Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[sunmaster14]

While we're at unprofessional junk, for the record, here's the "17 intelligence agencies agree" report with Clapper - who says that 17 intelligence agencies didn't agree -'s stamp on it, mostly consisting of whining about how Abby Martin was mean to the Empire on her RT show that ended years earlier.

Yup. I've pointed that out before somewhere. The report is a joke. Somebody at the Atlantic eviscerated it way back when. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[xjx388]

I'd love to know how Steele worded the info on the golden showers, whether he said it was said by a person he trusted and who had very direct knowledge (or who had seen the videos) or whether Steele presented it as a rumor.

The document says that Source D was present for it and Source E confirmed it as did a female worker at the hotel.

FWIW, the document does not say that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on him; instead, he hired them to pee "in front of him" on the bed where Obama had slept. It intimates that this was just one episode of "perversions" Trump had engaged in and which the Russians considered suitably compromising. This supposedly happened in 2013.

 

[xjx388]

The document says that Source D was present for it and Source E confirmed it as did a female worker at the hotel.

FWIW, the document does not say that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on him; instead, he hired them to pee "in front of him" on the bed where Obama had slept. It intimates that this was just one episode of "perversions" Trump had engaged in and which the Russians considered suitably compromising. This supposedly happened in 2013.

Just to add on some commentary . . . why would the Russians be trying to compromise Trump in 2013? He was just a business dude and only a very minor political figure then. Obama was 1 year into his second term. Maybe they do that with all rich Americans who visit and want to do business in Russia?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just to add on some commentary . . . why would the Russians be trying to compromise Trump in 2013? He was just a business dude and only a very minor political figure then. Obama was 1 year into his second term. Maybe they do that with all rich Americans who visit and want to do business in Russia?

Standard practice for anyone of potential interest to Russia.
It's much easier to gather dirt on people who aren't powerful yet.

 

[Stacko]

Trump-Linked Company Reached Out to WikiLeaks on Hacked Emails

The chief executive of a data-analytics firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to offer help organizing the Hillary Clinton -related emails the website was releasing, according to a person familiar with the effort.

The outreach by the CEO of the firm, which is partly owned by a major Trump donor and has close ties to a Trump adviser, came as Mr. Trump was publicly cheering the leaks of his Democratic rival’s emails and some supporters were seeking to unearth further messages.

In an email sent in late July 2016 and recently reviewed by the person, Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix told other employees at the firm and Rebekah Mercer, a top Republican donor, that he had recently reached out to Mr. Assange to offer help better indexing the messages WikiLeaks was releasing to make them more easily searchable. Those emails included a trove of messages stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s account and from the Democratic National Committee.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yup. I've pointed that out before somewhere. The report is a joke. Somebody at the Atlantic eviscerated it way back when. I'll see if I can find it.

It was also mentioned at the Valdai Club podium discussion I linked earlier, falsely referred to as a CIA report. Quoted for the lazies who won't get to the more interesting parts, and the better jokes, anyway.

[...] Margarita Simonyan [editor-in-chief of the Russia Today television channel], please.

Margarita Simonyan: Good afternoon,

Thank you, Mr President, for your shocking story about the American flags at our nuclear facilities.

Mr Hamid Karzai, thank you for your bold and honest position.

Mr Jack Ma, thank you for the inexpensive Chinese-made ceiling lamp that I bought on Alibaba. (Laughter)

However, if I may, I would like to talk about issues that concern me. You may have heard that Russia Today and Sputnik – our media working abroad – have been subjected recently not just to pressure, but real harassment at their place of work.

As recently as two days ago, Hillary Clinton said that the alleged Russian interference in the elections, for which we are primarily blamed (half of the CIA report on this topic was about Russia Today and Sputnik, and my name was mentioned 27 times in it) is comparable to the 9/11 attacks.

We are required to register as foreign agents. As we know from the media, the FBI opened an investigation into our activities. Our journalists have come under incredible pressure: every day they read about how they will never be able to get a job anywhere else. Yesterday, the Foreign Office of Great Britain chewed out deputies who continue to appear on our broadcasts. What will happen next is anyone’s guess.

A year ago, people from the State Department told me that they respect freedom of speech, and as long as no restrictive measures are applied to US media in Russia, no such measures will be applied to us. However, these measures are being applied to us already, at a time when huge numbers of American and other media, including Russian language media, continue to operate in Russia. I can only praise them, as they are doing a great job and have vast budgets that are tens of times larger than those available to our media.

You may be surprised, but by some criteria, such as citations in social media, Radio Liberty ranks first among all Russian radio stations. You once joked that you have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died. Everyone had a good laugh back then, but in the end this is exactly how it looks – we are in a situation where Russia is a more democratic country than the countries that taught us democracy. Russia maintains several positions. One of them is that our response should be proportionate, and only such a response will force them to leave us be. Another position is that we should turn the other cheek and take the high road. May I ask you, what is your position in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: First, about the situation around our information resources, such as Russia Today and Sputnik. Their capacity cannot compare with what our colleagues have in the US, in Europe; they simply cannot compare. We do not have so-called global media, mass media with global reach. This is the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon world, primarily the United States.

Indeed, we have been told all along that it is absurd and even undemocratic to pressure any lawfully functioning media outlets, to close or persecute them, to exert pressure on journalists. There is only one democratic way to fight things one does not like, for both the authorities and the opposition: to express your opinion, but to express it so vividly, colourfully and brilliantly that people would believe you and accept your point of view, follow you and stand by you and support your position. All the rest is undemocratic.

What we see happening around our media now – I repeat, they are far less powerful than the US or British media – I simply do not know how to describe this. “Confusion” is too mild. They have turned everything upside down.

Regarding interference or non-interference: everyone knows, the whole world knows what the British or American media do. They directly and constantly influence internal political processes in almost all countries. How else are we to interpret what the media do, especially those outlets that work in, say, the political segment of the media?

They do influence things, of course, by expressing a certain point of view – in this case, we are talking about Russia’s point of view. And even so, they do not always take Russia’s point of view. I cannot monitor them all the time, but sometimes I see what Russia Today broadcasts. Its team includes journalists from various countries: Americans, and British, I believe, and Germans, too. They do excellent work. Really talented people. I sometimes marvel at the courage and talent they possess to lay everything out so clearly, precisely and fearlessly – my hat is off to them. Apparently, this is the key to Russia Today and Sputnik’s success, but it is also what they are hated for; anyway, it has nothing to do with democracy.

Now about “turning the other cheek.” I have already spoken about our nuclear facilities. It would seem we have disclosed everything we have, there is nowhere else to search, so we expected our American partners to do the same, well, at least to show some consideration for our interests, so that we would be full-fledged partners. As you can see, this is not the case, and even the opposite is true: as soon as they realised that our nuclear sector needs additional investment and modernisation, that our missile technology is growing obsolete, that there are other problems – aha, who would consider a weak partner? No one even talks to them or considers their interests anymore.

Therefore, in this case, all we can do is mirror their actions and rather quickly at that. As soon as we see any moves that limit the activities of our media in any way, a proportionate response will follow. [...]

 

[Aridas]

Putting up a “dossier” that is nothing but lies doesn’t scream corruption?

Hmm? At last check, the news was that it had been verified to the extent that the Congressional investigators could verify it. So... the fact that no lies seem to actually be in evidence directly counters your claim. There's much that's still unverified, by the look of it, but that's much different than it being all lies.

The FBI starting an investigation of collusion by a presidential campaign with a foreign country because of a made up dossier, paid for by the opponent of the winning campaign. That doesn’t reek of corruption?

Given that the "made up dossier" claim is not even remotely in evidence, not in the least. Even if it were made up, though, the source was reasonably credible, so it would be outright irresponsible for the FBI not to even begin to investigate the matter. I guess it's time to acknowledge that the Republicans no longer have any real claim to being the Party of Responsibility anymore, though, and are glorying in being the Party of Irresponsibility.

 

[jimbob]

similarities between the Russian bpt Facebook add targeting and the RNC targeting

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/si...cebook-ads-seems-too-close-to-be-coincidence/

 

[magellan]

similarities between the Russian bpt Facebook add targeting and the RNC targeting

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/si...cebook-ads-seems-too-close-to-be-coincidence/

So....
The trump campaign told the russians where to spend their 44.000$ in facebook ads.

So what did they need the russians for? For the funds? If so (as ridiculous as that is) why didn't they make a super PAC to transfer the money? Each new revelation makes this look more ridiculous.

Btw: I have reached a reasonable conclusion why one of the russian propaganda pages was about puppies.
It shows the high sophistication of the russian efforts!
Puppies are cute
Trumps hair looks like a puppy
Trump is cute. I'll vote for him.

(You must admit it makes more sense than the NYT version)

 

[Belz...]

This thread is called all things Trump+ Russia. The news of the day is Hillary and the DNC paid for this dossier that caused all this. I supposed that discussion includes the 180 this investigation seems to be making with respect to now investigating the Dems?

Caused all this my eye. Trump's ties to Russia and his willingness to use these ties to gain an advantage in the democratic elections of the United States of America caused all this.

 

[NoahFence]

Specifically how?

It came out before the election. How could she use public knowledge to hurt trump? It clearly didn't matter to you people

Sunmaster makes a claim and doesn't back it up.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So....
The trump campaign told the russians where to spend their 44.000$ in facebook ads.

So what did they need the russians for? For the funds? If so (as ridiculous as that is) why didn't they make a super PAC to transfer the money? Each new revelation makes this look more ridiculous.

Btw: I have reached a reasonable conclusion why one of the russian propaganda pages was about puppies.
It shows the high sophistication of the russian efforts!
Puppies are cute
Trumps hair looks like a puppy
Trump is cute. I'll vote for him.

(You must admit it makes more sense than the NYT version)

Counterargument to it seeming like not a lot of money. There are a few scenarios that are also possible. One is maybe the initial discussion was larger than the final amount. Maybe we are wrong and the process of providing targeted county info is extremely easy.

ETA: I can also concoct a scenario where it was done as maintenance of an existing or budding relationship.

 

[Octavo]

Sunmaster makes a claim and doesn't back it up.

Well, to be fair, you haven't defined "hurt", "public", "knowledge", "use" or "you people" yet.

I mean, how is anyone supposed to parse your post without such necessities?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, it's here. I think any fair-minded person can see that it is embarrassingly amateurish.

ETA: Damn, ninja'd.

Of course you don't refute or discuss anything in the report, just poisoning the well is good enough for you.

“As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven,” Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with Reuters.

It seems likely that in the end, we'll get the opportunity to see just how much of the dossier has been corroborated/proven.

And remember, parts of the Steele dossier have been confirmed
Also, NBC’s Ken Dilanian reminds us that PARTS of the Steele dossier seem to line up with known facts. For example, Dilanian notes:

The dossier discusses Trump’s attempts to secure business deals in Russia, saying, “Regarding TRUMP’s claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. TRUMP’s previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St Petersburg as well as Moscow…” We now know that despite Trump saying he had no deals in Russia, his organization was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow during the Republican primaries.

The dossier says a “senior Russian diplomat withdrawn from Washington embassy on account of potential exposure in US presidential election operation/s.” According to McClatchy, Mikhail Kalugin was recalled from his post as head of the embassy’s economics section in August of 2016. BBC reported that U.S. government sources identified Kalugin as a spy, though NBC News has not confirmed this.

The dossier asserts that in early August 2016, “a Kremlin official involved in US relations commented on aspects of the Russian operation to date,” discussing attempts to compromise Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, by inviting them to Moscow. Flynn and Stein spoke at the RT gala in 2015, Flynn having been paid. Page gave a Kremlin-friendly speech in Moscow in July 2016 while he was advising the Trump campaign.

My "spidey senses" tell me that in the end you'll have more than the usual amount of egg on your face.

 

[varwoche]

I certainly don't have a problem with her paying for the dossier, nor do I have a problem with her distributing it, although I would give 2:1 odds that not a single scandalous allegation in it is true.

What I would have a problem with, and I'll admit this is educated conjecture on my part, is the Hillary campaign using the dossier in a sneaky way so as to tempt the national security agencies to investigate Trump and his colleagues. Now you might ask (justifiably IMHO), "how could the FBI/CIA/NSA be so dumb as to fall for such a baseless pile of garbage?" My answer would be, "well, these people aren't rocket scientists, and they probably are the kind of people to jump at the excuse to conduct an investigation of a political campaign."

My spidey senses have been telling me for a long time that this was a baseless investigation that was instigated by the Clinton campaign, with the less then enthusiastic (but still material) support of the Obama administration. It's probably true that if Trump wasn't such an idiot, it wouldn't have gotten much traction (and certainly not a special prosecutor on Trump's ass), but the fact is, it's still a garbage investigation.

"I love it." And so do I.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What I would have a problem with, and I'll admit this is educated conjecture on my part, is the Hillary campaign using the dossier in a sneaky way so as to tempt the national security agencies to investigate Trump and his colleagues.

What is the nature of your problem with it?

 

[logger]

Given that the "made up dossier" claim is not even remotely in evidence, not in the least. Even if it were made up, though, the source was reasonably credible, so it would be outright irresponsible for the FBI not to even begin to investigate the matter. I guess it's time to acknowledge that the Republicans no longer have any real claim to being the Party of Responsibility anymore, though, and are glorying in being the Party of Irresponsibility.

The source was “reasonably credible” lol

Because everyone knows hills and the Dems are so credible. And their source, getting paid to come up with something is also in your mind “reasonably credible”

I’m so glad the left is sticking with this, it makes our victory all the more sweeter.

 

[Belz...]

Because everyone knows hills and the Dems are so credible.

How convenient for you that the only credible people are on your side. It has all the signs of bias, but you just know that this time it's true.

I’m so glad the left is sticking with this, it makes our victory all the more sweeter.

Haven't you heard? The GOP can't get anything done, and it's the Democrats' fault for making them fail! Sounds like the GOP has little power after all.

 

[Aridas]

The source was “reasonably credible” lol

Yup. If people in the information business start just making up ****, they tend to lose their credibility, which means that they tend to quickly lose their sources of income.

Because everyone knows hills and the Dems are so credible.

Hills and the Dems weren't the source.

And their source, getting paid to come up with something is also in your mind “reasonably credible”

You really don't understand the business world, where people just about always get paid for providing valuable services, I take it? Given that investigations tend to cost the investigator money and resources, criticizing them for not doing it for free seems to be entirely unreasonable.

I’m so glad the left is sticking with this, it makes our victory all the more sweeter.

So, you've got no actual evidence to point to anything in the dossier being lies and even the Republicans who are actually investigating it have yet to do anything other than confirm parts of it, yet you want to dismiss it as all lies simply because it is associated, in some way, with the Dems?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, we'll see. Maybe the woman who couldn't beat the least competent candidate in US history has a long game in mind. Maybe, despite her loss, she's a remarkably skillful tactician and is planning on a comeback for her party in 2020.

That's probably it. Unlike Trump, she's playing 5D chess or something.

I don't think it's that simple to dismiss. Yes, she lost to Trump. But I don't think it's a question of competency, I think it was a case of messaging and charisma. And while Trump is a douchecanoe... Clinton is also fairly well known for being pretty mean to people around her. Add to that the unconscious social bias against women in power (powerful decisive women are generally considered to be uncooperative and unlikable), and there's a multitude of reasons why she lost.

Some of it I think is also straight up bad tactics - focusing too much on the areas where she was already likely to win, and not enough on the areas that Trump took. Some of it is also reflective of a level of dissatisfaction with the democratic party as a whole.

None of those, however, indicate that Clinton is not intelligent - she's very intelligent, and very savvy. There's no reason to think that her loss in this election would indicate that she would be unable to pursue a different strategy with a different, longer term objective.

There's a pretty reasonable argument to say that part of her willingness to tolerate and stand by Bill during his presidential shenanigans was to bolster her own long range plans in the political arena.