• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The adoption meeting bears fruit for Putin.

Browder is a driver behind these Magnitsky acts, and Putin hates him for it, understandably. Twice in 2013, he tried to add Browder to Interpol’s wanted list, and twice he failed, because Interpol knew that Putin was politically motivated. Browder is not a criminal. He is an anti-criminal, which is why Putin targets him.

In 2014, Putin tried again — no dice. Last summer, Browder testified against him before the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate, to damning effect. Obviously ticked, Putin tried again. This time, Interpol had Browder’s name on the list for a month, before deleting it. In the wake of Canada’s new Magnitsky act, Putin has tried again. Tried for a fifth time. Interpol has accepted his request.

Worse, the U.S. government seems in partnership with the Kremlin: Our government has revoked Browder’s visa. (American-born, Browder is a British citizen.)
Click to expand...
 
Trump Data Guru: I Tried to Team Up With Julian Assange

Alexander Nix, who heads a controversial data-analytics firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign, wrote in an email last year that he reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton’s missing 33,000 emails.

Nix, who heads Cambridge Analytica, told a third party that he reached out to Assange about his firm somehow helping the WikiLeaks editor release Clinton’s missing emails, according to two sources familiar with a congressional investigation into interactions between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Those sources also relayed that, according to Nix’s email, Assange told the Cambridge Analytica CEO that he didn’t want his help, and preferred to do the work on his own.

If the claims Nix made in that email are true, this would be the closest known connection between Trump’s campaign and Assange.

Cambridge Analytica did not provide comment for this story by press time.

After publication, Assange provided this statement to The Daily Beast: ”We can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks.”
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused. Why is it new news that the DNC and the Clinton camp paid for the dossier? I thought that was known from the beginning? First the DNC commissioned the investigation then withdrew or something and the Clinton camp picked up the ball.

How is it new news who paid for the investigation?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm confused. Why is it new news that the DNC and the Clinton camp paid for the dossier? I thought that was known from the beginning? First the DNC commissioned the investigation then withdrew or something and the Clinton camp picked up the ball.

How is it new news who paid for the investigation?
Click to expand...

Your memory is wrong. A GOP primary opponent first commissioned Fusion GPS to start investigating Trump. The DNC picked up the tab after Trump secured the nomination. They've even been passing around altered news stories to deny their original involvement.
 
Interesting commentary (these are retired military intelligence types): The Bonnie and Clyde of US politics

Publius Tacitus said:
Appears that Clinton Campaign Colluded with Ukraine and McCain in Bid to Destroy Donald Trump.

When the story of foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election is finally told it will have little to do with Russia and a lot to do with how Democrats, some Republicans and critical parts of the intelligence and law enforcement community colluded in an effort to discredit Donald Trump and undermine his ability to function as President. What puzzles me is why the media is acting surprised with the latest news confirming that Hillary Clinton's campaign financed the infamous Trump Dossier. Thank you Captain Obvious. Who else would have commissioned such an effort once the Republican primary battle was settled?

Reporters from the Washington Post, while not breaking new ground, provided clear documentary evidence to confirm the suspicion: [... much more to follow ...]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh, and for grown-ups more interested in real world problems involving and discussed in Russia, I recommend to read the transcript of the podium discussion at the annual Valdai Club meeting last week, including a long Putin Q&A.

Valdai Club said:
[...] Andrei Sushentsov: Andrei Sushentsov, MGIMO University, Valdai Club.

Mr President, speaking here last October, you responded to questions regarding the prospects for presidential candidate Donald Trump and you used an interesting formula to the effect that you were ready to work with any US president and that you did not know what kind of president Mr Trump would be if he won. The impression is that Trump is breaking all records in unpredictability. And it seems that cooperation with Hillary Clinton perhaps would have been more comprehensible. What is your take on this situation?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, our people say, “You have to make the sign of the cross if you’re seeing things” It only seems that way. We do not know how things could have turned out in reality either, do we?

With regard to the incumbent president, as I said a year ago – and I can repeat this now – we will do our job. And I am saying now: we are working with the president that the American people have elected. As for unpredictability, he is not the only one to blame. It also has to do with the intense opposition in the country.

After all, he is being prevented from carrying out any of his election platforms and plans. In health care, in other spheres. The moment he makes a decision on migrants, a court immediately blocks it. This is happening all the time. So to say that he is the only source of this unpredictability – no, this depends on the entire US political system. Nevertheless, we will work with the partners that we have.

The United States is a great power, the world’s largest economic and military power. Granted, unfortunately, our bilateral trade is negligible, almost nothing: $20 billion. All the same, the impact of the US is global, very significant. It is one of our most important partners, no doubt. We will continue working despite all difficulties. That is, of course, if they also want this. If they do not, we will not. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Also, why is a campaign paying for opposition research interesting? Is that accusation that they paid for lies to be generated? Seems like there is a cheaper way to do that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm confused. Why is it new news that the DNC and the Clinton camp paid for the dossier? I thought that was known from the beginning? First the DNC commissioned the investigation then withdrew or something and the Clinton camp picked up the ball.

How is it new news who paid for the investigation?
Click to expand...


This may help.

In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official, with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow’s spooks and siloviki (securocrats).


By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the Republican primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that had hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all they can and are looking for other ways to help.
Click to expand...
 
quadraginta said:
This may help.

​
Click to expand...

Right, but now we know that the Clinton campaign and the DNC continued to fund the dossier research (from April 2016 forward) through one of its lead election lawyers - Marc Elias of Perkins Coie. Something we didn't know before because everybody lied about Elias' role. See here for example.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Right, but now we know that the Clinton campaign and the DNC continued to fund the dossier research (from April 2016 forward) through one of its lead election lawyers - Marc Elias of Perkins Coie. Something we didn't know before because everybody lied about Elias' role. See here for example.
Click to expand...

That is a link to someone saying people lied about it. Can you link to the actual lie, please?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't care who she is. She is another person making a claim. Aims require evidence.
Click to expand...

She 's the White House correspondent for the New York Times. If she had inserted her tweet in an article in the newspaper, that would have been as good documentation as we have ever gotten on any of this Russia stuff. She has claimed (as well as Ken Vogel - another reporter for the New York Times, formerly of Politico) that Elias and others associated with the Clinton campaign explicitly denied claims that Perkins Coie funded Fusion GPS's research into the Trump dossier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom