Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[phiwum]

Are you assuming that because this one item wasn't leaked, there were no leaks at all?

Wouldn't that then imply that all of the "unnamed source" material was BS and not legitimate?

I believe that if you'll look at that cite in context, you'll see the following reasoning.

Mueller's campaign leaks like a sieve, yet nothing incriminating has come out yet. Hence there is nothing incriminating.

The fact is that Mueller's investigation is apparently pretty good at keeping some secrets and you and I are in no position to figure out whether they have incriminating evidence at this point or whether such evidence is there to be had.

 

[varwoche]

Are you assuming that because this one item wasn't leaked, there were no leaks at all?

Wouldn't that then imply that all of the "unnamed source" material was BS and not legitimate?

Which unnamed source material? Discussing this stuff in the abstract isn't fruitful.

In the meantime, there can be leaks from sources other than Mueller, such as defense attorneys and principles staying ahead of news cycle.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it’s a rumor that the Clintons use the charity for the generous perks they they need to live their ordinary couple of the people lives. And $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech? Really? Of course that doesn’t cause you concern.

There wass also the rumour that Hillary was about to keel over and die and shouldn't be elected. Let's just say I don't put much weight on rumours.

They’re the most corrupt family in politics for decades.

And yet still no evidence of this.

 

[logger]

There wass also the rumour that Hillary was about to keel over and die and shouldn't be elected. Let's just say I don't put much weight on rumours.

Passing out, having to be thrown into a van might be your first clue.

And yet still no evidence of this.

Clearly.

 

[Belz...]

Passing out, having to be thrown into a van might be your first clue.

You're acting as if that hasn't been resolved yet. She had pneumonia. She didn't die. The rumours were exaggerated and turned out wrong. The only people who thought she had a foot in the grave were right-wing partisans who'd accept any negative story about her.

Clearly.

You can roll your eyes all you want but the fact remains that you've not presented any evidence of it.

 

[varwoche]

Are you assuming that because this one item wasn't leaked, there were no leaks at all?

Wouldn't that then imply that all of the "unnamed source" material was BS and not legitimate?

Which unnamed source material? Discussing this stuff in the abstract isn't fruitful.

In the meantime, there can be leaks from sources other than Mueller, such as defense attorneys and principles staying ahead of news cycle.

EC, I'm hoping you will provide one or more examples of the unnamed source material you refer to.

Vagueness is a strong indicator of fact deficiency, especially when requests for clarification result in the sound of crickets.

 

[Mycroft]

A very relevant read: How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier’

Because the discussion isn't complete without a weigh-in from a Russian propaganda outlet.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Because the discussion isn't complete without a weigh-in from a Russian propaganda outlet.

Or you whining about it.

 

[Belz...]

Or you whining about it.

Since we're not on topic anyway, could you tell us you trust Russian sources all the time like this?

 

[Tero]

I'm kind of curious. Since Trump and his most fervent supporters believe in all sorts of conspiracies and some "deep state", what are Trump's views on conspiracies in US gov't now that he is in power? are there hints in his tweets? He is after all now the most powerful man on the planet. Only limited by the weak congress and pro Trump courts (he will continue naming racist judges) and by Putin.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Since we're not on topic anyway, could you tell us you trust Russian sources all the time like this?

George Szamuely, PhD, author of Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, is Senior Research Fellow at the Global Policy Institute of London Metropolitan University.

No need to "trust" him btw as he sources his claims.

Like dealing with children...

 

[Belz...]

No need to "trust" him btw as he sources his claims.

Like dealing with children...

Yes, children who change the topic rather than answer a simple question, but don't worry: I was never under the impression that you'd answer, since that would probably make you look bad. Predictably, you go on the offensive instead, much like Trump.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No need to "trust" him btw as he sources his claims.

Like dealing with children...

Here is an example of his honest, sourced, reporting :

Eventually, the FBI managed to convince the court that “there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” What was the basis of this probable cause? CNN reported that the FBI based its application on the claims made in the Steele dossier. That’s very serious business. If the FBI was presenting the FISA court unverified material from the dossier as if it were verified then it was clearly deceiving the court in order to obtain a politically-motivated warrant.

What does the actual CNN link say:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/p...arter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/
The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

Well yes, exactly as CNN reported ... from an unnamed "US official"

Great Sourcing !

Hey, what else do these Officials say ?

The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security.

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

Really what the CNN story says is that info in the dossier was corroborated by the FBI. Thanks !!

The entire article reads this way, cherry picking, omissions, etc. Enjoy !

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The only obvious exception is that we were warned about Manafort's impending indictment somewhat in advance.

Except a lot of that was prior to Mueller. It came out about the undeclared 12 million payment on the Ukrainian ledger before Mueller was on the case. And the morning raid, that would have gotten out if anyone saw it happening.

 

[Belz...]

The entire article reads this way, cherry picking, omissions, etc. Enjoy !

But are you really surprised?

 

[plague311]

On a new note, it appears that a bunch of Trump company subdomains are being routed directly through Russia. I haven't verified this link, but I did do an nslookup and a few tracerts that seemed to follow their analysis.

Just a few notes from the article:

More than 250 subdomains of domains registered to the Trump Organization redirect traffic to computers in St. Petersburg, Russia.

This IP address along with all the IPs in the route once the traffic enters Russia, belongs to the same service provider used by one of the servers hosting Wikileaks.org

Nothing criminal, nor am I implying as such, just more ties between the two.

 

[quadraginta]

On a new note, it appears that a bunch of Trump company subdomains are being routed directly through Russia. I haven't verified this link, but I did do an nslookup and a few tracerts that seemed to follow their analysis.

Just a few notes from the article:





Nothing criminal, nor am I implying as such, just more ties between the two.

Gee. Doesn't everybody run all their stuff through Russian servers?

It's got to be better than some cowboy server in the basement. Right?

 

[Belz...]

Ohhh. I like it.




Or ... it means "I can attach whatever meaning I want to to what you said, and accuse you of that.

Pretty handy. Well done.

Wait a second, Quad... are you saying that you're the one who ordered the hit on JFK? I know you didn't actually say it, but I think it was an insinuated confession.

 

[plague311]

Gee. Doesn't everybody run all their stuff through Russian servers?

It's got to be better than some cowboy server in the basement. Right?

The location of a few of the servers in relation to the Kremlin is a bit strange, but again, not illegal. I'm assuming a lot of businesses are near there, but still enough to perk up ears.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Really what the CNN story says is that info in the dossier was corroborated by the FBI. Thanks !!

I really had to read this drivel several times to get what you're even complaining about. So, first, it wasn't CNN saying "we know", but CNN citing an anonymous source. Which, second, says that "it (the FBI) would" only use that piss dossier information after corroboration, but not what and how much (and how) it was corroborated, according to CNN, while Szamuely writes that "if the FBI ... presented unverified material" it would be serious business. So ... so what? Where's the dishonesty?