dossier. But I maintain that it is a reasonable inference to reach that conclusion. The facts that Ohr's wife was working for Steele's supervisor during the creation of the dossier, and that Bruce and Nellie Ohr or met with Steele during that period reinforce that reasonable inference.
With regard to the second half of the second sentence, Yes, it is a fact, that at the time of the post, the story of Ohr's numerous communications with Steele, was being censored by the corporate media.
So in summary, I think I had already addressed S_M's criticism's prior to your post.
I conceded the point in response to your criticism.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Is that covered by your revisionist reading of your other statements, or do you have to add another explanation that it doesn't actually say what the plain meaning of the words say.
The article reveals that the nefarious Steele disinformation dossier involved collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr, who ranked number four in the DOJ.
The only reason I'm commenting on this is that you're making this the reason for an attack on the media. According to you, they should have reported this. But there's no facts to report, just allegations.
The existence of extensive communication between DOJ number 4 Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele is a highly significant fact in the Russia story that was censored by the MSM. On the matter of allegations, are you inviting a debate on whether the MSM reports allegations on Russiagate?
South_Mountaineer said:
Also (and this is a second point, so if you respond please note that this is a second point) there's the whole issue of "reasonable inference", which you didn't address. In my posts above, I pointed out that the "reasonable inference" is that they had other topics to talk about, not Trump. Byron York is the one who adds the Trump ingredient, without any real basis. So unless you have more, there's no "reasonable inference" that they were working on the Steele Trump notes together.
Steele was, let's say, deeply involved in the dirty Trump dossier, when the email exchanges (and visits) took place. The FBI and DOJ were also, let's say, deeply involved in the Russia investigation and in the dossier itself. Ohr's wife, a Russia expert, was working for Steele's supervisor Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, when the email exchanges (and visit) took place.
It's reasonable to infer that Steele and Ohr discussed the dossier during this period.
South_Mountaineer said:
I was driving on Friday, and listened to a little Rush Limbaugh. He had one rant about Bruce Ohr and his wife and Steele and the whole "Deep State" that would fit in perfectly with the arguments made by paulsurovell here. You should listen to him for some inspiration. Here's the transcript online from Rush.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/08/17/this-is-what-pushing-back-looks-like/
Some great lines you probably could use -
The Deep State tricked George W. Bush into invading Iraq: "And there’s a part of me that still thinks that that might have been a sabotage of George W. Bush. I mean, every intelligence agency in the Free World was assuring us that there were weapons of mass destruction in there, and we get in there, and there aren’t any. I know we got stories of them being packed up on trucks and moved over to Syria and that kind of thing. But that was a humongous embarrassment. That set the table… Remember that’s 2003. That set the table for destroying George W. Bush’s election in 2004."
And, of course, the Ohrs: "How is denying that somehow infringing on his freedom of speech? And the answer is that it isn’t. Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr, they’re thick as thieves with Fusion GPS. They’re thick as thieves with Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr’s wife is a longtime Soviet apologist disguised as a Soviet expert analyst. I think that this is so simple to see what’s going on. It’s very clear that Donald Trump has a distinct view of the United States of America and who should be allowed — who is qualified — to have a role in the official position of defending and protecting the United States."
I think what Rush did there is called "McCarthyism", so congratulations on being on that side.
And, of course, the grand collusion conspiracy: "The intelligence community, the executive branch, the sitting president, a former president, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin all came together for the purposes of electing Hillary Clinton back in 2016! Let me say this again. The intelligence community, the Obama executive branch, Obama himself, Bill Clinton, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin… His operatives were trying to smear Trump. I made this point yesterday."
Of course, all those conspirators never managed to reveal any of the material against Trump we're looking at now, before the election, but I guess that's a minor detail.
Anyway, read the whole thing, and keep checking Rush's website, because it will help you if you need more things to put into this thread.
Look at Rush's statement that Nellie Ohr "is a longtime Soviet apologist." That sounds a lot like the accusations against Stephen Cohen made by your Russiagate heroes.
Also note Rush saying that George Bush was "tricked" into invading and that Saddam actually had WMDs but he shipped them to Syria. That's in line with your denial (correct me if I'm wrong) that the WMD hoax was an intentional lie by the CIA (and by Robert Mueller) to foment public fear and hysteria to support an invasion.
Rush, like your Russiagate heroes, promotes the canard that Putin intervened in the 2016 election. Sure, he says it was on behalf of Hillary, but the important thing is that Rush is on the Putin-is-our-enemy team, just like Sean Hannity, and just like your Russiagate heroes.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:The existence of extensive communication between DOJ number 4 Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele is a highly significant fact in the Russia story that was censored by the MSM.
paulsurovell said:Is that covered by your revisionist reading of your other statements, or do you have to add another explanation that it doesn't actually say what the plain meaning of the words say.
The article reveals that the nefarious Steele disinformation dossier involved collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr, who ranked number four in the DOJ.
The only reason I'm commenting on this is that you're making this the reason for an attack on the media. According to you, they should have reported this. But there's no facts to report, just allegations.
Your quoted statement was your response to when I first asked you about this.
I had asked you, "Which part 'exposes a nefarious project of the political establishment'? The story talks about Steele lobbying Ohr about some Russian tycoon. All these guys were working with Russian tycoons."
Your reply says that the "article reveals" "collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr". So you kept repeating it as a claim of fact, which detracts from your revisionist claim that you weren't doing that. It wasn't until you were under some close questioning that you realized you had to back away. You're an example of why there's so much disinformation these days, when people who should know better assert "facts" that aren't facts and hope nobody calls them on it.
And if you respond, if you could do so without one of your "what abouts", that would be helpful.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Steele was, let's say, deeply involved in the dirty Trump dossier, when the email exchanges (and visits) took place. The FBI and DOJ were also, let's say, deeply involved in the Russia investigation and in the dossier itself. Ohr's wife, a Russia expert, was working for Steele's supervisor Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, when the email exchanges (and visit) took place.
Also (and this is a second point, so if you respond please note that this is a second point) there's the whole issue of "reasonable inference", which you didn't address. In my posts above, I pointed out that the "reasonable inference" is that they had other topics to talk about, not Trump. Byron York is the one who adds the Trump ingredient, without any real basis. So unless you have more, there's no "reasonable inference" that they were working on the Steele Trump notes together.
It's reasonable to infer that Steele and Ohr discussed the dossier during this period.
It's not a "reasonable inference" if you have to inject some assumed fact (like the one where you assume they were talking about Trump). The reasonable inference is that they were talking about the Russian oligarch who was the subject of all their other discussions. Steele was a professional (selling information was his stock in trade). It's a big assumption that he would have involved outside people in the US in his Trump research in Russia, that he was hired to do.
You're joining in the sliming in the cause of Trump, for no good reason.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Look at Rush's statement that Nellie Ohr "is a longtime Soviet apologist." That sounds a lot like the accusations against Stephen Cohen made by your Russiagate heroes
And, of course, the Ohrs: "How is denying that somehow infringing on his freedom of speech? And the answer is that it isn’t. Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr, they’re thick as thieves with Fusion GPS. They’re thick as thieves with Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr’s wife is a longtime Soviet apologist disguised as a Soviet expert analyst. I think that this is so simple to see what’s going on. It’s very clear that Donald Trump has a distinct view of the United States of America and who should be allowed — who is qualified — to have a role in the official position of defending and protecting the United States."
I think what Rush did there is called "McCarthyism", so congratulations on being on that side.
I don't have "Russiagate heroes", I'm just uncomfortable with the full-court press against the investigation of the circumstances surrounding all the Russian actions and contacts with Trumpers.
Any your "whataboutism" is pretty lame. Rush's statement is textbook McCarthyism. Your reply amounts to "What about what someone said which I don't identify but I say it looks like McCarthyism?"
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Also note Rush saying that George Bush was "tricked" into invading and that Saddam actually had WMDs but he shipped them to Syria. That's in line with your denial (correct me if I'm wrong) that the WMD hoax was an intentional lie by the CIA (and by Robert Mueller) to foment public fear and hysteria to support an invasion.
The Deep State tricked George W. Bush into invading Iraq: "And there’s a part of me that still thinks that that might have been a sabotage of George W. Bush. I mean, every intelligence agency in the Free World was assuring us that there were weapons of mass destruction in there, and we get in there, and there aren’t any. I know we got stories of them being packed up on trucks and moved over to Syria and that kind of thing. But that was a humongous embarrassment. That set the table… Remember that’s 2003. That set the table for destroying George W. Bush’s election in 2004."
As you can see, the statement is actually in line with YOUR claim that the Iraq invasion can be blamed on the "Deep State" intelligence services being actually deceitful. That is what you keep claiming as a defense to their suspicions about the 2016 election and Russia.
And for the last time - Mueller wasn't in foreign intelligence. When he mentioned the WMD claims in order to discuss what to do domestically based on those claims, he wasn't part of putting the claims together, no matter how much you want to impugn him.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Rush, like your Russiagate heroes, promotes the canard that Putin intervened in the 2016 election. Sure, he says it was on behalf of Hillary, but the important thing is that Rush is on the Putin-is-our-enemy team, just like Sean Hannity, and just like your Russiagate heroes.
And, of course, the grand collusion conspiracy: "The intelligence community, the executive branch, the sitting president, a former president, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin all came together for the purposes of electing Hillary Clinton back in 2016! Let me say this again. The intelligence community, the Obama executive branch, Obama himself, Bill Clinton, the media, Hollywood, the music industry, academia, billionaires, Vladimir Putin… His operatives were trying to smear Trump. I made this point yesterday."
I included that because it's such a rich grand conspiracy theory.
I'd have to be ignorant and oblivious to think it's the same as the suspicions based on the actual findings and evidence of contacts which underlie the investigation of Putin's people interfering on behalf of Trump.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Your quoted statement was your response to when I first asked you about this.
South_Mountaineer said:The existence of extensive communication between DOJ number 4 Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele is a highly significant fact in the Russia story that was censored by the MSM.
paulsurovell said:Is that covered by your revisionist reading of your other statements, or do you have to add another explanation that it doesn't actually say what the plain meaning of the words say.
The article reveals that the nefarious Steele disinformation dossier involved collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr, who ranked number four in the DOJ.
The only reason I'm commenting on this is that you're making this the reason for an attack on the media. According to you, they should have reported this. But there's no facts to report, just allegations.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=2790#discussion-replies-3417094
I had asked you, "Which part 'exposes a nefarious project of the political establishment'? The story talks about Steele lobbying Ohr about some Russian tycoon. All these guys were working with Russian tycoons."
Your reply says that the "article reveals" "collusion not only with Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, but her husband Bruce Ohr". So you kept repeating it as a claim of fact, which detracts from your revisionist claim that you weren't doing that. It wasn't until you were under some close questioning that you realized you had to back away. You're an example of why there's so much disinformation these days, when people who should know better assert "facts" that aren't facts and hope nobody calls them on it.
And if you respond, if you could do so without one of your "what abouts", that would be helpful.
Yes, I backed away on one aspect of my post. And your point is . . .?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
paulsurovell said:I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. ...
Important to note that when you agree that Papadopoulos is not the smoking gun you are admitting that after more than two years of the Russia investigation there is no smoking gun -- as any rational person knows.
Thank you for agreeing that we the public aren't aware of everything the Special Counsel knows, so the fact that we don't know of a smoking gun doesn't mean anything.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Thank you for agreeing that we the public aren't aware of everything the Special Counsel knows, so the fact that we don't know of a smoking gun doesn't mean anything.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
paulsurovell said:I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. ...
Important to note that when you agree that Papadopoulos is not the smoking gun you are admitting that after more than two years of the Russia investigation there is no smoking gun -- as any rational person knows.
For many months, Russiagate believers claimed that Papdopoulos was Mueller's smoking gun. Critics said there was no basis for the claim. Thanks to the sentencing memo, we know that the critics were right and the believers were wrong. That means something.
South_Mountaineer said:It's not a "reasonable inference" if you have to inject some assumed fact (like the one where you assume they were talking about Trump). The reasonable inference is that they were talking about the Russian oligarch who was the subject of all their other discussions. Steele was a professional (selling information was his stock in trade). It's a big assumption that he would have involved outside people in the US in his Trump research in Russia, that he was hired to do.
You're joining in the sliming in the cause of Trump, for no good reason.
Your "reasonable inference" is not reasonable because it's based on false assumptions:
(1) The Russian oligarch was not "the subject of all their other discussions."
(2) It's not an assumption that Steele involved "outside people in the US in his Trump research" -- it's a fact. Steele discussed his research with the FBI, the State Department, and journalists, while he was conducting his research. It is logical and reasonable to assume that he also involved Ohr.
And your last sentence is also false on three counts:
(a) Searching for truth is not "sliming."
(b) Rebuttal of the false Russia narrative serves the cause of America and the rest of the world.
(c) Opposition to false narratives that spawn McCarthyism and increase the risk of confrontation with a nuclear adversary is a good reason to pursue how the bogus Steele dossier was incorporated into the US intelligence community.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:As you can see, the statement is actually in line with YOUR claim that the Iraq invasion can be blamed on the "Deep State" intelligence services being actually deceitful. That is what you keep claiming as a defense to their suspicions about the 2016 election and Russia.
South_Mountaineer said:Also note Rush saying that George Bush was "tricked" into invading and that Saddam actually had WMDs but he shipped them to Syria. That's in line with your denial (correct me if I'm wrong) that the WMD hoax was an intentional lie by the CIA (and by Robert Mueller) to foment public fear and hysteria to support an invasion.
The Deep State tricked George W. Bush into invading Iraq: "And there’s a part of me that still thinks that that might have been a sabotage of George W. Bush. I mean, every intelligence agency in the Free World was assuring us that there were weapons of mass destruction in there, and we get in there, and there aren’t any. I know we got stories of them being packed up on trucks and moved over to Syria and that kind of thing. But that was a humongous embarrassment. That set the table… Remember that’s 2003. That set the table for destroying George W. Bush’s election in 2004."
And for the last time - Mueller wasn't in foreign intelligence. When he mentioned the WMD claims in order to discuss what to do domestically based on those claims, he wasn't part of putting the claims together, no matter how much you want to impugn him.
Rush says there were WMDs in Iraq (CIA telling the truth) when in fact there were none (CIA lying).
Here's a good article that explains how the CIA lied in its public version of its Iraq WMD White Paper:
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24439789.html
I assume we can agree that Colin Powell lied to the Security Council based on CIA falsehoods.
And here is the pack of lies that FBI Director Mueller told the Senate Intelligence Committee (presumably under oath) on February 11, 2003:
Mr. Chairman, although the most serious terrorist threat is from non-state actors, we remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. The seven countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the US and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.
Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq—such as the Iranian dissident group, Mujahidin-e Khalq, and the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization.
Groups like the Abu Nidal Organization may target US entities overseas but probably lack the military infrastructure to conduct organized terrorist attacks on US soil. A notable exception is the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has a US presence and proven operational capability overseas and which cooperates with Baghdad.
Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam may supply al-Qaeda with biological, chemical, or radiological material before or during a war with the US to avenge the fall of his regime. Although divergent political goals limit al-Qaeda's cooperation with Iraq, northern Iraq has emerged as an increasingly important operational base for al-Qaeda associates, and a US-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda.
paul,
I can't even believe you're still re-litigating the Iraq War. And your premise, that because of Iraq, we can't ever believe a word from our intelligence agencies again, is beyond ridiculous.
You fail to recognize a fundamental difference between Iraq and the Russia issue - which is that Iraq's disinfo was driven by Bush and Company - not by the CIA. Bush got the intelligence that he demanded, or massaged it til it was.
How is that at all analogous to what's happening today?
Also, in real-time during the Iraq run-up, there was plenty of mainstream opposition and questioning of the official intelligence. Today, opposition is limited to the fringe media. Maybe they're right this time, but there's a reason they're on the fringe, and it's not because they're so prescient.
=======================================================
south_mountaineer - nice series of posts. I don't know how you tackle paul's gish gallop of disinformation. My mind just glazes over while reading his posts these days.
drummerboy said:
paul,
I can't even believe you're still re-litigating the Iraq War. And your premise, that because of Iraq, we can't ever believe a word from our intelligence agencies again, is beyond ridiculous.
You fail to recognize a fundamental difference between Iraq and the Russia issue - which is that Iraq's disinfo was driven by Bush and Company - not by the CIA. Bush got the intelligence that he demanded, or massaged it til it was.
How is that at all analogous to what's happening today?
Also, in real-time during the Iraq run-up, there was plenty of mainstream opposition and questioning of the official intelligence. Today, opposition is limited to the fringe media. Maybe they're right this time, but there's a reason they're on the fringe, and it's not because they're so prescient.
=======================================================
south_mountaineer - nice series of posts. I don't know how you tackle paul's gish gallop of disinformation. My mind just glazes over while reading his posts these days.
As you suggested, you don't read my posts, you just make assumptions. For example, I've never said anything like "we can't believe a word from our intelligence agencies again." What I've said is we can't trust our intelligence agencies unconditionally, especially when they make "assessments" without providing evidence. There was no evidence in the Jan 2017 Russia "assessment" and there has been none since. It's still a game of "trust us."
Iraq is relevant because many of the esteemed pundits and intelligence officials who provided the lies that led us into one of the worst humanitarian disasters in history are now purveyors of the Russia story -- I'm sure you're aware of the nefarious roles that Bill Kristol and David Frum played in the Iraq WMD hoax. And then there's John McLaughin and Phil Mudd who pushed the WMD lies within the CIA who are now among the leading neocon "experts" on MSNBC and CNN.
And of course the CIA didn't stop lying in 2003, as I've pointed out before:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate
Some more reading for you. Ann Coulter has a new book coming out that the Russia investigation is all Hillary's fault. This thread's author could buy it and mine it for more material for this "Hillary Colluded More" thread.
If you’ve ever wondered how Russia became America’s most fearsome enemy, long after that country gave up Communism, gulags, forced starvations and mass murder (all of which liberals were cool with), the answer is: This crackpot idea came from the same woman who blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for Monica Lewinsky.
The Russia conspiracy is classic Hillary, as detailed in my new book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind. Throughout her long and blemished public career, Hillary has always blamed her troubles on bad people conspiring against her.
Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook launched the Russia conspiracy theory on the eve of the Democratic National Convention on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” — because who better to ask the tough questions than a former top aide to Hillary’s husband?
Mook explained:
“Well, what’s disturbing about this entire situation is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites. … And it’s troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by — by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/22/ann-coulter-pantsuit-cried-wolf/
South_Mountaineer said:
Some more reading for you. Ann Coulter has a new book coming out that the Russia investigation is all Hillary's fault. This thread's author could buy it and mine it for more material for this "Hillary Colluded More" thread.
If you’ve ever wondered how Russia became America’s most fearsome enemy, long after that country gave up Communism, gulags, forced starvations and mass murder (all of which liberals were cool with), the answer is: This crackpot idea came from the same woman who blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for Monica Lewinsky.
The Russia conspiracy is classic Hillary, as detailed in my new book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind. Throughout her long and blemished public career, Hillary has always blamed her troubles on bad people conspiring against her.Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook launched the Russia conspiracy theory on the eve of the Democratic National Convention on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” — because who better to ask the tough questions than a former top aide to Hillary’s husband?https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/22/ann-coulter-pantsuit-cried-wolf/
Mook explained:
“Well, what’s disturbing about this entire situation is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites. … And it’s troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by — by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”
Actually, you need to buy and read "Shattered" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes where this narrative originated more than a year ago.
paulsurovell said:Actually, you need to buy and read "Shattered" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes where this narrative originated more than a year ago.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_us_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
If you notice, Ann Coulter says the narrative started even before the example you point to.
All the "Shattered" excerpt says is that a day after an exhausting, late night, a brainstorming session with trendy fast food involved blaming "Russian hacking" as a factor. The author of the Huffington piece runs with that to make his argument that's based on his own input, not the book.
By the way, that version of the story goes against the versions you've pushed earlier, that Hillary and her crew are responsible for what you like to call the "dirty dossier". If those folks had all been involved with creating the Trump collusion narrative back in the summer, then they wouldn't have needed a Shake-Shack fueled all-nighter to come up with that excuse - they'd just push the button on getting that story out. But that's not what happened.
So this seems more like another handful of mud that you're throwing at the wall, to see if it sticks, just like Coulter's book.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Actually, you need to buy and read "Shattered" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes where this narrative originated more than a year ago.If you notice, Ann Coulter says the narrative started even before the example you point to.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_us_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
All the "Shattered" excerpt says is that a day after an exhausting, late night, a brainstorming session with trendy fast food involved blaming "Russian hacking" as a factor. The author of the Huffington piece runs with that to make his argument that's based on his own input, not the book.
By the way, that version of the story goes against the versions you've pushed earlier, that Hillary and her crew are responsible for what you like to call the "dirty dossier". If those folks had all been involved with creating the Trump collusion narrative back in the summer, then they wouldn't have needed a Shake-Shack fueled all-nighter to come up with that excuse - they'd just push the button on getting that story out. But that's not what happened.
So this seems more like another handful of mud that you're throwing at the wall, to see if it sticks, just like Coulter's book.
Yes, Hillary for America pushed the Russian hacking narrative during the primary as a means of distracting attention from the leaked DNC emails. It was "don't look at those emails, look where we say they came from."
Prior to the leaked emails HFA and the DNC hired Christopher Steele to collude with Russian government officials to create the dirty dossier of unverified dirt on Donald Trump. Steele shared the dossier with numerous journalists, including David Corn and Michael Isikoff who ran stories using the dossier's disinformation.
In "Shattered" Allen and Parnes reveal that immediately after the election the HFA team decided to make the Russia narrative a central excuse for Hillary's defeat and soon both parts of the narrative -- alleged Russian hacking and Trump collusion -- became the dominant story in corporate media.
I'm not sure how much this coincides with Coulter's book, she usually gets things wrong, although she sometimes gets things right.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
I'm glad you want to discuss this. Later, I'll list Aaron Mate's points to make it easy for you to explain why they're "really not as accurate" as the fact that Papadopoulos was not a smoking gun.
This will be fun.