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

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
 They've been trying to get out of the treaty for years.

 Source?

 "In 2005, Russian media reported that Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov had asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about his views regarding Russia’s potential withdrawal from the INF Treaty.  In 2006, Mr. Ivanov called the INF Treaty a relic of the Cold War."

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-inf-treaty-russian-compliance-and-the-u-s-policy-response/

nohero said:
There's something called a "tell", where how a person reacts or what a person says gives away more than they intend.  One example of a "tell" occurs as a person is strenuously objecting to a statement or writing which disagrees with them, especially if they take it personally.  If a response is more on the insulting side, and less on the substantive, to-the-point side, that can be a tell that the objected-to writing probably was on the mark.  With those preliminaries out of the way, here we go:

When someone lies about what you wrote, it's traditional to refute the lies. I don't take anything you say personally. This case is a little different than most, because it's black and white, no gray at all. My responses are not really for you, but for the thread and others who should understand the reality behind your falsehoods.

nohero said:

 Except, they don't. I had written that the email obsession was "to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election".  Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus.  Your response confirms that, since you didn't give an example of "any other issue" that you addressed, in all those quotes.  So the statement isn't a lie. 

The "issue" you said I was writing about "to the exclusion of all others" was "Secretary Clinton's emails."  None of the examples I gave were about "Secretary Clinton's emails."  Here they are again, not for you, but for others who might want to compare what you say with reality:

Dennis, the problem with your approach is that it turns people away from Hillary instead of turning them to her. Being able to accept criticism is a sign of strength and honesty. Fearing and deflecting criticism is a sign of weakness and dishonesty.

The theme that Putin is our enemy and Trump is an agent or tool of Putin is classic disinformation and a Big Lie that needs to be challenged.

I'm not going to take your "loyalty oath" but I'll give you two words that should make clear who I'm supporting in this election. And if you don't get it, do I search on my posts for the last five years.

Sheldon Adelson

________________

Well, I don't think there's any disagreement that, as in Iraq, the US has placed itself in the center on the side of regime-change in Syria. It didn't help in Iraq, it's not helping in Syria.

And the foreign policy establishment (not just the neocons) want us to go further -- establishing a No-Fly Zone and attacking Assad's military. That will increase the carnage and lead to military confrontation with Russia.

______________________________________

Of course Hillary is better than Trump and she should run on real issues, not make up issues to promote fear like Trump is the agent of Our Enemy Putin. That's too important to ignore.

_____________________________________

No, I don't agree. Most of the Arab Spring uprisings were peaceful, as I recall.

Regarding Assad, the popular revolt against him was turned into a proxy war by Saudi Arabia and Turkey with resources from the CIA.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-true-role-in-syria-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2016-08.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-acknowledges-saudi-terror-financing-in-hacked-email-hinting-at-tougher-approach/

I support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's legislation to halt funding going to overthow Assad:

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad

_____________________________________________

Thanks Dennis for providing this variation on the McCarthyite canard "Trump is a Russian agent and anyone who disagrees with that is a Russian agent."

______________________________________________

(a) "Disrupt" an election does not necessarily imply "change the outcome."

(b) The US intelligence community (including the FBI which was represented on the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) has said "it is confident" that the Russian Government carried out the hacks of the DNC and others because the disclosures "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." That intentionally falls short of an unequivocal accusation that the Russian Government carried out or directed the hacks. A subtle point not mentioned in the media.

I think it is as likely as not that some day we will learn that it was another entity that carried out the hacks.

____________________________________________

What makes you think that Trump is a "tool" of Russia. The fact that he says "Wouldn't it be good if we could work with the Russians to defeat ISIS?"

_____________________________________________

"Russian regime has been cultivating supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years"

This begs many questions. One is how many other Americans has Putin been "cultivating supporting and assisting" for at least the last 5 years? Clearly Donald Trump was not the only American with the potential to become President of the United States or to become a person of influence.

Be careful, there may be a communist under your bed.

______________________________

Using your words and logic, I didn't "insult" you, I made an "assertion in an argument." But you're not interested in intellectual consistency, you're just interested in defending yourself and your cohorts.

With regard to your obsession on "what I think of Secretary Clinton" -- what is relevant to this discussion is that I continue to believe the Heresy that denies the Doctrine that Putin is Our Enemy and Trump is an Agent of Putin.

And here are several reasons why:

https://www.thenation.com/article/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy/

______________________________________

Dennis, If the Hillary campaign addressed voters in the insulting way that you address me, she wouldn't get any votes at all, beyond her surrogates and paid staff. Clearly, the Hillary campaign isn't paying any attention to MOL's campaign threads because if they were, they would tell you to Shut the F -- Up.

_______________________

And here's something I wrote on another thread in October 2016 that may be of interest:

Discussion: Can a good person vote for Trump?

I didn't think the allegations against Clinton were reason to not vote for him in 92 and I was against his impeachment. And I don't think his actions in the Oval Office or the allegations against him disqualify him from serving as FSUS or top economic adviser.

I think the public has a right to know everything about Donald Trump and for the most part, in my opinion, the accusations against him seem credible. He's obviously (for this and many other reasons) a sleaze and a creep, and if the women pursued legal action against him, potentially a criminal (Lock him up?)

However, if the policy positions of Hillary and Donald were reversed, I would vote for him instead of Hillary, because that is the criteria that should decide who's president.

I'll respond to @nohero's other "points" in a separate post.

nohero said:
 Whether it was a lie has already been addressed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not true, it still doesn't meet any definition of "McCarthyism".  It's an accusation you often fling, and this is an example of how you're using it without any basis, but just as an ugly label to pin on someone.  See introduction to this post on spotting a "tell" and what the "tell" signifies.

Lying is not synonymous with McCarthyism, but it's part of it.  In this case, your purpose was to associate me with the Trump assault on Hillary over her missing emails (via my comment on Anthony Wiener) as part of your ongoing campaign to associate my criticism of Russiagate (which actually constituted my main criticism of Hillary two years ago) with Trump. You are immersed in McCarthyism and this was another example.

nohero said:

That's your weakest argument in favor of your smear yet.  The "additional activities" include documenting the atrocities of Assad and his allies.  They "play a key role" by rescuing people and documenting atrocities; you disagree with how others use those facts, but in a classic "McCarthyite" manner you use it as the basis for your insinuation that they are guilty of collaboration with terrorists.  

The veracity of some of the stuff they "document" has been challenged by experts and journalists. That's a fact. And they perform a propaganda function for the regime-change warmongers and as Scott Ritter noted, they serve as a recruiting tool for the rebels, who are dominated by Al Qaeda. And that's a fact as well.  You subscribe to the myth that the White Helmets are simply a humanitarian group. That's only part of what they do, and as the Dutch government decided, there is no way to confirm what they are doing and where the money is going.

nohero said:
I assume the meaning of this last comment is that by noting your email obsession, I'm the one obsessed with something.  The "searching back two years" wasn't exactly difficult.  I remembered the stupid comment that I quoted, and MOL let me search where "paulsurovell" used the word "Weiner".  It showed up right near the top of the list.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Definitely easier than composing this post.  Bye 'til next time!

 You didn't note an "email obsession" you invented one.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
There's something called a "tell", where how a person reacts or what a person says gives away more than they intend.  One example of a "tell" occurs as a person is strenuously objecting to a statement or writing which disagrees with them, especially if they take it personally.  If a response is more on the insulting side, and less on the substantive, to-the-point side, that can be a tell that the objected-to writing probably was on the mark.  With those preliminaries out of the way, here we go:

When someone lies about what you wrote, it's traditional to refute the lies. I don't take anything you say personally. This case is a little different than most, because it's black and white, no gray at all. My responses are not really for you, but for the thread and others who should understand the reality behind your falsehoods.

nohero said:

 Except, they don't. I had written that the email obsession was "to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election".  Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus.  Your response confirms that, since you didn't give an example of "any other issue" that you addressed, in all those quotes.  So the statement isn't a lie. 

The "issue" you said I was writing about "to the exclusion of all others" was "Secretary Clinton's emails."  None of the examples I gave were about "Secretary Clinton's emails."  Here they are again, not for you, but for others who might want to compare what you say with reality:

Dennis, the problem with your approach is that it turns people away from Hillary instead of turning them to her. Being able to accept criticism is a sign of strength and honesty. Fearing and deflecting criticism is a sign of weakness and dishonesty.

The theme that Putin is our enemy and Trump is an agent or tool of Putin is classic disinformation and a Big Lie that needs to be challenged.

I'm not going to take your "loyalty oath" but I'll give you two words that should make clear who I'm supporting in this election. And if you don't get it, do I search on my posts for the last five years.

Sheldon Adelson

________________

Well, I don't think there's any disagreement that, as in Iraq, the US has placed itself in the center on the side of regime-change in Syria. It didn't help in Iraq, it's not helping in Syria.

And the foreign policy establishment (not just the neocons) want us to go further -- establishing a No-Fly Zone and attacking Assad's military. That will increase the carnage and lead to military confrontation with Russia.

______________________________________

Of course Hillary is better than Trump and she should run on real issues, not make up issues to promote fear like Trump is the agent of Our Enemy Putin. That's too important to ignore.

_____________________________________

No, I don't agree. Most of the Arab Spring uprisings were peaceful, as I recall.

Regarding Assad, the popular revolt against him was turned into a proxy war by Saudi Arabia and Turkey with resources from the CIA.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-true-role-in-syria-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2016-08.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-acknowledges-saudi-terror-financing-in-hacked-email-hinting-at-tougher-approach/

I support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's legislation to halt funding going to overthow Assad:

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad

_____________________________________________

Thanks Dennis for providing this variation on the McCarthyite canard "Trump is a Russian agent and anyone who disagrees with that is a Russian agent."

______________________________________________

(a) "Disrupt" an election does not necessarily imply "change the outcome."

(b) The US intelligence community (including the FBI which was represented on the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) has said "it is confident" that the Russian Government carried out the hacks of the DNC and others because the disclosures "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." That intentionally falls short of an unequivocal accusation that the Russian Government carried out or directed the hacks. A subtle point not mentioned in the media.

I think it is as likely as not that some day we will learn that it was another entity that carried out the hacks.

____________________________________________

What makes you think that Trump is a "tool" of Russia. The fact that he says "Wouldn't it be good if we could work with the Russians to defeat ISIS?"

_____________________________________________

"Russian regime has been cultivating supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years"

This begs many questions. One is how many other Americans has Putin been "cultivating supporting and assisting" for at least the last 5 years? Clearly Donald Trump was not the only American with the potential to become President of the United States or to become a person of influence.

Be careful, there may be a communist under your bed.

______________________________

Using your words and logic, I didn't "insult" you, I made an "assertion in an argument." But you're not interested in intellectual consistency, you're just interested in defending yourself and your cohorts.

With regard to your obsession on "what I think of Secretary Clinton" -- what is relevant to this discussion is that I continue to believe the Heresy that denies the Doctrine that Putin is Our Enemy and Trump is an Agent of Putin.

And here are several reasons why:

https://www.thenation.com/article/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy/

______________________________________

Dennis, If the Hillary campaign addressed voters in the insulting way that you address me, she wouldn't get any votes at all, beyond her surrogates and paid staff. Clearly, the Hillary campaign isn't paying any attention to MOL's campaign threads because if they were, they would tell you to Shut the F -- Up.

_______________________
And here's something I wrote on another thread in October 2016 that may be of interest:

Discussion: Can a good person vote for Trump?

I didn't think the allegations against Clinton were reason to not vote for him in 92 and I was against his impeachment. And I don't think his actions in the Oval Office or the allegations against him disqualify him from serving as FSUS or top economic adviser.

I think the public has a right to know everything about Donald Trump and for the most part, in my opinion, the accusations against him seem credible. He's obviously (for this and many other reasons) a sleaze and a creep, and if the women pursued legal action against him, potentially a criminal (Lock him up?)

However, if the policy positions of Hillary and Donald were reversed, I would vote for him instead of Hillary, because that is the criteria that should decide who's president.

I'll respond to @nohero's other "points" in a separate post.

 You didn't add anything new, so I'll stick with my previous response on the previous page.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
There's something called a "tell", where how a person reacts or what a person says gives away more than they intend.  One example of a "tell" occurs as a person is strenuously objecting to a statement or writing which disagrees with them, especially if they take it personally.  If a response is more on the insulting side, and less on the substantive, to-the-point side, that can be a tell that the objected-to writing probably was on the mark.  With those preliminaries out of the way, here we go:

When someone lies about what you wrote, it's traditional to refute the lies. I don't take anything you say personally. This case is a little different than most, because it's black and white, no gray at all. My responses are not really for you, but for the thread and others who should understand the reality behind your falsehoods.

nohero said:

 Except, they don't. I had written that the email obsession was "to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election".  Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus.  Your response confirms that, since you didn't give an example of "any other issue" that you addressed, in all those quotes.  So the statement isn't a lie. 

The "issue" you said I was writing about "to the exclusion of all others" was "Secretary Clinton's emails."  None of the examples I gave were about "Secretary Clinton's emails."  Here they are again, not for you, but for others who might want to compare what you say with reality:

Dennis, the problem with your approach is that it turns people away from Hillary instead of turning them to her. Being able to accept criticism is a sign of strength and honesty. Fearing and deflecting criticism is a sign of weakness and dishonesty.

The theme that Putin is our enemy and Trump is an agent or tool of Putin is classic disinformation and a Big Lie that needs to be challenged.

I'm not going to take your "loyalty oath" but I'll give you two words that should make clear who I'm supporting in this election. And if you don't get it, do I search on my posts for the last five years.

Sheldon Adelson

________________

Well, I don't think there's any disagreement that, as in Iraq, the US has placed itself in the center on the side of regime-change in Syria. It didn't help in Iraq, it's not helping in Syria.

And the foreign policy establishment (not just the neocons) want us to go further -- establishing a No-Fly Zone and attacking Assad's military. That will increase the carnage and lead to military confrontation with Russia.

______________________________________

Of course Hillary is better than Trump and she should run on real issues, not make up issues to promote fear like Trump is the agent of Our Enemy Putin. That's too important to ignore.

_____________________________________

No, I don't agree. Most of the Arab Spring uprisings were peaceful, as I recall.

Regarding Assad, the popular revolt against him was turned into a proxy war by Saudi Arabia and Turkey with resources from the CIA.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-true-role-in-syria-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2016-08.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-acknowledges-saudi-terror-financing-in-hacked-email-hinting-at-tougher-approach/

I support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's legislation to halt funding going to overthow Assad:

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad

_____________________________________________

Thanks Dennis for providing this variation on the McCarthyite canard "Trump is a Russian agent and anyone who disagrees with that is a Russian agent."

______________________________________________

(a) "Disrupt" an election does not necessarily imply "change the outcome."

(b) The US intelligence community (including the FBI which was represented on the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) has said "it is confident" that the Russian Government carried out the hacks of the DNC and others because the disclosures "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." That intentionally falls short of an unequivocal accusation that the Russian Government carried out or directed the hacks. A subtle point not mentioned in the media.

I think it is as likely as not that some day we will learn that it was another entity that carried out the hacks.

____________________________________________

What makes you think that Trump is a "tool" of Russia. The fact that he says "Wouldn't it be good if we could work with the Russians to defeat ISIS?"

_____________________________________________

"Russian regime has been cultivating supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years"

This begs many questions. One is how many other Americans has Putin been "cultivating supporting and assisting" for at least the last 5 years? Clearly Donald Trump was not the only American with the potential to become President of the United States or to become a person of influence.

Be careful, there may be a communist under your bed.

______________________________

Using your words and logic, I didn't "insult" you, I made an "assertion in an argument." But you're not interested in intellectual consistency, you're just interested in defending yourself and your cohorts.

With regard to your obsession on "what I think of Secretary Clinton" -- what is relevant to this discussion is that I continue to believe the Heresy that denies the Doctrine that Putin is Our Enemy and Trump is an Agent of Putin.

And here are several reasons why:

https://www.thenation.com/article/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy/

______________________________________

Dennis, If the Hillary campaign addressed voters in the insulting way that you address me, she wouldn't get any votes at all, beyond her surrogates and paid staff. Clearly, the Hillary campaign isn't paying any attention to MOL's campaign threads because if they were, they would tell you to Shut the F -- Up.

_______________________
And here's something I wrote on another thread in October 2016 that may be of interest:

Discussion: Can a good person vote for Trump?

I didn't think the allegations against Clinton were reason to not vote for him in 92 and I was against his impeachment. And I don't think his actions in the Oval Office or the allegations against him disqualify him from serving as FSUS or top economic adviser.

I think the public has a right to know everything about Donald Trump and for the most part, in my opinion, the accusations against him seem credible. He's obviously (for this and many other reasons) a sleaze and a creep, and if the women pursued legal action against him, potentially a criminal (Lock him up?)

However, if the policy positions of Hillary and Donald were reversed, I would vote for him instead of Hillary, because that is the criteria that should decide who's president.

I'll respond to @nohero's other "points" in a separate post.

 I guess going back to two year old posts is now okay.   

Gallopin'!

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
 Whether it was a lie has already been addressed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not true, it still doesn't meet any definition of "McCarthyism".  It's an accusation you often fling, and this is an example of how you're using it without any basis, but just as an ugly label to pin on someone.  See introduction to this post on spotting a "tell" and what the "tell" signifies.

Lying is not synonymous with McCarthyism, but it's part of it.  In this case, your purpose was to associate me with the Trump assault on Hillary over her missing emails (via my comment on Anthony Wiener) as part of your ongoing campaign to associate my criticism of Russiagate (which actually constituted my main criticism of Hillary two years ago) with Trump. You are immersed in McCarthyism and this was another example.

nohero said:

That's your weakest argument in favor of your smear yet.  The "additional activities" include documenting the atrocities of Assad and his allies.  They "play a key role" by rescuing people and documenting atrocities; you disagree with how others use those facts, but in a classic "McCarthyite" manner you use it as the basis for your insinuation that they are guilty of collaboration with terrorists.  

The veracity of some of the stuff they "document" has been challenged by experts and journalists. That's a fact. And they perform a propaganda function for the regime-change warmongers and as Scott Ritter noted, they serve as a recruiting tool for the rebels, who are dominated by Al Qaeda. And that's a fact as well.  You subscribe to the myth that the White Helmets are simply a humanitarian group. That's only part of what they do, and as the Dutch government decided, there is no way to confirm what they are doing and where the money is going.

nohero said:
I assume the meaning of this last comment is that by noting your email obsession, I'm the one obsessed with something.  The "searching back two years" wasn't exactly difficult.  I remembered the stupid comment that I quoted, and MOL let me search where "paulsurovell" used the word "Weiner".  It showed up right near the top of the list.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Definitely easier than composing this post.  Bye 'til next time!

 You didn't note an "email obsession" you invented one.

 Oh, you deleted my quoting from your post, to which my comments were responding.  Those make the context clear, and in context the reader would see that I don't need to add anything further.

He has a habit of doing that 

paulsurovell said:

The veracity of some of the stuff they "document" has been challenged by experts and journalists. That's a fact. And they perform a propaganda function for the regime-change warmongers and as Scott Ritter noted, they serve as a recruiting tool for the rebels, who are dominated by Al Qaeda. And that's a fact as well.  You subscribe to the myth that the White Helmets are simply a humanitarian group. That's only part of what they do, and as the Dutch government decided, there is no way to confirm what they are doing and where the money is going.

Has either Ritter or the Dutch government said the White Helmets do more harm than good?

Looks like Paul was right on the money about Russiagate.  Even Politico is saying "Prepare for Disappointment."   Favorite quote: "Who would have thought that the folks responsible for the Iraq War would let us down again?"

nan said:
Looks like Paul was right on the money about Russiagate.  Even Politico is saying "Prepare for Disappointment."   Favorite quote: "Who would have thought that the folks responsible for the Iraq War would let us down again?"

 Great video, Nan. Good comments by comedian Steve Skrovan as well.

To follow up Nan's post, for those who keep saying, "We don't know what Mueller knows," here's a question from Glenn Greenwald:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

The veracity of some of the stuff they "document" has been challenged by experts and journalists. That's a fact. And they perform a propaganda function for the regime-change warmongers and as Scott Ritter noted, they serve as a recruiting tool for the rebels, who are dominated by Al Qaeda. And that's a fact as well.  You subscribe to the myth that the White Helmets are simply a humanitarian group. That's only part of what they do, and as the Dutch government decided, there is no way to confirm what they are doing and where the money is going.

Has either Ritter or the Dutch government said the White Helmets do more harm than good?

 I don't recall either of them framing the question that way.

Jamie,

@South_Mountaineer mentioned something I wrote on this thread on my Twitter feed. Do you have any objection if I include a link to this thread in my reply so readers can understand the context of his comment?

paulsurovell said:

 I don't recall either of them framing the question that way.

 Until someone does, what are we (readers of and participants in this discussion) supposed to do with the criticism other than note it and move on? Are we supposed to keep rehashing it here and in our heads until we agree with you that evacuating — which, absent Ritter or The Hague saying otherwise, could be seen as a net loss — is the path the White Helmets should have chosen?

Here's a good rebuttal to the article the Paul, nan and Jimmy Dore are so giddy over:

https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/prepare-for-disappointment-robert-mueller-break/13605/

jamie said:
Here's a good rebuttal to the article the Paul, nan and Jimmy Dore are so giddy over:
https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/prepare-for-disappointment-robert-mueller-break/13605/

 Jamie,

Re my question above, do you mind if I provide a link to this thread in my reply to @S_M on Twitter?

sure

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 I don't recall either of them framing the question that way.

 Until someone does, what are we (readers of and participants in this discussion) supposed to do with the criticism other than note it and move on? Are we supposed to keep rehashing it here and in our heads until we agree with you that evacuating — which, absent Ritter or The Hague saying otherwise, could be seen as a net loss — is the path the White Helmets should have chosen?

 (a) My comments were not a "rehash" but a rebuttal to @nohero's claim that I "smeared" the White Helmets.

(b) Regarding what readers should do with the criticism I've cited I would hope that they would consider it when assessing the role of the WHs in the conflict.

(c) Regarding what I think the WHs should do, I think they could help save many lives if they called for an end to the fighting, starting with a statement in support of the Russian-Turkish de-escalation plan.

jamie said:
sure

 Wanna be absolutely clear -- you're saying OK to provide the link right?

paulsurovell said:
Jamie,
@South_Mountaineer mentioned something I wrote on this thread on my Twitter feed. Do you have any objection if I include a link to this thread in my reply so readers can understand the context of his comment?

 Not my place to tell Jamie what to do, but do you need a year and a half of this thread for context?  It's just correcting a figure in an article. I did a reply to Scott Ritter this morning, on his tweet posting his article, suggesting he might want to check that number. 

Post edited to add -- just pointing out that it wasn't that hard to reach out to him make him aware of it. 

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
sure

 Wanna be absolutely clear -- you're saying OK to provide the link right?

 why the concern will a million people hit the site because of it?

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
sure

 Wanna be absolutely clear -- you're saying OK to provide the link right?

 why the concern will a million people hit the site because of it?

Not concerned at all, just that when you said "sure" I wanted to be sure that you meant "sure, it's OK" and not "sure" to my question "do you mind?

I wouldn't wait for a million, but to paraphrase a mis-quoted Chinese slogan, "May a thousand MOL followers bloom."

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Here's a good rebuttal to the article the Paul, nan and Jimmy Dore are so giddy over:
https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/prepare-for-disappointment-robert-mueller-break/13605/

 Jamie,
Re my question above, do you mind if I provide a link to this thread in my reply to @S_M on Twitter?

 That article posted by Mr. Ross had me at "the first giveaway":

The first giveaway that something is wrong is when Politico admits that some of its sources for the article are “defense lawyers working on the Russia probe.” That’s a reference to the lawyers who have been hired to get Donald Trump and/or his people off the hook in the Trump-Russia scandal. These are not people you’d rely on as unbiased sources when you’re trying to get to the bottom of what Robert Mueller is going to end up doing, because these are literally the people being paid to try to make sure Mueller’s investigation doesn’t go anywhere. Of course these lawyers going to publicly predict it won’t go anywhere; that’s what their paid clients want to hear. Quoting them as legitimate sources is journalistic malpractice.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
sure

 Wanna be absolutely clear -- you're saying OK to provide the link right?

 why the concern will a million people hit the site because of it?

Not concerned at all, just that when you said "sure" I wanted to be sure that you meant "sure, it's OK" and not "sure" to my question "do you mind?
I wouldn't wait for a million, but to paraphrase a mis-quoted Chinese slogan, "May a thousand MOL followers bloom."

 yes - link away - links are free.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Here's a good rebuttal to the article the Paul, nan and Jimmy Dore are so giddy over:
https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/prepare-for-disappointment-robert-mueller-break/13605/

 Jamie,
Re my question above, do you mind if I provide a link to this thread in my reply to @S_M on Twitter?

 That article posted by Mr. Ross had me at "the first giveaway":

The first giveaway that something is wrong is when Politico admits that some of its sources for the article are “defense lawyers working on the Russia probe.” That’s a reference to the lawyers who have been hired to get Donald Trump and/or his people off the hook in the Trump-Russia scandal. These are not people you’d rely on as unbiased sources when you’re trying to get to the bottom of what Robert Mueller is going to end up doing, because these are literally the people being paid to try to make sure Mueller’s investigation doesn’t go anywhere. Of course these lawyers going to publicly predict it won’t go anywhere; that’s what their paid clients want to hear. Quoting them as legitimate sources is journalistic malpractice.

Well "some" sources" aren't "all" of its sources:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigation-findings-914754

That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case.

And for the record, I don't take the Politico article as fact, it's just an educated guess.

However, we can use our common sense to ask the following question. What's your answer?

Glenn bravely takes the win/win position. 

To answer Glenn - no it's not reckless.  I think the whole world realizes that Trump has a special connection with Moscow.  Now instead of collusion - we're looking for Kompromat?  Can someone tell Glenn what the purpose of the special counsel is?  Here it is: 

paulsurovell said:

nan said:
Looks like Paul was right on the money about Russiagate.  Even Politico is saying "Prepare for Disappointment."   Favorite quote: "Who would have thought that the folks responsible for the Iraq War would let us down again?"

 Great video, Nan. Good comments by comedian Steve Skrovan as well.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Here's a good rebuttal to the article the Paul, nan and Jimmy Dore are so giddy over:
https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/prepare-for-disappointment-robert-mueller-break/13605/

 Jamie,
Re my question above, do you mind if I provide a link to this thread in my reply to @S_M on Twitter?

 That article posted by Mr. Ross had me at "the first giveaway":

The first giveaway that something is wrong is when Politico admits that some of its sources for the article are “defense lawyers working on the Russia probe.” That’s a reference to the lawyers who have been hired to get Donald Trump and/or his people off the hook in the Trump-Russia scandal. These are not people you’d rely on as unbiased sources when you’re trying to get to the bottom of what Robert Mueller is going to end up doing, because these are literally the people being paid to try to make sure Mueller’s investigation doesn’t go anywhere. Of course these lawyers going to publicly predict it won’t go anywhere; that’s what their paid clients want to hear. Quoting them as legitimate sources is journalistic malpractice.

Well "some" sources" aren't "all" of its sources:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigation-findings-914754

That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case.

And for the record, I don't take the Politico article as fact, it's just an educated guess.


However, we can use our common sense to ask the following question. What's your answer?

 None of the "former government officials with investigative experience" are quoted or cited for the idea that there's "nothing there".  The defense lawyers might be saying that, but there's nothing in the article to say that the others say that.  I included Mr. Surovell's post praising the "Jimmy Dore" video because, if you watch that video (I actually listened to that one), you receive a distorted and not very honest description of what's in the Politico article.  I can't tell what the "good comments by comedian Steve Skrovan" would be.  Early on, he does comment about the article's statement that the findings may not be made public.  "Why won't they be made public.  Because they're disappointing?"  That's not what the article says, of course, but he's commenting for people who will watch a "Jimmy Dore" video instead of reading for themselves.

jamie said:
To answer Glenn - no it's not reckless.  I think the whole world realizes that Trump has a special connection with Moscow.  Now instead of collusion - we're looking for Kompromat?  Can someone tell Glenn what the purpose of the special counsel is?  Here it is: 

Exactly.  Greenwald's "question" is part of the "gaslighting" to detract from the investigation.  It's like the "definition of collusion" kerfuffle earlier.  

We know that we don't know what Mueller knows, and should leave it at that.  

nohero said:

jamie said:
To answer Glenn - no it's not reckless.  I think the whole world realizes that Trump has a special connection with Moscow.  Now instead of collusion - we're looking for Kompromat?  Can someone tell Glenn what the purpose of the special counsel is?  Here it is: 

Exactly.  Greenwald's "question" is part of the "gaslighting" to detract from the investigation.  It's like the "definition of collusion" kerfuffle earlier.  
We know that we don't know what Mueller knows, and should leave it at that.  
 

No we shouldn't leave it, we should be concerned that if Trump is controlled by Putin and Mueller knows it but hasn't told anyone, he's putting our country at risk.  But if Mueller doesn't "know" it after 18 months, then it's a false claim that has been used to manipulate the minds of many want to believe it.