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

Steele was initially hired by a Republican (not a candidate) for oppo research. Once Trump got the nomination, a Democrat (not a candidate) helped continue to fund the investigation.

Morally dubious? Yes. The same as what we know so far as what the Russians did and how the Trump campaign appears to have been ready to utilize? Not even close.

But you long ago dismissed the Steele dossier, so by your standards the equivalency shouldn't be remotely close.

dave23 said:

Steele was initially hired by a Republican (not a candidate) for oppo research. Once Trump got the nomination, a Democrat (not a candidate) helped continue to fund the investigation.

Morally dubious? Yes. The same as what we know so far as what the Russians did and how the Trump campaign appears to have been ready to utilize? Not even close.

But you long ago dismissed the Steele dossier, so by your standards the equivalency shouldn't be remotely close.

". . . how the Trump campaign appears to have been ready to utilize . . ." 

 Your basic nothing-burger.

paulsurovell said:

 Your basic nothing-burger.

Another out-of-context doubtlet. 

I'm just not jumping to conclusions. They were ready, willing and able to participate and collude with Russia. That's been made public. Did they find other ways to actually do it? We don't know yet.

I'm also not going to jump to conclusion re Jane Sanders. It needs to play out.

paulsurovell said:

Stoughton said:

It hasn't occurred on this thread, but many times daily I read and hear Trump supporters demand that a "special counsel" be appointed to investigate Hillary's alleged campaign malfeasance. This drives me crazy. Hillary isn't in any official role, so there is no need for a Mueller-like appointment. If the allegations that Paul brings up are true and justify prosecution, it could be done through the normal Department of Justice system. So if these allegations relating to the DNC and Ukraine implicate Hillary (though I haven't seen it), take it up with Jeff Sessions.

I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials.  It's not illegal to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign govt.

Likewise, I see nothing illegal in Don Jr.'s expression of interest in getting dirt on a political opponent, in response to an email from a British music publicist.

My point in comparing Hillary's actual collusion and Trump's interest in collusion is mostly to show the dishonesty of the media and the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are pushing the evidence-free "collusion" allegations against Trump as part of a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia.


Here's a great interview with Glenn Greenwald on this morning's Democracy Now! that covers these matters quite well.  I'll post the transcript when it's available.


https://www.democracynow.org/2...

I agree that it would be a tough climb right now (though that could change) to convict Don, Jr. and impossible to convict Hillary based on what is provable. I was just making the point that Trump supporters who are calling for a "you too" special counsel are making no sense. She could be prosecuted through the normal channels and likely would be if Jeff Sessions had anything close to an indictable case.

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why so many Trump associates have lied multiple about meeting with Russians.

dave23 said:

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why so many Trump associates have lied multiple about meeting with Russians.

. . . especially when none of the meetings were illegal.

If during the Cold War any American politician or anyone closely associated with an American politician had this kind of contact with a Russian official or anyone remotely connected to the Russian Government the politician would be condemned, ostracized and perhaps even prosecuted.

What is the difference between the Russian Government then and the Russian Government now?

Suppose it was disclosed that people involved in the Clinton Campaign or the Trump Campaign or the Campaign of any Democratic or Republican Politician met secretly with someone tied to the governments of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, what result?

Stoughton said:

paulsurovell said:

Stoughton said:

It hasn't occurred on this thread, but many times daily I read and hear Trump supporters demand that a "special counsel" be appointed to investigate Hillary's alleged campaign malfeasance. This drives me crazy. Hillary isn't in any official role, so there is no need for a Mueller-like appointment. If the allegations that Paul brings up are true and justify prosecution, it could be done through the normal Department of Justice system. So if these allegations relating to the DNC and Ukraine implicate Hillary (though I haven't seen it), take it up with Jeff Sessions.

I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials.  It's not illegal to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign govt.

Likewise, I see nothing illegal in Don Jr.'s expression of interest in getting dirt on a political opponent, in response to an email from a British music publicist.

My point in comparing Hillary's actual collusion and Trump's interest in collusion is mostly to show the dishonesty of the media and the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are pushing the evidence-free "collusion" allegations against Trump as part of a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia.

Here's a great interview with Glenn Greenwald on this morning's Democracy Now! that covers these matters quite well.  I'll post the transcript when it's available.

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

I agree that it would be a tough climb right now (though that could change) to convict Don, Jr. and impossible to convict Hillary based on what is provable. I was just making the point that Trump supporters who are calling for a "you too" special counsel are making no sense. She could be prosecuted through the normal channels and likely would be if Jeff Sessions had anything close to an indictable case.

In an atmosphere of hysteria where alleged hacking of emails is called the "Crime of the Century," where the Democratic vice presidential candidate suggests that meeting with a Russian lawyer may constitute "treason," there are no standards for what "makes sense."

Edited to Add:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/c...

Long-time Clinton family ally Paul Begala on Wednesday evening seemingly suggested President Trump should consider bombing Russia in response to the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election. Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the former adviser to Bill Clinton lamented how Trump supporters don’t seem particularly outraged about Russia’s meddling in American affairs. “We were and are under attack by a hostile foreign power,” he said, “and... we should be debating how many sanctions we should place on Russia or whether we should blow up the KGB, GSU, or GRU [Russia’s foreign intelligence agency].” He continued: “If I was Trump, I would be mad because it has tainted his victory.”

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why so many Trump associates have lied multiple about meeting with Russians.

. . . especially when none of the meetings were illegal.

However, repeatedly failing to disclose the meetings on the application for security clearances is. Perhaps Jared is not aware of that, along with multiple other Trumpists. As for whether the meetings themselves were illegal, there appears to be a spirited debate on that, so we'll see how it all comes out. Unfortunately for you, Bernie still won't be Pres.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why so many Trump associates have lied multiple about meeting with Russians.

. . . especially when none of the meetings were illegal.

As far as we know. But they are supposed to list contacts with foreign nationals and failed to do so. And they repeatedly lied about meeting with them when asked directly.

Why?

Meanwhile, Trump's lawyer is a real charmer.

Trump Lawyer Marc Kasowitz Threatens Stranger in Emails: ‘Watch Your Back , *****’

Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal attorney on the Russia case, threatened a stranger in a string of profanity-laden emails Wednesday night.

The man, a retired public relations professional in the western United States who asked not to be identified, read ProPublica’s story this week on Kasowitz and sent the lawyer an email with the subject line: “Resign Now.’’

Kasowitz replied with series of angry messages sent between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern time. One read: “I’m on you now.  You are ******* with me now Let’s see who you are Watch your back , *****.”

In another email, Kasowitz wrote: “Call me.  Don’t be afraid, you piece of ****.  Stand up.  If you don’t call, you’re just afraid.” And later: “I already know where you live, I’m on you.  You might as well call me. You will see me. I promise.  Bro.”

Kasowitz’s spokesman, Michael Sitrick, said Thursday he couldn’t immediately reach Kasowitz for comment.

https://www.propublica.org/art...

The insane logic of Russia hysteria.  No retraction from Begala thus far.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/c...

Long-time Clinton family ally Paul Begala on Wednesday evening seemingly suggested President Trump should consider bombing Russia in response to the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election. Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the former adviser to Bill Clinton lamented how Trump supporters don’t seem particularly outraged about Russia’s meddling in American affairs. “We were and are under attack by a hostile foreign power,” he said, “and... we should be debating how many sanctions we should place on Russia or whether we should blow up the KGB, GSU, or GRU [Russia’s foreign intelligence agency].” He continued: “If I was Trump, I would be mad because it has tainted his victory.”

Not reported by NYT or WaPo: Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin:

https://www.rferl.org/embed/pl...

Charles Krauthammer's latest (concluding last line highlighted) -

The Russia scandal has entered a new phase, and there’s no going back.

For six months, the White House claimed that this scandal was nothing more than innuendo about Trump campaign collusion with Russia in meddling in the 2016 election. Innuendo for which no concrete evidence had been produced. ...

My view was: Collusion? I just don’t see it. But I’m open to empirical evidence. Show me.

The evidence is now shown. This is not hearsay, not fake news, not unsourced leaks. This is an email chain released by Donald Trump Jr. himself. A British go-between writes that there’s a Russian government effort to help Trump Sr. win the election, and as part of that effort he proposes a meeting with a "Russian government attorney” possessing damaging information on Hillary Clinton. ...

Once you’ve said “I’m in,” it makes no difference that the meeting was a bust, that the intermediary brought no such goods. What matters is what Donald Jr. thought going into the meeting, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who were forwarded the correspondence, invited to the meeting, and attended.

“It was literally just a wasted 20 minutes, which was a shame,” Donald Jr. told Sean Hannity. A shame? On the contrary, a stroke of luck. Had the lawyer real stuff to deliver, Donald Jr. and the others would be in far deeper legal trouble. It turned out to be incompetent collusion, amateur collusion, comically failed collusion. That does not erase the fact that three top Trump campaign officials were ready to play.

It may turn out that they did later collaborate more fruitfully. We don’t know. But even if nothing else is found, the evidence is damning. ...

I leave it to the lawyers to adjudicate the legalities of unconsummated collusion. But you don’t need a lawyer to see that the Trump defense — collusion as a desperate Democratic fiction designed to explain away a lost election — is now officially dead. 

Apparently, the thread title doesn't work when every day brings a new collusion/lie. I think we need to wait a while.

The "Adoption Connection" is revealed for what it really is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

The Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012 to sanction a group of Russians the US held responsible for the mysterious 2009 death in jail of Sergei Magnitsky, Mr Browder’s Russian lawyer who exposed money laundering said to total $230m.

The passage of the act is said to have infuriated Vladimir Putin who sought to have it overturned. He responded by making it more difficult for American couples to adopt Russian babies.

Ms Veselnitskaya was central in the lobbying effort to overturn the act. In addition, Mr Katsyv, the owner of Prevezon whom Ms Veselnitskaya represents, registered a nonprofit company in Delaware called the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation (HRAGIF) in February 2016, which says its aim is to overturn the adoption ban but which Mr Browder said is simply a front to overturn the Magnitsky Act, which he helped push.

“Natalia was the general coordinator for all of Katsyv’s legal activities,” he said.

Point, Team Trump!

Rinat Akhmetshin, the former Soviet intelligence officer who attended a June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, is a superlative Washington political operator who over the last two decades has repeatedly been at the center of cases involving corruption, dictators and sometimes war.

Akhmetshin was apparently hired to work with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met with Trump on June 9, 2016, in a lobbying effort against the Magnitsky Act, a congressional measure that sanctions Russia and Russian figures. He confirmed to the AP on Friday morning that he was in that meeting, saying: "I never thought this would be such a big deal to be honest."

Axios

Here comes Paul quoting Wikileaks.

cramer said:

Here comes Paul quoting Wikileaks.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

GL2 said:

Apparently, the thread title doesn't work when every day brings a new collusion/lie. I think we need to wait a while.

I'm not aware of any acts of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian govt.  Are you?

paulsurovell said:

Not reported by NYT or WaPo: Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin:

https://www.rferl.org/embed/pl...

Working with Russia is different from letting them do whatever they want. It's not a binary choice. (Just like opposing Russia's support of Assad's murderous regime doesn't mean we should go to war with either country, right?)

So can you explain why so many Trump associates and officials repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians? 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Not reported by NYT or WaPo: Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin:

https://www.rferl.org/embed/pl...

. . . letting them do whatever they want . . .

Canard

dave23 said:

So can you explain why so many Trump associates and officials repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians? 

Trump and his associates lie about a lot of things.  What's wrong with "contacts with Russians?"

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Not reported by NYT or WaPo: Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin:

https://www.rferl.org/embed/pl...

. . . letting them do whatever they want . . .

Canard

dave23 said:

So can you explain why so many Trump associates and officials repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians? 

Trump and his associates lie about a lot of things.  What's wrong with "contacts with Russians?"

Not a canard. You've denied their hacking and silent on their support of Assad's murder.

Yes, the Trumps and their pals lie about a lot of things. Always for a reason. I'll ask again: What's the reason for lying about Russia?

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Not reported by NYT or WaPo: Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin:

https://www.rferl.org/embed/pl...

Working with Russia is different from letting them do whatever they want. It's not a binary choice. (Just like opposing Russia's support of Assad's murderous regime doesn't mean we should go to war with either country, right?)

So can you explain why so many Trump associates and officials repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians? 

Macron has been very blunt with his criticism of Russia, even when with Putin himself.  So "Macron affirms the importance of working with Putin" can't be viewed as an argument against investigating Russia's actions with respect to the Trump campaign.  

And the fact that the Trump people were secretive about Russian contacts, and even when "disclosing" it turns out that they don't tell the whole story, supports the continuation of an investigation.

Just a week ago there was no public knowledge--just suspicion--that Trump was even interested in collusion. And Trump supporters and others openly mocked the notion. 

dave23 said:

Just a week ago there was no public knowledge--just suspicion--that Trump was even interested in collusion. And Trump supporters and others openly mocked the notion. 

That's why they're now "moving the goalposts" -

The official Trump administration line used to be that no member of the campaign had any contact with Russia. Mike Pence: “Of course not. Why would there be any contact?” Kellyanne Conway: “Absolutely not. And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.” Conway today has a new standard:

"The goalposts have been moved. We were promised hard evidence of systemic, sustained furtive collusion."

The goalposts have definitely been moved here. After having heatedly denied any contact with Russians, it’s now insufficient to demonstrate that contact took place. Even demonstrating that collusion took place isn’t enough. The evidence has to be “hard” and the collusion must be “systemic, sustained,” and “furtive.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

BG9 said:

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

I guess you don't consider Barack Obama to be a normal President:

[ . . . ]

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.  I had already made very clear to him our concerns around cyberattacks, generally, as well as specific concerns we had surrounding the DNC hack. 

I don't think this will be the norm, but as I've said before, the concern I have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that's being put out by any particular party, and a greater concern about the general misinformation from all kinds of sources -- domestic, foreign, on social media -- that make it very difficult for voters to figure out what's true and what's not.  And let me put it this way.  I think if we have a strong, accurate and responsible press, and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged citizenry, then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much.

If, generally, we've got elections that aren't focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what's happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside.  The good news is that's something that we have control over.

Parts of both the left and right have become Putin supporters. The small-government right suddenly admires his authoritarianism and the peacenik left overlooks his murderous and war-supporting tendencies.